Rebecca Radnor

Popularity among members: yes. Among voters? Not so sure. The party faces this dilemma across all potential leadership candidates.

Jesus dealt with people as individuals not categories. So he was extremely compassionate but not ‘woke’.

Thanks. Extraordinary record. Still startles.

I don’t know. All I’m saying is you can get a ticket from Hereford to London for £1.42 in advance.

Buy in advance and British trains are equal cheapest of the big four networks in western Europe.

Kinks better than Beatles? I say yes! who will disagree (when you think about the music not the brand).

He's saying exactly the opposite. He's feeling outflanked. Even by the Reform animals. The far right is weaker in countries that manage their borders well. Canada.

Charging at the machine guns is a stupid way to achieve nothing and die. You carry on.

That's naive bordering on brain dead.

That's good.

That's not true. Read Hansard. If they want state support, Rings fine, Gold bars not fine. If they don't want state support, it's their business.

Everyone should be treated the same. If the state is funding someone but they are allowed to keep Audis and gold bars as you want that brings the policy into disrepute with the public who have to fund such an abuse. That fuels dangerous far right politics and stopping that is my number 1 concern.

It's not 'OK' today. It's a fault in the rules which the government is repairing. This will put UK and other citizens on roughly the same footing.

Depends on the value of the car. Again, read Hansard. The Home Secretary made clear the value of an Audi would be used to support the person before any state funding kicked in.

They do. You go into a hotel and they take a list of your belongings and basically strip the room.

Not true. You can own a car or ornament but you cannot dump your savings in a new Audi or Henry Moore. Yes to jewellery no to gold bars.

What is 'it'? Are you too young for this? The point is voters in all countries don't trust governments to deliver public services if they can't even maintain the borders. The new policy will fix that. You cannot see this, so you pick away at lies you've picked up in the student union or at AA.

Not true. Depends on the value of the can and how many you've got. Same with gold bars.

I like good public policy. That doesn't exist at the moment. Existing policy is national No 1 on voters' list of bad policy.

It's clear. Stop pretending you're this stupid. Read the benefit rules. If you have assets excluding personal items over the threshold you're not entitles, you fund yourself.

That is the new policy. That's why it's in the Hansard of the debate. I posted it so you could read it. You read it and now feel stupid because you'd relied on some flaky gossip that you thought made you seem cynical and you think cynical's smart. You're wrong on all counts.

She says a person will have to live on their assets - as everyone in this country does - but that does not include personal jewellery.

One ring fine. One gold bar rent yourself a flat.

Nobody on benefits can have gold bars or gold bars melted down into hundreds of rings.

Hansard proves anyone will keep personal jewellery including their ring. All you have to do is read. It’s online.

Mahmood said - again, read Hansard - cars not personal jewellery. My ring: fine. A case full of rings: not fine.

Gold bars.

Removing families is better than removing ineligible parents but leaving their children behind in the UK. Don’t you agree? Think things through before blurting nonsense.

That’s good. It applies to everyone on benefits. It’s not personal effects.

Who’d want you?

Read the Hansard of the debate. You sound like a flaky tabloid. No seizure of personal effects. Families will be returned together. Plans with many other European countries to reform some clauses of ECHR.

Be intelligent.