Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Truss: Stabbed In The Back? Or Tripped Over Her Feet? – politicalbetting.com

1234568

Comments

  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    edited February 2023
    Selebian said:

    kamski said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    So what they are saying is people most likely to have some experience of crime in their locality have decided not to vote for the conservatives?
    Indeed, some correlation/causation confusion (or dishonesty) there. In other news, regions with the largest number of firefighters have the most fires.
    I strong suspect that Tory voting areas have: more people with prostate cancer, more people with heart disease, higher CO2 emissions per capita, more illegal hare coursing, more flooding, more closures of rural post offices. etc.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,437

    Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? (14-15 Feb)

    Keir Starmer: 34% (+1 from 8-9 Feb)
    Rishi Sunak: 21% (-4)
    Not sure: 38% (=)

    Weak weak weak

    I think pollsters should have a "neither" option would win most times IMO
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,085

    Starmer just said he doesn't care if investment comes from the public or private, as long as it works.

    That'll send some people frothing.

    Blair is all over this. I wonder if he’ll make a comeback in the next Labour government
    I did mention that I regularly saw Starmer rock up at TBlair's Connaught Square pad over the past few months.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567

    Nice rustic decorations, wish they’d do that in my local Morrison’s. And the tomatoes too of course.


    Start of the week my local Sainsburys' had plenty of tomatoes, peppers and cucumber.

    I popped up last night and no cucumber, few peppers and few tomatoes.

    One sure way of causing a shortage or making a shortage worse is telling everyone there is a shortage.
  • Options
    kjh said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    The problem is, this doesn’t work anymore.

    The Tories have been in power for 13 years. They’ve had more than enough time to sort these issues out.
    For anyone who likes 'More or Less' there was a classic on re-offending rates in the last episode. Raab has been boasting about the reduction in the rate and he is correct. However it appears to be due to the failure to prosecute rather than the steering of criminals away from crime. It is amazing what you can do with stats. Hyufd be aware.
    Objectively policing, justice and crime was better handled under Labour.

    Personally I trust a former head of the CPS more than a man who has announced a policy that is so useless the Home Office are going to end up letting more fake asylum seekers in buf that is just me
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,048
    TimS said:

    Selebian said:

    kamski said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    So what they are saying is people most likely to have some experience of crime in their locality have decided not to vote for the conservatives?
    Indeed, some correlation/causation confusion (or dishonesty) there. In other news, regions with the largest number of firefighters have the most fires.
    I strong suspect that Tory voting areas have: more people with prostate cancer, more people with heart disease, higher CO2 emissions per capita, more illegal hare coursing, more flooding, more closures of rural post offices. etc.
    And also - and this is the clincher - more Tory MPs :open_mouth:
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    Starmer just said he doesn't care if investment comes from the public or private, as long as it works.

    That'll send some people frothing.

    Blair is all over this. I wonder if he’ll make a comeback in the next Labour government
    I did mention that I regularly saw Starmer rock up at TBlair's Connaught Square pad over the past few months.
    I said based on my contacts inside Starmer’s office that he’s been advising them for some time.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567

    Starmer just said he doesn't care if investment comes from the public or private, as long as it works.

    That'll send some people frothing.

    As long as it is not those god awful PPI schemes so beloved of New Labour then why not ?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,457
    Taz said:

    Nice rustic decorations, wish they’d do that in my local Morrison’s. And the tomatoes too of course.


    Start of the week my local Sainsburys' had plenty of tomatoes, peppers and cucumber.

    I popped up last night and no cucumber, few peppers and few tomatoes.

    One sure way of causing a shortage or making a shortage worse is telling everyone there is a shortage.
    See the recent petrol shortages, entirely driven by there being news of a shortage.
  • Options

    Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? (14-15 Feb)

    Keir Starmer: 34% (+1 from 8-9 Feb)
    Rishi Sunak: 21% (-4)
    Not sure: 38% (=)

    Weak weak weak

    I think pollsters should have a "neither" option would win most times IMO
    Jezza used to come third in those polls.

    We dodged a bullet, his policy on Ukraine is disgusting.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    edited February 2023
    That latest poll has LLG 61%, same as the last one. REFCON 33%, again unchanged. Implies the SNP score hasn't dropped.

    Probably more realistic Tory vote share as REF isn't quite so inflated, but Green looks a bit toppy. There might be a short term Corbyn protest vote of course driving a few lefties to Green for a week or so.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    edited February 2023

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I don’t think Scott just posts party political posts, does he?

    I maintain that it’s an unwelcome innovation.

    It’s fine for people to take a partisan approach, but this place would be very dull if you just bunged the latest Tory shitpost in and I responded with the latest Labour (or rather, LD) one.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    "Ms Truss still hasn’t got it."

    Good article Robert and I suspect she never will. She will continue to portray herself as a victim of anything other than her own ineptitude.

    Psychologically, that's human and understandable. After all, the alternative is that Truss and Kwarteng screwed up in a way that will be a terrible warning down the ages. Me? I get evasive when I overcook broccoli. At a human level, I can sympathise with them, just so long as they're never near the levers of power again.

    That process- denialism to avoid acknowledging that we have made an utter mess of something huge- is just how we're wired. Other applications in politics are left as an exercise for the reader.
    When I overcook Brocolli I tell my wife I did it as it was in the recipe !!!!

    In my job if I make a mistake I own it. My colleagues do as well. There is something about politics where politicians can never concede they are at fault even when it is blindingly obvious they are.

    I think after the next general election they will be at least a decade away from the levers of power.
    Tories, or politicians more generally?
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,437
    Selebian said:

    Am i aloud to post this with subtitles?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bW4vEo1F4E

    If you're 'aloud' then we probably don't need subtitles :tongue:
    I meant to say, am i allowed to mix up aloud and allowed!!
  • Options

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I'm not sure there are any Labour supporters on here who worship the ground Starmer walks on! I think he's boring and voted for Lisa Nandy to be leader. But he's OK - a vast improvement on his predecessor - and I think Labour will min a majority because the Tories have only one achievement from their 12+ years in power - Brexit, which the public don't like anymore - and Labour presents a plausible chance of doing a better job.
    Dribble over.
  • Options

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I don’t think Scott just posts party political posts, does he?

    I maintain that it’s an unwelcome innovation.

    It’s fine for people to take a partisan approach, but this place would be very dull if you just bunged the latest Tory shitpost in and I responded with the latest Labour (or rather, LD) one.
    You’re literally talking to the most partisan poster on here. It’s a total waste of time.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707
    Taz said:

    Nice rustic decorations, wish they’d do that in my local Morrison’s. And the tomatoes too of course.


    Start of the week my local Sainsburys' had plenty of tomatoes, peppers and cucumber.

    I popped up last night and no cucumber, few peppers and few tomatoes.

    One sure way of causing a shortage or making a shortage worse is telling everyone there is a shortage.
    Er, even better is having a shortage in the first place.

    We are dealing with fresh f and v, remember: not tins of baked beans or toilet paper. Try stashing a red pepper for a few months ...
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,085
    kjh said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    The problem is, this doesn’t work anymore.

    The Tories have been in power for 13 years. They’ve had more than enough time to sort these issues out.
    For anyone who likes 'More or Less' there was a classic on re-offending rates in the last episode. Raab has been boasting about the reduction in the rate and he is correct. However it appears to be due to the failure to prosecute rather than the steering of criminals away from crime. It is amazing what you can do with stats. Hyufd be aware.
    Failure to charge. Not failure to prosecute. Which is much worse.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,743

    I don’t think Scott just posts party political posts, does he?

    No he posts any old random Remainer crap. His postings would be a 100x better if they were from politcal parties rather than miscellaneous cranks on Twitter.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,438

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    The problem is, this doesn’t work anymore.

    The Tories have been in power for 13 years. They’ve had more than enough time to sort these issues out.
    Anyone even vaguely interested is aware that there is always more crime in urban areas, and also usually more Labour councils in urban areas. The evidence-free suggestion that the latter causes the former is just an insult to the intelligence of the reader, so I'm not sure why they bother.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,965

    Starmer just said he doesn't care if investment comes from the public or private, as long as it works.

    That'll send some people frothing.

    Yeah. Just imagine that.
    Summat actually working.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    On the subject of cooking Broccoli (something close to my heart as it is the signature vegetable of my area of London), roasted broccoli stalk is a great Sunday treat.

    Remove all the extraneous broccoli heads and boil them for the kids. Peel the tough outer layers of the stalk. Par boil, then roast in fat along with the potatoes and parsnips. Delicious.
  • Options

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I'm not sure there are any Labour supporters on here who worship the ground Starmer walks on! I think he's boring and voted for Lisa Nandy to be leader. But he's OK - a vast improvement on his predecessor - and I think Labour will min a majority because the Tories have only one achievement from their 12+ years in power - Brexit, which the public don't like anymore - and Labour presents a plausible chance of doing a better job.
    Dribble over.
    Starmer is dull as dish water. But he’s clearly the best option Labour had.

    I maintain he’s better at politics than any Tory will ever give him credit for. He chose a strategy on day one and has executed it. He’s very lucky but nobody seriously thinks any of the other contenders would be doing better.

    And so is my usual point. Even 28 points ahead isn’t enough for some people. That literally is Blair levels.
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    Nice rustic decorations, wish they’d do that in my local Morrison’s. And the tomatoes too of course.


    Start of the week my local Sainsburys' had plenty of tomatoes, peppers and cucumber.

    I popped up last night and no cucumber, few peppers and few tomatoes.

    One sure way of causing a shortage or making a shortage worse is telling everyone there is a shortage.
    Er, even better is having a shortage in the first place.

    We are dealing with fresh f and v, remember: not tins of baked beans or toilet paper. Try stashing a red pepper for a few months ...
    Would wrapping it in some of the bog roll I have left over from covid and sticking it in the freezer work?
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.

    If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.

    @Gardenwalker mentioned Thatch last night too.

    If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.

    What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.

    Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
    Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.

    Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.

    Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
    You are confusing two things:

    (1) My ability to conduct dispassionate analysis, which informs my betting strategy - from which I make money regardless of the political cycle
    (2) My values and principles, which are strongly conservative, and to the Conservative Party, to which I'm broadly loyal - being sorely tested atm.

    I am able to hold (2) whilst also presenting non partisan analysis on (1).
    They are both/and traits - not mutually exclusive ones.

    If they were, I would win/lose money according to the fortunes of the political cycle - and otherwise be a boring herd poster who could never do anything other than amplify the party line - or I'd just talk about betting value from a position of slavish neutrality, and nothing else. I think you'd appreciate I do both.

    I might also add (3) my desire to be devil's advocate when I sense the debate is too one-sided/orthodox, to provide an alternative viewpoint to challenge people and stir things up a bit, as I think generally a good thing.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    The problem is, this doesn’t work anymore.

    The Tories have been in power for 13 years. They’ve had more than enough time to sort these issues out.
    Anyone even vaguely interested is aware that there is always more crime in urban areas, and also usually more Labour councils in urban areas. The evidence-free suggestion that the latter causes the former is just an insult to the intelligence of the reader, so I'm not sure why they bother.
    It seems to have fooled Carlotta.
    Or perhaps she herself wishes to insult our intelligence.

    The jury is out.
  • Options
    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,565
    .

    Nice rustic decorations, wish they’d do that in my local Morrison’s. And the tomatoes too of course.


    We CaN’t CoNtRoL tHe WeAtHeR iN SpAiN!!!!
    If there were that number of tomatoes in a British supermarket, it would be portrayed as "shelves are empty"...
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707

    TOPPING said:

    kamski said:

    kjh said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    malcolmg said:

    kamski said:

    Just over week ago, Sturgeon showed no signs of going anywhere and Kate Forbes was on mat leave, a rising star tipped as FM post 2026

    Today, Forbes is in a political deathmatch with Team Sturgeon, & either becomes FM next month or her gov career looks toast

    Crazy days

    via BBC:



    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1628532728814600192?s=20

    Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
    I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
    It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
    I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
    Learn to read, shit for brains.

    'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.

    "So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
    And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to

    'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.

    He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.

    "I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.

    "Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64729962
    He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.

    The no true Christian fallacy.
    Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
    You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
    I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.

    And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.

    So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
    This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
    For many people the moral strictures, dogma and theology of a religion are the least important parts. It's very common, and welcome I think, for members of religions to think for themselves to a greater or lesser extent on matters of morality. The important parts of the religion are the practice (as in prayer, meditation, singing, rituals, etc), the community, the religious experience, the acknowledgement of the religious experience and mystery of existence, the sense of joint purpose with others, provision of solace in the face of life's inevitable tragedies and so on.

    It's a minority, in my experience who think the dogma and rules about what is sin are important, or even to be taken at all seriously in many cases. Sadly it tends to be that dogmatic minority who often run the organisations.
    Super bizarre. Religion is a belief system. It dictates that morality and determines whether something (gay marriage, sex outside wedlock, what have you) is morally and therefore religiously "good" or "bad".

    It is surely not something that you can mix and match or amend according to taste. It is the same higher power that said thou shalt not kill as said gay marriage is wrong.

    As for your "prayer, meditation, singing, rituals" you get all of that at The Emirates Stadium on a Saturday afternoon.

    You say things change. Why do they change? Who says they should. As far as the CoE is concerned, the custodians of the faith eg the ABoC says they most certainly don't and shouldn't change.

    Stop trying to be so modern about a ritualist, supernatural, belief system (one of many).
    Religions change because they want your attention and your money. So they adapt or die.
    Indeed. HYUFD was helpfully explaining to me only yesterday a fine example of this. The C of E won't marry gay coupless but will pat them on the head and tell them to piss off. This is apparently because "evangelical" church competition is getting so strong that it doesn't want to lose market share.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,363

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    The problem is, this doesn’t work anymore.

    The Tories have been in power for 13 years. They’ve had more than enough time to sort these issues out.
    Anyone even vaguely interested is aware that there is always more crime in urban areas, and also usually more Labour councils in urban areas. The evidence-free suggestion that the latter causes the former is just an insult to the intelligence of the reader, so I'm not sure why they bother.
    I'd generally agree but some of the recent programmes in the US, most starkly 'defund the police', hardly breed confidence.
  • Options
    If Chris Curtis gets elected I hope he gets a front bench position. Surely a coup for them.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707

    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    Nice rustic decorations, wish they’d do that in my local Morrison’s. And the tomatoes too of course.


    Start of the week my local Sainsburys' had plenty of tomatoes, peppers and cucumber.

    I popped up last night and no cucumber, few peppers and few tomatoes.

    One sure way of causing a shortage or making a shortage worse is telling everyone there is a shortage.
    Er, even better is having a shortage in the first place.

    We are dealing with fresh f and v, remember: not tins of baked beans or toilet paper. Try stashing a red pepper for a few months ...
    Would wrapping it in some of the bog roll I have left over from covid and sticking it in the freezer work?
    If you have more room than I have in my freezer ...
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I'm not sure there are any Labour supporters on here who worship the ground Starmer walks on! I think he's boring and voted for Lisa Nandy to be leader. But he's OK - a vast improvement on his predecessor - and I think Labour will min a majority because the Tories have only one achievement from their 12+ years in power - Brexit, which the public don't like anymore - and Labour presents a plausible chance of doing a better job.
    Dribble over.
    Starmer is dull as dish water. But he’s clearly the best option Labour had.

    I maintain he’s better at politics than any Tory will ever give him credit for. He chose a strategy on day one and has executed it. He’s very lucky but nobody seriously thinks any of the other contenders would be doing better.

    And so is my usual point. Even 28 points ahead isn’t enough for some people. That literally is Blair levels.
    I wouldn't get too excited about current leads, May was 20 points ahead leading up to 2017....then she published her manifesto.....I fully expect the lead to dwindle when Starmer publishes his. At the moment he is a silhouette of a politician where everyone is pinning their hope of what he will announce on him as certainty. When he dashes many of the dreams lets see the figures
  • Options

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
  • Options

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    The problem is, this doesn’t work anymore.

    The Tories have been in power for 13 years. They’ve had more than enough time to sort these issues out.
    Anyone even vaguely interested is aware that there is always more crime in urban areas, and also usually more Labour councils in urban areas. The evidence-free suggestion that the latter causes the former is just an insult to the intelligence of the reader, so I'm not sure why they bother.
    It seems to have fooled Carlotta.
    Or perhaps she herself wishes to insult our intelligence.

    The jury is out.
    You seem desperately keen to make this personal. I wonder why?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,965
    edited February 2023
    TimS said:

    On the subject of cooking Broccoli (something close to my heart as it is the signature vegetable of my area of London), roasted broccoli stalk is a great Sunday treat.

    Remove all the extraneous broccoli heads and boil them for the kids. Peel the tough outer layers of the stalk. Par boil, then roast in fat along with the potatoes and parsnips. Delicious.

    Hang on.
    Do all areas of London have a "signature vegetable?"
    Since when?
    (Obviously Camberwell has the carrot).
  • Options
    Kantar, which tends to poll monthly, is generally more favourable to the Conservatives by around 3% than the average polling company.

    YouGov, which polls weekly, is generally less favourable for the Conservatives by around 2% than the average polling company.

    So a differential of around 5%. The most recent two polls from the companies have a differential of 6% (28/22) so broadly consistent with a current Conservative poll rating of around 25% (based on an average of polling company polls).

  • Options
    Mr. Pagan, May's manifesto and election campaign was uniquely awful, transforming a massive lead into losing seats. Starmer will probably shed a little support but to equal May he'd need to have something truly astonishing.

    And astonishing is not the Starmer way.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited February 2023
    Taz said:

    Nice rustic decorations, wish they’d do that in my local Morrison’s. And the tomatoes too of course.


    Start of the week my local Sainsburys' had plenty of tomatoes, peppers and cucumber.

    I popped up last night and no cucumber, few peppers and few tomatoes.

    One sure way of causing a shortage or making a shortage worse is telling everyone there is a shortage.
    Remember the fuel shortage last year, it was based upon totally fake news. We had all the discussions about it being due to lorry driver shortages, Brexit etc etc etc, it was actually 5 petrol stations in London closed because they were changing over to the new E10 unleaded, was then reported by the media as there was a shortage of fuel, which caused massive spike in demand. The industry charts up to that point showed no lack of fuel and demand normal. And of course a week later, after everybody had panic filled up, demand was much lower than normal.

    Or of course the great bog roll shortages of 2020.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707
    edited February 2023
    MattW said:

    Selebian said:

    Just over week ago, Sturgeon showed no signs of going anywhere and Kate Forbes was on mat leave, a rising star tipped as FM post 2026

    Today, Forbes is in a political deathmatch with Team Sturgeon, & either becomes FM next month or her gov career looks toast

    Crazy days

    via BBC:



    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1628532728814600192?s=20

    Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
    Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.

    But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
    @OnlyLivingBoy , can you give me a cite for this:

    They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people.

    I've not been following the debates line by line, but I have not seen that type of imposition proposed.

    AFAICS her position is more akin to Rees-Mogg's position as an orthodox Roman Catholic - holding personal views reflecting his interpretation of his faith on eg abortion, but following the Govt policy line.
    As I posted above, Ms Forbes did - to my surprise gvien the tenor of the diswcussion over the last 2-3 days - apparently follow the party line on the GRA in the key vote, in contrast to some of hesr colleagues, in a whipped vote.
  • Options

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I don’t think Scott just posts party political posts, does he?

    I maintain that it’s an unwelcome innovation.

    It’s fine for people to take a partisan approach, but this place would be very dull if you just bunged the latest Tory shitpost in and I responded with the latest Labour (or rather, LD) one.
    You 'maintain' but you didn't cast your net that widely a few minutes ago, did you?

    I understand that you want to attack anyone you perceive as advocating for the interests of the Conservative Party, because you're quite angry about it, but you're better than that.
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,565

    Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? (14-15 Feb)

    Keir Starmer: 34% (+1 from 8-9 Feb)
    Rishi Sunak: 21% (-4)
    Not sure: 38% (=)

    Weak weak weak

    I think pollsters should have a "neither" option would win most times IMO
    That's what "not sure" means.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,437

    Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? (14-15 Feb)

    Keir Starmer: 34% (+1 from 8-9 Feb)
    Rishi Sunak: 21% (-4)
    Not sure: 38% (=)

    Weak weak weak

    I think pollsters should have a "neither" option would win most times IMO
    Jezza used to come third in those polls.

    We dodged a bullet, his policy on Ukraine is disgusting.
    His Policy on Ukraine?

    He has been a much sterner critic than SKS and the Tories for years

    He immediately called on Russia to withdraw all its troops and stated the blindingly obvious that this will only end with a negotiated settlement

    Seems spot on to me, whats disgusting?

    More interestingly why have you brought Corbyn up in my post about polls needing a neither option?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707

    Taz said:

    Nice rustic decorations, wish they’d do that in my local Morrison’s. And the tomatoes too of course.


    Start of the week my local Sainsburys' had plenty of tomatoes, peppers and cucumber.

    I popped up last night and no cucumber, few peppers and few tomatoes.

    One sure way of causing a shortage or making a shortage worse is telling everyone there is a shortage.
    Remember the fuel shortage last year, it was based upon totally fake news. We had all the discussions about it being due to lorry driver shortages, Brexit etc etc etc, it was actually 5 petrol stations in London closed because they were changing over to the new E10 unleaded, was then reported by the media as a shortage, caused massive spike in demand.

    Or of course the great bog roll shortages of 2020.
    OTOH wqhen the iundustry actually posts explanations of the shortage, then it is a shortage and not panic buying. As with f and v on here passim.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I don’t think Scott just posts party political posts, does he?

    I maintain that it’s an unwelcome innovation.

    It’s fine for people to take a partisan approach, but this place would be very dull if you just bunged the latest Tory shitpost in and I responded with the latest Labour (or rather, LD) one.
    You 'maintain' but you didn't cast your net that widely a few minutes ago, did you?

    I understand that you want to attack anyone you perceive as advocating for the interests of the Conservative Party, because you're quite angry about it, but you're better than that.
    I think you’ve missed the point.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    TimS said:

    On the subject of cooking Broccoli (something close to my heart as it is the signature vegetable of my area of London), roasted broccoli stalk is a great Sunday treat.

    Remove all the extraneous broccoli heads and boil them for the kids. Peel the tough outer layers of the stalk. Par boil, then roast in fat along with the potatoes and parsnips. Delicious.

    Hang on.
    Do all areas of London have a "signature vegetable?"
    Since when?
    (Obviously Camberwell has the carrot).
    Tim lives in SE4 aka Brockley.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,909

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
    Or he's a lying so-and-so and holds his former belief but isn't saying so?
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,565

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I don’t think Scott just posts party political posts, does he?

    I maintain that it’s an unwelcome innovation.

    It’s fine for people to take a partisan approach, but this place would be very dull if you just bunged the latest Tory shitpost in and I responded with the latest Labour (or rather, LD) one.
    Not party political posts, but 90%+ of his contributions are spamming one political point of view. CHB's current third incarnation is even worse, probably 95%+. Neither often actually gets involved in any discussion, which is certainly not the case for CV.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204

    Mr. Pagan, May's manifesto and election campaign was uniquely awful, transforming a massive lead into losing seats. Starmer will probably shed a little support but to equal May he'd need to have something truly astonishing.

    And astonishing is not the Starmer way.

    Time will tell, I suspect the labour and tory manifesto's won't look wildly different to most folks and that won't go down well with a lot of people who pinned their hopes and dreams on a Starmer governement
  • Options

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I don’t think Scott just posts party political posts, does he?

    I maintain that it’s an unwelcome innovation.

    It’s fine for people to take a partisan approach, but this place would be very dull if you just bunged the latest Tory shitpost in and I responded with the latest Labour (or rather, LD) one.
    You’re literally talking to the most partisan poster on here. It’s a total waste of time.
    Hey, @CorrectHorseBattery3 , how are you mate?! Hope all's well.

    Hope your run today was good x
  • Options

    If Chris Curtis gets elected I hope he gets a front bench position. Surely a coup for them.

    It's one of those relevant straws in the wind. Bright people on the left are attaching themselves to parliamentary Labour and bright people on the right are drifting away from parliamentary Conservatism.

    The run-up to 2010 saw something similar in reverse.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    TimS said:

    On the subject of cooking Broccoli (something close to my heart as it is the signature vegetable of my area of London), roasted broccoli stalk is a great Sunday treat.

    Remove all the extraneous broccoli heads and boil them for the kids. Peel the tough outer layers of the stalk. Par boil, then roast in fat along with the potatoes and parsnips. Delicious.

    Hang on.
    Do all areas of London have a "signature vegetable?"
    Since when?
    (Obviously Camberwell has the carrot).
    I guess Maze Hill has sweetcorn.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    And in the stands ...

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23340640.muslim-council-britain-cautions-media-uk-council-confusion/

    'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.

    “The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.

    “It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.

    “For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'

    and

    'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.

    However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.

    Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”

    Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.

    Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'

    Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.

    Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
    Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
    Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,363

    Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? (14-15 Feb)

    Keir Starmer: 34% (+1 from 8-9 Feb)
    Rishi Sunak: 21% (-4)
    Not sure: 38% (=)

    Weak weak weak

    I think pollsters should have a "neither" option would win most times IMO
    Jezza used to come third in those polls.

    We dodged a bullet, his policy on Ukraine is disgusting.
    His Policy on Ukraine?

    He has been a much sterner critic than SKS and the Tories for years

    He immediately called on Russia to withdraw all its troops and stated the blindingly obvious that this will only end with a negotiated settlement

    Seems spot on to me, whats disgusting?

    More interestingly why have you brought Corbyn up in my post about polls needing a neither option?
    What is the point in calling for something that has zero chance of happening. And almost anyone would argue for some kind of 'negotiated settlement. It's simply p*ss and wind.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,965

    dixiedean said:

    TimS said:

    On the subject of cooking Broccoli (something close to my heart as it is the signature vegetable of my area of London), roasted broccoli stalk is a great Sunday treat.

    Remove all the extraneous broccoli heads and boil them for the kids. Peel the tough outer layers of the stalk. Par boil, then roast in fat along with the potatoes and parsnips. Delicious.

    Hang on.
    Do all areas of London have a "signature vegetable?"
    Since when?
    (Obviously Camberwell has the carrot).
    Tim lives in SE4 aka Brockley.
    Ah. On board now.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,437

    Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? (14-15 Feb)

    Keir Starmer: 34% (+1 from 8-9 Feb)
    Rishi Sunak: 21% (-4)
    Not sure: 38% (=)

    Weak weak weak

    I think pollsters should have a "neither" option would win most times IMO
    Jezza used to come third in those polls.

    We dodged a bullet, his policy on Ukraine is disgusting.
    Oh yes we dodged a bullet

    The Tories have turned out to be a brilliant alternative!!

    Typical Centrist
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,565

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
    Same as when he (and you) told us Jeremy Corbyn should be Prime Minister?
  • Options
    Mr. Divvie, doesn't polling indicate the majority of people generally oppose the return of ex-ISIS adherent Begum?
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,437

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Classic ‘we have listened to voters through the medium of the Daily Mail’
    SKS is a man with no princples and willing to lie about literally anything
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707
    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23340661.ash-regan-accepts-hustings-challenge-snp-leadership-race/

    Ms Regan has accepted invite to hustings: now waiting on Ms Forbes and Mr Yousaf.
  • Options

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I don’t think Scott just posts party political posts, does he?

    I maintain that it’s an unwelcome innovation.

    It’s fine for people to take a partisan approach, but this place would be very dull if you just bunged the latest Tory shitpost in and I responded with the latest Labour (or rather, LD) one.
    You 'maintain' but you didn't cast your net that widely a few minutes ago, did you?

    I understand that you want to attack anyone you perceive as advocating for the interests of the Conservative Party, because you're quite angry about it, but you're better than that.
    I think you’ve missed the point.
    No, I think you've made a shit point and are trying to oh look squirrel it because you've been called out.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,734
    edited February 2023

    Taz said:

    Nice rustic decorations, wish they’d do that in my local Morrison’s. And the tomatoes too of course.


    Start of the week my local Sainsburys' had plenty of tomatoes, peppers and cucumber.

    I popped up last night and no cucumber, few peppers and few tomatoes.

    One sure way of causing a shortage or making a shortage worse is telling everyone there is a shortage.
    Remember the fuel shortage last year, it was based upon totally fake news. We had all the discussions about it being due to lorry driver shortages, Brexit etc etc etc, it was actually 5 petrol stations in London closed because they were changing over to the new E10 unleaded, was then reported by the media as there was a shortage of fuel, which caused massive spike in demand. The industry charts up to that point showed no lack of fuel and demand normal. And of course a week later, after everybody had panic filled up, demand was much lower than normal.

    Or of course the great bog roll shortages of 2020.
    Yep. BBC Radio 5 Live, the station of choice for millions of road warriors, running the top story and leading all of their discussion shows for several hours with “There’s not a fuel shortage”, expected to result in what, did they think?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033

    Mr. Divvie, doesn't polling indicate the majority of people generally oppose the return of ex-ISIS adherent Begum?

    That doesn't of course necessarily mean the government's actions are right. Lots of popular things would be illegal, e.g. having Dominic Cummings publicly crucified.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    And in the stands ...

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23340640.muslim-council-britain-cautions-media-uk-council-confusion/

    'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.

    “The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.

    “It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.

    “For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'

    and

    'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.

    However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.

    Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”

    Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.

    Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'

    Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.

    Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
    Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
    Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
    In this case it seems to have been ex SNP supporters


  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,360
    Mr Topping,

    "They are doing those things in contravention of the religion they profess to follow. They are sinning, to use the vernacular."

    All men sin (and women too), but we Catholics can fully repent on Sundays. Because all can repent.

    J.C. mentioned that a man who looks at a woman with lust has already sinned. Basically no one is immune. He also said that new wines should not be put in old containers, possibly a reference to the Old Testament being somewhat over-keen on smiting. A good example of them being all sinners.

    The left do have an over-optimistic attitude to human altruism sometimes. Especially if they are being oppressed. Transgender men will be all be Saints, for example.







  • Options
    NEW: UK attitudes to immigration are now among the most positive internationally.

    The first study in our series for @WVS_Survey ranks the country at the top of an international league table as the most accepting of new arrivals 🧵 [1/9]

    Of 17 countries, the UK is least likely to say the government should place strict limits on the number of foreigners who can come to the country or prohibit people from coming altogether [2/9]




    https://twitter.com/policyatkings/status/1628675552226811904?s=20

    Other I interesting findings on attitudes to immigrants wrt employment, culture and crime - all encouraging.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I don’t think Scott just posts party political posts, does he?

    I maintain that it’s an unwelcome innovation.

    It’s fine for people to take a partisan approach, but this place would be very dull if you just bunged the latest Tory shitpost in and I responded with the latest Labour (or rather, LD) one.
    Personally I find it a lot more interesting to read what contributors to this site think than some “authority” or journalist does. We do get a lot of interesting link’s but party political stuff is rarely in the category ( unless it’s more you will never believe what they are saying now).
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,437
    Driver said:

    Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? (14-15 Feb)

    Keir Starmer: 34% (+1 from 8-9 Feb)
    Rishi Sunak: 21% (-4)
    Not sure: 38% (=)

    Weak weak weak

    I think pollsters should have a "neither" option would win most times IMO
    That's what "not sure" means.
    I thought not sure meant not sure and neither meant neither

    I could be wrong though

  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    TimS said:

    On the subject of cooking Broccoli (something close to my heart as it is the signature vegetable of my area of London), roasted broccoli stalk is a great Sunday treat.

    Remove all the extraneous broccoli heads and boil them for the kids. Peel the tough outer layers of the stalk. Par boil, then roast in fat along with the potatoes and parsnips. Delicious.

    Hang on.
    Do all areas of London have a "signature vegetable?"
    Since when?
    (Obviously Camberwell has the carrot).
    Westminster is just a general ‘the vegetables’.



  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,048

    NEW: UK attitudes to immigration are now among the most positive internationally.

    The first study in our series for @WVS_Survey ranks the country at the top of an international league table as the most accepting of new arrivals 🧵 [1/9]

    Of 17 countries, the UK is least likely to say the government should place strict limits on the number of foreigners who can come to the country or prohibit people from coming altogether [2/9]




    https://twitter.com/policyatkings/status/1628675552226811904?s=20

    Other I interesting findings on attitudes to immigrants wrt employment, culture and crime - all encouraging.

    "all encouraging"?

    Hang on, aren't you supposed to be a raging borderline fascist trans-exclusionary CCHQ-line-following-possible-astroturfer unreformed bigot, Carlotta? :wink:

    Or have I been misinformed by other posts?
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202

    PEOPLE of faith will be reluctant to enter politics in the wake of attacks on Kate Forbes over her moral views, the Catholic Church has warned.

    In a dramatic intervention, the church's spokesman in Scotland Peter Kearney said political parties had helped foster a culture of intolerance towards people's "religious orientations".

    It came as one of the country's most prominent historians Sir Tom Devine said Ms Forbes should be praised for her "steadfast personal commitment" to her principles as a backlash began against criticisms of the finance secretary.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23340706.catholic-church-warns-damage-politics-attacks-forbes/

    This is good. This is a whole history of protest within Christianity many people don’t normally think what it has always really been like, being played out here. Such as Catholic Christian’s torturing then burning people for just converting the Bible into English and reading it out in English, same when Catholic leaders got accused of using Christianity as get rich quick scheme.

    Those Christians who agree with Kates views speaking up on her behalf, those Christians who disagree with her speaking up explaining why, shows us Christian Church always always been about politics, and protest and struggle to make it much better.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited February 2023
    DavidL said:

    Pagan2 said:

    CCHQ response:

    Tough on crime?

    Let's see what the evidence says:



    https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808

    You’re just posting Tory spam now?
    We need a new rule on PB against this.
    Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good
    Spam you don't like - we must have a rule

    I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
    Leave Carlotta alone.

    If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.

    If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
    I don’t think Scott just posts party political posts, does he?

    I maintain that it’s an unwelcome innovation.

    It’s fine for people to take a partisan approach, but this place would be very dull if you just bunged the latest Tory shitpost in and I responded with the latest Labour (or rather, LD) one.
    Personally I find it a lot more interesting to read what contributors to this site think than some “authority” or journalist does. We do get a lot of interesting link’s but party political stuff is rarely in the category ( unless it’s more you will never believe what they are saying now).
    I remember way back in the day on this site when the majority of posts were arguing / discussing merits of policy, supported by evidence based links, not just posting links of what authority figures "think" on a subject.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    And in the stands ...

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23340640.muslim-council-britain-cautions-media-uk-council-confusion/

    'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.

    “The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.

    “It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.

    “For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'

    and

    'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.

    However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.

    Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”

    Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.

    Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'

    Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.

    Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
    Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
    Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
    Er, category error there. The chap who put out the posting seems to be a ScoTory. If a slightly unusual one.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19726991.indian-council-scotland-leaders-attacking-humza-yousaf-scottish-tory-allies/one.

  • Options
    CorrectHorseBattery3CorrectHorseBattery3 Posts: 2,757
    edited February 2023
    Stocky said:

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
    Or he's a lying so-and-so and holds his former belief but isn't saying so?
    Perhaps he is - but then Rishi Sunak was literally fined for lying. Keir Starmer was investigated twice and cleared.

    I think Keir is wrong now, odd thing for somebody who is apparently brainwashed by him to say.

    Begum should be brought back here, tried and if necessary put in prison for life. She is our problem.
  • Options

    NEW: UK attitudes to immigration are now among the most positive internationally.

    The first study in our series for @WVS_Survey ranks the country at the top of an international league table as the most accepting of new arrivals 🧵 [1/9]

    Of 17 countries, the UK is least likely to say the government should place strict limits on the number of foreigners who can come to the country or prohibit people from coming altogether [2/9]




    https://twitter.com/policyatkings/status/1628675552226811904?s=20

    Other I interesting findings on attitudes to immigrants wrt employment, culture and crime - all encouraging.

    And yet that is what the Tories/Vote Leave go on about constantly. So you're admitting your side is wrong now?
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,363

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Classic ‘we have listened to voters through the medium of the Daily Mail’
    Hate to disappoint you but the newspapers aren't that important anymore.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,437
    edited February 2023

    NEW: UK attitudes to immigration are now among the most positive internationally.

    The first study in our series for @WVS_Survey ranks the country at the top of an international league table as the most accepting of new arrivals 🧵 [1/9]

    Of 17 countries, the UK is least likely to say the government should place strict limits on the number of foreigners who can come to the country or prohibit people from coming altogether [2/9]




    https://twitter.com/policyatkings/status/1628675552226811904?s=20

    Other I interesting findings on attitudes to immigrants wrt employment, culture and crime - all encouraging.

    Where are Spain France and the Scandinavian Countries on your chart?

    And Ukraine!!
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,565

    Driver said:

    Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? (14-15 Feb)

    Keir Starmer: 34% (+1 from 8-9 Feb)
    Rishi Sunak: 21% (-4)
    Not sure: 38% (=)

    Weak weak weak

    I think pollsters should have a "neither" option would win most times IMO
    That's what "not sure" means.
    I thought not sure meant not sure and neither meant neither

    I could be wrong though

    If there isn't a "neither" option then people who think both are crap will say "not sure".
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,048

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Classic ‘we have listened to voters through the medium of the Daily Mail’
    SKS is a man with no princples and willing to lie about literally anything
    He could go far!
  • Options

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Classic ‘we have listened to voters through the medium of the Daily Mail’
    Hate to disappoint you but the newspapers aren't that important anymore.
    I would like to think so but I think they are.

    I will be fascinated to see what the Sun does.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204

    Stocky said:

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
    Or he's a lying so-and-so and holds his former belief but isn't saying so?
    Perhaps he is - but then Rishi Sunak was literally fined for lying. Keir Starmer was investigated twice and cleared.

    I think Keir is wrong now, odd thing for somebody who is apparently brainwashed by him to say.

    Begum should be brought back here, tried and if necessary put in prison for life. She is our problem.
    Tried for what exactly? she has broken no laws here we can try her for.

    When a uk citizen kills someone in a foreign country we don't bring them back for trial, nor any other crime they did abroad.
  • Options
    Selebian said:

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Classic ‘we have listened to voters through the medium of the Daily Mail’
    SKS is a man with no princples and willing to lie about literally anything
    He could go far!
    The thing is, Corbyn supporters are angry Keir made some pledges in an election that were incredibly vague and it was obvious to anyone at the time, who has watched literally any leadership election ever, that he wasn't going to implement them. I said this at the time.

    People say he's rubbish at politics, he played the Labour Party like a fiddle.

    For what it's worth, I think his current policies are where he naturally sits, to the left of Blair.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707
    edited February 2023

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    And in the stands ...

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23340640.muslim-council-britain-cautions-media-uk-council-confusion/

    'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.

    “The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.

    “It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.

    “For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'

    and

    'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.

    However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.

    Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”

    Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.

    Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'

    Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.

    Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
    Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
    Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
    In this case it seems to have been ex SNP supporters


    That's not very convincing, though, and I'm not an Alba supporter.

    Re Wings, half of PB could be accused of the same thing considering how excitedly they posted exactly the same [edit] FB posting from the Council of etc.

    And renting from a Tory supporting Unionist landlord? Bit like being surprised that chaps in Glasgow in green and white striped shirts like singing Celtic songs.
  • Options
    Pagan2 said:

    Stocky said:

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
    Or he's a lying so-and-so and holds his former belief but isn't saying so?
    Perhaps he is - but then Rishi Sunak was literally fined for lying. Keir Starmer was investigated twice and cleared.

    I think Keir is wrong now, odd thing for somebody who is apparently brainwashed by him to say.

    Begum should be brought back here, tried and if necessary put in prison for life. She is our problem.
    Tried for what exactly? she has broken no laws here we can try her for.

    When a uk citizen kills someone in a foreign country we don't bring them back for trial, nor any other crime they did abroad.
    Erh, yes we do.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,437
    Selebian said:

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Classic ‘we have listened to voters through the medium of the Daily Mail’
    SKS is a man with no princples and willing to lie about literally anything
    He could go far!
    He could and maybe he will

    Further the better!!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    And in the stands ...

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23340640.muslim-council-britain-cautions-media-uk-council-confusion/

    'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.

    “The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.

    “It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.

    “For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'

    and

    'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.

    However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.

    Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”

    Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.

    Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'

    Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.

    Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
    Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
    Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
    In this case it seems to have been ex SNP supporters


    Oh good, that explains it. Whew.
  • Options
    Have a good day all, I've got a few hundred lines of code to write.
  • Options

    Have a good day all, I've got a few hundred lines of code to write.

    A few hundred lines, no wonder productivity is so low in this country.....
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204

    Pagan2 said:

    Stocky said:

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
    Or he's a lying so-and-so and holds his former belief but isn't saying so?
    Perhaps he is - but then Rishi Sunak was literally fined for lying. Keir Starmer was investigated twice and cleared.

    I think Keir is wrong now, odd thing for somebody who is apparently brainwashed by him to say.

    Begum should be brought back here, tried and if necessary put in prison for life. She is our problem.
    Tried for what exactly? she has broken no laws here we can try her for.

    When a uk citizen kills someone in a foreign country we don't bring them back for trial, nor any other crime they did abroad.
    Erh, yes we do.
    yes we do what?

    If its the murder bit, no we dont kill someone in germany they get tried in a german court and sentenced there and will spend time in a german prison. They will not get tried in the UK
  • Options
    Are you aware you will now [from 4th May] need to show approved photo ID to vote?

    % saying yes...

    All Britons: 33%

    2019 Con voters: 33%
    2019 Lab voters: 49%

    Those aged over 40: 29%
    Those aged under 40: 39%

    via @Omnisis
  • Options

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Classic ‘we have listened to voters through the medium of the Daily Mail’
    Hate to disappoint you but the newspapers aren't that important anymore.
    Better tell Keir, he thought the Sun* was important enough to use it as a platform for his message to Scotland during his recent flying visit,

    *Scousers will have alternative platforms, tbc.
  • Options

    NEW: UK attitudes to immigration are now among the most positive internationally.

    The first study in our series for @WVS_Survey ranks the country at the top of an international league table as the most accepting of new arrivals 🧵 [1/9]

    Of 17 countries, the UK is least likely to say the government should place strict limits on the number of foreigners who can come to the country or prohibit people from coming altogether [2/9]




    https://twitter.com/policyatkings/status/1628675552226811904?s=20

    Other I interesting findings on attitudes to immigrants wrt employment, culture and crime - all encouraging.

    And yet that is what the Tories/Vote Leave go on about constantly. So you're admitting your side is wrong now?
    The Tory position is controlled immigration, which, if you’d read the post would show that the question was “Let people come as long as there are jobs available” (58%) while Free movement “Let anyone come” gets 10%. I think you’ll find Tory policy is aligned with the voter.
  • Options
    Pagan2 said:

    Stocky said:

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
    Or he's a lying so-and-so and holds his former belief but isn't saying so?
    Perhaps he is - but then Rishi Sunak was literally fined for lying. Keir Starmer was investigated twice and cleared.

    I think Keir is wrong now, odd thing for somebody who is apparently brainwashed by him to say.

    Begum should be brought back here, tried and if necessary put in prison for life. She is our problem.
    Tried for what exactly? she has broken no laws here we can try her for.

    When a uk citizen kills someone in a foreign country we don't bring them back for trial, nor any other crime they did abroad.
    I don't think that's entirely true. My understanding is that there are certain crimes that can be tried by UK courts even if they weren't committed on UK soil or even by a UK national. I think there are a number of sexual offences against minors that, if commited by a UK citizen abroad, can be prosecuted in the UK. I believe there are some terrorism offences that fall into the same category. There may also be others, but you'd probably need a PB legal eagle to give more details.
  • Options

    NEW: UK attitudes to immigration are now among the most positive internationally.

    The first study in our series for @WVS_Survey ranks the country at the top of an international league table as the most accepting of new arrivals 🧵 [1/9]

    Of 17 countries, the UK is least likely to say the government should place strict limits on the number of foreigners who can come to the country or prohibit people from coming altogether [2/9]




    https://twitter.com/policyatkings/status/1628675552226811904?s=20

    Other I interesting findings on attitudes to immigrants wrt employment, culture and crime - all encouraging.

    And yet that is what the Tories/Vote Leave go on about constantly. So you're admitting your side is wrong now?
    The Tory position is controlled immigration, which, if you’d read the post would show that the question was “Let people come as long as there are jobs available” (58%) while Free movement “Let anyone come” gets 10%. I think you’ll find Tory policy is aligned with the voter.
    We've never not had controlled immigration.

    It's also the Labour position. Glad you're now supporting Labour policies, welcome!
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,437
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? (14-15 Feb)

    Keir Starmer: 34% (+1 from 8-9 Feb)
    Rishi Sunak: 21% (-4)
    Not sure: 38% (=)

    Weak weak weak

    I think pollsters should have a "neither" option would win most times IMO
    That's what "not sure" means.
    I thought not sure meant not sure and neither meant neither

    I could be wrong though

    If there isn't a "neither" option then people who think both are crap will say "not sure".
    Im not sure about that

    I want neither I want Jeremy Corbyn but in that poll may have opted for SKS in that he is marginally less bad than Sunak but with a neither option I would pick that
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    And in the stands ...

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23340640.muslim-council-britain-cautions-media-uk-council-confusion/

    'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.

    “The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.

    “It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.

    “For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'

    and

    'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.

    However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.

    Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”

    Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.

    Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'

    Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.

    Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
    Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
    Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
    In this case it seems to have been ex SNP supporters


    Oh good, that explains it. Whew.
    Don’t phew too soon, as Carnyx points out a Tory as well, though an unusually gormless one even by their standards.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
    I agree. I would accept that it may be correct that the Home Secretary has the right to remove the citizenship of an individual who is a serious threat to the community in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A 15 year old girl who seems to have been groomed is not such a case.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Which to believe?

    Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”

    Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.

    Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago


    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1628664619425308674?s=20

    REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain

    https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1628382771184803846?s=20

    Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
    I agree. I would accept that it may be correct that the Home Secretary has the right to remove the citizenship of an individual who is a serious threat to the community in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A 15 year old girl who seems to have been groomed is not such a case.
    If she's not been groomed then that will all be discovered in court.

    I just think it sets such a bad precedent. One day we will remove citizenship from the wrong person and they'll end up being killed.
This discussion has been closed.