I struggle to believe they can lose a safe seat when they are on 35% on the polls. This is just expectations ramping, I suspect.
There are issues specific to this seat, which make Labour's position weaker than it should be.
Ironically Labour lost adjacent Rochdale whilst in opposition in 1972.
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
In 1972 the biggest problem already of the day was the failure of Ted Heath's economic and trade union policies, also some Labour voters were disappointed by the drift to the left. That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
Labour is increasing its support among middle class lefties and urban voters.
Its losing wwc voters in the industrial towns.
Now which demographic dominates in Heywood & Middleton.
Not enough in Heywood to overcome the flood of ex-liberals to Labour.
It will be interesting to see.
But a large proportion of former LibDem voters there will be anti-Lab and anti-Con protest voters. Now which party is cornering that vote at present.
The assumption that you can simply add half of the previous LibDems voters to the 2010 Labour total has been rather demolished during the last 18 months.
EV4EL was simply never going to work for the Tories, they totally overestimated how much people cared about the constitution. If they'd pledged to cut Scottish spending down to English levels then that would've been a much bigger hit.
Don't forget, tonights yougov Labour lead of 7 is before Ed's speech. The full impact will be known by Thursday, if today's numbers are not a fluke I expect Labour to hit a peak of 40%.
I hope UKIP do win in Heywood, it would create far more panic among the top parties if both of them are not only losing vote share but actual seats, but I'm inclined to agree with whoever down below mentioned the lack of desperation coming from Labour at the moment means they are predicting an easy win. They could be wrong, these things happen, but it just feels like at the moment UKIP are a real bother to Labour but not as much of a threat as UKIP are to the Tories.
The assumption that you can simply add half of the previous LibDems voters to the 2010 Labour total has been rather demolished during the last 18 months.
Very true. Your typical Lib Dem voter in a northern working-class town is much different to a Lib Dem voter in Cambridge.
Sensible of him not to want to distract from the referendum campaign in even a small way, but why did it take him so many years to resign when others resigned immediately over the issue? His other comments are pretty vague.
I struggle to believe they can lose a safe seat when they are on 35% on the polls. This is just expectations ramping, I suspect.
There are issues specific to this seat, which make Labour's position weaker than it should be.
Ironically Labour lost adjacent Rochdale whilst in opposition in 1972.
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
In 1972 the biggest problem already of the day was the failure of Ted Heath's economic and trade union policies, also some Labour voters were disappointed by the drift to the left. That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
Labour is increasing its support among middle class lefties and urban voters.
Its losing wwc voters in the industrial towns.
Now which demographic dominates in Heywood & Middleton.
Not enough in Heywood to overcome the flood of ex-liberals to Labour.
It will be interesting to see.
But a large proportion of former LibDem voters there will be anti-Lab and anti-Con protest voters. Now which party is cornering that vote at present.
The assumption that you can simply add half of the previous LibDems voters to the 2010 Labour total has been rather demolished during the last 18 months.
Polls show a third of LD votes going to Labour, with about a sixth going to UKIP, a seventh going to the Tories and about a tenth to the Greens.
EV4EL was simply never going to work for the Tories, they totally overestimated how much people cared about the constitution. If they'd pledged to cut Scottish spending down to English levels then that would've been a much bigger hit.
People who don't care will think the Conservatives are wasting time on something irrelevant.
People who do care will be annoyed by Cameron's behaviour and think that only UKIP will 'stand up for England'.
Why not tax all the rich until they are worth the same as all the poor once they have got their increase to £8 an hour?
Then take the pressure off families by providing free care such as sure start for all the kids so that both working parents can earn enough money without the stress of bringing up their offspring
Creativity will flourish as no one will want for anything, and violence will cease as previous friction caused by inequality is replaced by peace and harmony
I hope UKIP do win in Heywood, it would create far more panic among the top parties if both of them are not only losing vote share but actual seats, but I'm inclined to agree with whoever down below mentioned the lack of desperation coming from Labour at the moment means they are predicting an easy win. They could be wrong, these things happen, but it just feels like at the moment UKIP are a real bother to Labour but not as much of a threat as UKIP are to the Tories.
Why not tax all the rich until they are worth the same as all the poor once they have got their increase to £8 an hour?
Then take the pressure off families by providing free care such as sure start for all the kids so that both working parents can earn enough money without the stress of bringing up their offspring
Creativity will flourish as no one will want for anything, and violence will cease as previous friction caused by inequality is replaced by peace and harmony
I struggle to believe they can lose a safe seat when they are on 35% on the polls. This is just expectations ramping, I suspect.
There are issues specific to this seat, which make Labour's position weaker than it should be.
Ironically Labour lost adjacent Rochdale whilst in opposition in 1972.
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
In 1972 the biggest problem already of the day was the failure of Ted Heath's economic and trade union policies, also some Labour voters were disappointed by the drift to the left. That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
Labour is increasing its support among middle class lefties and urban voters.
Its losing wwc voters in the industrial towns.
Now which demographic dominates in Heywood & Middleton.
Not enough in Heywood to overcome the flood of ex-liberals to Labour.
It will be interesting to see.
But a large proportion of former LibDem voters there will be anti-Lab and anti-Con protest voters. Now which party is cornering that vote at present.
The assumption that you can simply add half of the previous LibDems voters to the 2010 Labour total has been rather demolished during the last 18 months.
Polls show a third of LD votes going to Labour, with about a sixth going to UKIP, a seventh going to the Tories and about a tenth to the Greens.
But it varies from place to place.
In Manchester Labour will be picking up huge numbers of former LibDem voters whilst UKIP get almost none.
EV4EL was simply never going to work for the Tories, they totally overestimated how much people cared about the constitution. If they'd pledged to cut Scottish spending down to English levels then that would've been a much bigger hit.
It's all about priorities. To most people, money is a priority and to Tory english voters giving more money and rights to scotland while reducing theirs is unfair. Just like with the other english Tory priority, europe, you have to put it in context of money and the right to your own money for people to care (UKIP does that very good).
English devolution will become in time the battlefield of another Tory civil war, like europe has. It's not about the general publc, it's about placating Tory voters.
Why not tax all the rich until they are worth the same as all the poor once they have got their increase to £8 an hour?
Then take the pressure off families by providing free care such as sure start for all the kids so that both working parents can earn enough money without the stress of bringing up their offspring
Creativity will flourish as no one will want for anything, and violence will cease as previous friction caused by inequality is replaced by peace and harmony
Spoken like a true Thatcherite.
Voice of the working classes.
Force the rich to divide up their homes into multiple occupancy residences too
I struggle to believe they can lose a safe seat when they are on 35% on the polls. This is just expectations ramping, I suspect.
There are issues specific to this seat, which make Labour's position weaker than it should be.
Ironically Labour lost adjacent Rochdale whilst in opposition in 1972.
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
In 1972 the biggest problem already of the day was the failure of Ted Heath's economic and trade union policies, also some Labour voters were disappointed by the drift to the left. That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
Labour is increasing its support among middle class lefties and urban voters.
Its losing wwc voters in the industrial towns.
Now which demographic dominates in Heywood & Middleton.
Not enough in Heywood to overcome the flood of ex-liberals to Labour.
It will be interesting to see.
But a large proportion of former LibDem voters there will be anti-Lab and anti-Con protest voters. Now which party is cornering that vote at present.
The assumption that you can simply add half of the previous LibDems voters to the 2010 Labour total has been rather demolished during the last 18 months.
Polls show a third of LD votes going to Labour, with about a sixth going to UKIP, a seventh going to the Tories and about a tenth to the Greens.
But it varies from place to place.
In Manchester Labour will be picking up huge numbers of former LibDem voters whilst UKIP get almost none.
In Heywood & Middleton things will be different.
Lets wait for the constituency poll. But if the Labour front bench doesn't give a toss aside from leaks then why should we expect UKIP to get close to them?
Helen Pidd (@helenpidd) 23/09/2014 18:57 Labour is terrified about Ukip - huge turnout for event, loads of scared pcc's asking for help. @robfordmancs thinks their fear justified
I struggle to believe they can lose a safe seat when they are on 35% on the polls. This is just expectations ramping, I suspect.
There are issues specific to this seat, which make Labour's position weaker than it should be.
Ironically Labour lost adjacent Rochdale whilst in opposition in 1972.
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
In 1972 the biggest problem already of the day was the failure of Ted Heath's economic and trade union policies, also some Labour voters were disappointed by the drift to the left. That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
Labour is increasing its support among middle class lefties and urban voters.
Its losing wwc voters in the industrial towns.
Now which demographic dominates in Heywood & Middleton.
Not enough in Heywood to overcome the flood of ex-liberals to Labour.
It will be interesting to see.
But a large proportion of former LibDem voters there will be anti-Lab and anti-Con protest voters. Now which party is cornering that vote at present.
The assumption that you can simply add half of the previous LibDems voters to the 2010 Labour total has been rather demolished during the last 18 months.
Polls show a third of LD votes going to Labour, with about a sixth going to UKIP, a seventh going to the Tories and about a tenth to the Greens.
But it varies from place to place.
In Manchester Labour will be picking up huge numbers of former LibDem voters whilst UKIP get almost none.
In Heywood & Middleton things will be different.
I agree with you, however, a little tip,Middleton is in Manchester ;-)
Helen Pidd (@helenpidd) 23/09/2014 18:57 Labour is terrified about Ukip - huge turnout for event, loads of scared pcc's asking for help. @robfordmancs thinks their fear justified
BBC News Alex Salmond Cameron should 'hang his head in shame' over Queen 'she purred' comments
I don't think it's 'hang your head in shame' worthy. He's not meant to publicize the comment and it's not an overheard insult, so at worst he's a bit silly.
Also, I know he wasn't 'going anywhere', but could Salmond at least stop throwing criticisms around every day for a while? He's still doing that thing where everything someone else does, or hints at the possibility they might do or say, must be some extreme issue.
How many million third world immigrants will Labour import to shore up their vote bank (and ISIS strength). Will these houses be pre-allocated to them? Probably.
typical response from a loony, fruitcake and closet rascist...
Why not tax all the rich until they are worth the same as all the poor once they have got their increase to £8 an hour?
Then take the pressure off families by providing free care such as sure start for all the kids so that both working parents can earn enough money without the stress of bringing up their offspring
Creativity will flourish as no one will want for anything, and violence will cease as previous friction caused by inequality is replaced by peace and harmony
Spoken like a true Thatcherite.
Voice of the working classes.
Force the rich to divide up their homes into multiple occupancy residences too
Tax colour tv
Ban books
Etc
I thought you were in favour of the bedroom tax that's all the mansion tax is but targeted properly
I still get afternoon sex, and I'm old enough (judging by your screen name) to be your father. I also still rinse the sink after shaving. Don't be so miserable.
I'm delighted for you -sincerely. I was not being miserable -just using words to illustrate my point.
Ironically Labour lost adjacent Rochdale whilst in opposition in 1972.
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
In 1972 the biggest problem already of the day was the failure of Ted Heath's economic and trade union policies, also some Labour voters were disappointed by the drift to the left. That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
Labour is increasing its support among middle class lefties and urban voters.
Its losing wwc voters in the industrial towns.
Now which demographic dominates in Heywood & Middleton.
Not enough in Heywood to overcome the flood of ex-liberals to Labour.
It will be interesting to see.
But a large proportion of former LibDem voters there will be anti-Lab and anti-Con protest voters. Now which party is cornering that vote at present.
The assumption that you can simply add half of the previous LibDems voters to the 2010 Labour total has been rather demolished during the last 18 months.
Polls show a third of LD votes going to Labour, with about a sixth going to UKIP, a seventh going to the Tories and about a tenth to the Greens.
But it varies from place to place.
In Manchester Labour will be picking up huge numbers of former LibDem voters whilst UKIP get almost none.
In Heywood & Middleton things will be different.
I agree with you, however, a little tip,Middleton is in Manchester ;-)
Its in the COUNTY of GREATER Manchester not the CITY of Manchester.
Heywood and Middleton are two middling ex mill towns in the Pennine foothills.
Their postal addresses will be Heywood, Lancashire and Middleton, Lancashire.
Personally think UKIP will give Labour a scare but fall short in Heywood.
If you look at 2010:
Lab 40, Con 27, LD 23, BNP 7, UKIP 3,
At Wythenshawe the changes were Lab +11, UKIP +15, Con -11, LD -17, BNP -1
If something similar happened in Heywood that would take us to
Lab 51, UKIP 18, Con 16, LD 6, BNP 6
Now Con aren't as strong in Heywood so lets move 5% from them to UKIP. BNP are in decline so lets move 3% from them to UKIP. That takes us to:
Lab 51, UKIP 26, Con 11, LD 6, BNP 3
Now lets take 10% from Lab and give to UKIP due to grooming and lets take 3% from Lab and give to Green who will presumably stand. Even then we end up with:
Lab 38, UKIP 36, Con 11, LD 6, BNP 3, Green 3
Personally think Lab will hold with a 5% majority (about 1200)
Am I right in thinking Labour's proposed tax on tobacco companies would tax company profits (which includes profits from exports and from sales of other items like e-cigs, which some tobacco companies are moving into) based on UK market share? Would it apply to all companies selling tobacco in the UK (even if the UK formed but a tiny fraction of their global sales) or only to UK-domiciled companies (which would put British firms at a disadvantage to foreign competitors and encourage moving HQs offshore)?
A lot of this seems completely barmy either way but I am not sure to what extent the reporting is full or accurate. I certainly can't make much sense of what I've read about it.
The problem with making fags more expensive is that consumers will look for a cheaper alternative. They will either travel abroad and bring some back or go direct to the black market and buy from "white van man".
In either case the tax take to the exchequer goes down.
How many million third world immigrants will Labour import to shore up their vote bank (and ISIS strength). Will these houses be pre-allocated to them? Probably.
typical response from a loony, fruitcake and closet rascist...
Ironically Labour lost adjacent Rochdale whilst in opposition in 1972.
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
In 1972 the biggest problem already of the day was the failure of Ted Heath's economic and trade union policies, also some Labour voters were disappointed by the drift to the left. That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
Labour is increasing its support among middle class lefties and urban voters.
Its losing wwc voters in the industrial towns.
Now which demographic dominates in Heywood & Middleton.
Not enough in Heywood to overcome the flood of ex-liberals to Labour.
It will be interesting to see.
But a large proportion of former LibDem voters there will be anti-Lab and anti-Con protest voters. Now which party is cornering that vote at present.
The assumption that you can simply add half of the previous LibDems voters to the 2010 Labour total has been rather demolished during the last 18 months.
Polls show a third of LD votes going to Labour, with about a sixth going to UKIP, a seventh going to the Tories and about a tenth to the Greens.
But it varies from place to place.
In Manchester Labour will be picking up huge numbers of former LibDem voters whilst UKIP get almost none.
In Heywood & Middleton things will be different.
Lets wait for the constituency poll. But if the Labour front bench doesn't give a toss aside from leaks then why should we expect UKIP to get close to them?
Heywood & Middleton are wwc towns 'up north' so not of much interest to EdM and his chums.
They don't even have football teams that they can pretend to be lifelong supporters of.
So Turkey, incidentally the main conduit for these savages to get into Syria (still wide open, not a word uttered by us or the US), gets its people back nice and safe, avoiding tough questions at home on their unpopular policy on this issue. India gets in touch with KSA, Qatar and the UAE -to use THEIR INFLUENCE in ISIS, and the nurses get away untouched. Notice these same countries are the ones joining the US on this new bombing campaign AGAINST ISIS. No prizes for guessing how many actual ISIS targets they'll hit.
But no quiet diplomacy for our hostages -we need to be mentally bludgeoned into sanctioning another vastly expensive bombing campaign, therefore we get treated to these ridiculous orange pyjama videos complete with thuddingly obvious reverse psychology. 'Don't bomb ISIS (we mean do)'. etc. etc.
This is about SYRIA. The beheaders are OUR people (at least, the yanks and the Wahhabi Arab's). Has anyone got a satisfactory reason as to why the US is so obsessed with removing one Arab dictator when it gets on so well with so many who are far worse? This seems as good as any to me: http://nsnbc.me/2014/09/11/us-yet-trying-create-oil-gas-collapse-russia/
Ironically Labour lost adjacent Rochdale whilst in opposition in 1972.
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
In 1972 the biggest problem already of the day was the failure of Ted Heath's economic and trade union policies, also some Labour voters were disappointed by the drift to the left. That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
Labour is increasing its support among middle class lefties and urban voters.
Its losing wwc voters in the industrial towns.
Now which demographic dominates in Heywood & Middleton.
Not enough in Heywood to overcome the flood of ex-liberals to Labour.
It will be interesting to see.
But a large proportion of former LibDem voters there will be anti-Lab and anti-Con protest voters. Now which party is cornering that vote at present.
The assumption that you can simply add half of the previous LibDems voters to the 2010 Labour total has been rather demolished during the last 18 months.
Polls show a third of LD votes going to Labour, with about a sixth going to UKIP, a seventh going to the Tories and about a tenth to the Greens.
But it varies from place to place.
In Manchester Labour will be picking up huge numbers of former LibDem voters whilst UKIP get almost none.
In Heywood & Middleton things will be different.
I agree with you, however, a little tip,Middleton is in Manchester ;-)
Its in the COUNTY of GREATER Manchester not the CITY of Manchester.
Heywood and Middleton are two middling ex mill towns in the Pennine foothills.
Their postal addresses will be Heywood, Lancashire and Middleton, Lancashire.
Comments
But a large proportion of former LibDem voters there will be anti-Lab and anti-Con protest voters. Now which party is cornering that vote at present.
The assumption that you can simply add half of the previous LibDems voters to the 2010 Labour total has been rather demolished during the last 18 months.
The full impact will be known by Thursday, if today's numbers are not a fluke I expect Labour to hit a peak of 40%.
How about any properties falling within the top 10% of values for their area? Does that seem fair?
@faisalislam: SNP MSP quits over NATO stance... Majority down to 1 at holyrood... http://t.co/KFDXKBk4A1
Stop moaning and pay up.
We're all in this together, you Tories can't expect disabled and unemployed people to bear all of the burden any more.
I wonder whether his first, second and third wives agree?
People who do care will be annoyed by Cameron's behaviour and think that only UKIP will 'stand up for England'.
All your money belong to us. Eh?
Votes
4
Ed's
Labour
Then take the pressure off families by providing free care such as sure start for all the kids so that both working parents can earn enough money without the stress of bringing up their offspring
Creativity will flourish as no one will want for anything, and violence will cease as previous friction caused by inequality is replaced by peace and harmony
But we're all in this together
From a journo in the Manchester Evening News - Also a comment about Simon Danczuk further down the thread https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/514469551778844674
Now, what do you think about Miliband's plan for regional devolution and the resulting fragmentation of the NHS?
Voice of the working classes.
a) Labour at about 47 in London
b) Very low LD - Tory switchers (9 seems to recur)
c) It will show Labour in the lead with ABs
It's about a 1 in 5/1 in 6 poll pattern with YG and Populus.
In Manchester Labour will be picking up huge numbers of former LibDem voters whilst UKIP get almost none.
In Heywood & Middleton things will be different.
The keynote speaker was the 'one vote mayor' of Morrow, where the ceremony was held. This guy -
http://www.cbs46.com/story/16009147/morrow-mayor-elect-jb-burke-wins-by-one-vote
After his speech, big applause.
After taking the oath of alegiance -big applause
After the video of Lee Greenwood's God Bless the USA (yes, we all waved flags), big applause and many tears.
After a video welcome by President Obama - total silence.
The League of Women Voters had a stall set up at the event, so she's registered to vote.
Thursday she has an appointment at the Post Office to get a US passport. After that we'll have 6 passports between the three of us -3 UK, 3 US
When she went back to work today, the staff had decorated her office in red white and blue, and they had a party for her.
"How much of the tax burden are the disabled and unemployed bearing? "
Quite a bit through indirect taxation.
To most people, money is a priority and to Tory english voters giving more money and rights to scotland while reducing theirs is unfair.
Just like with the other english Tory priority, europe, you have to put it in context of money and the right to your own money for people to care (UKIP does that very good).
English devolution will become in time the battlefield of another Tory civil war, like europe has.
It's not about the general publc, it's about placating Tory voters.
Tax colour tv
Ban books
Etc
But if the Labour front bench doesn't give a toss aside from leaks then why should we expect UKIP to get close to them?
Helen Pidd (@helenpidd)
23/09/2014 18:57
Labour is terrified about Ukip - huge turnout for event, loads of scared pcc's asking for help. @robfordmancs thinks their fear justified
Good for you. You are right. Lucky's was an effing miserable post by someone who has no experience of marriage never mind working at a marriage.
Also, I know he wasn't 'going anywhere', but could Salmond at least stop throwing criticisms around every day for a while? He's still doing that thing where everything someone else does, or hints at the possibility they might do or say, must be some extreme issue.
Don't read it but I assume it is backing what I said a few nights ago.
Heywood and Middleton are two middling ex mill towns in the Pennine foothills.
Their postal addresses will be Heywood, Lancashire and Middleton, Lancashire.
If you look at 2010:
Lab 40, Con 27, LD 23, BNP 7, UKIP 3,
At Wythenshawe the changes were Lab +11, UKIP +15, Con -11, LD -17, BNP -1
If something similar happened in Heywood that would take us to
Lab 51, UKIP 18, Con 16, LD 6, BNP 6
Now Con aren't as strong in Heywood so lets move 5% from them to UKIP. BNP are in decline so lets move 3% from them to UKIP. That takes us to:
Lab 51, UKIP 26, Con 11, LD 6, BNP 3
Now lets take 10% from Lab and give to UKIP due to grooming and lets take 3% from Lab and give to Green who will presumably stand. Even then we end up with:
Lab 38, UKIP 36, Con 11, LD 6, BNP 3, Green 3
Personally think Lab will hold with a 5% majority (about 1200)
In either case the tax take to the exchequer goes down.
They don't even have football teams that they can pretend to be lifelong supporters of.
But then you remember the laws of stats and sample sizes and error factors and standard deviation.
All polls are pretty meaningless until 2015
-Telegraph recently: 49 Turkish hostages released by ISIS totally unscathed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11110558/Islamic-State-releases-49-Turkish-hostages-seized-in-northern-Iraq.html
'reasons behind release unclear'
-Going a bit further back, 46 Indian nurses, freed by ISIS without so much as a scratch http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/iraqonthebrink/indian-nurses-reach-mosul-kerala-cm-says-they-are-safe/article1-1236585.aspx
'External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj was in constant touch with her counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE to leverage their influence over the Sunni insurgents to seek the release of Indians being held captive, sources said.'
So Turkey, incidentally the main conduit for these savages to get into Syria (still wide open, not a word uttered by us or the US), gets its people back nice and safe, avoiding tough questions at home on their unpopular policy on this issue. India gets in touch with KSA, Qatar and the UAE -to use THEIR INFLUENCE in ISIS, and the nurses get away untouched. Notice these same countries are the ones joining the US on this new bombing campaign AGAINST ISIS. No prizes for guessing how many actual ISIS targets they'll hit.
But no quiet diplomacy for our hostages -we need to be mentally bludgeoned into sanctioning another vastly expensive bombing campaign, therefore we get treated to these ridiculous orange pyjama videos complete with thuddingly obvious reverse psychology. 'Don't bomb ISIS (we mean do)'. etc. etc.
This is about SYRIA. The beheaders are OUR people (at least, the yanks and the Wahhabi Arab's). Has anyone got a satisfactory reason as to why the US is so obsessed with removing one Arab dictator when it gets on so well with so many who are far worse? This seems as good as any to me: http://nsnbc.me/2014/09/11/us-yet-trying-create-oil-gas-collapse-russia/
*cue 'conspiraloon' comments*