The Daily Mail, much maligned, is doing some of the best and bravest reporting on ISIS/Kobane
My God, what is wrong with these people? How can humans do things like this to each other?
Without wanting to appear flippant - because they don't see them as 'human' but 'other' in some manner...
Indeed, they value human life in a way we find alien. The see the value of their own life enhanced by the actions they commit.
While we attempt to impose our values (be it same sex relationships, equality for women, tolerance of other religions etc) we will fail to understand them.
The question may be do we want to understand them? If is answer is no, then we have a moral dilemma as to how to deal with them, as the retribution that will be effective is one that we would find morally repugnant. If the answer is yes, then we have a moral dilemma, as we would have to accept what we see as the barbaric and unjust side of their culture.
As i said the other day one of our sparks is voting UKIP as he believes they will get rid of all the blacks!! Mad I know, but I am sure that he is not only in believing that somehow UKIP will make the UKs population ethnic mix return to 1930s figures.
He's going to be very hacked off when the Farage Party can't deliver.
The Screaming Eagles irrelevantly comments on my analysis of the effect of the SNP exclusion from the debates:
"Thanks for reminding us the Nats lost on a massive turnout.
Warms my Unionist heart."
You really ought to either ignore my comment or make a sensible response :-)
Let me just repeat my main point to help you
"Given the 45% Yes vote on a massive poll for the Referendum, I am happy that this time either the SNP will be included in a debate, OR bitterness about the inclusion of UKIP and exclusion of the SNP, will adversely effect the unionist votes in Scotland."
Like, I hope. most of the people on PB who do actually bet on politics, I make a decent sum of money regularly betting on politics. My analysis above isn't wishful thinking, and, although a lifelong support of Scottish independence, I did not allow my support for it to alter my prediction on PB, that the yes vote would be 44.78% (actual 44.7) :-)
Since we're talking about the Greens, something I spotted yesterday:
Something else I spotted in yesterday's YouGov tables – for each party it showed who would consider voting for them, broken down by their current voting intention.
For the Greens (who were on 5% VI) it showed a huge pool of potential voters – 33% of Lib Dems and 22% of Labour voters would at least consider going Green, and even 6% of Tories and 5% of UKIPpers. That makes 19% of all voters, practically quadruple their current polling.
Because Labour have a much higher vote share than the Lib Dems, the ‘red greens’ are by far the largest chunk of all voters (about 7.5%) with the Lib Dem considerers worth about 3%, ‘blue greens’ 2% and ‘purple greens’ accounting for about 1% of the entire poll.
I also had a look back at the last green surge (in short, their polling is a lot more stable this time). In 1989, the Greens polled 2.3 million votes (14.5%) in the UK’s European parliament elections (which at the time were held under FPTP, meaning no seats). In the following weeks, the Greens hit an all-time high of 13% Westminster voting intention in a phone poll by Audience Selection. Other pollsters had them lower, but most had them in the upper single digits and NOP had them in double digits, as late as September 1989. But over the next two years the poll ratings tailed off all the way to ‘asterisk’ territory, and just 0.5% at the 1992 election.
Here’s a chart, my source for the oldschool polling is Mark Pack’s awesome database…
Clegg and Farage will definitely want them (Clegg out of despair, Farage coz he will see a great opportunity). They will bicker over details but that's 3 out of 4 leaders essentially saying YES
Apart from the fact Clegg has already said NO, and Farage is equivocating, your analysis is spot on.
Foreign robber loses 'family life' human rights claim Chinese crininal who threatened and robbed two women in their own home loses claim to stay with British-born children
Clegg and Farage will definitely want them (Clegg out of despair, Farage coz he will see a great opportunity). They will bicker over details but that's 3 out of 4 leaders essentially saying YES
Apart from the fact Clegg has already said NO, and Farage is equivocating, your analysis is spot on.
What do you think the chances of any debates happening are?
I've already made my views that the debates should include all parties exceeding a threshold of candidates (I favour something around 500 seats) so I won't linger on that.
I must congratulate the TV stations though because I don't think they could have made a better cock-up of it. Do they seriously think they can get this proposal past Ofcom. Not only does it fail to address the regional devolution / de facto quasi federal dimension to our political system but more over it stinks of pro-establishment political bias and attempting to fix the election by indicating that in the TV stations views only two parties can win. I thought media coverage during the campaign was supposed to be fair and balanced (whatever the likely outcomes are)?
It does of course play perfectly into the UKIP's anti-establishment narrative and for as long as the lack of parity remains it will provide UKIP (and the Libdem's and Greens) the publicity oxygen of the discriminated against. They can make lots of noise about this as and when they want.
It also means if Farage plays a blinder in the third debate then the establishment parties are screwed. There is no comeback. It will be far harder to stop a Faragasm than it was the Cleggasm and given that UKIP support is not evenly spread that could do severe damage to the Tories in particular
Needless to say I will not be watching the Dumb & Dumber show or the Three Stooges remake as if I wanted to learn nothing I would watch PMQ's each week. I will watch the ITV debate as that should be quite entertaining. However the Greens should be included in the debates. They are a serious party and if they put up sufficient candidates there is no reason to exclude them.
Clegg and Farage will definitely want them (Clegg out of despair, Farage coz he will see a great opportunity). They will bicker over details but that's 3 out of 4 leaders essentially saying YES
Apart from the fact Clegg has already said NO, and Farage is equivocating, your analysis is spot on.
DUH. They're not saying NO. They're jostling for initial advantage, the best position on the starting line - like horses at the beginning of a steeplechase.
Find me one quote where Clegg or Farage say THESE DEBATES MUST NOT HAPPEN.
What benefit could possibly accrue to Farage or Clegg by NOT having the debates? Clegg's party is polling at 6%. Things cannot get worse. He desperately needs a game-changer. Debates are one of the few possible game-changers between now and next May. Maybe the only game-changer.
Farage of course will yearn for the debates, as he's good at that knockabout politics and will hope to humiliate the others on the EU, immigration, etc.
"Clegg's party is polling at 6%. Things cannot get worse."
Clegg and Farage will definitely want them (Clegg out of despair, Farage coz he will see a great opportunity). They will bicker over details but that's 3 out of 4 leaders essentially saying YES
Apart from the fact Clegg has already said NO, and Farage is equivocating, your analysis is spot on.
DUH. They're not saying NO. They're jostling for initial advantage, the best position on the starting line - like horses at the beginning of a steeplechase.
Find me one quote where Clegg or Farage say THESE DEBATES MUST NOT HAPPEN.
What benefit could possibly accrue to Farage or Clegg by NOT having the debates? Clegg's party is polling at 6%. Things cannot get worse. He desperately needs a game-changer. Debates are one of the few possible game-changers between now and next May. Maybe the only game-changer.
Farage of course will yearn for the debates, as he's good at that knockabout politics and will hope to humiliate the others on the EU, immigration, etc.
"Clegg's party is polling at 6%. Things cannot get worse."
Famous last words.
In the words of Paul Simon, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.
The Lib Dems' polling in Scotland, astonishingly, seems to be in continued decline.
If the Leadership debates are now going to include any Leader of a party with an MP, then the SNP will have to be included along with all other parties represented at Westminster. The TV channels can't just cherry pick which party Leaders they would like to have represented, its either a debate between those who realistically be become PM or a free for all.
We could be looking a realistic court challenge from the SNP as things stand, all this tinkering with the previous very clear format makes me think the debates are now less likely to happen as it will descend into chaos.
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
What is the schedule for DevoMAx (and by implication for EV4EL)? Will the imminent changes blunt any SNP demands for inclusion?
If you don't like 2, 3, 4 try something else
Change the debates to: One: Prime Ministers (Potential) Ed / Dave One: Parliamentary Parties Leaders - fighting 75% or more seats One: Others are allowed, fighting 35% of seats or average of 5% VI in polls the month before.
I disagree that the debates should be of different formats based on performance at election or in the polls as that inherently suggests likelihood to succeed. That brings with it an inherent bias and media coverage of the debates including who is included must be totally fair and unbiased. Not to be is effectively attempting to fix the election.
Furthermore why would you include parties' that cannot under any circumstances fulfill the primary purpose of the election (to select a governing party). Surely a party must at least contest 50%+1 of the seats?
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
Best of all, SeanT and Dan Hodges share in common one tip - David Miliband for Labour party leader.
The Daily Mail, much maligned, is doing some of the best and bravest reporting on ISIS/Kobane
My God, what is wrong with these people? How can humans do things like this to each other?
Without wanting to appear flippant - because they don't see them as 'human' but 'other' in some manner...
Indeed, they value human life in a way we find alien. The see the value of their own life enhanced by the actions they commit.
While we attempt to impose our values (be it same sex relationships, equality for women, tolerance of other religions etc) we will fail to understand them.
The question may be do we want to understand them? If is answer is no, then we have a moral dilemma as to how to deal with them, as the retribution that will be effective is one that we would find morally repugnant. If the answer is yes, then we have a moral dilemma, as we would have to accept what we see as the barbaric and unjust side of their culture.
ISIS need to be annihilated just as the Nazis needed to be annihilated. Unconditional surrender is needed. They are barbarians and there is no accommodation to be had with such people.
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
If I hadn't risen to the challenge with my clarion calls, then the indyref would have been lost. IT was ME that won it.
Here is a list of my very PRESCIENT predix about indyref, in stark contrast to virtually every other commentator:
Moreover, in the official prediction I got the result right (NO), and was within 3 percent, and I was, IIRC, within 2 percent of the turnout. That puts me in the top ten percent of regular pb-ers?
I also got the AV result right, and was just about the only pb-er to call the 2010 election right, along with Bob Sykes, I think: A Tory NOM.
I have of course made several thousand ludicrous predictions interim, but then I'm an alcoholic manic depressive, what do you expect.
When asked to focus, soberly, by making an official prediction, or writing my thoughts in a newspaper, I am quite insightful. Sometimes.
Or at least I am MORE ACCURATE THAN DAN HODGES.
Have you started using again ?
The Indyref wasn't won because of you. It was won by the likes of DavidL who went out campaigning.
What is the schedule for DevoMAx (and by implication for EV4EL)? Will the imminent changes blunt any SNP demands for inclusion?
If you don't like 2, 3, 4 try something else
Change the debates to: One: Prime Ministers (Potential) Ed / Dave One: Parliamentary Parties Leaders - fighting 75% or more seats One: Others are allowed, fighting 35% of seats or average of 5% VI in polls the month before.
I disagree that the debates should be of different formats based on performance at election or in the polls as that inherently suggests likelihood to succeed. That brings with it an inherent bias and media coverage of the debates including who is included must be totally fair and unbiased. Not to be is effectively attempting to fix the election.
Furthermore why would you include parties' that cannot under any circumstances fulfill the primary purpose of the election (to select a governing party). Surely a party must at least contest 50%+1 of the seats?
If we are in an era of Coalition government, then any party with a couple of dozen MPs would be potentially able to claim a Cabinet minister or two in a governing Coalition.
I think the TV debate format gets pretty difficult when it is not blue candidate versus red candidate. Outside of US Presidential elections it's all pretty silly, really.
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
If I hadn't risen to the challenge with my clarion calls, then the indyref would have been lost. IT was ME that won it.
Here is a list of my very PRESCIENT predix about indyref, in stark contrast to virtually every other commentator:
Moreover, in the official prediction I got the result right (NO), and was within 3 percent, and I was, IIRC, within 2 percent of the turnout. That puts me in the top ten percent of regular pb-ers?
I also got the AV result right, and was just about the only pb-er to call the 2010 election right, along with Bob Sykes, I think: A Tory NOM.
I have of course made several thousand ludicrous predictions interim, but then I'm an alcoholic manic depressive, what do you expect.
When asked to focus, soberly, by making an official prediction, or writing my thoughts in a newspaper, I am quite insightful. Sometimes.
Or at least I am MORE ACCURATE THAN DAN HODGES.
'IT was ME that won it.'
Yeah, right.
With quotes like that you're clearly more deluded.
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
If I hadn't risen to the challenge with my clarion calls, then the indyref would have been lost. IT was ME that won it.
Here is a list of my very PRESCIENT predix about indyref, in stark contrast to virtually every other commentator:
Moreover, in the official prediction I got the result right (NO), and was within 3 percent, and I was, IIRC, within 2 percent of the turnout. That puts me in the top ten percent of regular pb-ers?
I also got the AV result right, and was just about the only pb-er to call the 2010 election right, along with Bob Sykes, I think: A Tory NOM.
I have of course made several thousand ludicrous predictions interim, but then I'm an alcoholic manic depressive, what do you expect.
When asked to focus, soberly, by making an official prediction, or writing my thoughts in a newspaper, I am quite insightful. Sometimes.
The Daily Mail, much maligned, is doing some of the best and bravest reporting on ISIS/Kobane
My God, what is wrong with these people? How can humans do things like this to each other?
Without wanting to appear flippant - because they don't see them as 'human' but 'other' in some manner...
Indeed, they value human life in a way we find alien. The see the value of their own life enhanced by the actions they commit.
While we attempt to impose our values (be it same sex relationships, equality for women, tolerance of other religions etc) we will fail to understand them.
The question may be do we want to understand them? If is answer is no, then we have a moral dilemma as to how to deal with them, as the retribution that will be effective is one that we would find morally repugnant. If the answer is yes, then we have a moral dilemma, as we would have to accept what we see as the barbaric and unjust side of their culture.
ISIS need to be annihilated just as the Nazis needed to be annihilated. Unconditional surrender is needed. They are barbarians and there is no accommodation to be had with such people.
My dear old Dad served from the first day to the last in WW2, right through Europe and always counted himself as one of the lucky ones who came back.
For the rest of his life the one thing he could never understand was man's inhumanity to man.
In regards to the Tv debates negotiations, the starting position of which appears to have come from 4 media companies, is understandable for the greater good of political debate, which is now always a good thing for a worldwide audience (See Pristorious trial, South Africa).
The 3 minor parties will presumably all have major issues - but given that the Ukip threat is not firmly in the Conservatives and Labour's court, they will also surely have issues.
And Alsoley - Today on the daily Bbc politics programme, had both a Loaded magazine commentator & a FT journo (Is That A First?)
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
Best of all, SeanT and Dan Hodges share in common one tip - David Miliband for Labour party leader.
Conservative commission: ‘...we consider that Air Passenger Duty should be devolved...In our judgement there is no need for fresh legislation in order to allow this to occur’.
Liberal Democrat commission: ‘Responsibility for Air Passenger Duty for flights from Scottish airports should be allocated to the Scottish Parliament, to complement existing powers on the environment, transport and economic development’.
Labour commission: ‘Our interim report considered whether there was scope for devolution of air passenger duty, subject particularly to EU rules. We received a number of considered representations, and continue to note that departures from Highlands and Islands airports are already exempt from this tax. Given the pressure to reduce this tax from airlines and others and the risk of tax competition which would be created, we are not now convinced that devolution should be progressed until further consideration is given to the environmental impact and how else this tax might be reformed’.
The Daily Mail, much maligned, is doing some of the best and bravest reporting on ISIS/Kobane
My God, what is wrong with these people? How can humans do things like this to each other?
Without wanting to appear flippant - because they don't see them as 'human' but 'other' in some manner...
Indeed, they value human life in a way we find alien. The see the value of their own life enhanced by the actions they commit.
While we attempt to impose our values (be it same sex relationships, equality for women, tolerance of other religions etc) we will fail to understand them.
The question may be do we want to understand them? If is answer is no, then we have a moral dilemma as to how to deal with them, as the retribution that will be effective is one that we would find morally repugnant. If the answer is yes, then we have a moral dilemma, as we would have to accept what we see as the barbaric and unjust side of their culture.
ISIS need to be annihilated just as the Nazis needed to be annihilated. Unconditional surrender is needed. They are barbarians and there is no accommodation to be had with such people.
OK, I could live with that, but it isn't going to happen, is it? There is no country or alliance of countries that will put in the necessary troops to do the job. So what should we, the UK, do instead? Carry on sending over a couple of bombers every day, which sometimes might, at a cost of £100k (for the missile alone), take out out a Toyota pick-up truck every now and then?
We seem once again to have got ourselves into a war with no idea of how to win it or how to get out of it.
What is the schedule for DevoMAx (and by implication for EV4EL)? Will the imminent changes blunt any SNP demands for inclusion?
If you don't like 2, 3, 4 try something else
Change the debates to: One: Prime Ministers (Potential) Ed / Dave One: Parliamentary Parties Leaders - fighting 75% or more seats One: Others are allowed, fighting 35% of seats or average of 5% VI in polls the month before.
I disagree that the debates should be of different formats based on performance at election or in the polls as that inherently suggests likelihood to succeed. That brings with it an inherent bias and media coverage of the debates including who is included must be totally fair and unbiased. Not to be is effectively attempting to fix the election.
Furthermore why would you include parties' that cannot under any circumstances fulfill the primary purpose of the election (to select a governing party). Surely a party must at least contest 50%+1 of the seats?
If we are in an era of Coalition government, then any party with a couple of dozen MPs would be potentially able to claim a Cabinet minister or two in a governing Coalition.
I think the TV debate format gets pretty difficult when it is not blue candidate versus red candidate. Outside of US Presidential elections it's all pretty silly, really.
Who is in government is an irrelevance when it comes to electoral equality. What is important is which parties are putting forward sufficient candidates to form a government. As for the format it will have to cope with the number of parties who are serious in contesting the election.
Anything else is biased. So if the debates become too unwieldy then we should not have them at all. However that said the US manage to run primary debates with 5-10 candidates so if the US can do it I see no reason why we cannot.
It may not be your or my cup of tea but who are we to deny millions of others the opportunity of being informed?
The Daily Mail, much maligned, is doing some of the best and bravest reporting on ISIS/Kobane
My God, what is wrong with these people? How can humans do things like this to each other?
Without wanting to appear flippant - because they don't see them as 'human' but 'other' in some manner...
Indeed, they value human life in a way we find alien. The see the value of their own life enhanced by the actions they commit.
While we attempt to impose our values (be it same sex relationships, equality for women, tolerance of other religions etc) we will fail to understand them.
The question may be do we want to understand them? If is answer is no, then we have a moral dilemma as to how to deal with them, as the retribution that will be effective is one that we would find morally repugnant. If the answer is yes, then we have a moral dilemma, as we would have to accept what we see as the barbaric and unjust side of their culture.
ISIS need to be annihilated just as the Nazis needed to be annihilated. Unconditional surrender is needed. They are barbarians and there is no accommodation to be had with such people.
My dear old Dad served from the first day to the last in WW2, right through Europe and always counted himself as one of the lucky ones who came back.
For the rest of his life the one thing he could never understand was man's inhumanity to man.
Never more appropriate than right now.
My father was a doctorand in the RAF. He was at Belsen after liberation and said it was the worst thing he had ever seen. He felt much like your dad.
ISIS are evil. And, as someone once said, for evil to triumph all it takes is for good men to do no nothing.
And doing nothing seems to be the civilized world's MO, at the moment.
If the Leadership debates are now going to include any Leader of a party with an MP, then the SNP will have to be included along with all other parties represented at Westminster. The TV channels can't just cherry pick which party Leaders they would like to have represented, its either a debate between those who realistically be become PM or a free for all.
We could be looking a realistic court challenge from the SNP as things stand, all this tinkering with the previous very clear format makes me think the debates are now less likely to happen as it will descend into chaos.
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
Best of all, SeanT and Dan Hodges share in common one tip - David Miliband for Labour party leader.
Ouch.
We all tipped David Miliband for leader, in that final week. How many pb-ers can say otherwise?
Some of us made quite a lot of money out of it being Ed Miliband. Our host among them, no doubt:
It's a shame that the denouement thread has been purged on the shift to vanilla - the SeanT machinegun assertion that it was David Miliband right up to the key moment was quite something to behold.
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
Best of all, SeanT and Dan Hodges share in common one tip - David Miliband for Labour party leader.
Ouch.
We all tipped David Miliband for leader, in that final week. How many pb-ers can say otherwise?
Some of us made quite a lot of money out of it being Ed Miliband. Our host among them, no doubt:
It's a shame that the denouement thread has been purged on the shift to vanilla - the SeanT machinegun assertion that it was David Miliband right up to the key moment was quite something to behold.
And very well done, in that case. I shan't mention your prediction of a YES vote of 57%.
Good, because it wasn't a prediction. As you know.
Thinking about it by doing it this way the TV stations are effectively trying to tie in Cameron and Miliband. I cannot believe that they expect to maintain the debates in this format (I expect Ofcom to intervene) but by doing it this way at least they can be seen as having tried to co-operate with the whims of Downing Street in particular.
The Daily Mail, much maligned, is doing some of the best and bravest reporting on ISIS/Kobane
My God, what is wrong with these people? How can humans do things like this to each other?
Without wanting to appear flippant - because they don't see them as 'human' but 'other' in some manner...
Indeed, they value human life in a way we find alien. The see the value of their own life enhanced by the actions they commit.
While we attempt to impose our values (be it same sex relationships, equality for women, tolerance of other religions etc) we will fail to understand them.
The question may be do we want to understand them? If is answer is no, then we have a moral dilemma as to how to deal with them, as the retribution that will be effective is one that we would find morally repugnant. If the answer is yes, then we have a moral dilemma, as we would have to accept what we see as the barbaric and unjust side of their culture.
ISIS need to be annihilated just as the Nazis needed to be annihilated. Unconditional surrender is needed. They are barbarians and there is no accommodation to be had with such people.
OK, I could live with that, but it isn't going to happen, is it? There is no country or alliance of countries that will put in the necessary troops to do the job. So what should we, the UK, do instead? Carry on sending over a couple of bombers every day, which sometimes might, at a cost of £100k (for the missile alone), take out out a Toyota pick-up truck every now and then?
We seem once again to have got ourselves into a war with no idea of how to win it or how to get out of it.
ISIS are not going to go away, though, are they? I agree that what we're doing now is pointless. But when they come closer - who can be sure Turkey is off limits? - or by terrorist attacks within our borders, what then?
One way or the other and sooner or later, the civilized world is going to have to fight and defeat, utterly defeat, these people.
Gardening is too gentle an occupation to be compared to war but ISIS are the Japanese knotweed of the modern world. A bit of cutting down here and there won't do.
More than £250,000 of suspected Islamic State (IS) funds have been seized at Manchester Airport and other north-west ports in the past year, anti-terrorist officers said.
The NW Counter Terrorism Unit used civil powers under the Terrorism Act to confiscate cash found hidden in luggage or under clothing.
Most was seized from passengers flying from Manchester to Turkey, said police.
Organising debates is almost as thankless a task as reforming the House of Lords. Most people agree it should be done but everyone disagrees with the specific proposals for how to do it.
There is, perhaps, an argument for a secondary debating level excluding Cameron and Miliband.
Farage, Bennett, Galloway.
Clegg is the fly in the ointment. Masses of MPs last time, but a vote that has gone through the floor.
Having two tier election debates based on anything other than the devolution act is a non starter because by their very nature they imply different classes of candidates and as such they are prejudiced They do not pass the smell test for fair and unbiased
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
If I hadn't risen to the challenge with my clarion calls, then the indyref would have been lost. IT was ME that won it.
Here is a list of my very PRESCIENT predix about indyref, in stark contrast to virtually every other commentator:
Moreover, in the official prediction I got the result right (NO), and was within 3 percent, and I was, IIRC, within 2 percent of the turnout. That puts me in the top ten percent of regular pb-ers?
I also got the AV result right, and was just about the only pb-er to call the 2010 election right, along with Bob Sykes, I think: A Tory NOM.
I have of course made several thousand ludicrous predictions interim, but then I'm an alcoholic manic depressive, what do you expect.
When asked to focus, soberly, by making an official prediction, or writing my thoughts in a newspaper, I am quite insightful. Sometimes.
Or at least I am MORE ACCURATE THAN DAN HODGES.
'IT was ME that won it.'
Yeah, right.
With quotes like that you're clearly more deluded.
IT WAS A JOKE, YOU DORK
Large as my ego is, I do not believe I PERSONALLY WON THE SCOTTISH REFERENDUM
Capitalised comments. The Internet's equivalent of Green Ink.
Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal · 1m1 minute ago It makes no sense to exclude Greens but include UKIP in election TV debates, whether going by number of seats or polling. Media stitch-up
@bbclaurak: Greens are taking legal advice over being excluded from TV debates
That doesn't surprise me. They've little to lose bar legal fees for giving it a shot. Doesn't mean they'll win.
The SNP, on the other hand, have a rather firmer legal case to make. UKIP's inclusion based on their polling and their election results since 2010 plays into the SNP's hands, given the Scottish party's performances in local, Holyrood and Euro elections.
There is, perhaps, an argument for a secondary debating level excluding Cameron and Miliband.
Farage, Bennett, Galloway.
Clegg is the fly in the ointment. Masses of MPs last time, but a vote that has gone through the floor.
Clegg, Cable, Alexander amongst others are ministers. Lucas is just a waste of space on the backbenches. LDs have more councillors, councils than the Greens. By all means include the Greens if only to let them show how authoritarian they really are.
Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal · 1m1 minute ago It makes no sense to exclude Greens but include UKIP in election TV debates, whether going by number of seats or polling. Media stitch-up
Except UKIP are on three times the polling as the Greens...
Clegg and Farage will definitely want them (Clegg out of despair, Farage coz he will see a great opportunity). They will bicker over details but that's 3 out of 4 leaders essentially saying YES
Apart from the fact Clegg has already said NO, and Farage is equivocating, your analysis is spot on.
DUH. They're not saying NO. They're jostling for initial advantage, the best position on the starting line - like horses at the beginning of a steeplechase.
Find me one quote where Clegg or Farage say THESE DEBATES MUST NOT HAPPEN.
What benefit could possibly accrue to Farage or Clegg by NOT having the debates? Clegg's party is polling at 6%. Things cannot get worse. He desperately needs a game-changer. Debates are one of the few possible game-changers between now and next May. Maybe the only game-changer.
Farage of course will yearn for the debates, as he's good at that knockabout politics and will hope to humiliate the others on the EU, immigration, etc.
"Clegg's party is polling at 6%. Things cannot get worse."
Famous last words.
Across the 18 by-elections (Great Britain mainland) this Parliament, the LibDem vote has averaged 9.8%.
The Daily Mail, much maligned, is doing some of the best and bravest reporting on ISIS/Kobane
My God, what is wrong with these people? How can humans do things like this to each other?
Without wanting to appear flippant - because they don't see them as 'human' but 'other' in some manner...
Indeed, they value human life in a way we find alien. The see the value of their own life enhanced by the actions they commit.
While we attempt to impose our values (be it same sex relationships, equality for women, tolerance of other religions etc) we will fail to understand them.
The question may be do we want to understand them? If is answer is no, then we have a moral dilemma as to how to deal with them, as the retribution that will be effective is one that we would find morally repugnant. If the answer is yes, then we have a moral dilemma, as we would have to accept what we see as the barbaric and unjust side of their culture.
ISIS need to be annihilated just as the Nazis needed to be annihilated. Unconditional surrender is needed. They are barbarians and there is no accommodation to be had with such people.
Quite. I may have mentioned this last night, but in their latest "magazine" ISIS are happily admitting that they have enslaved Yazidi women for rape and concubinage. ISIS rejoice in the idea that the women will be bred to produce a new master-race. It is pure Nazism.
@Matthew__Barber · 17h 17 hours ago Our estimate of kidnapped #Yazidi women/girls/men was 3,000-4,000 a month ago, but as we gather data, our # is now at nearly 7,000, sadly.
7000 terrified women and children being raped into submission and sold as sex slaves. Happening today.
I mentioned the other day that child sexual exploitation was the modern day Atlantic slave trade. Roger and other said I was delusional because of it.
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
Best of all, SeanT and Dan Hodges share in common one tip - David Miliband for Labour party leader.
Ouch.
We all tipped David Miliband for leader, in that final week. How many pb-ers can say otherwise?
Some of us made quite a lot of money out of it being Ed Miliband. Our host among them, no doubt:
It's a shame that the denouement thread has been purged on the shift to vanilla - the SeanT machinegun assertion that it was David Miliband right up to the key moment was quite something to behold.
And very well done, in that case. I shan't mention your prediction of a YES vote of 57%.
Good, because it wasn't a prediction. As you know.
I know no such thing. I just know that you officially predicted 57% for YES. That's the prediction with your name attached to it. 57%. YES. antifrank.
57%
YES
antifrank
How you choose to explain it after the event is of no concern or interest to me. And besides I have already promised not to mention the fact that you, antifrank, the betartaned lawyer of EC2, said YES would get FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT.
Sigh. The difference between a competition entry and a prediction is not hard to understand.
Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal · 1m1 minute ago It makes no sense to exclude Greens but include UKIP in election TV debates, whether going by number of seats or polling. Media stitch-up
Except UKIP are on three times the polling as the Greens...
Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal · 1m1 minute ago It makes no sense to exclude Greens but include UKIP in election TV debates, whether going by number of seats or polling. Media stitch-up
Except UKIP are on three times the polling as the Greens...
And the Greens will point to the fact that the Libdems poll figures jumped by over 10 points in some cases after one debate in 2010 (which would have them competing with UKIP and passing the Libdems).
The last thing that should define who is in the debates is polling......
Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal · 1m1 minute ago It makes no sense to exclude Greens but include UKIP in election TV debates, whether going by number of seats or polling. Media stitch-up
Except UKIP are on three times the polling as the Greens...
It's a twitter quote from a respected political commentator, Socrates. I only thought it was relevant to the current thread.
ISIS are like Orcs as far as I can see. They're not to be bargained with - an utter waste of time. Either leave them be (to rape n pillage) or squish 'em like bugs with no mercy or remorse.
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
Best of all, SeanT and Dan Hodges share in common one tip - David Miliband for Labour party leader.
Ouch.
We all tipped David Miliband for leader, in that final week. How many pb-ers can say otherwise?
Some of us made quite a lot of money out of it being Ed Miliband. Our host among them, no doubt:
It's a shame that the denouement thread has been purged on the shift to vanilla - the SeanT machinegun assertion that it was David Miliband right up to the key moment was quite something to behold.
And very well done, in that case. I shan't mention your prediction of a YES vote of 57%.
Good, because it wasn't a prediction. As you know.
I know no such thing. I just know that you officially predicted 57% for YES. That's the prediction with your name attached to it. 57%. YES. antifrank.
57%
YES
antifrank
How you choose to explain it after the event is of no concern or interest to me. And besides I have already promised not to mention the fact that you, antifrank, the betartaned lawyer of EC2, said YES would get FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT.
Sigh. The difference between a competition entry and a prediction is not hard to understand.
But when they come closer - who can be sure Turkey is off limits?
Turkey is a NATO member, and ISIS though mad, bad and dangerous to know doesn't have anywhere near the firepower of something like Russia.
If IS is stupid enough to try and invade Turkey, article 5 gets invoked and IS is crushed. As is IS knows that Turkey is reluctant to get involved in a war outside it's border to a massive degree (Even if it is only a few hundred yards) as Turkey has enemies other than IS in the IS/Syria region.
So they'll stay out - at last for the next few years whilst they try and gain control of Syria/Iraq - Baghdad hasn't fallen yet and Damascus is still a way off for them.
They know the one thing that would galvanize Turkey and NATO to serious action would be an attempted invasion - they can live with the air strikes as they have seemingly ground superiority.
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Hodges is constructing quite a portfolio of embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. He was telling us all for months that the YES vote didn't have a chance in the indyref, then suddenly in the last week he was all Oh yes of course the SNP might win but it won't matter much...
Risible.
He's a very fine writer, an interesting thinker, and a nice guy - but his soothsaying skills are, frankly, shite.
Shall I remind you of your performance during the last weeks of the Indyref ?
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
Best of all, SeanT and Dan Hodges share in common one tip - David Miliband for Labour party leader.
Ouch.
We all tipped David Miliband for leader, in that final week. How many pb-ers can say otherwise?
Some of us made quite a lot of money out of it being Ed Miliband. Our host among them, no doubt:
It's a shame that the denouement thread has been purged on the shift to vanilla - the SeanT machinegun assertion that it was David Miliband right up to the key moment was quite something to behold.
And very well done, in that case. I shan't mention your prediction of a YES vote of 57%.
Good, because it wasn't a prediction. As you know.
I know no such thing. I just know that you officially predicted 57% for YES. That's the prediction with your name attached to it. 57%. YES. antifrank.
57%
YES
antifrank
How you choose to explain it after the event is of no concern or interest to me. And besides I have already promised not to mention the fact that you, antifrank, the betartaned lawyer of EC2, said YES would get FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT.
Sigh. The difference between a competition entry and a prediction is not hard to understand.
SeanT understands perfectly. You poked him with a big stick, what did you expect?
It may be an accident of presentation, 'but for a variety of reasons' the Labour proposals look particularly thin......
The Labour proposals have been dire from the get go. Their only real substantive move is to remove power away from Holyrood (where Labour are not longer in power) toward councils (where they still hold power).
Turkey's KEY motivation in all this is to not let an independent Kurdistan come into being. They're very wary of anything that defends or promotes 'Kurdism'. Hence they sit a few hundred yards away from a Kurdish massacre (over the border). We need boots on the ground to fight IS - Kurdish Peshmerga boots - but Turkey ain't gonna help that AT ALL.
The Whopper (the big five plus Plaid and the SNP) 50% The Famous Five 23% The Four Musketeers 8% The Three Stooges 4% Dumb & Dumber 3% No Thank You 11%
Comments
While we attempt to impose our values (be it same sex relationships, equality for women, tolerance of other religions etc) we will fail to understand them.
The question may be do we want to understand them? If is answer is no, then we have a moral dilemma as to how to deal with them, as the retribution that will be effective is one that we would find morally repugnant. If the answer is yes, then we have a moral dilemma, as we would have to accept what we see as the barbaric and unjust side of their culture.
He's going to be very hacked off when the Farage Party can't deliver.
@BBCNormanS: SNP say planned TV election debates a "westminster stitch up..and cannot stand"
Four VI polls.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPau5QYtYs
"Thanks for reminding us the Nats lost on a massive turnout.
Warms my Unionist heart."
You really ought to either ignore my comment or make a sensible response :-)
Let me just repeat my main point to help you
"Given the 45% Yes vote on a massive poll for the Referendum, I am happy that this time either the SNP will be included in a debate, OR bitterness about the inclusion of UKIP and exclusion of the SNP, will adversely effect the unionist votes in Scotland."
Like, I hope. most of the people on PB who do actually bet on politics, I make a decent sum of money regularly betting on politics. My analysis above isn't wishful thinking, and, although a lifelong support of Scottish independence, I did not allow my support for it to alter my prediction on PB, that the yes vote would be 44.78% (actual 44.7) :-)
@BBCNormanS: Labour leader welcomes broadcaster's plans for 4;3;2 TV election debates. "I think they are a positive set of proposals" - @Ed_Miliband
Nothing much.
Something else I spotted in yesterday's YouGov tables – for each party it showed who would consider voting for them, broken down by their current voting intention.
For the Greens (who were on 5% VI) it showed a huge pool of potential voters – 33% of Lib Dems and 22% of Labour voters would at least consider going Green, and even 6% of Tories and 5% of UKIPpers. That makes 19% of all voters, practically quadruple their current polling.
Because Labour have a much higher vote share than the Lib Dems, the ‘red greens’ are by far the largest chunk of all voters (about 7.5%) with the Lib Dem considerers worth about 3%, ‘blue greens’ 2% and ‘purple greens’ accounting for about 1% of the entire poll.
I also had a look back at the last green surge (in short, their polling is a lot more stable this time). In 1989, the Greens polled 2.3 million votes (14.5%) in the UK’s European parliament elections (which at the time were held under FPTP, meaning no seats). In the following weeks, the Greens hit an all-time high of 13% Westminster voting intention in a phone poll by Audience Selection. Other pollsters had them lower, but most had them in the upper single digits and NOP had them in double digits, as late as September 1989. But over the next two years the poll ratings tailed off all the way to ‘asterisk’ territory, and just 0.5% at the 1992 election.
Here’s a chart, my source for the oldschool polling is Mark Pack’s awesome database…
http://numbercruncheruk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/more-than-just-green-chutes-once-in.html
Is that the feedline for a joke?
Yet another of Dan "The Anti Tipster" Hodges' forecasts to go bust?
So far:
D. Miliband to win Lab leadership
A. Murray to lose 2013 Wimbledon final
N. Clegg to resign
If Dan bets on red, shovel everything you have on black
Scott, if you don't think the debates will happen why not just say so rather than retweeting the drivel of others?
Foreign robber loses 'family life' human rights claim
Chinese crininal who threatened and robbed two women in their own home loses claim to stay with British-born children
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11158397/Foreign-robber-loses-family-life-human-rights-claim.html
What do you think the chances of any debates happening are?
50/50?
75/25?
25/75?
0/100?
Don't worry you don't have to bet
You know you want to......
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/poll/2014/oct/13/leaders-debates-general-election-2015-nigel-farage?CMP=twt_gu
I must congratulate the TV stations though because I don't think they could have made a better cock-up of it. Do they seriously think they can get this proposal past Ofcom. Not only does it fail to address the regional devolution / de facto quasi federal dimension to our political system but more over it stinks of pro-establishment political bias and attempting to fix the election by indicating that in the TV stations views only two parties can win. I thought media coverage during the campaign was supposed to be fair and balanced (whatever the likely outcomes are)?
It does of course play perfectly into the UKIP's anti-establishment narrative and for as long as the lack of parity remains it will provide UKIP (and the Libdem's and Greens) the publicity oxygen of the discriminated against. They can make lots of noise about this as and when they want.
It also means if Farage plays a blinder in the third debate then the establishment parties are screwed. There is no comeback. It will be far harder to stop a Faragasm than it was the Cleggasm and given that UKIP support is not evenly spread that could do severe damage to the Tories in particular
Needless to say I will not be watching the Dumb & Dumber show or the Three Stooges remake as if I wanted to learn nothing I would watch PMQ's each week. I will watch the ITV debate as that should be quite entertaining. However the Greens should be included in the debates. They are a serious party and if they put up sufficient candidates there is no reason to exclude them.
Famous last words.
I met him once many years ago and can confirm he is a very nice bloke.
However, as you say, I wouldn't trust him to predict what day it is.
The Lib Dems' polling in Scotland, astonishingly, seems to be in continued decline.
We could be looking a realistic court challenge from the SNP as things stand, all this tinkering with the previous very clear format makes me think the debates are now less likely to happen as it will descend into chaos.
You went all ponceyboots Gaylord over one poll and you were acting like it was the fall of Singapore.
Furthermore why would you include parties' that cannot under any circumstances fulfill the primary purpose of the election (to select a governing party). Surely a party must at least contest 50%+1 of the seats?
Or is that one not going to happen ^_~ ?
The Indyref wasn't won because of you. It was won by the likes of DavidL who went out campaigning.
I think the TV debate format gets pretty difficult when it is not blue candidate versus red candidate. Outside of US Presidential elections it's all pretty silly, really.
Yeah, right.
With quotes like that you're clearly more deluded.
For the rest of his life the one thing he could never understand was man's inhumanity to man.
Never more appropriate than right now.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/363236/Command_paper.pdf
It may be an accident of presentation, 'but for a variety of reasons' the Labour proposals look particularly thin......
In regards to the Tv debates negotiations, the starting position of which appears to have come from 4 media companies, is understandable for the greater good of political debate, which is now always a good thing for a worldwide audience (See Pristorious trial, South Africa).
The 3 minor parties will presumably all have major issues - but given that the Ukip threat is not firmly in the Conservatives and Labour's court, they will also surely have issues.
And Alsoley - Today on the daily Bbc politics programme, had both a Loaded magazine commentator & a FT journo (Is That A First?)
(EDITED)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2790751/who-s-sleeping-bed-polish-intruder-tidied-house-elderly-couple-burglar-asleep-making-dinner-taking-bubble-bath.html
Debate including con,lab,ld,ukip leaders to happen 8/11
Not to happen Evs
To win
Farage 2/1
Cameron 5/2
Miliband, Clegg 3/1
Apols if this is old news..
Conservative commission: ‘...we consider that Air Passenger Duty should be devolved...In our judgement there is no need for fresh legislation in order to allow this to occur’.
Liberal Democrat commission: ‘Responsibility for Air Passenger Duty for flights from Scottish airports should be allocated to the Scottish Parliament, to complement existing powers on the environment, transport and economic development’.
Labour commission: ‘Our interim report considered whether there was scope for devolution of air passenger duty, subject particularly to EU rules. We received a number of considered representations, and continue to note that departures from Highlands and Islands airports are already exempt from this tax. Given the pressure to reduce this tax from airlines and others and the risk of tax competition which would be created, we are not now convinced that devolution should be progressed until further consideration is given to the environmental impact and how else this tax might be reformed’.
David Cameron poses with blacked-up Morris dancers at Banbury Folk Festival
The Prime Minister was pictured over the weekend with three Morris dancers at the festival in Oxfordshire
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11158847/David-Cameron-poses-with-blacked-up-Morris-dancers-at-Banbury-Folk-Festival.html
We seem once again to have got ourselves into a war with no idea of how to win it or how to get out of it.
Anything else is biased. So if the debates become too unwieldy then we should not have them at all. However that said the US manage to run primary debates with 5-10 candidates so if the US can do it I see no reason why we cannot.
It may not be your or my cup of tea but who are we to deny millions of others the opportunity of being informed?
ISIS are evil. And, as someone once said, for evil to triumph all it takes is for good men to do no nothing.
And doing nothing seems to be the civilized world's MO, at the moment.
IncIusion of the Greens wouId be bizarre. PoII ratings of just over 5 percent; one MP; 0.7% of counciIIors. 3 Euro MPs. And .. er .. that' it.
RegionaI parties can have regionaI debates with their regionaI rivaIs on regionaI TV stations.
If the SNP want to be in nationaI debates, Iet them become a nationaI party.
I do not believe this to be valid.
EDITED
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/24/why-im-calling-it-for-ed-miliband/
It's a shame that the denouement thread has been purged on the shift to vanilla - the SeanT machinegun assertion that it was David Miliband right up to the key moment was quite something to behold.
Pleased to see Cameron doing his utmost to satisfy the crucial morris dancer vote.
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/labourlist-fundraising-dinner-tickets-13602285803
Farage, Bennett, Galloway.
Clegg is the fly in the ointment. Masses of MPs last time, but a vote that has gone through the floor.
I'll give you a clue, it was a Telegraph blogger, who isn't Dan Hodges.
1) OK, it's over.
2) YES are likely to win. They have the momentum.
Cameron will resign, Miliband is in dire straits.
Phenomenal. Horrible. I'm getting my money out of sterling. We are all going to suffe
3) It is kind of fitting that this summor of horrors will end with the dissolution of my country. Ah well. At least I'm rich.
4) What a total clusterfuck. And it never had to happen. Scots didn't even want it. Cameron should shoot himself, let alone resign.
5) O, what it is to be a prophet in the wilderness. With quite excellent wine
One way or the other and sooner or later, the civilized world is going to have to fight and defeat, utterly defeat, these people.
Gardening is too gentle an occupation to be compared to war but ISIS are the Japanese knotweed of the modern world. A bit of cutting down here and there won't do.
Not even Sean is capable of that scale of hubris.
More than £250,000 of suspected Islamic State (IS) funds have been seized at Manchester Airport and other north-west ports in the past year, anti-terrorist officers said.
The NW Counter Terrorism Unit used civil powers under the Terrorism Act to confiscate cash found hidden in luggage or under clothing.
Most was seized from passengers flying from Manchester to Turkey, said police.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-29599902
It makes no sense to exclude Greens but include UKIP in election TV debates, whether going by number of seats or polling. Media stitch-up
The SNP, on the other hand, have a rather firmer legal case to make. UKIP's inclusion based on their polling and their election results since 2010 plays into the SNP's hands, given the Scottish party's performances in local, Holyrood and Euro elections.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
Polls do tend to jump around and are sometimes wrong.
Tom Clark @guardian_clark
Has Ukip broken the mould? @guardian/@ICMResearch poll coming up @martinboon ...
The last thing that should define who is in the debates is polling......
Care to explain the difference?
If IS is stupid enough to try and invade Turkey, article 5 gets invoked and IS is crushed. As is IS knows that Turkey is reluctant to get involved in a war outside it's border to a massive degree (Even if it is only a few hundred yards) as Turkey has enemies other than IS in the IS/Syria region.
So they'll stay out - at last for the next few years whilst they try and gain control of Syria/Iraq - Baghdad hasn't fallen yet and Damascus is still a way off for them.
They know the one thing that would galvanize Turkey and NATO to serious action would be an attempted invasion - they can live with the air strikes as they have seemingly ground superiority.
Now that was funny.
Sir Peter Tapsell and Zac Goldsmith are going to introduce Douglas Carswell....
Could Tapsell step down and force a by-election ?
Presumably he wouldn't stand but may well endorse the successor ?
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 23s24 seconds ago
"good to be back Mr Speaker"
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 54s55 seconds ago
Idiots. Talk about showing weakness.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 2m2 minutes ago
Silence for Carswell. They are scared.
Turkey's KEY motivation in all this is to not let an independent Kurdistan come into being. They're very wary of anything that defends or promotes 'Kurdism'. Hence they sit a few hundred yards away from a Kurdish massacre (over the border). We need boots on the ground to fight IS - Kurdish Peshmerga boots - but Turkey ain't gonna help that AT ALL.
The Whopper (the big five plus Plaid and the SNP) 50%
The Famous Five 23%
The Four Musketeers 8%
The Three Stooges 4%
Dumb & Dumber 3%
No Thank You 11%
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/poll/2014/oct/13/leaders-debates-general-election-2015-nigel-farage?CMP=twt_gu
Got it.