Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
Ukip 40 Con 31 Lab 25
You are likely to see anti-UKIP tactical voting by LAB and LD supporters.
I notice that the all postal ballot CON primary will be between two women CON councillors from the area. Interesting to see how that shapes out.
I still think the value bet is on CON at anything longer than 6/4.
As a Conservative I would probably vote Labour to keep out UKIP. I hate them.
I can't say I'm surprised.
I don't understand this level of bile from erstwhile fellow Conservatives. I vote for policies of the moderate Right. I'm not a tribalist. But I wouldn't vote Labour, or Green, in a million years, for that reason.
I might consider a David Laws or Jeremy Browne, but only in certain scenarios as I distrust them on three big issues. But I also distrust Cameron on them.
What might drive me permanently out of the Conservatives is welching on Europe and Immigration policies and decimating Defence. I was also very worried by the article Robert Fox penned in the ES last night, claiming the Treasury has a secret plan to cut a *further* 7.5% from the defence budget in the 2015 SDR.
They're planning to cut defence further?! I assumed that everyone had come to the common sense conclusion that recent global events had meant it was a mistake to cut defence so much, and they were just waiting for the right point to reverse them in the least politically embarrassing manner.
That's what I read in the ES last night. I can't find the link online, I'm afraid.
I agree with you. I'm very angry about it. My assumption was that they'd abandon the 0.7% GDP aid commitment for the next parliament, and siphon those funds into defence to make up for all the damage they'd already done.
James Arbuthnot is still (for now) my local MP. I'm writing him a letter about it.
You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
Richard Nixon never stopped hating.
To be fair you'd be a hater if you believed, not without merit, that The Presidency had been stolen from you.
Al Gore could believe that, I think that Nixon was the architect of his own downfall.
There are some good sites that try to rate US Presidents from best to worse.
The surprising thing is the amount of consensus, particularly at both ends of the spectrum. Lincoln, Washington and FDR generally get top billing; the worst are confined pretty much to the earlier Presidents. Nixon is the exception - stone last of the moderns, and not much above some of the truly awful early Presidents.
You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
Richard Nixon never stopped hating.
To be fair you'd be a hater if you believed, not without merit, that The Presidency had been stolen from you.
Al Gore could believe that, I think that Nixon was the architect of his own downfall.
There are some good sites that try to rate US Presidents from best to worse.
The surprising thing is the amount of consensus, particularly at both ends of the spectrum. Lincoln, Washington and FDR generally get top billing; the worst are confined pretty much to the earlier Presidents. Nixon is the exception - stone last of the moderns.
I wouldn't underestimate the hatred of UKIP as a major factor in tactical voting. I know, anecdotally, many people who have said things about them which have taken my breath away. And I'm not just talking from Tories. Farage particularly seems to divide people.
Take a pill and calm down.
Sounds like your equivalent of 'calm down dear.'
Actually I'm as chilled as a goldfish, ta very much. I just don't like UKIP.
But its not a case of you disliking UKIP, you actively hate them. (As you yourself said "I hate extremists and UKIP are extremists").
You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
Richard Nixon never stopped hating.
To be fair you'd be a hater if you believed, not without merit, that The Presidency had been stolen from you.
Al Gore could believe that, I think that Nixon was the architect of his own downfall.
There are some good sites that try to rate US Presidents from best to worse.
The surprising thing is the amount of consensus, particularly at both ends of the spectrum. Lincoln, Washington and FDR generally get top billing; the worst are confined pretty much to the earlier Presidents. Nixon is the exception - stone last of the moderns, and not much above some of the truly awful early Presidents.
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
I am genuinely puzzled by some in the Conservative Party anger at the European Convention on Human Rights. A document principally written by an English Conservative Lawyer to introduce English jurisprudence to the continent.
You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
Richard Nixon never stopped hating.
To be fair you'd be a hater if you believed, not without merit, that The Presidency had been stolen from you.
Al Gore could believe that, I think that Nixon was the architect of his own downfall.
There are some good sites that try to rate US Presidents from best to worse.
The surprising thing is the amount of consensus, particularly at both ends of the spectrum. Lincoln, Washington and FDR generally get top billing; the worst are confined pretty much to the earlier Presidents. Nixon is the exception - stone last of the moderns, and not much above some of the truly awful early Presidents.
Abraham Lincoln was an invader from space Theodore Roosevelt could not die if he tried President Wilson emerged from one of the pods Warren G. Harding could travel backwards in time Richard M. Nixon: a robot wearing a mask
You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
Richard Nixon never stopped hating.
To be fair you'd be a hater if you believed, not without merit, that The Presidency had been stolen from you.
Al Gore could believe that, I think that Nixon was the architect of his own downfall.
There are some good sites that try to rate US Presidents from best to worse.
The surprising thing is the amount of consensus, particularly at both ends of the spectrum. Lincoln, Washington and FDR generally get top billing; the worst are confined pretty much to the earlier Presidents. Nixon is the exception - stone last of the moderns.
Very interesting site. Some strange results in some of the polls, in Gallup 'Dubya' beats Jefferson!
The Wikipedia link was meant only as an intro to a number of US sites where the discussion is pretty sensible and serious.
I think there would be less consensus regarding UK Leaders. Ok, you start with Churchill, but then what? Lloyd George, Atlee and Thatcher? Not exactly uncontentious.
Early ones? Lord North seems to win the Worst title easily, but then?
And the Best? The Pitts, Peel, Wellington? Sorry, I'm struggling.
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
I am genuinely puzzled by some in the Conservative Party anger at the European Convention on Human Rights. A document principally written by an English Conservative Lawyer to introduce English jurisprudence to the continent.
Yep,to the continent,he didn't mean us.
And a dream of Winston Churchill. All because modern day Tories hate foreigners.
You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
Richard Nixon never stopped hating.
To be fair you'd be a hater if you believed, not without merit, that The Presidency had been stolen from you.
Al Gore could believe that, I think that Nixon was the architect of his own downfall.
There are some good sites that try to rate US Presidents from best to worse.
The surprising thing is the amount of consensus, particularly at both ends of the spectrum. Lincoln, Washington and FDR generally get top billing; the worst are confined pretty much to the earlier Presidents. Nixon is the exception - stone last of the moderns, and not much above some of the truly awful early Presidents.
Mr. Punter, far too recent for me, but wasn't Wellington a bloody awful PM? I seem to recall he had trouble persuading enough people to sit in his Cabinet for it to function (and this was in the days before the Cabinet was bloody enormous).
Ladbrokes open betting on who'll win the CON R&S postal primary 4/6 @KellyTolhurst 11/10 @anna_firth
How do you bet on this one? Bothe are local councillors. Are there any PBers with local knowledge?
I see that Anna Firth is a barrister and "mother of 3"
Had to de-lurk after around 6 months of near silence to say I actually know Anna Firth personally. I haven't seen her for a few weeks (we are acquaintances rather than friends) so I didn't know she was trying as PPC for Rochester, although I know she has been active with the Conservative party for a while and hoping for a nomination.
I'm not sure how much is fair to say about her in the public sphere. She used to be a barrister before becoming a full-time mother to 3 children. Has been a Sevenoaks councillor for maybe 5 years. She does have a bona-fide connection to Rochester, but lives in Sevenoaks. I'm not sure how to put it, exactly, but she might come over a bit "posh" for Rochester. Still, I don't know how she compares with the other candidates on that score.
You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
Richard Nixon never stopped hating.
To be fair you'd be a hater if you believed, not without merit, that The Presidency had been stolen from you.
Al Gore could believe that, I think that Nixon was the architect of his own downfall.
There are some good sites that try to rate US Presidents from best to worse.
The surprising thing is the amount of consensus, particularly at both ends of the spectrum. Lincoln, Washington and FDR generally get top billing; the worst are confined pretty much to the earlier Presidents. Nixon is the exception - stone last of the moderns.
I hear that Labour are refusing to take part in Hague's'cross party commission on EVEL. If the SNP maintain their current level of of support then virtually all the SLAB seats will fall to the SNP anyway.
Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
Ukip 40 Con 31 Lab 25
You are likely to see anti-UKIP tactical voting by LAB and LD supporters.
I notice that the all postal ballot CON primary will be between two women CON councillors from the area. Interesting to see how that shapes out.
I still think the value bet is on CON at anything longer than 6/4.
As a Conservative I would probably vote Labour to keep out UKIP. I hate them.
I can't say I'm surprised.
I don't understand this level of bile from erstwhile fellow Conservatives. I vote for policies of the moderate Right. I'm not a tribalist. But I wouldn't vote Labour, or Green, in a million years, for that reason.
I might consider a David Laws or Jeremy Browne, but only in certain scenarios as I distrust them on three big issues. But I also distrust Cameron on them.
What might drive me permanently out of the Conservatives is welching on Europe and Immigration policies and decimating Defence. I was also very worried by the article Robert Fox penned in the ES last night, claiming the Treasury has a secret plan to cut a *further* 7.5% from the defence budget in the 2015 SDR.
To be fair, some UKIP supporters do display similar bile towards the Conservatives.
But, I would never vote for Labour or Greens, in preference to a Conservative. And, I've made clear that as UKIP have no chance in Luton South, I'll vote Conservative next year.
You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
Richard Nixon never stopped hating.
To be fair you'd be a hater if you believed, not without merit, that The Presidency had been stolen from you.
Al Gore could believe that, I think that Nixon was the architect of his own downfall.
There are some good sites that try to rate US Presidents from best to worse.
The surprising thing is the amount of consensus, particularly at both ends of the spectrum. Lincoln, Washington and FDR generally get top billing; the worst are confined pretty much to the earlier Presidents. Nixon is the exception - stone last of the moderns, and not much above some of the truly awful early Presidents.
Abraham Lincoln was an invader from space Theodore Roosevelt could not die if he tried President Wilson emerged from one of the pods Warren G. Harding could travel backwards in time Richard M. Nixon: a robot wearing a mask
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
I am genuinely puzzled by some in the Conservative Party anger at the European Convention on Human Rights. A document principally written by an English Conservative Lawyer to introduce English jurisprudence to the continent.
Yep,to the continent,he didn't mean us.
And a dream of Winston Churchill. All because modern day Tories hate foreigners.
Get it right,I'm not a tory and the modern day left/labour hate they own country and if you can live with decisions like this,then your a fool.
You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
Richard Nixon never stopped hating.
To be fair you'd be a hater if you believed, not without merit, that The Presidency had been stolen from you.
Al Gore could believe that, I think that Nixon was the architect of his own downfall.
I once attended an evening with Conrad Black (as part of a school trip to the telegraph offices)
Lord Black had written/was writing his biography of Richard Nixon.
Nixon was convicted what happened in Chicago in 1960 (ballot rigging by Mayor Daley for JFK) happened across the country.
In part Watergate was to make sure the Dems didn't steal it again.
As amusing aside Mayor Daley's son ran Al Gore's campaign in 2000.
Sorry, I have some sympathy with your view on Nixon/Kennedy, I thought you meant Nixon/Watergate. Not surprised that Conrad Black (presumably) admired Nixon. Al Gore (2000) must still be the prime example of a stolen election though.
Nah, Bush won every count/recount.
Plus, Gore had the Florida Supreme Court on his side.
Gore's big error, apart from losing his home State, which would have rendered the Florida result irrelevant, was to only demand recounts in Democratic friendly counties.
He should have demanded a full state wide hand recounts from the start.
As an aside, Al Gore grew up in Carthage, proving the rule, that losers come from Carthage.
Mr. Punter, far too recent for me, but wasn't Wellington a bloody awful PM? I seem to recall he had trouble persuading enough people to sit in his Cabinet for it to function (and this was in the days before the Cabinet was bloody enormous).
Mr Dancer
I defer to just about everybody in matters of History, and not just your distinguished self.
I think your focus here Mike that the 2010 LD switchers are floaters is misplaced. I think this group are if anything are the most political aware lefties, already lost to the LD's and would never in a month of Sunday's vote Tory. The Tories absolutely have to write off this group and strategically go for the UKIP floaters- many of whom are probably old Thatcher supporters.
Labour have the bigger problem- do they promote a cuddly left image to bring back into the fold the LD switchers, or do they too try to go onto UKIP ground and risk alienating them- this group are liable to vote Green or just not turn up. You see Labour too are losing votes to UKIP.
Strategically, Labour has the biggest head ache. The Tories can be much more single minded in their approach, vision and message. Labour has to juggle the policy contradictions.
You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
Richard Nixon never stopped hating.
To be fair you'd be a hater if you believed, not without merit, that The Presidency had been stolen from you.
Al Gore could believe that, I think that Nixon was the architect of his own downfall.
There are some good sites that try to rate US Presidents from best to worse.
The surprising thing is the amount of consensus, particularly at both ends of the spectrum. Lincoln, Washington and FDR generally get top billing; the worst are confined pretty much to the earlier Presidents. Nixon is the exception - stone last of the moderns, and not much above some of the truly awful early Presidents.
Abraham Lincoln was an invader from space Theodore Roosevelt could not die if he tried President Wilson emerged from one of the pods Warren G. Harding could travel backwards in time Richard M. Nixon: a robot wearing a mask
Where the f*ck did you get that from, JJ?
You really need to get out more.
So do I. Toodle pip.
It was played at the beginning of a science fiction podcast I listen to. Since I was listening to it whilst I was out walking, the problem was being outside ... ;-)
I can agree with that, he was really good at handling the senate. Not as inspiring as JFK but effective. On a lighter note here's a song about one of the worst presidents http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZMJAdN75zE
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
I am genuinely puzzled by some in the Conservative Party anger at the European Convention on Human Rights. A document principally written by an English Conservative Lawyer to introduce English jurisprudence to the continent.
Yep,to the continent,he didn't mean us.
And a dream of Winston Churchill. All because modern day Tories hate foreigners.
Get it right,I'm not a tory and the modern day left/labour hate they own country and if you can live with decisions like this,then your a fool.
I must have been bored, but I've just briefly gone through Anna Firth's and Kelly Tolhurst's twitter feeds to see if I can deduce anything about them. Anna Firth seems to be very straight down the line, but Kelly Tolhurst has retweeted two surprising tweets:
Mr. Punter, far too recent for me, but wasn't Wellington a bloody awful PM? I seem to recall he had trouble persuading enough people to sit in his Cabinet for it to function (and this was in the days before the Cabinet was bloody enormous).
Wellington introduced the Catholic Relief Act, which makes him fine in my book. The anti-Catholic laws were hideous, and needed repealing.
But he was also against the Great Reform Act, which was a big mistake, not the least because it led to his downfall.
He was one of the few PMs to serve twice, and probably served for combined less time than any of the others.
He was also replaced as PM by someone better known as a nice cup of tea, ;-)
Some comments on the candidates from the local paper:
"Take a look at Kelly Tolhurst’s record, isn’t she a cabinet member that lost us our library in Strood, spending £750,000 on a building that the council doesn’t own. Isn’t she also the one that supported the theft of the money from Temple school by this council, when should have been returned from the court. Is there anything that she’s done to help the citizens of Medway, with a record like this I don’t think so. As for the other candidate, I think that’s already been well summed up. I guess the Conservatives are giving this away to Mark Reckless, as I and many others will not be supporting either of them."
"Just for the record Anna's grandmother was a cleaning lady. She was brought up in a single parent family and has made a success of her life through hard work and the opportunities available in this country before the Labour Party ran it for 13 years. You are no doubt some Labour supporter who likes nothing more than to ensure as many people as possible stay at the bottom of the pile so they have no choice but to vote for sad Ed. Just for the avoidance of doubt Anna spent half her life as a barrister defending the NHS and her brother is an NHS doctor. So I think that she knows pretty well about the problems of the Medway Health Service .... which incidentally no-one past or present has dealt with. If you are happy with that stick with what you have. If you think that Rochester and Strood deserve better, then it is your choice."
"A former barrister who lives in Sevenoaks and was brought up in Essex does not represent the average Kent citizen and knows nothing about how under pressure our services are. That is, local comprehensive school places, NHS waiting lists, dentists appointments, etc. She doesn't use any of those. More of the same from the out of touch old-guard."
I can agree with that, he was really good at handling the senate. Not as inspiring as JFK but effective. On a lighter note here's a song about one of the worst presidents (snip)
I love that album. Particularly, 'Old Admirals', which was about Admiral Fisher, who as a youth served on the ship we got married on. We played it as the first song at our wedding...
I must have been bored, but I've just briefly gone through Anna Firth's and Kelly Tolhurst's twitter feeds to see if I can deduce anything about them. Anna Firth seems to be very straight down the line, but Kelly Tolhurst has retweeted two surprising tweets:
I must have been bored, but I've just briefly gone through Anna Firth's and Kelly Tolhurst's twitter feeds to see if I can deduce anything about them. Anna Firth seems to be very straight down the line, but Kelly Tolhurst has retweeted two surprising tweets:
With deep regret I have this morning written to the Prime Minister & tendered my resignation. I can no longer support Govt policy on #Gaza"
Make of that what you will.
Interesting. She is the more local of the 2 and that could count quite a lot in the primary. The problem with being a local councillor, though, is that you have a history and there could be things that she's done that could be controversial.
My understanding is that all the costs of running the primary, expected to be about £75k, will not be regarded as election expenses which means that the Tories will get a lot of material out and coverage of their shortlist without impacting on their ability to fight the campaign.
The narrative will be less shaped by Reckless and more by the primary.
I can agree with that, he was really good at handling the senate. Not as inspiring as JFK but effective. On a lighter note here's a song about one of the worst presidents (snip)
I love that album. Particularly, 'Old Admirals', which was about Admiral Fisher, who as a youth served on the ship we got married on. We played it as the first song at our wedding...
I can't remember where I read the description but it went something along the lines of "LBJ was a total [moderated] of a person but he got good things done well in an effective fashion"
I must have been bored, but I've just briefly gone through Anna Firth's and Kelly Tolhurst's twitter feeds to see if I can deduce anything about them. Anna Firth seems to be very straight down the line, but Kelly Tolhurst has retweeted two surprising tweets:
I must have been bored, but I've just briefly gone through Anna Firth's and Kelly Tolhurst's twitter feeds to see if I can deduce anything about them. Anna Firth seems to be very straight down the line, but Kelly Tolhurst has retweeted two surprising tweets:
With deep regret I have this morning written to the Prime Minister & tendered my resignation. I can no longer support Govt policy on #Gaza"
Make of that what you will.
Interesting. She is the more local of the 2 and that could count quite a lot in the primary. The problem with being a local councillor, though, is that you have a history and there could be things that she's done that could be controversial.
My understanding is that all the costs of running the primary, expected to be about £75k, will not be regarded as election expenses which means that the Tories will get a lot of material out and coverage of their shortlist without impacting on their ability to fight the campaign.
The narrative will be less shaped by Reckless and more by the primary.
"The narrative will be less shaped by Reckless and more by the primary. "
On here probably.
In Rochester and Strood, and the rest of the media, highly unlikely
I must have been bored, but I've just briefly gone through Anna Firth's and Kelly Tolhurst's twitter feeds to see if I can deduce anything about them. Anna Firth seems to be very straight down the line, but Kelly Tolhurst has retweeted two surprising tweets:
I must have been bored, but I've just briefly gone through Anna Firth's and Kelly Tolhurst's twitter feeds to see if I can deduce anything about them. Anna Firth seems to be very straight down the line, but Kelly Tolhurst has retweeted two surprising tweets:
With deep regret I have this morning written to the Prime Minister & tendered my resignation. I can no longer support Govt policy on #Gaza"
Make of that what you will.
Anna Firth also retweeted about Warsi's resignation, though didn't retweet her directly.
I thought Tolhurst's retweet of the 'Israeli products to boycott' tweet was also interesting.
Hopefully both are more concerned about matters more close to home and are not of those type of politicians who obsess about an insolvable conflict thousands of miles from us
I must have been bored, but I've just briefly gone through Anna Firth's and Kelly Tolhurst's twitter feeds to see if I can deduce anything about them. Anna Firth seems to be very straight down the line, but Kelly Tolhurst has retweeted two surprising tweets:
The NHS may be a key battleground. But it is also a crowded and confused battleground.
Will carrying on regardless with another ringfence prove successful or should more money be pumped into it and the NHS reforms repealed? Will improving mental health targets (which I assume all the other parties will adopt in some form) have resonance or should the devolution minded by UKIP and TTIP protection get some interest?
Chances are no party is going to win significant numbers of additional votes on this. Labour will likely shore its current vote up and the others are likely not to scare off potential voters but that's about it.
Immigration on the other hand has a pretty clear choice. If you want to cut net immigration there is only one show in town and that is UKIP. The Libdems will do nothing, Labour will tinker around the edges of benefits but do little else. The Tories will promise all sorts of things but will eventually end up doing as their masters in Brussels tell them and tinker around he edges of benefits as well.
You then add in the impression from each conference on taxes, Libdems banging on about the past four years, Labour the mansion tax rise (more tax & spend), the Tories tax cuts, UKIP marginally more generous tax cuts (because UKIP have identified more areas to cut).
No doubt much of the debate will be about the NHS because clearly that's all the establishment parties really want to talk about but will voters be listening and be influenced to vote that way as a result. When it comes down to it. I do not think the NHS will be a major influence for the simple reason there are no real clear choices regarding the NHS.
'I believe in a total freedom of movement of Capital and Labour. Actually, so did that "Socialist" Adam Smith.
'
Good for you and your crazy little world,maybe the population of china might want to come and work here.
Can Surbiton post what Adam Smith said about free movement of labour? It seems very plausible that he believed that, but I've yet to see actual evidence of his views on it.
Yep as mentioned below by s-g-a you came out with one of the worst comments seen on this forum in quite a long time. Whatever you think of Tony Blair, wishing a terrorist had succeeded in killing him says everything anyone needs to know about you.
There's nothing wrong with hating extremists, and I think UKIP are extremists. I hate ISIL. I hate Ebola. I hate Pol Pot and Jim Jones. You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
When you start likening your political opponents to a disease, you really have jumped off the deep end. There's a problem with giving yourself a license to hate a particular group of people, as distinct from an aversion to their behaviour or beliefs. It leads to genocide. Your posts here are frankly chilling -I don't know who or what you're subscribing to that's filling your head with these parody-esque Common Purpose soundbites, but all I can do is wish you a speedy recovery.
Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
Ukip 40 Con 31 Lab 25
You are likely to see anti-UKIP tactical voting by LAB and LD supporters.
I notice that the all postal ballot CON primary will be between two women CON councillors from the area. Interesting to see how that shapes out.
I still think the value bet is on CON at anything longer than 6/4.
As a Conservative I would probably vote Labour to keep out UKIP. I hate them.
I can't say I'm surprised.
pretty breathtaking comment about not 'hating people' when you have said further down you would have been glad if Blair had been murdered
Blair murdering brown people=good Brown people murdering Blair=bad?
What? All I am saying is that if you hate Blair enough to want him dead (you said it not me) then its a bit rich to castigate somebody as akin to a five year old for using a lot more milder language about UKIP that you did about Blair
I don't hate him, I just think it would be quite funny.
I don't personally wish ill on Blair to that extent. I do note, though, that in pursuit of Bush's War on Terror, Blair lied to obtain HoC support for the deaths of people - notably including children - who weren't terrorists.
This war was also explicitly against something other than a specific polity or country. It was a war against terror, whatever TF that ever meant.
Were I on the receiving end of that, I'd certainly regard Blair as a wholly legitimate assassination target, just as the CIA did Castro. It will not do for the west to retort that the people contemplating doing this are criminals because they're not a proper country. As a bombed Iraqi, or a sympathiser, I wouldn't be minded to accept any weaselly western definition of what was and was not legitimate reprisal, adopted simply to preserve the instigators of the Iraq calamity from any personal comeback.
In 1776, in one view, the American rebels were just terrorists. Until they weren't.
You don't have to approve of someone killing Blair to concede that to do so is a 100% legitimate military act.
I must have been bored, but I've just briefly gone through Anna Firth's and Kelly Tolhurst's twitter feeds to see if I can deduce anything about them. Anna Firth seems to be very straight down the line, but Kelly Tolhurst has retweeted two surprising tweets:
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
I am genuinely puzzled by some in the Conservative Party anger at the European Convention on Human Rights. A document principally written by an English Conservative Lawyer to introduce English jurisprudence to the continent.
Yep,to the continent,he didn't mean us.
I also don't imagine any of the lawyers that developed the ECHR to prevent a repeat of the crimes of WW2 meant it to be applied for whether convicted serial killers should be allowed to get out of prison at some point. Or whether 18 year olds should have an automatic right to a marriage visa. etc.
Yep as mentioned below by s-g-a you came out with one of the worst comments seen on this forum in quite a long time. Whatever you think of Tony Blair, wishing a terrorist had succeeded in killing him says everything anyone needs to know about you.
There's nothing wrong with hating extremists, and I think UKIP are extremists. I hate ISIL. I hate Ebola. I hate Pol Pot and Jim Jones. You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
When you start likening your political opponents to a disease, you really have jumped off the deep end. There's a problem with giving yourself a license to hate a particular group of people, as distinct from an aversion to their behaviour or beliefs. It leads to genocide. Your posts here are frankly chilling -I don't know who or what you're subscribing to that's filling your head with these parody-esque Common Purpose soundbites, but all I can do is wish you a speedy recovery.
She didn't liken UKIP to a disease, did she? She listed a few things any of us might reasonably say we hate which would not amount to lunacy.
I too hate ISIL, Ebola, Pol Pot, and Jim Jones.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I hate UKIP. I think their supporters are utter mugs and their leadership are lying troughers. I come quite close to hating a number of Labour figures though; because so many are unrepentant supposed ex-Communists who see nothing wrong with having broadly supported the most evil and murderous political system of all time. John Reid joined the communist party the day the Red Army rolled into Czechoslovakia, for example. What do such people deserve if not a degree of quiet hate? A regretful shake of the head and a polite "well, we must credit our opponents with meaning well"? Commies do not mean well; they mean hell on earth.
Quoting a fanatical Europhile who has said that the democratic deficit in England was a price worth paying for the continuation of the Union is hardly going to convince many people that EVEL is absurd.
Yet another sign of how the deficit is a Westminster bubble obsession which the real world couldn't care less about. Will the main parties (especially Labour) finally get the message?
You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
Richard Nixon never stopped hating.
To be fair you'd be a hater if you believed, not without merit, that The Presidency had been stolen from you.
Al Gore could believe that, I think that Nixon was the architect of his own downfall.
I once attended an evening with Conrad Black (as part of a school trip to the telegraph offices)
Lord Black had written/was writing his biography of Richard Nixon.
Nixon was convicted what happened in Chicago in 1960 (ballot rigging by Mayor Daley for JFK) happened across the country.
In part Watergate was to make sure the Dems didn't steal it again.
As amusing aside Mayor Daley's son ran Al Gore's campaign in 2000.
Sorry, I have some sympathy with your view on Nixon/Kennedy, I thought you meant Nixon/Watergate. Not surprised that Conrad Black (presumably) admired Nixon. Al Gore (2000) must still be the prime example of a stolen election though.
Nah, Bush won every count/recount.
Plus, Gore had the Florida Supreme Court on his side.
Gore's big error, apart from losing his home State, which would have rendered the Florida result irrelevant, was to only demand recounts in Democratic friendly counties.
He should have demanded a full state wide hand recounts from the start.
As an aside, Al Gore grew up in Carthage, proving the rule, that losers come from Carthage.
... and Bush had his brother on his side. Could go on forever, we haven't mentioned hanging chads yet, so I'll agree to differ. Why doesn't the US count nationwide nowadays, the founding fathers couldn't but why not now? Is it just custom? http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/faqitem.php?f=4 Only 4 elections would have produced different results, one being Gore, who won the popular vote by over half a million votes.
Yep as mentioned below by s-g-a you came out with one of the worst comments seen on this forum in quite a long time. Whatever you think of Tony Blair, wishing a terrorist had succeeded in killing him says everything anyone needs to know about you.
There's nothing wrong with hating extremists, and I think UKIP are extremists. I hate ISIL. I hate Ebola. I hate Pol Pot and Jim Jones. You can be a decent person and still hate certain things. Unless you're a brain in a vat.
When you start likening your political opponents to a disease, you really have jumped off the deep end. There's a problem with giving yourself a license to hate a particular group of people, as distinct from an aversion to their behaviour or beliefs. It leads to genocide. Your posts here are frankly chilling -I don't know who or what you're subscribing to that's filling your head with these parody-esque Common Purpose soundbites, but all I can do is wish you a speedy recovery.
She didn't liken UKIP to a disease, did she? She listed a few things any of us might reasonably say we hate which would not amount to lunacy.
I too hate ISIL, Ebola, Pol Pot, and Jim Jones.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I hate UKIP. I think their supporters are utter mugs and their leadership are lying troughers. I come quite close to hating a number of Labour figures though; because so many are unrepentant supposed ex-Communists who see nothing wrong with having broadly supported the most evil and murderous political system of all time. John Reid joined the communist party the day the Red Army rolled into Czechoslovakia, for example. What do such people deserve if not a degree of quiet hate? A regretful shake of the head and a polite "well, we must credit our opponents with meaning well"? Commies do not mean well; they mean hell on earth.
I'm similar. I struggle to fathom why anyone who believed in anything except a risidual group instinct would stay with the Conservative party in its present form. As for Labour, we can credit them with wrecking the country. But I understand that these people are simply misguided, and more human for that, not less. To *hate* them for it would be to allow a wholly unwelcome and repugnant emotion to come in and make a home, but not just that, it would prevent me from genuinely understanding the facts. You have to start from a position of 'why do these people think what they think?'. When you do that, you realise that most people fundamentally want the same things -security, family, acceptance etc. If you start instead from a basis of writing off and 'hating' everyone who you disagree with, however profoundly, you're starting down the road to Belsen.
Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
Ukip 40 Con 31 Lab 25
You are likely to see anti-UKIP tactical voting by LAB and LD supporters.
I notice that the all postal ballot CON primary will be between two women CON councillors from the area. Interesting to see how that shapes out.
I still think the value bet is on CON at anything longer than 6/4.
As a Conservative I would probably vote Labour to keep out UKIP. I hate them.
I can't say I'm surprised.
If there's one thing worse than the extreme left it's the extreme right. Pernicious, vindictive, spiteful, nasty malcontents, mavericks and reactionaries.
The use by anyone aged over about 5 of the words "I hate them" is a pretty reliable indicator that the speaker is pernicious, vindictive, spiteful, and nasty. Do you think you are doing oyur party any favours with those who have voted for it in the past and are thinking of changing to UKIP or do you not believe there are any such people?
pretty breathtaking comment about not 'hating people' when you have said further down you would have been glad if Blair had been murdered
Blair murdering brown people=good Brown people murdering Blair=bad?
What? All I am saying is that if you hate Blair enough to want him dead (you said it not me) then its a bit rich to castigate somebody as akin to a five year old for using a lot more milder language about UKIP that you did about Blair
Blair was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people all based on a lie. No surprise people get a bit hot under the collar when talking about him.
People hate UKIP because they are proposing a Canadian style points system for immigration.
I've been lead to believe that the HRA is effectively baked in to the Scotland Act so even if the Tories were to abolish the HRA and introduce a "British" Bill of Rights it wouldn't apply to Scotland. Is this the case?
The Scotland Act places a specific duty on Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament to act in accordance with the 'Convention rights'. In addition, under the Scotland Act every Executive Bill introduced to the Scottish Parliament must be certified by a Scottish Government Minister as compliant with the Convention rights.
The Scotland Act can only be amended by Westminster - English Votes for Scottish Laws will go down really well in the post-referendum boiling pot!
Also, to enlarge upon your point about Communists -they are a precise example. People who have allowed themselves to demonise their 'enemies', and cease seeing them as people, thus giving them license to kill huge swathes of them to create a 'better' world. Audreyeanne has said she 'hates' UKIP. Can she therefore be relied upon to support their right to free speech? Their right to adopt children? What modifications to the democratic process would she assent to in order to prevent such loathsome individuals from gaining power? Would she tolerate them being given a good slap every now and again to stop them getting above themselves -for the greater good? These are the things that hatred gradually opens the door too.
Comments
I agree with you. I'm very angry about it. My assumption was that they'd abandon the 0.7% GDP aid commitment for the next parliament, and siphon those funds into defence to make up for all the damage they'd already done.
James Arbuthnot is still (for now) my local MP. I'm writing him a letter about it.
Hating affects your judgement.
And the content of your posts proves this.
Fairly close, but below Dubya.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wb-IRgqXMI
UKIP Vote Share
20/1 Under 25%
10/1 25-30%
6/1 30-35%
9/4 35-40%
9/4 40-45%
6/1 45-50%
12/1 50-55%
20/1 55-60%
20/1 Over 60%
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/english-votes-english-laws-absurdity-separatist
I think there would be less consensus regarding UK Leaders. Ok, you start with Churchill, but then what? Lloyd George, Atlee and Thatcher? Not exactly uncontentious.
Early ones? Lord North seems to win the Worst title easily, but then?
And the Best? The Pitts, Peel, Wellington? Sorry, I'm struggling.
The Boys At Betfair are still languishing in bed.
I'm not sure how much is fair to say about her in the public sphere. She used to be a barrister before becoming a full-time mother to 3 children. Has been a Sevenoaks councillor for maybe 5 years. She does have a bona-fide connection to Rochester, but lives in Sevenoaks. I'm not sure how to put it, exactly, but she might come over a bit "posh" for Rochester. Still, I don't know how she compares with the other candidates on that score.
3.93% Under 25%
7.5% 25-30%
11.79% 30-35%
25.39% 35-40%
25.39% 40-45%
11.79% 45-50%
6.35% 50-55%
3.93% 55-60%
3.93% Over 60%
But, I would never vote for Labour or Greens, in preference to a Conservative. And, I've made clear that as UKIP have no chance in Luton South, I'll vote Conservative next year.
You really need to get out more.
So do I. Toodle pip.
http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2010/12/kurdsworld512.htm
Plus, Gore had the Florida Supreme Court on his side.
Gore's big error, apart from losing his home State, which would have rendered the Florida result irrelevant, was to only demand recounts in Democratic friendly counties.
He should have demanded a full state wide hand recounts from the start.
As an aside, Al Gore grew up in Carthage, proving the rule, that losers come from Carthage.
Criminally underrated.
I defer to just about everybody in matters of History, and not just your distinguished self.
Labour have the bigger problem- do they promote a cuddly left image to bring back into the fold the LD switchers, or do they too try to go onto UKIP ground and risk alienating them- this group are liable to vote Green or just not turn up. You see Labour too are losing votes to UKIP.
Strategically, Labour has the biggest head ache. The Tories can be much more single minded in their approach, vision and message. Labour has to juggle the policy contradictions.
It won't be, so yes would be the answer to that.
You really need to get out more.
So do I. Toodle pip.
It was played at the beginning of a science fiction podcast I listen to. Since I was listening to it whilst I was out walking, the problem was being outside ... ;-)
On a lighter note here's a song about one of the worst presidents http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZMJAdN75zE
"Kelly Tolhurst retweeted
Channel 4 News @Channel4News · Aug 5
Baroness Warsi tells #c4news UK's position on #Gaza "morally indefensible" - video: http://bit.ly/1oywYo0 "
"Kelly Tolhurst retweeted
Sayeeda Warsi @SayeedaWarsi · Aug 5
With deep regret I have this morning written to the Prime Minister & tendered my resignation. I can no longer support Govt policy on #Gaza"
Make of that what you will.
But he was also against the Great Reform Act, which was a big mistake, not the least because it led to his downfall.
He was one of the few PMs to serve twice, and probably served for combined less time than any of the others.
He was also replaced as PM by someone better known as a nice cup of tea, ;-)
"Take a look at Kelly Tolhurst’s record, isn’t she a cabinet member that lost us our library in Strood, spending £750,000 on a building that the council doesn’t own.
Isn’t she also the one that supported the theft of the money from Temple school by this council, when should have been returned from the court.
Is there anything that she’s done to help the citizens of Medway, with a record like this I don’t think so. As for the other candidate, I think that’s already been well summed up. I guess the Conservatives are giving this away to Mark Reckless, as I and many others will not be supporting either of them."
"Just for the record Anna's grandmother was a cleaning lady. She was brought up in a single parent family and has made a success of her life through hard work and the opportunities available in this country before the Labour Party ran it for 13 years. You are no doubt some Labour supporter who likes nothing more than to ensure as many people as possible stay at the bottom of the pile so they have no choice but to vote for sad Ed. Just for the avoidance of doubt Anna spent half her life as a barrister defending the NHS and her brother is an NHS doctor. So I think that she knows pretty well about the problems of the Medway Health Service .... which incidentally no-one past or present has dealt with. If you are happy with that stick with what you have. If you think that Rochester and Strood deserve better, then it is your choice."
"A former barrister who lives in Sevenoaks and was brought up in Essex does not represent the average Kent citizen and knows nothing about how under pressure our services are. That is, local comprehensive school places, NHS waiting lists, dentists appointments, etc. She doesn't use any of those. More of the same from the out of touch old-guard."
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/tories-candidate-25206/#comments
'I believe in a total freedom of movement of Capital and Labour. Actually, so did that "Socialist" Adam Smith.'
Good for you and your crazy little world,maybe the population of china might want to come and work here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fisher,_1st_Baron_Fisher
My understanding is that all the costs of running the primary, expected to be about £75k, will not be regarded as election expenses which means that the Tories will get a lot of material out and coverage of their shortlist without impacting on their ability to fight the campaign.
The narrative will be less shaped by Reckless and more by the primary.
Encouragingly for Cameron, since 1979 the party in power has often won support in the year before the election.
http://may2015.com/ideas/what-does-history-suggest-will-happen-in-the-polls/
On here probably.
In Rochester and Strood, and the rest of the media, highly unlikely
I thought Tolhurst's retweet of the 'Israeli products to boycott' tweet was also interesting.
Mind you, redwood wearing a red one!
Will carrying on regardless with another ringfence prove successful or should more money be pumped into it and the NHS reforms repealed? Will improving mental health targets (which I assume all the other parties will adopt in some form) have resonance or should the devolution minded by UKIP and TTIP protection get some interest?
Chances are no party is going to win significant numbers of additional votes on this. Labour will likely shore its current vote up and the others are likely not to scare off potential voters but that's about it.
Immigration on the other hand has a pretty clear choice. If you want to cut net immigration there is only one show in town and that is UKIP. The Libdems will do nothing, Labour will tinker around the edges of benefits but do little else. The Tories will promise all sorts of things but will eventually end up doing as their masters in Brussels tell them and tinker around he edges of benefits as well.
You then add in the impression from each conference on taxes, Libdems banging on about the past four years, Labour the mansion tax rise (more tax & spend), the Tories tax cuts, UKIP marginally more generous tax cuts (because UKIP have identified more areas to cut).
No doubt much of the debate will be about the NHS because clearly that's all the establishment parties really want to talk about but will voters be listening and be influenced to vote that way as a result. When it comes down to it. I do not think the NHS will be a major influence for the simple reason there are no real clear choices regarding the NHS.
Good for you and your crazy little world,maybe the population of china might want to come and work here.
Can Surbiton post what Adam Smith said about free movement of labour? It seems very plausible that he believed that, but I've yet to see actual evidence of his views on it.
This war was also explicitly against something other than a specific polity or country. It was a war against terror, whatever TF that ever meant.
Were I on the receiving end of that, I'd certainly regard Blair as a wholly legitimate assassination target, just as the CIA did Castro. It will not do for the west to retort that the people contemplating doing this are criminals because they're not a proper country. As a bombed Iraqi, or a sympathiser, I wouldn't be minded to accept any weaselly western definition of what was and was not legitimate reprisal, adopted simply to preserve the instigators of the Iraq calamity from any personal comeback.
In 1776, in one view, the American rebels were just terrorists. Until they weren't.
You don't have to approve of someone killing Blair to concede that to do so is a 100% legitimate military act.
I too hate ISIL, Ebola, Pol Pot, and Jim Jones.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I hate UKIP. I think their supporters are utter mugs and their leadership are lying troughers. I come quite close to hating a number of Labour figures though; because so many are unrepentant supposed ex-Communists who see nothing wrong with having broadly supported the most evil and murderous political system of all time. John Reid joined the communist party the day the Red Army rolled into Czechoslovakia, for example. What do such people deserve if not a degree of quiet hate? A regretful shake of the head and a polite "well, we must credit our opponents with meaning well"? Commies do not mean well; they mean hell on earth.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/dont-blame-coalition-parties-failed-test-set-2010/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dont-blame-coalition-parties-failed-test-set-2010&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=fe76b1283f-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-fe76b1283f-71623245
Why doesn't the US count nationwide nowadays, the founding fathers couldn't but why not now? Is it just custom?
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/faqitem.php?f=4
Only 4 elections would have produced different results, one being Gore, who won the popular vote by over half a million votes.
AV for USA!
People hate UKIP because they are proposing a Canadian style points system for immigration.
The Scotland Act can only be amended by Westminster - English Votes for Scottish Laws will go down really well in the post-referendum boiling pot!
Also, to enlarge upon your point about Communists -they are a precise example. People who have allowed themselves to demonise their 'enemies', and cease seeing them as people, thus giving them license to kill huge swathes of them to create a 'better' world. Audreyeanne has said she 'hates' UKIP. Can she therefore be relied upon to support their right to free speech? Their right to adopt children? What modifications to the democratic process would she assent to in order to prevent such loathsome individuals from gaining power? Would she tolerate them being given a good slap every now and again to stop them getting above themselves -for the greater good? These are the things that hatred gradually opens the door too.