"I am really struggling to see what Labour has to gain from this."
So am I. The MPs could get a pay-out but the party wouldn't thank them.
Ukip could make a tactical decision to defend it and do it before May. Call Denis McShane as a witness and question him about his admission that Labour was wedded to political correctness. It may be unfair but the publicity would be worth a lot to Ukip.
I think regardless of the outcome if it was dealt with before May the publicity would do UKIP a lot of good. If they successfully defend the case that could be catastrophic for Labour.
I would be interested to see if the Lib Dems hold Portsmouth South due to the Mike Hancock fiasco. Even in the run up to the case there was an awful lot of negative publicity and he lost his seat on the council to UKIP I believe.
Comment on the polls in a minute, but first, check this extraordinary piece of apologetic dreck from the Guardian, even as they bury the dead in Paris.
Guess what, apparently, according to the writer " we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France. That's right, you, me, Roger, Mark Senior's milkman and Sean Fear's deaf-mute great aunt in Nuneaton. We all did it. In a very real sense, we shot those cartoonists, we butchered those Jewish shoppers. Shame on us.
This argument is, of course, the exact equivalent of Rupert Murdoch saying Muslims have collective responsibility for the Paris killings, only the lefty version is more insane.
We await the Twitter outrage at the Guardian remarks.
"In a very real sense, we are all to blame" sounds a bit C of E.
If the Conservatives finished on 324, they could probably govern well enough. Removing 5 Sinn Fein MPs and the Speaker would give them an effective majority of 2. Suppose you had 8 DUP, 5 UKIP, and Sylvia Hermon, they could probably get their budgets through.
Doesn't Lady Sylvia Hermon usually vote with Labour? She left the UUP because it linked up with the Conservatives.
Maybe one explanation for the Labour share being all over the place is that there are a large number of voters who can't make up their minds whether to vote for the Greens (their first choice) or Labour (their second choice in order to stop the Tories or LDs).
And, both polls were conducted by Populus, albeit one by 'phone and one online, and with different weightings.
Is it really done by Populus, doesn't say so anywhere on the table.
I'm pretty sure that Populus gather the raw data for Lord Ashcroft.
When I met him before Christmas Lord A said that he uses a range of phone pollsters to carry out his fieldwork. Given his constituency polling alone since last May has an overall sample of 150k then it is hard to see how any one firm can meet his demands .
I know his recent Brighton Pavillion poll was carried out at the ICM Bedford polling centre.
Mike, do you know the timeline on the Lord A Scottish constituency polling ?
Comment on the polls in a minute, but first, check this extraordinary piece of apologetic dreck from the Guardian, even as they bury the dead in Paris.
Guess what, apparently, according to the writer " we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France.
I was looking forward to limbering up my outrage but that article is a disappointment in that respect. He doesn't say "we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France. Instead he makes some reasonably nuanced points, and then concludes:
They [the murderers] are personally responsible for what they did. But we, as a society, are collectively responsible for the conditions that produced them. And if we want others to turn out differently – less hateful, more hopeful – we will have to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time.
@DanHannanMEP: Miliband tries to weaponise the Paris atrocity by claiming - absurdly, tastelessly - that Euroscepticism costs lives. http://t.co/mLIbw65D34
Yeah free movement of terrorists must make it a lot easier to deal with
Unless we start to implement pre-travel visas (like the USA) I do not see how we can stop terrorists moving about. The European arrest warrant and similar may however help us haul back suspects or shift the to the tender care of the Gendarmerie.
For what little it's worth, the "campaign" so far has been the equivalent of baseline tennis. At some point, either Cameron or Miliband is going to have to go to the net to try to force the winner. That won't be for some time so we have the negative knockback of comments, claims, polls, counter-claims, tweets, retweets and the rest which will rapidly bore most of the British public (if it hasn't done so already).
The other thought I have is that all the messages are about why you should NOT vote for other parties - the winning team might just be the one which comes up with a solid optimistic reason why people should vote FOR them.
Negative campaigning can be very effective in a two horse race, but in a race with 5 or 6 horses it may have very different effects. Just because Ed (or Dave or Nick or Nigel) is crap does not mean that they would vote for the person pointing out the fact.
On the polling, if Lord A uses different companies for various different polls, is it possible that some of the volatility we have seen arises because a different pollster has been used compared with last time? Presumably it shouldn't make any difference, but perhaps there is some company-specific effect creeping in.
I was going to suggest this morning that prompting might actually see the UKIP share fall. I know it sounds counter-intuitive but, remember, that although they may have some ardent and vocal supporters they are also the most disliked mainstream party. So it figures, literally.
@DanHannanMEP: Miliband tries to weaponise the Paris atrocity by claiming - absurdly, tastelessly - that Euroscepticism costs lives. http://t.co/mLIbw65D34
Yeah free movement of terrorists must make it a lot easier to deal with
Unless we start to implement pre-travel visas (like the USA) I do not see how we can stop terrorists moving about. The European arrest warrant and similar may however help us haul back suspects or shift the to the tender care of the Gendarmerie.
For what little it's worth, the "campaign" so far has been the equivalent of baseline tennis. At some point, either Cameron or Miliband is going to have to go to the net to try to force the winner. That won't be for some time so we have the negative knockback of comments, claims, polls, counter-claims, tweets, retweets and the rest which will rapidly bore most of the British public (if it hasn't done so already).
The other thought I have is that all the messages are about why you should NOT vote for other parties - the winning team might just be the one which comes up with a solid optimistic reason why people should vote FOR them.
Negative campaigning can be very effective in a two horse race, but in a race with 5 or 6 horses it may have very different effects. Just because Ed (or Dave or Nick or Nigel) is crap does not mean that they would vote for the person pointing out the fact.
Maybe we should start to implement pre-travel Visas then
Populus (according to Baxter) results in a Labour majority of 64. Ashcroft results in the Conservatives just 2 short of a majority (in practice, I think the Conservatives would just scrape a majority on 34/28%).
But even the Ashcroft poll shows the Tory lead in England at 8% compared with over 11% in 2010. On that basis, the Tories would still be likely to lose 20 plus seats to Labour.
Afternoon all and I doubt my thoughts are that different from most PBers. The polls are all over the place suggesting some pollsters are in for a 1992 moment in May.
The one thing I would say about Populus is that it hasn't shown a Tory lead since 28th August when almost all pollsters have shown at least one Tory lead since October and the end of Conference Season. Is this an accurate reflection of the reality on the ground?
I gather 2 LibDem councillors in Poole have defected in the last day or so to the Tories and last week 2 Labour councillors in somewhere like Nottinghamshire defected to the Tories too. Not surprisingly I didn't see it reported on by the BBC anywhere.
I have to say that I am wholly appalled at the news that some UK elected politicians are to sue other UK elected politicians over something said in a political speech/statement.
This sort of thing is almost unheard of in the UK but in certain far eastern states that are "democratic" it has been used against the leader of the opposition resulting in him being disbarred from standing for election due to being bankrupted by the libel/slander damages.
Google Chee Soon Juan.
This is a very very worrying precedent for our democracy and reflects in my opinion very poorly on the party doing it. In fact, it so appalls me that I might even now consider voting Conservative to make sure Labour are nowhere near the levers of power (which is in stark contrast to previous posts).
And, both polls were conducted by Populus, albeit one by 'phone and one online, and with different weightings.
LOL!
I stick with my forecast of:
Greens 31% UKIP 29% SNP 24% Others nowhere
Repeat request from earlier today.
Any value in the Hampstead constituency market ?
No.
The Tories do not have the excellent Chris Philip, so I would expect them to fall back. The LibDem candidate is outstanding, but they won't buck their downward fall. They won't lose two-thirds of their vote, as they will in the rest of the country, but they'll lose a lot of votes to Labour. So, I predict a fairly comfortable Labour hold.
Thank you.
I wondered whether Maajid Nawas's recent high media profile might have provided some scope?
Well, he's working very, very hard - just as Chris Philip did last time. A lifelong Labour voter (of the multi-millionaire variety) on my street will be voting for him, while his wife will be going UKIP from Conservative.
Cyclefree, who I'd guess is naturally a Conservative, has also said she'll be voting for him.
I haven't made up my mind, but I think he's incredibly impressive, I'd much rather vote for a person than a party, and his voice is one I'd like to hear more from.
That being said, I just don't buy him doing more than arresting the LibDem's fall. They might get 25% in the seat, rather than the 15% they would have gotten otherwise. For 2020, if he continues to work hard, and if the LibDems stage some kind of modest recovery, he could be a good shot.
And, both polls were conducted by Populus, albeit one by 'phone and one online, and with different weightings.
Is it really done by Populus, doesn't say so anywhere on the table.
I'm pretty sure that Populus gather the raw data for Lord Ashcroft.
When I met him before Christmas Lord A said that he uses a range of phone pollsters to carry out his fieldwork. Given his constituency polling alone since last May has an overall sample of 150k then it is hard to see how any one firm can meet his demands .
I know his recent Brighton Pavillion poll was carried out at the ICM Bedford polling centre.
Mike, do you know the timeline on the Lord A Scottish constituency polling ?
Comment on the polls in a minute, but first, check this extraordinary piece of apologetic dreck from the Guardian, even as they bury the dead in Paris.
Guess what, apparently, according to the writer " we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France.
I was looking forward to limbering up my outrage but that article is a disappointment in that respect. He doesn't say "we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France. Instead he makes some reasonably nuanced points, and then concludes:
They [the murderers] are personally responsible for what they did. But we, as a society, are collectively responsible for the conditions that produced them. And if we want others to turn out differently – less hateful, more hopeful – we will have to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time.
Which is rather different from your precis.
FFS. We, as a society, are NOT F*CKING responsible for the evil mutation in Islam which has produced jihadist terror and murder across the world, in China and Thailand, in Chechnya and Mali, in the Phillipines and Australia and Nigeria and Indonesia. To say that is the most venal kind of equivocation. It's repulsive. It's worse than blaming Islam for Islamism.
And what exactly are we to do "as a society" if we want to stop these jihadists "emerging"? What? Half of them are middle class kids with degrees. They aren't deprived. They are given good lives by the west and cherished freedoms, and they repay us by killing us.
And Yonge wrote this 2 days after the atrocities.
Get a grip, you befuddled Osborne buttplug.
Politician s who ignored the warnings of the dangers of mass immigration are to blame, no one else
It's like having a 6 year old cat who is used to the way the house is run, and the attention it gets buying a dog and expecting the cats quality of life to remain unchanged.
Then carrying out a character assassination of the dog when the cat runs off
Comment on the polls in a minute, but first, check this extraordinary piece of apologetic dreck from the Guardian, even as they bury the dead in Paris.
Guess what, apparently, according to the writer " we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France.
I was looking forward to limbering up my outrage but that article is a disappointment in that respect. He doesn't say "we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France. Instead he makes some reasonably nuanced points, and then concludes:
They [the murderers] are personally responsible for what they did. But we, as a society, are collectively responsible for the conditions that produced them. And if we want others to turn out differently – less hateful, more hopeful – we will have to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time.
Which is rather different from your precis.
And that, of course, is a fair point. Terrorists of whatever kind tend to be youngish men with troubled pasts, egged on by older men. That is absolutely no excuse for what they do, but if we want to prevent others following them we need to understand how they got to the point they did. Look at their backgrounds, how and where they grew up, and so on, and in many cases a few common threads emerge. It is complex, it is nuanced and it is harder than just blaming it all on them being evil or Moslem, but it will probably get us closer to the truth.
We as individuals or as part of society are not responsible for the decision to become a brutal mass murderer that a young man - troubled or otherwise - may make, but that does not mean we cannot ask questions of ourselves and of wider society. In the same way, of course, Moslems are not to blame for anything that others do in their name, but they should be asking themselves hard questions about why their religion that attracts so many young men willing to kill and to die in its name.
@SeantT - I wasn't agreeing with him, merely pointing out that he didn't say what you said. In fact he explicitly repudiates what you said. Sorry to be a stickler for accuracy, it's a fault of mine.
As for the point he does make, it's certainly arguable, as indeed you imply. These kids were brought up in Europe. Therefore the conditions under which they became radicalised must at least in part be ones which we, in Europe, should look at. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me, especially in the context of the article as a whole.
Comment on the polls in a minute, but first, check this extraordinary piece of apologetic dreck from the Guardian, even as they bury the dead in Paris.
Guess what, apparently, according to the writer " we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France.
I was looking forward to limbering up my outrage but that article is a disappointment in that respect. He doesn't say "we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France. Instead he makes some reasonably nuanced points, and then concludes:
They [the murderers] are personally responsible for what they did. But we, as a society, are collectively responsible for the conditions that produced them. And if we want others to turn out differently – less hateful, more hopeful – we will have to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time.
Which is rather different from your precis.
Does SeanT moonlight as a headline writer? I will take your version rather than Dr Heinz Kiosk. I think your notion of keeping more than one idea in our head at the same time is sound.
Comment on the polls in a minute, but first, check this extraordinary piece of apologetic dreck from the Guardian, even as they bury the dead in Paris.
Guess what, apparently, according to the writer " we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France.
I was looking forward to limbering up my outrage but that article is a disappointment in that respect. He doesn't say "we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France. Instead he makes some reasonably nuanced points, and then concludes:
They [the murderers] are personally responsible for what they did. But we, as a society, are collectively responsible for the conditions that produced them. And if we want others to turn out differently – less hateful, more hopeful – we will have to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time.
Which is rather different from your precis.
FFS. We, as a society, are NOT F*CKING responsible for the evil mutation in Islam which has produced jihadist terror and murder across the world, in China and Thailand, in Chechnya and Mali, in the Phillipines and Australia and Nigeria and Indonesia. To say that is the most venal kind of equivocation. It's repulsive. It's worse than blaming Islam for Islamism.
And what exactly are we to do "as a society" if we want to stop these jihadists "emerging"? What? Half of them are middle class kids with degrees. They aren't deprived. They are given good lives by the west and cherished freedoms, and they repay us by killing us.
And Yonge wrote this 2 days after the atrocities.
Get a grip, you befuddled Osborne buttplug.
Politician s who ignored the warnings of the dangers of mass immigration are to blame, no one else
No, the people who pulled the trigger are to blame.
Other things can be contributory causes, but let's not forget that.
Comment on the polls in a minute, but first, check this extraordinary piece of apologetic dreck from the Guardian, even as they bury the dead in Paris.
Guess what, apparently, according to the writer " we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France. That's right, you, me, Roger, Mark Senior's milkman and Sean Fear's deaf-mute great aunt in Nuneaton. We all did it. In a very real sense, we shot those cartoonists, we butchered those Jewish shoppers. Shame on us.
This argument is, of course, the exact equivalent of Rupert Murdoch saying Muslims have collective responsibility for the Paris killings, only the lefty version is more insane.
We await the Twitter outrage at the Guardian remarks.
I try to be charitable, but as a Guardian/Telegraph/NYTimes-ista I've always taken that one as nominal.
Comment on the polls in a minute, but first, check this extraordinary piece of apologetic dreck from the Guardian, even as they bury the dead in Paris.
Guess what, apparently, according to the writer " we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France.
I was looking forward to limbering up my outrage but that article is a disappointment in that respect. He doesn't say "we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France. Instead he makes some reasonably nuanced points, and then concludes:
They [the murderers] are personally responsible for what they did. But we, as a society, are collectively responsible for the conditions that produced them. And if we want others to turn out differently – less hateful, more hopeful – we will have to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time.
Which is rather different from your precis.
FFS. We, as a society, are NOT F*CKING responsible for the evil mutation in Islam which has produced jihadist terror and murder across the world, in China and Thailand, in Chechnya and Mali, in the Phillipines and Australia and Nigeria and Indonesia. To say that is the most venal kind of equivocation. It's repulsive. It's worse than blaming Islam for Islamism.
And what exactly are we to do "as a society" if we want to stop these jihadists "emerging"? What? Half of them are middle class kids with degrees. They aren't deprived. They are given good lives by the west and cherished freedoms, and they repay us by killing us.
And Yonge wrote this 2 days after the atrocities.
Get a grip, you befuddled Osborne buttplug.
Politician s who ignored the warnings of the dangers of mass immigration are to blame, no one else
No, the people who pulled the trigger are to blame.
Other things can be contributory causes, but let's not forget that.
Another animal analogy...
You keep chickens You buy a fox. The fox kills the chickens. You blame the fox
I did relate my anecdotes back in September about my staunch lefty chums going. Green because they just couldn't stomach Ed and - to the extent that they have any policies - They see Labour as Tory-lite.
I can honestly say I have yet to meet anybody who thinks Ed Miliband will do even a so-so job as PM. He is toxic, even amongst my friends who are Labour voters. The absence of cheerleaders on here is notable. Labour shills manage to look beyond Ed to what Labour would do. I just don't see the voters being that generous.
Even if you get to see past Ed to Labour, it has a real problem. They can either insist they will deliver on broadly a continuation of the economic policies of the Coalition. In which case they lose those whose views are firmly of the Left, off to the Greens.
Or else they row back and promise some elements of socialism. In which case they lose the centre vote, who will think it is not worth the risk of destabilising the economic upturn - after all, it was an economy buggered on Labour's watch and fixed on the Coalition's.
Labour - why would you take the risk?
Labour is currently trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions. At a full gallop.
I also can't see the naked ugly politics of Ed "weaponising the NHS" being anything other than distateful to those on the soft Left and the centre.
I gather 2 LibDem councillors in Poole have defected in the last day or so to the Tories and last week 2 Labour councillors in somewhere like Nottinghamshire defected to the Tories too. Not surprisingly I didn't see it reported on by the BBC anywhere.
"Somewhere like Nottinghamshire", eh? Not actually Nottinghamshire, at any rate.
Can you find one source mentioning Aisha as being older than nine at the age of consumation from before the 20th Century?
Yes. Ibn Hisham, writing in the early 9th century, thought she was probably ten at consummation. Ibn Khallikan in the 13th century and Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi also in the early 9th century said she was 12 at consummation.
And none of those and none of the sources saying she was 9 constitute reliable historical sources. They are all religious writers working with scripture. They do not produce historical fact. You cannot one day rail against scriptural literalism and then, the next, argue something is historical fact based purely on scriptural sources.
A modern, rational view is to say we don't know what age Aisha was (she might have been that young, she might not). Most Western historians dismiss most of the hadith as being unreliable and written much later than tradition claims.
Here's a quote from another hadith:
SNIP
So, do you believe that Muhammed miraculously re-filled the water bags? Or do you only believe hadith that suit your political arguments? Aisha's age at consummation is not historical fact. It's like Mary being a virgin in the New Testament. It is a matter of religion.
I believe the hadith when they are (a) the closest historical record to the event and (b) are not making scientifically ridiculous claims. Herodotus obviously made some crazy claims in his works, but for the plausible claims, I would still believe it over work written several centuries later.
Could you please link me to your sources for Hisham, Khalikan and al-Baghdadi? I'm genuinely interested.
You may believe as you wish, but using the phrase "historical fact" when your only source is a religious text written >200 years after the event suggests a poor grasp of historical method. If you want the sort of religious reform of Islam away from scriptural literalism that you say, then a good place to start is a huge dose of scepticism about the Hadith, including understanding that things in the Hadith may have been invented for political reasons.
(I note our history of ancient Israel used to take a similar attitude. The Old Testament may not be perfect and we can ignore all the supernatural stuff, but the basic history of David and Solomon etc. is probably OK, we thought. Until we took a proper look at the archaeology and it became clear how little of the OT has any basis. The 19th century revolution in Biblical studies and the 20th century revolution in "Biblical" archaeology are important parts of a modern view of Christianity, and I think it would be good to see the same sort of development in Islam. I thought you did too.)
No, the people who pulled the trigger are to blame.
Other things can be contributory causes, but let's not forget that.
There's a distinction between the moral responsibility (invariably that of the people who committed or directed the crime), and political responsibility. For example, if politicians were to change the gun laws to make guns more widely available, and as a result the number of gun murders increased, the moral responsibility would remain 100% that of the murderers, but you could reasonably say the politicians were responsible (in political terms) for the bad decision which led to the increase in murders.
Comment on the polls in a minute, but first, check this extraordinary piece of apologetic dreck from the Guardian, even as they bury the dead in Paris.
Guess what, apparently, according to the writer " we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France.
I was looking forward to limbering up my outrage but that article is a disappointment in that respect. He doesn't say "we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France. Instead he makes some reasonably nuanced points, and then concludes:
They [the murderers] are personally responsible for what they did. But we, as a society, are collectively responsible for the conditions that produced them. And if we want others to turn out differently – less hateful, more hopeful – we will have to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time.
Which is rather different from your precis.
FFS. We, as a society, are NOT F*CKING responsible for the evil mutation in Islam which has produced jihadist terror and murder across the world, in China and Thailand, in Chechnya and Mali, in the Phillipines and Australia and Nigeria and Indonesia. To say that is the most venal kind of equivocation. It's repulsive. It's worse than blaming Islam for Islamism.
And what exactly are we to do "as a society" if we want to stop these jihadists "emerging"? What? Half of them are middle class kids with degrees. They aren't deprived. They are given good lives by the west and cherished freedoms, and they repay us by killing us.
And Yonge wrote this 2 days after the atrocities.
Get a grip, you befuddled Osborne buttplug.
Politician s who ignored the warnings of the dangers of mass immigration are to blame, no one else
No, the people who pulled the trigger are to blame.
Other things can be contributory causes, but let's not forget that.
Another animal analogy...
You keep chickens You buy a fox. The fox kills the chickens. You blame the fox
You can give all the analogies you like, but when you start taking responsibility away from the people who did the deed (it was society, etc. etc. etc.) then you are going down a very slippery slope.
You, and only you, are responsible for your actions.
Comment on the polls in a minute, but first, check this extraordinary piece of apologetic dreck from the Guardian, even as they bury the dead in Paris.
Guess what, apparently, according to the writer " we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France.
I was looking forward to limbering up my outrage but that article is a disappointment in that respect. He doesn't say "we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France. Instead he makes some reasonably nuanced points, and then concludes:
They [the murderers] are personally responsible for what they did. But we, as a society, are collectively responsible for the conditions that produced them. And if we want others to turn out differently – less hateful, more hopeful – we will have to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time.
Which is rather different from your precis.
FFS. We, as a society, are NOT F*CKING responsible for the evil mutation in Islam which has produced jihadist terror and murder across the world, in China and Thailand, in Chechnya and Mali, in the Phillipines and Australia and Nigeria and Indonesia. To say that is the most venal kind of equivocation. It's repulsive. It's worse than blaming Islam for Islamism.
And what exactly are we to do "as a society" if we want to stop these jihadists "emerging"? What? Half of them are middle class kids with degrees. They aren't deprived. They are given good lives by the west and cherished freedoms, and they repay us by killing us.
And Yonge wrote this 2 days after the atrocities.
Get a grip, you befuddled Osborne buttplug.
Politician s who ignored the warnings of the dangers of mass immigration are to blame, no one else
No, the people who pulled the trigger are to blame.
Other things can be contributory causes, but let's not forget that.
Another animal analogy...
You keep chickens You buy a fox. The fox kills the chickens. You blame the fox
And, both polls were conducted by Populus, albeit one by 'phone and one online, and with different weightings.
LOL!
I stick with my forecast of:
Greens 31% UKIP 29% SNP 24% Others nowhere
Repeat request from earlier today.
Any value in the Hampstead constituency market ?
No.
The Tories do not have the excellent Chris Philip, so I would expect them to fall back. The LibDem candidate is outstanding, but they won't buck their downward fall. They won't lose two-thirds of their vote, as they will in the rest of the country, but they'll lose a lot of votes to Labour. So, I predict a fairly comfortable Labour hold.
Thank you.
I wondered whether Maajid Nawas's recent high media profile might have provided some scope?
Well, he's working very, very hard - just as Chris Philip did last time. A lifelong Labour voter (of the multi-millionaire variety) on my street will be voting for him, while his wife will be going UKIP from Conservative.
Cyclefree, who I'd guess is naturally a Conservative, has also said she'll be voting for him.
I haven't made up my mind, but I think he's incredibly impressive, I'd much rather vote for a person than a party, and his voice is one I'd like to hear more from.
That being said, I just don't buy him doing more than arresting the LibDem's fall. They might get 25% in the seat, rather than the 15% they would have gotten otherwise. For 2020, if he continues to work hard, and if the LibDems stage some kind of modest recovery, he could be a good shot.
Labour is currently trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions. At a full gallop.
I also can't see the naked ugly politics of Ed "weaponising the NHS" being anything other than distateful to those on the soft Left and the centre.
After the hand wringing hoo hah over A&E, look what Burnham's set to announce.
'The Labour Party will this week issue a stark warning that the public can no longer expect the NHS to ‘do everything’ and people will have to take better care of themselves.'
Very interesting comment below about the disappearance of Labour's ballast i.e. The Red Liberals. Presumably they've gone green at the thought of EdM? Funny to think we endured week after week of being told they were Labour's firewall. It vanished.
I can honestly say I have yet to meet anybody who thinks Ed Miliband will do even a so-so job as PM. He is toxic, even amongst my friends who are Labour voters. The absence of cheerleaders on here is notable. Labour shills manage to look beyond Ed to what Labour would do. I just don't see the voters being that generous.
Even if you get to see past Ed to Labour, it has a real problem. They can either insist they will deliver on broadly a continuation of the economic policies of the Coalition. In which case they lose those whose views are firmly of the Left, off to the Greens.
Or else they row back and promise some elements of socialism. In which case they lose the centre vote, who will think it is not worth the risk of destabilising the economic upturn - after all, it was an economy buggered on Labour's watch and fixed on the Coalition's.
Labour - why would you take the risk?
Labour is currently trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions. At a full gallop.
I also can't see the naked ugly politics of Ed "weaponising the NHS" being anything other than distateful to those on the soft Left and the centre.
Spot on post and very much what I've been seeing and hearing on the ground. I'm not sure enthusiasm for Cameron will be huge but EdM is a toxic disaster for Labour. Your point about absence of cheerleaders for him on here is interesting. If we took a litmus test you'd think from this site that UKIP were rampant, but that reflects the daytime demographic (no need to spell that out). Nevertheless, you're right. Enthusiastic Labour and especially EdM supporters are almost non-existent on here. How things have changed.
Comment on the polls in a minute, but first, check this extraordinary piece of apologetic dreck from the Guardian, even as they bury the dead in Paris.
Guess what, apparently, according to the writer " we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France.
I was looking forward to limbering up my outrage but that article is a disappointment in that respect. He doesn't say "we, as a society, are collectively responsible" for the jihadist murders in France. Instead he makes some reasonably nuanced points, and then concludes:
.
Which is rather different from your precis.
FFS. We, as a society, are NOT F*CKING responsible for the evil mutation in Islam which has produced jihadist terror and murder across the world, in China and Thailand, in Chechnya and Mali, in the Phillipines and Australia and Nigeria and Indonesia. To say that is the most venal kind of equivocation. It's repulsive. It's worse than blaming Islam for Islamism.
And what exactly are we to do "as a society" if we want to stop these jihadists "emerging"? What? Half of them are middle class kids with degrees. They aren't deprived. They are given good lives by the west and cherished freedoms, and they repay us by killing us.
And Yonge wrote this 2 days after the atrocities.
Get a grip, you befuddled Osborne buttplug.
Politicians who ignored the warnings of the dangers of mass immigration are to blame, no one else
No, the people who pulled the trigger are to blame.
Other things can be contributory causes, but let's not forget that.
Another animal analogy...
You keep chickens You buy a fox. The fox kills the chickens. You blame the fox
You can give all the analogies you like, but when you start taking responsibility away from the people who did the deed (it was society, etc. etc. etc.) then you are going down a very slippery slope.
You, and only you, are responsible for your actions.
Well obviously the ultimate responsibility rests on the shoulders of the killers.
But I was responding to the article which blames society for creating the conditions for people to adopt the mindset that inspired the killing., The responsibility for that is on the shoulders of Edward Heath, Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester and the other fools responsible for the multicultural experiment
With two polls over the same period showing a difference of 9% between each Labour result, the margin for error must be plus or minus 4.5% at the very least.
That makes the polls useless for deciding voters current preferences between Labour (32.5% +or- 4.5%) and Conservative (33% +or- 4.5%) let alone for forecasting the May result.
@SeantT - I wasn't agreeing with him, merely pointing out that he didn't say what you said. In fact he explicitly repudiates what you said. Sorry to be a stickler for accuracy, it's a fault of mine.
As for the point he does make, it's certainly arguable, as indeed you imply. These kids were brought up in Europe. Therefore the conditions under which they became radicalised must at least in part be ones which we, in Europe, should look at. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me, especially in the context of the article as a whole.
"But we, as a society, are collectively responsible for the conditions that produced them. And if we want others to turn out differently – less hateful, more hopeful – we will have to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time."
The "conditions which produced them" are their family, their teachers and their friends - in other words western muslim society. If we are collectively responsible for that it must follow that we have the power and duty to regulate it. Personally I'd be happy for that to happen in the sense that I think religious belief of all kinds should be subject to state licensing of preachers and centres of worship, the outlawing of religious education and the withdrawal of charitable status. Oh, and a ban on bin-liners. Is that what he, or you, have in mind? If not, what does being "collectively responsible" actually entail here?
@SeantT - I wasn't agreeing with him, merely pointing out that he didn't say what you said. In fact he explicitly repudiates what you said. Sorry to be a stickler for accuracy, it's a fault of mine.
As for the point he does make, it's certainly arguable, as indeed you imply. These kids were brought up in Europe. Therefore the conditions under which they became radicalised must at least in part be ones which we, in Europe, should look at. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me, especially in the context of the article as a whole.
"But we, as a society, are collectively responsible for the conditions that produced them. And if we want others to turn out differently – less hateful, more hopeful – we will have to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time."
The "conditions which produced them" are their family, their teachers and their friends - in other words western muslim society. If we are collectively responsible for that it must follow that we have the power and duty to regulate it. Personally I'd be happy for that to happen in the sense that I think religious belief of all kinds should be subject to state licensing of preachers and centres of worship, the outlawing of religious education and the withdrawal of charitable status. Oh, and a ban on bin-liners. Is that what he, or you, have in mind? If not, what does being "collectively responsible" actually entail here?
Perhaps we didn't make the laws of the land clear enough ?
Afternoon all and I doubt my thoughts are that different from most PBers. The polls are all over the place suggesting some pollsters are in for a 1992 moment in May.
The one thing I would say about Populus is that it hasn't shown a Tory lead since 28th August when almost all pollsters have shown at least one Tory lead since October and the end of Conference Season. Is this an accurate reflection of the reality on the ground?
I gather 2 LibDem councillors in Poole have defected in the last day or so to the Tories and last week 2 Labour councillors in somewhere like Nottinghamshire defected to the Tories too. Not surprisingly I didn't see it reported on by the BBC anywhere.
All these defections are deselected councillors suddenly discovering that now their old party no longer wants them they may as well join another party . It always happens at this time of the year .
I gather 2 LibDem councillors in Poole have defected in the last day or so to the Tories and last week 2 Labour councillors in somewhere like Nottinghamshire defected to the Tories too. Not surprisingly I didn't see it reported on by the BBC anywhere.
"Somewhere like Nottinghamshire", eh? Not actually Nottinghamshire, at any rate.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 26s27 seconds ago .@LordAshcroft poll: CON 34%, LAB 28%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 16%; @PopulusPolls: LAB 37% CON 32% LDEM 10% UKIP 13%; So, neck n neck?
Very interesting comment below about the disappearance of Labour's ballast i.e. The Red Liberals. Presumably they've gone green at the thought of EdM? Funny to think we endured week after week of being told they were Labour's firewall. It vanished.
I can honestly say I have yet to meet anybody who thinks Ed Miliband will do even a so-so job as PM. He is toxic, even amongst my friends who are Labour voters. The absence of cheerleaders on here is notable. Labour shills manage to look beyond Ed to what Labour would do. I just don't see the voters being that generous.
Even if you get to see past Ed to Labour, it has a real problem. They can either insist they will deliver on broadly a continuation of the economic policies of the Coalition. In which case they lose those whose views are firmly of the Left, off to the Greens.
Or else they row back and promise some elements of socialism. In which case they lose the centre vote, who will think it is not worth the risk of destabilising the economic upturn - after all, it was an economy buggered on Labour's watch and fixed on the Coalition's.
Labour - why would you take the risk?
Labour is currently trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions. At a full gallop.
I also can't see the naked ugly politics of Ed "weaponising the NHS" being anything other than distateful to those on the soft Left and the centre.
Spot on post and very much what I've been seeing and hearing on the ground. I'm not sure enthusiasm for Cameron will be huge but EdM is a toxic disaster for Labour. Your point about absence of cheerleaders for him on here is interesting. If we took a litmus test you'd think from this site that UKIP were rampant, but that reflects the daytime demographic (no need to spell that out). Nevertheless, you're right. Enthusiastic Labour and especially EdM supporters are almost non-existent on here. How things have changed.
MikeK aside, I don't see anyone saying UKIP are rampant.. who are you thinking of?
Plenty of people on here repeatedly say UKIP are finished/on the way down etc, but the last three polls have been 14, 16 & 18.
An average of 16
The collective difference from the previous three comparable polls is zero
Ahmad Fraz @Ahmad_Fraz9 · 5h5 hours ago #Muslims are controlling the weather in Britain. In some places it's Sunni, but mainly Shi'ite. #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/fXzpIPXofa
The "conditions which produced them" are their family, their teachers and their friends - in other words western muslim society. If we are collectively responsible for that it must follow that we have the power and duty to regulate it.
That's a fair point, but remember that this is France: their teachers in particular are appointed by the state, there is no religious education, and the state is entirely secular.
However, as I said I don't necessarily agree with the details of the article, but the general point that our response should not be simplistic seems right to me.
One key aspect to understand (and this is true in the UK as well) is why those who become radicalised into violence seem largely to be second- or third-generation immigrants, i.e. born and brought up in Europe. I don't know why that is, but if I was studying the phenomenon that's where I'd start.
The final part of the BBCs Enoch Powell documentary. Anyone talking about the reasons for the civil strife we are seeing needs to watch at least this part of the programme if not all of it to understand what is going on.
The people who introduced multiculturalism are on it admitting they got it wrong.
Spot on post and very much what I've been seeing and hearing on the ground. I'm not sure enthusiasm for Cameron will be huge but EdM is a toxic disaster for Labour. Your point about absence of cheerleaders for him on here is interesting. If we took a litmus test you'd think from this site that UKIP were rampant, but that reflects the daytime demographic (no need to spell that out). Nevertheless, you're right. Enthusiastic Labour and especially EdM supporters are almost non-existent on here. How things have changed.
Conservative activist and supporter says Labour leader isn't up to the job.
And in other news, the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning and bears will perform certain functions in wooded areas.
Labour has traditionally been grossly under-represented on this site (whereas the Conservatives and UKIP are over-represented). Unfortunately, IF anyone supporting the Labour line or saying something positive about Ed Miliband comes on, they are almost immediately hounded until they leave.
None of this bears any resemblance on how the electorate as a whole will vote in May. To assume some mystical significance to the allegiance of posters on a political forum is absurd.
The next few polls could be very interesting ..... particularly if they were they to confirm today's findings by Ashcroft, these could lead to some very sharp movements in the betting markets, especially in those marginal Tory seats which have long been considered lost to Labour, not least on this site. I've previously suggested there's value to be had in looking at those seats which are between 30th - 60th on Labour's hit list. I also like a handful of LibDem marginal seats in the SW, which oddly have been assumed by *cough* some here to be impregnable from attack by the Tories.
The next few polls could be very interesting ..... were they to confirm today's today's findings by Ashcroft, these could lead to some very sharp movements in the betting markets, particularly in those marginal Tory seats which have long been considered lost to Labour, particularly on this site. I've previously suggested there's value in looking at those seats which are between 30th - 60th on Labour's hit list. I also like a handful of LibDem marginal seats in the SW, which oddly have been assumed by *cough* some to be impregnable from attack by the Tories.
If we took a litmus test you'd think from this site that UKIP were rampant, but that reflects the daytime demographic (no need to spell that out).
Ooooh, get her (or him).
It is my painful duty to point out that:
1. You claim to be a "seasoned observer" of UK politics, and involved with the Conservative party to the extent that on GE 1979 night you were at a constituency HQ.
2. You thought the open primary held in Reckless' constituency last year was the first ever conducted in the UK. In other words you had never heard of Totnes 2009 despite being a seasoned observer of tory politics.
These facts are easily verified by searching this site. The natural conclusion to draw from them is that you are a fantasist and a liar. I find it unspeakably painful and distasteful to have to make this point. So play nice, OK? Then I won't have to.
I can honestly say I have yet to meet anybody who thinks Ed Miliband will do even a so-so job as PM. He is toxic, even amongst my friends who are Labour voters. The absence of cheerleaders on here is notable. Labour shills manage to look beyond Ed to what Labour would do. I just don't see the voters being that generous.
Personally I think he will do a so-so job as PM, and stubbornly maintain that he will not drag down the Labour vote as much as some think (given it seems to be the only thing the Tories are relying on), but I also cannot deny that every Labour voter I know thinks he is terrible and most other people I know don't think Laboru will win in part due to Ed M.
The next few polls could be very interesting ..... were they to confirm today's today's findings by Ashcroft, these could lead to some very sharp movements in the betting markets, particularly in those marginal Tory seats which have long been considered lost to Labour, particularly on this site. I've previously suggested there's value in looking at those seats which are between 30th - 60th on Labour's hit list. I also like a handful of LibDem marginal seats in the SW, which oddly have been assumed by *cough* some to be impregnable from attack by the Tories.
Or they could confirm the Populus.
Probably still close to a tie tho.
I'm not so sure ..... when did we last see a 6% Tory lead ..... it must have been yonks ago!
Looks like the Ashcroft poll is picking up double the number of Green voters populus is which could explain the much lower Labour rating in his poll, ie 9% less. By contrast the Tory total is only 2% apart in both polls, 32% with populus, 34% with Ashcroft
Have to disagree with the Kellner article on indyref which was discussed earlier. Polls throughout the campaign consistently showed Scots wanted neither independence nor the status-quo but more powers, which was what they got in the end. Had those extra powers not been given the result may well have been a Yes vote!
So now, having had everyone one of your alternative arguments tested positive for geriatric drool, you're reduced to saying:
"the general point that our response should not be simplistic seems right to me."
Fantastic. Brilliant. That's so INCISIVE. Without you and Gary Yonge I expect most people would have been saying, Look, what we really need here is a totally simplistic response that does no good at all.
Err, you are the one who pointed us to Gary Younge's unremarkable article. I agree it doesn't say anything very much.
Next time, please make sure you find something a bit more meaty so that we can get properly outraged.
Spot on post and very much what I've been seeing and hearing on the ground. I'm not sure enthusiasm for Cameron will be huge but EdM is a toxic disaster for Labour. Your point about absence of cheerleaders for him on here is interesting. If we took a litmus test you'd think from this site that UKIP were rampant, but that reflects the daytime demographic (no need to spell that out). Nevertheless, you're right. Enthusiastic Labour and especially EdM supporters are almost non-existent on here. How things have changed.
Conservative activist and supporter says Labour leader isn't up to the job.
And in other news, the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning and bears will perform certain functions in wooded areas.
Labour has traditionally been grossly under-represented on this site (whereas the Conservatives and UKIP are over-represented). Unfortunately, IF anyone supporting the Labour line or saying something positive about Ed Miliband comes on, they are almost immediately hounded until they leave.
None of this bears any resemblance on how the electorate as a whole will vote in May. To assume some mystical significance to the allegiance of posters on a political forum is absurd.
Have you noticed the polling on Miliband or is your dislike of some posters on here completely clouding your judgement?
So now, having had everyone one of your alternative arguments tested positive for geriatric drool, you're reduced to saying:
"the general point that our response should not be simplistic seems right to me."
Fantastic. Brilliant. That's so INCISIVE. Without you and Gary Yonge I expect most people would have been saying, Look, what we really need here is a totally simplistic response that does no good at all.
Err, you are the one who pointed us to Gary Younge's unremarkable article. I agree it doesn't say anything very much.
Next time, please make sure you find something a bit more meaty so that we can get properly outraged.
For the last time, the article says we are collectively responsible for the Paris outrages. It even manages to imply that Brits are responsible for "conditions" in France.
The whole piece is a disgraceful litany of mendacity and a deliberate attempt to morally obscure, dressed up as a balanced piece of mature analysis.
But, yawn. It's the Guardian. Did we expect better? On that point you are maybe right.
Hurry up YouGov, we need distracting. And I need a new TV drama series to watch. I have finally run out.
Spot on post and very much what I've been seeing and hearing on the ground. I'm not sure enthusiasm for Cameron will be huge but EdM is a toxic disaster for Labour. Your point about absence of cheerleaders for him on here is interesting. If we took a litmus test you'd think from this site that UKIP were rampant, but that reflects the daytime demographic (no need to spell that out). Nevertheless, you're right. Enthusiastic Labour and especially EdM supporters are almost non-existent on here. How things have changed.
Conservative activist and supporter says Labour leader isn't up to the job.
And in other news, the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning and bears will perform certain functions in wooded areas.
Labour has traditionally been grossly under-represented on this site (whereas the Conservatives and UKIP are over-represented). Unfortunately, IF anyone supporting the Labour line or saying something positive about Ed Miliband comes on, they are almost immediately hounded until they leave.
None of this bears any resemblance on how the electorate as a whole will vote in May. To assume some mystical significance to the allegiance of posters on a political forum is absurd.
"Labour has traditionally been grossly under-represented on this site "
tim left well over a year ago and had posted over 10,000 times
Spot on post and very much what I've been seeing and hearing on the ground. I'm not sure enthusiasm for Cameron will be huge but EdM is a toxic disaster for Labour. Your point about absence of cheerleaders for him on here is interesting. If we took a litmus test you'd think from this site that UKIP were rampant, but that reflects the daytime demographic (no need to spell that out). Nevertheless, you're right. Enthusiastic Labour and especially EdM supporters are almost non-existent on here. How things have changed.
Conservative activist and supporter says Labour leader isn't up to the job.
And in other news, the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning and bears will perform certain functions in wooded areas.
Labour has traditionally been grossly under-represented on this site (whereas the Conservatives and UKIP are over-represented). Unfortunately, IF anyone supporting the Labour line or saying something positive about Ed Miliband comes on, they are almost immediately hounded until they leave.
None of this bears any resemblance on how the electorate as a whole will vote in May. To assume some mystical significance to the allegiance of posters on a political forum is absurd.
"Labour has traditionally been grossly under-represented on this site "
tim left well over a year ago and had posted over 10,000 times
OT. As I mentioned at the time if anyone hasn't seen 'Boyhood' they should. A film that will almost certainly win the Oscar for Best Film and Best Director and probably Best Actress. It took 12 years to make which must be a first for any feature which was surprisingly time well spent! As for the English Redmayne is a cert for best actor if anyone still doesn't know
Comments
@CCHQPress: .@hwallop @George_Osborne IF Labour had been in Govt Petrol'd be 20p/litre more, there4 EVEN WITH oil price fall, it'd be MORE than in 2010
I would be interested to see if the Lib Dems hold Portsmouth South due to the Mike Hancock fiasco. Even in the run up to the case there was an awful lot of negative publicity and he lost his seat on the council to UKIP I believe.
Epicurus 51 minutes ago
We're still recovering from his attempt to weaponise a bacon sandwich.
They [the murderers] are personally responsible for what they did. But we, as a society, are collectively responsible for the conditions that produced them. And if we want others to turn out differently – less hateful, more hopeful – we will have to keep more than one idea in our heads at the same time.
Which is rather different from your precis.
Actually that's not a bad slogan for the tories!
I was going to suggest this morning that prompting might actually see the UKIP share fall. I know it sounds counter-intuitive but, remember, that although they may have some ardent and vocal supporters they are also the most disliked mainstream party. So it figures, literally.
The one thing I would say about Populus is that it hasn't shown a Tory lead since 28th August when almost all pollsters have shown at least one Tory lead since October and the end of Conference Season. Is this an accurate reflection of the reality on the ground?
I gather 2 LibDem councillors in Poole have defected in the last day or so to the Tories and last week 2 Labour councillors in somewhere like Nottinghamshire defected to the Tories too. Not surprisingly I didn't see it reported on by the BBC anywhere.
This sort of thing is almost unheard of in the UK but in certain far eastern states that are "democratic" it has been used against the leader of the opposition resulting in him being disbarred from standing for election due to being bankrupted by the libel/slander damages.
Google Chee Soon Juan.
This is a very very worrying precedent for our democracy and reflects in my opinion very poorly on the party doing it. In fact, it so appalls me that I might even now consider voting Conservative to make sure Labour are nowhere near the levers of power (which is in stark contrast to previous posts).
Cyclefree, who I'd guess is naturally a Conservative, has also said she'll be voting for him.
I haven't made up my mind, but I think he's incredibly impressive, I'd much rather vote for a person than a party, and his voice is one I'd like to hear more from.
That being said, I just don't buy him doing more than arresting the LibDem's fall. They might get 25% in the seat, rather than the 15% they would have gotten otherwise. For 2020, if he continues to work hard, and if the LibDems stage some kind of modest recovery, he could be a good shot.
It's like having a 6 year old cat who is used to the way the house is run, and the attention it gets buying a dog and expecting the cats quality of life to remain unchanged.
Then carrying out a character assassination of the dog when the cat runs off
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906808/Police-commissioner-shot-dead-office-meeting-relatives-Charlie-Hebdo-victim-claim-French-TV-news.html
We as individuals or as part of society are not responsible for the decision to become a brutal mass murderer that a young man - troubled or otherwise - may make, but that does not mean we cannot ask questions of ourselves and of wider society. In the same way, of course, Moslems are not to blame for anything that others do in their name, but they should be asking themselves hard questions about why their religion that attracts so many young men willing to kill and to die in its name.
As for the point he does make, it's certainly arguable, as indeed you imply. These kids were brought up in Europe. Therefore the conditions under which they became radicalised must at least in part be ones which we, in Europe, should look at. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me, especially in the context of the article as a whole.
I will take your version rather than Dr Heinz Kiosk.
I think your notion of keeping more than one idea in our head at the same time is sound.
Other things can be contributory causes, but let's not forget that.
You keep chickens
You buy a fox.
The fox kills the chickens.
You blame the fox
I can honestly say I have yet to meet anybody who thinks Ed Miliband will do even a so-so job as PM. He is toxic, even amongst my friends who are Labour voters. The absence of cheerleaders on here is notable. Labour shills manage to look beyond Ed to what Labour would do. I just don't see the voters being that generous.
Even if you get to see past Ed to Labour, it has a real problem. They can either insist they will deliver on broadly a continuation of the economic policies of the Coalition. In which case they lose those whose views are firmly of the Left, off to the Greens.
Or else they row back and promise some elements of socialism. In which case they lose the centre vote, who will think it is not worth the risk of destabilising the economic upturn - after all, it was an economy buggered on Labour's watch and fixed on the Coalition's.
Labour - why would you take the risk?
Labour is currently trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions. At a full gallop.
I also can't see the naked ugly politics of Ed "weaponising the NHS" being anything other than distateful to those on the soft Left and the centre.
(I note our history of ancient Israel used to take a similar attitude. The Old Testament may not be perfect and we can ignore all the supernatural stuff, but the basic history of David and Solomon etc. is probably OK, we thought. Until we took a proper look at the archaeology and it became clear how little of the OT has any basis. The 19th century revolution in Biblical studies and the 20th century revolution in "Biblical" archaeology are important parts of a modern view of Christianity, and I think it would be good to see the same sort of development in Islam. I thought you did too.)
Wikipedia's Aisha article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha , has, I think, the sources you're interested in.
You, and only you, are responsible for your actions.
The two Labour defections were Northampton.
Strange how the BBC missed it.
Lab down 3
UKIP down 3
LD nc
Green up 3
*they were in government, but hardly in power at all.
Things have come to a pretty pass when I'm having to defend the Guardian from being misquoted!
Big grin.
'The Labour Party will this week issue a stark warning that the public can no longer expect the NHS to ‘do everything’ and people will have to take better care of themselves.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906861/NHS-won-t-able-future-people-responsibility-health-Labour-warn.html#ixzz3Od51E5Zc
Lab -3
UKIP - 3
Green + 3
LibDem n/c
Very interesting comment below about the disappearance of Labour's ballast i.e. The Red Liberals. Presumably they've gone green at the thought of EdM? Funny to think we endured week after week of being told they were Labour's firewall. It vanished. Spot on post and very much what I've been seeing and hearing on the ground. I'm not sure enthusiasm for Cameron will be huge but EdM is a toxic disaster for Labour. Your point about absence of cheerleaders for him on here is interesting. If we took a litmus test you'd think from this site that UKIP were rampant, but that reflects the daytime demographic (no need to spell that out). Nevertheless, you're right. Enthusiastic Labour and especially EdM supporters are almost non-existent on here. How things have changed.
But I was responding to the article which blames society for creating the conditions for people to adopt the mindset that inspired the killing., The responsibility for that is on the shoulders of Edward Heath, Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester and the other fools responsible for the multicultural experiment
That makes the polls useless for deciding voters current preferences between Labour (32.5% +or- 4.5%) and Conservative (33% +or- 4.5%) let alone for forecasting the May result.
The "conditions which produced them" are their family, their teachers and their friends - in other words western muslim society. If we are collectively responsible for that it must follow that we have the power and duty to regulate it. Personally I'd be happy for that to happen in the sense that I think religious belief of all kinds should be subject to state licensing of preachers and centres of worship, the outlawing of religious education and the withdrawal of charitable status. Oh, and a ban on bin-liners. Is that what he, or you, have in mind? If not, what does being "collectively responsible" actually entail here?
http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2015/01/two-northampton-councillors-defect-from-labour-to-the-conservatives.html
Sadly I have to admit in a bit of a kipper tradition it is husband and wife.
.@LordAshcroft poll:
CON 34%, LAB 28%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 16%;
@PopulusPolls:
LAB 37% CON 32% LDEM 10% UKIP 13%;
So, neck n neck?
Plenty of people on here repeatedly say UKIP are finished/on the way down etc, but the last three polls have been 14, 16 & 18.
An average of 16
The collective difference from the previous three comparable polls is zero
#Muslims are controlling the weather in Britain. In some places it's Sunni, but mainly Shi'ite. #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/fXzpIPXofa
However, as I said I don't necessarily agree with the details of the article, but the general point that our response should not be simplistic seems right to me.
One key aspect to understand (and this is true in the UK as well) is why those who become radicalised into violence seem largely to be second- or third-generation immigrants, i.e. born and brought up in Europe. I don't know why that is, but if I was studying the phenomenon that's where I'd start.
The people who introduced multiculturalism are on it admitting they got it wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf6Kol0GCOw
And in other news, the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning and bears will perform certain functions in wooded areas.
Labour has traditionally been grossly under-represented on this site (whereas the Conservatives and UKIP are over-represented). Unfortunately, IF anyone supporting the Labour line or saying something positive about Ed Miliband comes on, they are almost immediately hounded until they leave.
None of this bears any resemblance on how the electorate as a whole will vote in May. To assume some mystical significance to the allegiance of posters on a political forum is absurd.
Probably still close to a tie tho.
It is my painful duty to point out that:
1. You claim to be a "seasoned observer" of UK politics, and involved with the Conservative party to the extent that on GE 1979 night you were at a constituency HQ.
2. You thought the open primary held in Reckless' constituency last year was the first ever conducted in the UK. In other words you had never heard of Totnes 2009 despite being a seasoned observer of tory politics.
These facts are easily verified by searching this site. The natural conclusion to draw from them is that you are a fantasist and a liar. I find it unspeakably painful and distasteful to have to make this point. So play nice, OK? Then I won't have to.
If there is a trend it will show up in further polling.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/ukip-ready-to-take-on-alex-salmond-and-snp-1-3645016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30785232
"The hack happened as President Barack Obama prepared a speech on cybersecurity." Arf.
Next time, please make sure you find something a bit more meaty so that we can get properly outraged.
reveals the Yanks battle scenarios against N Korea, China, lists of army personnel, seemingly...
http://xkcd.com/932/
http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/11718590.Edmonton_MP_Andy_Love_to_step_down_before_election/
Cameron's insight on twitter may be his most enduring legacy.
breaking: YouTube also hacked...
If what I saw was genuine, the Yanks are in a world of hurt....
tim left well over a year ago and had posted over 10,000 times
Hurry up YouGov, we need distracting. And I need a new TV drama series to watch. I have finally run out.
Have you tried the West Wing? I have only recently starting watching it on Sky Box Set and I think it is superb
cache still there...
[aside from the battlemaps for N Korea and China, that is]
This article is a few years old but it's still true:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557336/Knifetown-UK-We-visit-London-suburb-stab-vests-knives-way-life.html