Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Monday polls so far: LAB 1% ahead with Populus but 4% b

2456

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514
    Former Coronation Street star Shobna Gulati says her son was bullied at school and ran away from home because of stories Mirror Group journalists wrote after hacking her phone.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31799533

    Ed...I am waiting....
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    kjohnw said:

    People have begun to make their minds up about EdM. Quite simply Labour have run out of things to say, they have thrown the kitchen sink at the tories and its not working, they have no credibility on the economy and can cry about tory cuts all they like but the people aren't buying it, they know labour screwed the economy, and have failed to come up with a plan to clear the deficit apart from a few soundbites that amount to a small % of the deficit.
    Labour are heading for defeat, EdM will not become PM

    A salutary picture:

    http://tinyurl.com/qaob726
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    MP_SE said:

    Peak Kipper.

    GIN1138 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MikeK said:

    Suzanne Evans ‏@SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8
    Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.

    I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.

    That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.

    If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?

    Probably they would disband NATO?

    But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
    Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
    You think Poland and Germany would let the Russkies roll through without a fight?
    Fight with what? The German armed forces are in a dreadful state and due to shrink even further. Meanwhile the Poles have an army less than 50,000 strong and would depend on former conscripts manning soviet era equipment.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262

    Former Coronation Street star Shobna Gulati says her son was bullied at school and ran away from home because of stories Mirror Group journalists wrote after hacking her phone.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31799533

    Ed...I am waiting....

    ... Trinity Mirror ... good hacking ... public interest .... move along ....
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    MP_SE said:

    Peak Kipper.

    GIN1138 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MikeK said:

    Suzanne Evans ‏@SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8
    Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.

    I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.

    That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.

    If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?

    Probably they would disband NATO?

    But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
    Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
    You think Poland and Germany would let the Russkies roll through without a fight?
    The Poles would fight to the last bullet. The Germans would do a deal.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Dair said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MikeK said:

    Suzanne Evans ‏@SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8
    Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.

    I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.

    That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.

    If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?

    Probably they would disband NATO?

    But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would eventually be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
    Why would they disband NATO? Most EU members are also members of NATO. It probably makes NATO easier to run if it becomes an alliance between the US, the EU, Norway, Turkey and who else?

    The proposal is more of a concern for those EU countries - like Ireland and Austria - who are declared as neutral.
    Finland and Sweden too are neutral. Malta and Cyprus aren't members either (though Turkey occupies the north!).

    Non-EU members of NATO are US, Canada, Turkey, Albania, Iceland and Norway.
    The Baltic States joining NATO and the EU will probably turn out to have been a huge mistake for them

    NATO and the EU accepting them likewise.
    When this came up on here recently I read the Wiki page on what is rather grandly called "Baltic Air Policing". This basically involves 4 fighter planes from NATO countries providing the air defence for 3 complete countries.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing

    It really is a dangerous joke that we have got away with for years because Russia itself was in such a state.

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    I very much hope that Osborne and Cameron commit to the 2%. We have taken peace dividends far too far in a dangerous world. Labour's refusal to commit is yet another reason to add to the long list of reasons why they are not fit to govern.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited March 2015

    According to twitter reports a 3rd Labour PPC has rejected "Blair's blood money" with more considering their position.

    Nick Palmer remains quiet. Perhaps he'd be willing to accept a bigger donation? Soubry's having a field day.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642

    According to twitter reports a 3rd Labour PPC has rejected "Blair's blood money" with more considering their position.

    Meanwhile in Thanet South:

    Labour Candidate Begs For Blair's Blood Money http://t.co/dTB4AmRdsZ pic.twitter.com/icH9WIPj2r

    — Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) March 9, 2015

    Completely clueless springs to mind.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    perdix said:

    MP_SE said:

    Peak Kipper.

    GIN1138 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MikeK said:

    Suzanne Evans ‏@SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8
    Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.

    I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.

    That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.

    If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?

    Probably they would disband NATO?

    But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
    Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
    You think Poland and Germany would let the Russkies roll through without a fight?
    The Poles would fight to the last bullet. The Germans would do a deal.
    Bullet? Pitchfork I would have thought if they’ ve got any left when the bullets are gone. They’ve got form for doing so.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,133
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TNS UK @TNS_UK

    Hi @Sunil_P2, Our next poll will be released later this month (date tbc), follow @TNS_UK to get the latest updates. bit.ly/1BQLzEg



    *Facepalm*

    One of the key ingredients of any TNS poll (apart from a complete lack of reliability) is that the information has to be so out of date by the time it is published as to be useless.
    I thought if they released a poll last week, they would bump up Labour's lead in ELBOW a wee bit :)
    How very partisan of you Sunil. I am quite shocked.
    Nonsense, I just thought TNS were late in publishing their poll, looks like they've gone AWOL for the time being...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    MP_SE said:

    According to twitter reports a 3rd Labour PPC has rejected "Blair's blood money" with more considering their position.

    Meanwhile in Thanet South:

    Labour Candidate Begs For Blair's Blood Money http://t.co/dTB4AmRdsZ pic.twitter.com/icH9WIPj2r

    — Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) March 9, 2015

    Completely clueless springs to mind.


    Public utterings like that make me think its a crooked heat and the Labour guy is using the dough to back Farage
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514
    Two Labour politicians – Khalid Mahmood and Mohammad Sarwar – wrote a letter to Jacqui Smith in which they said they were ‘amazed, shocked’ that no charges were being bought, saying that the treatment of the ‘innocent young men’ was ‘deeply disturbing and gravely unjust’. To Mahmood and Sarwar, ‘irreparable damage’ to race relations had been done.

    The Muslim Council of Britain – a large Muslim umbrella group – said that the government should apologise for treating the suspects in a ‘dishonourable’ fashion. Inayat Bunglawala, then a media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, wrote in the Guardian that the government’s behaviour ‘reprehensible’; ‘underhand’; and ‘cowardly’, and said that it ‘shames our country’. He, too, believed that the suspects deserved an apology from the government, having been ‘disgracefully’ smeared.

    An organisation called ‘Justice for the North West Ten’ was launched, with a meeting in July 2009 seeing ‘over a hundred people, community organizers, students, trade unionists, lawyers and civil liberties activists’ demanding the release of the suspects. One of the speakers was Asim Qureshi from Cage (who, it is fair to say, have not had a brilliant few weeks on the PR front after their disastrous press conference discussing their links to Mohammed Emwazi).

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/gordon-brown-was-right-about-abid-naseer/
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706
    perdix said:

    MP_SE said:

    Peak Kipper.

    GIN1138 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MikeK said:

    Suzanne Evans ‏@SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8
    Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.

    I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.

    That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.

    If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?

    Probably they would disband NATO?

    But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
    Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
    You think Poland and Germany would let the Russkies roll through without a fight?
    The Poles would fight to the last bullet. The Germans would do a deal.
    Sounds a bit like.. Another historical conflict. I forget which.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132

    According to twitter reports a 3rd Labour PPC has rejected "Blair's blood money" with more considering their position.

    Nick Palmer remains quiet. Perhaps he'd be willing to accept a bigger donation? Soubry's having a field day.
    He's tweeted that the money has been given to the national party not to individual wannabe MPs.

    Nick Palmer ‏@Nick4Broxtowe 3h3 hours ago
    @Anna_SoubryMP @Independent @UKLabour Had the letter - he's paying to the national party. Now, do tell us about YOUR funding sources?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514

    According to twitter reports a 3rd Labour PPC has rejected "Blair's blood money" with more considering their position.

    Nick Palmer remains quiet. Perhaps he'd be willing to accept a bigger donation? Soubry's having a field day.
    He's tweeted that the money has been given to the national party not to individual wannabe MPs.

    Nick Palmer ‏@Nick4Broxtowe 3h3 hours ago
    @Anna_SoubryMP @Independent @UKLabour Had the letter - he's paying to the national party. Now, do tell us about YOUR funding sources?
    Getting feisty...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,133
    Sunil Prasannan ‏@Sunil_P2 · 13s13 seconds ago
    ELBOW for week-ending 8th March. Lab 33.5 (nc), Con 33.3 (+0.5), UKIP 14.4 (+0.1), LD 7.3 (-0.5), Grn 6.0 (-0.1)

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/574993604659298304
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Two Labour politicians – Khalid Mahmood and Mohammad Sarwar – wrote a letter to Jacqui Smith in which they said they were ‘amazed, shocked’ that no charges were being bought, saying that the treatment of the ‘innocent young men’ was ‘deeply disturbing and gravely unjust’. To Mahmood and Sarwar, ‘irreparable damage’ to race relations had been done.

    The Muslim Council of Britain – a large Muslim umbrella group – said that the government should apologise for treating the suspects in a ‘dishonourable’ fashion. Inayat Bunglawala, then a media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, wrote in the Guardian that the government’s behaviour ‘reprehensible’; ‘underhand’; and ‘cowardly’, and said that it ‘shames our country’. He, too, believed that the suspects deserved an apology from the government, having been ‘disgracefully’ smeared.

    An organisation called ‘Justice for the North West Ten’ was launched, with a meeting in July 2009 seeing ‘over a hundred people, community organizers, students, trade unionists, lawyers and civil liberties activists’ demanding the release of the suspects. One of the speakers was Asim Qureshi from Cage (who, it is fair to say, have not had a brilliant few weeks on the PR front after their disastrous press conference discussing their links to Mohammed Emwazi).

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/gordon-brown-was-right-about-abid-naseer/

    I refer once again to UKIP's Gerard Batten MEP, and PPC for Romford. He proposed a charter for Muslim "spokesmen", sucj as CAGE and the Muslim council, to sign to makeit clear they had no interest in supporting extremism or Jihad

    Guardianistas, and Conservatives on this site, screamed "Wacist"... despite Batten being married to a non white woman

    Read back through the old threads and see for yourself how the lazy, smug and self satisfied apologists lampooned Batten for the idea that some groups purporting to speak for Muslims might have links to extremism, and weren't all they seemed
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited March 2015
    STV News at Six featuring the wonderful SNPTory poster of Salmond with Miliband in his pocket.

    It really makes you wonder if the Tories realise how much it will harm them if they help the SNP achieve a whitewash in Scotland. It might hurt Labour in England but then what, the Union is probably going to be finished by this election and the Tories are supposed to have the Union as a fundamental principle of their party.

    The Tories just just as incapable of coming up with a coherent strategy to deal with the Constitutional issue. They should be all over FFA even if it's only Scotland that becomes a Federal associate. But their strategy doesn't seem to be looking past May 7th.

    WOW. The Tories are intending to run the poster IN SCOTLAND. SNP must be laughing all the way to the Ballot Box.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited March 2015
    TGOHF said:

    Alistair said:

    The Mail has an amazing headline:

    "Ed opens door to a coalition with rampaging Scot Nats as polls predict a 'Braveheart battalion' of MPs storming Westminster"

    The twin nationalist "Kingmakers" Eck and Nige might find themselves side by side on the opposition bench - couldn't happen to a nicer pair.
    Mr Farage had rather a nice line in his recent conference speech:

    "We don't want to leave the EU because we're nationalists, we want to leave the EU because we're democrats"

    https://www.youtube.com/user/ukipofficial/videos
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited March 2015

    According to twitter reports a 3rd Labour PPC has rejected "Blair's blood money" with more considering their position.

    Nick Palmer remains quiet. Perhaps he'd be willing to accept a bigger donation? Soubry's having a field day.
    He's tweeted that the money has been given to the national party not to individual wannabe MPs.

    Nick Palmer ‏@Nick4Broxtowe 3h3 hours ago
    @Anna_SoubryMP @Independent @UKLabour Had the letter - he's paying to the national party. Now, do tell us about YOUR funding sources?
    Getting feisty...
    Smoke and mirrors. Has Palmer rejected the £1000?
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Meanwhile on a different note:

    "Panos Kammenos, the Greek defence minister, warned that if the eurozone allowed Greece to go bust it would give EU travel papers to illegal immigrants crossing its borders or the 10,000 currently held in detention centres."

    As nice a bit of blackmail as one could wish to see.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11459675/Greeces-defence-minister-threatens-to-send-migrants-including-jihadists-to-Western-Europe.html

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,133
    Sunil Prasannan ‏@Sunil_P2 · 12s12 seconds ago
    Labour lead in ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) since August 2014. Lab lead w/e 8th Mar = 0.3%, lowest ever

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/574994996128014336
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132

    According to twitter reports a 3rd Labour PPC has rejected "Blair's blood money" with more considering their position.

    Nick Palmer remains quiet. Perhaps he'd be willing to accept a bigger donation? Soubry's having a field day.
    He's tweeted that the money has been given to the national party not to individual wannabe MPs.

    Nick Palmer ‏@Nick4Broxtowe 3h3 hours ago
    @Anna_SoubryMP @Independent @UKLabour Had the letter - he's paying to the national party. Now, do tell us about YOUR funding sources?
    Getting feisty...
    Who's given it to the national party - Blair or Palmer?
    Blair has given the money to the national party to be distributed to the target marginals as the party sees fit (as I understand it from NP's tweets). It has not been given to individual campaigns or people.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    Two Labour politicians – Khalid Mahmood and Mohammad Sarwar – wrote a letter to Jacqui Smith in which they said they were ‘amazed, shocked’ that no charges were being bought, saying that the treatment of the ‘innocent young men’ was ‘deeply disturbing and gravely unjust’. To Mahmood and Sarwar, ‘irreparable damage’ to race relations had been done.

    The Muslim Council of Britain – a large Muslim umbrella group – said that the government should apologise for treating the suspects in a ‘dishonourable’ fashion. Inayat Bunglawala, then a media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, wrote in the Guardian that the government’s behaviour ‘reprehensible’; ‘underhand’; and ‘cowardly’, and said that it ‘shames our country’. He, too, believed that the suspects deserved an apology from the government, having been ‘disgracefully’ smeared.

    An organisation called ‘Justice for the North West Ten’ was launched, with a meeting in July 2009 seeing ‘over a hundred people, community organizers, students, trade unionists, lawyers and civil liberties activists’ demanding the release of the suspects. One of the speakers was Asim Qureshi from Cage (who, it is fair to say, have not had a brilliant few weeks on the PR front after their disastrous press conference discussing their links to Mohammed Emwazi).

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/gordon-brown-was-right-about-abid-naseer/

    The mindset of people who respond like this is that Muslims - or at least these particular Muslims - are never ever responsible for anything they do and that Muslims accused of crimes or even found guilty of crimes are never responsible for their own actions. Why they think that infantilising Muslims in this way is doing them a favour is a mystery. Best understood as part of the whole victimhood/grievance culture successfully promoted by jihadists and which has so captured a part of the liberal establishment who either cannot or refuse to see people as grown ups. Both views are deeply insulting and belittling. But curiously - in a culture where offence is taken (or pretended to be taken) at the slightest thing - no-one takes offence at this rather more serious insult.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    The opinion poll situation has developed not necessarily to Labour's advantage.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,133
    Sunil Prasannan ‏@Sunil_P2 · 17s17 seconds ago
    LibDem and Green in ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) since August 2014. W/e 8th Mar LibDems 7.3, Greens 6.0

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/574996509894262784
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Dair said:

    STV News at Six featuring the wonderful SNPTory poster of Salmond with Miliband in his pocket.

    It really makes you wonder if the Tories realise how much it will harm them if they help the SNP achieve a whitewash in Scotland. It might hurt Labour in England but then what, the Union is probably going to be finished by this election and the Tories are supposed to have the Union as a fundamental principle of their party.

    The Tories just just as incapable of coming up with a coherent strategy to deal with the Constitutional issue. They should be all over FFA even if it's only Scotland that becomes a Federal associate. But their strategy doesn't seem to be looking past May 7th.

    WOW. The Tories are intending to run the poster IN SCOTLAND. SNP must be laughing all the way to the Ballot Box.

    Can you talk us through how UDI will work?

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514

    According to twitter reports a 3rd Labour PPC has rejected "Blair's blood money" with more considering their position.

    Nick Palmer remains quiet. Perhaps he'd be willing to accept a bigger donation? Soubry's having a field day.
    He's tweeted that the money has been given to the national party not to individual wannabe MPs.

    Nick Palmer ‏@Nick4Broxtowe 3h3 hours ago
    @Anna_SoubryMP @Independent @UKLabour Had the letter - he's paying to the national party. Now, do tell us about YOUR funding sources?
    Getting feisty...
    Who's given it to the national party - Blair or Palmer?
    Blair has given the money to the national party to be distributed to the target marginals as the party sees fit (as I understand it from NP's tweets). It has not been given to individual campaigns or people.
    In a letter to the candidates, Mr Blair says winning the marginal seats is “vital” to the success of Labour’s campaign.

    "This is where the election will be won for Labour and that is why I am making a donation to all 106 campaigns."

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tony-blair-donates-more-100000-5277143

    Typical Blair, nothing is quite as it seems :-)
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Dair said:

    WOW. The Tories are intending to run the poster IN SCOTLAND. SNP must be laughing all the way to the Ballot Box.

    It should do what it's meant to - damage Labour.

    What do the Tories have to lose up there?

    Tory-SNP Molotov-Ribbentrop pact suits them both.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @CCHQPress: .@grantshapps “With Scottish voters fleeing @Ed_Miliband faster than Chris Hoy in a velodrome, he knows SNP deal is his only road to No.10"
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    WOW. The Tories are intending to run the poster IN SCOTLAND. SNP must be laughing all the way to the Ballot Box.

    It should do what it's meant to - damage Labour.

    What do the Tories have to lose up there?

    Tory-SNP Molotov-Ribbentrop pact suits them both.

    The SNP is praying for a Tory victory.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,133
    edited March 2015
    Lowest Green score in ELBOW since December.
    Lowest LibDem score in ELBOW for four weeks.
    and
    Lowest Lab lead in ELBOW since August (inception of ELBOW)
    Highest Tory score in ELBOW since November!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    DavidL said:

    Dair said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MikeK said:

    Suzanne Evans ‏@SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8
    Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.

    I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.

    That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.

    If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?

    Probably they would disband NATO?

    But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would eventually be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
    Why would they disband NATO? Most EU members are also members of NATO. It probably makes NATO easier to run if it becomes an alliance between the US, the EU, Norway, Turkey and who else?

    The proposal is more of a concern for those EU countries - like Ireland and Austria - who are declared as neutral.
    Finland and Sweden too are neutral. Malta and Cyprus aren't members either (though Turkey occupies the north!).

    Non-EU members of NATO are US, Canada, Turkey, Albania, Iceland and Norway.
    The Baltic States joining NATO and the EU will probably turn out to have been a huge mistake for them

    NATO and the EU accepting them likewise.
    When this came up on here recently I read the Wiki page on what is rather grandly called "Baltic Air Policing". This basically involves 4 fighter planes from NATO countries providing the air defence for 3 complete countries.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing

    It really is a dangerous joke that we have got away with for years because Russia itself was in such a state.

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    I very much hope that Osborne and Cameron commit to the 2%. We have taken peace dividends far too far in a dangerous world. Labour's refusal to commit is yet another reason to add to the long list of reasons why they are not fit to govern.
    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment. Okay, it will stop Osborne from getting public spending down to 35% of GDP, but does that really matter, now?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Great move by Greece.. If the EU doesn't give em what they want then they will issue EU passports to anyone who asks for one..Takes the pressure off Lampadusa I suppose
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Sean_F said:


    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment.

    Tough to go into an election promising to increase defence spending by more than spending on hospitals or schools.

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:


    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment.

    Tough to go into an election promising to increase defence spending by more than spending on hospitals or schools.

    Maybe, but that commitment wouldn't do so.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    The SNP is praying for a Tory victory.

    Indeed, and with the Libs out of it, the SNP are the best option for the Tories.

    Labour weakened, and a clear line into EV4EL + maximum autonomy within the union. The election outcome would demand those outcomes.

    By 2020, Scottish unionists will need to have coalesced around a single party, and it's only by removing the Westminster scapegoat through maximum autonomy that the SNP position will ever get weakened.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Scott_P said:

    @CCHQPress: .@grantshapps “With Scottish voters fleeing @Ed_Miliband faster than Chris Hoy in a velodrome, he knows SNP deal is his only road to No.10"

    Looks like the Tories believe it will be a hung Parliament.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    WOW. The Tories are intending to run the poster IN SCOTLAND. SNP must be laughing all the way to the Ballot Box.

    It should do what it's meant to - damage Labour.

    What do the Tories have to lose up there?

    Tory-SNP Molotov-Ribbentrop pact suits them both.
    Well,they could lose the union, which for a Unionist party would be a bit of a bigger.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:


    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment.

    Tough to go into an election promising to increase defence spending by more than spending on hospitals or schools.

    Maybe, but that commitment wouldn't do so.
    You dont think? I thought it did.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:


    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment.

    Tough to go into an election promising to increase defence spending by more than spending on hospitals or schools.

    People shouldn't go into government if they can't make tough decisions.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited March 2015
    Cyclefree said:

    Two Labour politicians – Khalid Mahmood and Mohammad Sarwar – wrote a letter to Jacqui Smith in which they said they were ‘amazed, shocked’ that no charges were being bought, saying that the treatment of the ‘innocent young men’ was ‘deeply disturbing and gravely unjust’. To Mahmood and Sarwar, ‘irreparable damage’ to race relations had been done.

    The Muslim Council of Britain – a large Muslim umbrella group – said that the government should apologise for treating the suspects in a ‘dishonourable’ fashion. Inayat Bunglawala, then a media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, wrote in the Guardian that the government’s behaviour ‘reprehensible’; ‘underhand’; and ‘cowardly’, and said that it ‘shames our country’. He, too, believed that the suspects deserved an apology from the government, having been ‘disgracefully’ smeared.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/gordon-brown-was-right-about-abid-naseer/

    The mindset of people who respond like this is that Muslims - or at least these particular Muslims - are never ever responsible for anything they do and that Muslims accused of crimes or even found guilty of crimes are never responsible for their own actions. Why they think that infantilising Muslims in this way is doing them a favour is a mystery. Best understood as part of the whole victimhood/grievance culture successfully promoted by jihadists and which has so captured a part of the liberal establishment who either cannot or refuse to see people as grown ups. Both views are deeply insulting and belittling. But curiously - in a culture where offence is taken (or pretended to be taken) at the slightest thing - no-one takes offence at this rather more serious insult.
    I agree with your sentiment, but would beg to differ on this part

    "part of the whole victimhood/grievance culture successfully promoted by jihadists and which has so captured a part of the liberal establishment "

    It is the weak multiculturalists in the establishment who promoted the victimhood & grievance culture, and the immigrants, or children of, that have been equal parts insulted by being patronised, and used it as a weapon against the rest of society

    But if power is there to be grabbed, people grab it. Doesn't matter which religion, skin colour or nationality you hide behind.. The British establishment offered it, and the Islamists took it

    Watch this video, it is the last 8 mins of the BBCs Enoch Powell programme

    From 4:12 on the "architects of multiculturalism" are interviewed, even they admit to being shocked by the unforseen consequences of their "experiment"

    "it never occurred to us..."

    "We didn't realise..."

    It occurred to someone, and he was hounded out of office for saying so

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgHh29Vhhg
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited March 2015
    Alistair said:

    Well,they could lose the union, which for a Unionist party would be a bit of a bigger.

    The genie is out of the bottle in my view. The union as we have known it needs to be reformed.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    before that ghastly woman Margaret Hodge gets too shouty about the HSBC guy not answering the question, it would not be amiss to look at her record at Islington Council..

    Frankly how she can shout at anyone else is beyond me.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hodge
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Sean_F said:

    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:


    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment.

    Tough to go into an election promising to increase defence spending by more than spending on hospitals or schools.

    People shouldn't go into government if they can't make tough decisions.

    Well. Yes. But there is always the possibility that Cameron and Osborne think it is right to increase health / education spending by more. There's certainly nothing particularly sensible about sticking to a 2% of GDP target for defence spending: it means having to hire more squaddies when ONS decides to include drug dealing in its GDP estimates! If there are programmes the defence chiefs want funded and they cost 2% of GDP then obviously that is something different.

  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    Meanwhile on a different note:

    "Panos Kammenos, the Greek defence minister, warned that if the eurozone allowed Greece to go bust it would give EU travel papers to illegal immigrants crossing its borders or the 10,000 currently held in detention centres."

    As nice a bit of blackmail as one could wish to see.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11459675/Greeces-defence-minister-threatens-to-send-migrants-including-jihadists-to-Western-Europe.html

    This isn't a problem - we should welcome these people to the UK in the interests of diversity and multiculturalism.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    chestnut said:

    Alistair said:

    Well,they could lose the union, which for a Unionist party would be a bit of a bigger.

    The genie is out of the bottle in my view. The union as we have known it needs to be reformed.

    If the Tories are going to propose that post GE it would explain their current strategy - unless they have given up on the Union and are now happy to see it come to an end.

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    WOW. The Tories are intending to run the poster IN SCOTLAND. SNP must be laughing all the way to the Ballot Box.

    It should do what it's meant to - damage Labour.

    What do the Tories have to lose up there?

    Tory-SNP Molotov-Ribbentrop pact suits them both.
    Don't recall that working out too well for Molotov or Ribbentrop. The SNP won't agree non-aggression with the Tories. They will do what is needed to achieve the long term goal.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Dair said:

    STV News at Six featuring the wonderful SNPTory poster of Salmond with Miliband in his pocket.

    It really makes you wonder if the Tories realise how much it will harm them if they help the SNP achieve a whitewash in Scotland. It might hurt Labour in England but then what, the Union is probably going to be finished by this election and the Tories are supposed to have the Union as a fundamental principle of their party.

    The Tories just just as incapable of coming up with a coherent strategy to deal with the Constitutional issue. They should be all over FFA even if it's only Scotland that becomes a Federal associate. But their strategy doesn't seem to be looking past May 7th.

    WOW. The Tories are intending to run the poster IN SCOTLAND. SNP must be laughing all the way to the Ballot Box.

    Not really - they want to capture as much of the pro-union vote as they can (which did win 55-45 after all)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    isam said:

    I refer once again to UKIP's Gerard Batten MEP, and PPC for Romford. He proposed a charter for Muslim "spokesmen", sucj as CAGE and the Muslim council, to sign to makeit clear they had no interest in supporting extremism or Jihad

    Guardianistas, and Conservatives on this site, screamed "Wacist"... despite Batten being married to a non white woman

    Read back through the old threads and see for yourself how the lazy, smug and self satisfied apologists lampooned Batten for the idea that some groups purporting to speak for Muslims might have links to extremism, and weren't all they seemed
    To be honest, I don't want spurious oaths of loyalty. Meaningless and any jihadi will give it while not meaning it. I would much rather we ignored the MCB and Cage, put pressure on those more reputable organisations funding them and made sure that we did not let into the country more jihadists or their apologists (as well as getting rid of those already here). We should also be much more aggressive about putting in the public domain who these people really are, their background, what they say, who they associate with so that people stop taking them at face value.

    Take Cage - whose spokesman was unwilling to condemn stoning. Why isn't the Minister for Women on the airwaves asking what the hell an organisation like Amnesy or the Rowntree Foundation is doing associating with a group that is in favour of stoning women?

    Why isn't the Minister for Women asking Oxford University why it has given a professorshipto Tariq Ramadan who is equally unwilling to condemn stoning? Why isn't she asking the relevant Labour Shadow and Ms Harman herself to agree that with her that this is wrong and that no group advocating this should be given government funding or help or assistance or even so much as the time of day?

    There is so much material available with which to put these people on the spot, to show them up for the disgusting barbarians they are. It's infuriating that it is not done.

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited March 2015
    I'm really reluctant to do this, but I'm having to free up some of my betfair float for cheltenham by laying off politics bets.

    If anyone wants to back EdM for next PM @ ~2.4, head on over to betfair :)

    It's a stonking bet, that I'll be rebacking once the cheltenham fun is over.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    Great move by Greece.. If the EU doesn't give em what they want then they will issue EU passports to anyone who asks for one..Takes the pressure off Lampadusa I suppose

    What a stupidly dangerous policy given the presence of IS barely 300 miles away. The EU should tell the Greeks that in that case they will need to suspend free movement for anyone with a Greek passport.

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    chestnut said:

    The SNP is praying for a Tory victory.

    Indeed, and with the Libs out of it, the SNP are the best option for the Tories.

    Labour weakened, and a clear line into EV4EL + maximum autonomy within the union. The election outcome would demand those outcomes.

    By 2020, Scottish unionists will need to have coalesced around a single party, and it's only by removing the Westminster scapegoat through maximum autonomy that the SNP position will ever get weakened.

    What if the Tories can't offer FFA because they know that the fundamental numbers are not in Westminster's favour?

    Because even a cursory examination says those figures will work to the SNPs advantage. FFA will be a demonstration not a danger.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    taffys said:

    England views a pact with the SNP with extreme negativity.

    Nobody on the left seems to appreciate just how utterly toxic this position is.

    I dare say a large number of Unionist Scots share England's aversion to supping with the partitionists.
    Crap opinion from you as usual Monica, you are barking as ever.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    WOW. The Tories are intending to run the poster IN SCOTLAND. SNP must be laughing all the way to the Ballot Box.

    It should do what it's meant to - damage Labour.

    What do the Tories have to lose up there?

    Tory-SNP Molotov-Ribbentrop pact suits them both.

    The SNP is praying for a Tory victory.

    I think they're concentrating on an SNP victory.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Pong said:

    I'm really reluctant to do this, but I'm having to free up some of my betfair float for cheltenham by laying off politics bets.

    If anyone wants to back EdM for next PM @ 2.4, head on over to betfair :)

    It's a stonking bet, that I'll be rebacking once the cheltenham fun is over.

    Why don't you just borrow some money?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:


    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment.

    Tough to go into an election promising to increase defence spending by more than spending on hospitals or schools.

    People shouldn't go into government if they can't make tough decisions.

    Well. Yes. But there is always the possibility that Cameron and Osborne think it is right to increase health / education spending by more. There's certainly nothing particularly sensible about sticking to a 2% of GDP target for defence spending: it means having to hire more squaddies when ONS decides to include drug dealing in its GDP estimates! If there are programmes the defence chiefs want funded and they cost 2% of GDP then obviously that is something different.

    It's more that without that commitment, we'll see the army cut further to 50-60,000.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Dair said:

    They will do what is needed to achieve the long term goal.

    Yes.

    So, the only workable solutions in the face of a SNP landslide are for the 'English' parties to gang up and always out-vote them (counter-productive, ultimately) or for the 'UK' government to offer enough autonomy/give 'em enough rope.

    The SNP can't afford to align with Labour because it legitimises Labour again.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited March 2015

    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    WOW. The Tories are intending to run the poster IN SCOTLAND. SNP must be laughing all the way to the Ballot Box.

    It should do what it's meant to - damage Labour.

    What do the Tories have to lose up there?

    Tory-SNP Molotov-Ribbentrop pact suits them both.

    The SNP is praying for a Tory victory.

    I think they're concentrating on an SNP victory.
    To be honest whilst I think they will do well there is little chance the SNP will be able to get a majority in the House of Commons.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    WOW. The Tories are intending to run the poster IN SCOTLAND. SNP must be laughing all the way to the Ballot Box.

    It should do what it's meant to - damage Labour.

    What do the Tories have to lose up there?

    Tory-SNP Molotov-Ribbentrop pact suits them both.

    The SNP is praying for a Tory victory.

    I think they're concentrating on an SNP victory.

    And praying for a Tory government.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Dair said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MikeK said:

    Suzanne Evans ‏@SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8
    Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.

    I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.

    That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.

    If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?

    Probably they would disband NATO?

    But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would eventually be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
    Why would they disband NATO? Most EU members are also members of NATO. It probably makes NATO easier to run if it becomes an alliance between the US, the EU, Norway, Turkey and who else?

    The proposal is more of a concern for those EU countries - like Ireland and Austria - who are declared as neutral.
    Finland and Sweden too are neutral. Malta and Cyprus aren't members either (though Turkey occupies the north!).

    Non-EU members of NATO are US, Canada, Turkey, Albania, Iceland and Norway.
    The Baltic States joining NATO and the EU will probably turn out to have been a huge mistake for them

    NATO and the EU accepting them likewise.
    When this came up on here recently I read the Wiki page on what is rather grandly called "Baltic Air Policing". This basically involves 4 fighter planes from NATO countries providing the air defence for 3 complete countries.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing

    It really is a dangerous joke that we have got away with for years because Russia itself was in such a state.

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    I very much hope that Osborne and Cameron commit to the 2%. We have taken peace dividends far too far in a dangerous world. Labour's refusal to commit is yet another reason to add to the long list of reasons why they are not fit to govern.
    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment. Okay, it will stop Osborne from getting public spending down to 35% of GDP, but does that really matter, now?
    Well, they could pay for it by abandoning the 0.7% aid commitment so far as I am concerned.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    isam said:

    Pong said:

    I'm really reluctant to do this, but I'm having to free up some of my betfair float for cheltenham by laying off politics bets.

    If anyone wants to back EdM for next PM @ 2.4, head on over to betfair :)

    It's a stonking bet, that I'll be rebacking once the cheltenham fun is over.

    Why don't you just borrow some money?
    I'm a bit too honest, me.

    "what's the purpose of your loan, sir?"

    "I need it to gamble"

    Nah, I'd rather just take the hit on a few ticks on betfair than piss around borrowing a few K for a week.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    perdix said:

    MP_SE said:

    Peak Kipper.

    GIN1138 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MikeK said:

    Suzanne Evans ‏@SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8
    Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.

    I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.

    That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.

    If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?

    Probably they would disband NATO?

    But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
    Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
    You think Poland and Germany would let the Russkies roll through without a fight?
    The Poles would fight to the last bullet. The Germans would do a deal.
    Bullet? Pitchfork I would have thought if they’ ve got any left when the bullets are gone. They’ve got form for doing so.
    They charged the German Panzers with cavalry - and 30 pilots were killed in the Battle Of Britain (one regrettably by an English mob who though he was German after he crashlanded)
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    According to twitter reports a 3rd Labour PPC has rejected "Blair's blood money" with more considering their position.

    Nick Palmer remains quiet. Perhaps he'd be willing to accept a bigger donation? Soubry's having a field day.
    He's tweeted that the money has been given to the national party not to individual wannabe MPs.

    Nick Palmer ‏@Nick4Broxtowe 3h3 hours ago
    @Anna_SoubryMP @Independent @UKLabour Had the letter - he's paying to the national party. Now, do tell us about YOUR funding sources?
    Getting feisty...
    Who's given it to the national party - Blair or Palmer?
    Blair has given the money to the national party to be distributed to the target marginals as the party sees fit (as I understand it from NP's tweets). It has not been given to individual campaigns or people.
    Labour accepted money from Blair?

    I thought he was a tax avoider or evader.

    How do they justify accepting his money?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    before that ghastly woman Margaret Hodge gets too shouty about the HSBC guy not answering the question, it would not be amiss to look at her record at Islington Council..

    Frankly how she can shout at anyone else is beyond me.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hodge

    This is what I said downthread on the very same topic -

    "I'd cheer if someone being asked questions like that by Hodge turned round and said that they were no more incompetent or naive than she was when in charge of Islington Council and child abuse was going on under her nose and that child abuse is rather more serious and damaging than tax evasion. Oh and that they haven't insulted any victims either.

    It would probably cost them the job but what a way to go!"


  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    chestnut said:


    So, the only workable solutions in the face of a SNP landslide are for the 'English' parties to gang up and always out-vote them (counter-productive, ultimately) or for the 'UK' government to offer enough autonomy/give 'em enough rope.

    Which as I said in another post, they may be unable to do.

    Westminster will know (in all likelihood) just how much extra money is allocated to London in the UK accounts which is actually Scottish (The Scottish Government can only estimate). They know exactly how much is fudged by GERS.

    There is a very strong likelihood that Westminster KNOWS that it cannot grant FFA because, put simply, the UK Exchequer cannot afford it and for the SNP it will demonstrate the quite unpalatable truth for the Union - that Scotland is being raped**.

    ** and before someone feigns outrage, look at the actual definition of rape.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    I refer once again to UKIP's Gerard Batten MEP, and PPC for Romford. He proposed a charter for Muslim "spokesmen", sucj as CAGE and the Muslim council, to sign to makeit clear they had no interest in supporting extremism or Jihad

    Guardianistas, and Conservatives on this site, screamed "Wacist"... despite Batten being married to a non white woman

    Read back through the old threads and see for yourself how the lazy, smug and self satisfied apologists lampooned Batten for the idea that some groups purporting to speak for Muslims might have links to extremism, and weren't all they seemed
    To be honest, I don't want spurious oaths of loyalty. Meaningless and any jihadi will give it while not meaning it. I would much rather we ignored the MCB and Cage, put pressure on those more reputable organisations funding them and made sure that we did not let into the country more jihadists or their apologists (as well as getting rid of those already here). We should also be much more aggressive about putting in the public domain who these people really are, their background, what they say, who they associate with so that people stop taking them at face value.

    Take Cage - whose spokesman was unwilling to condemn stoning. Why isn't the Minister for Women on the airwaves asking what the hell an organisation like Amnesy or the Rowntree Foundation is doing associating with a group that is in favour of stoning women?

    Why isn't the Minister for Women asking Oxford University why it has given a professorshipto Tariq Ramadan who is equally unwilling to condemn stoning? Why isn't she asking the relevant Labour Shadow and Ms Harman herself to agree that with her that this is wrong and that no group advocating this should be given government funding or help or assistance or even so much as the time of day?

    There is so much material available with which to put these people on the spot, to show them up for the disgusting barbarians they are. It's infuriating that it is not done.

    Another excellent post Cyclefree.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    isam said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Two Labour politicians – Khalid Mahmood and Mohammad Sarwar – wrote a letter to Jacqui Smith in which they said they were ‘amazed, shocked’ that no charges were being bought, saying that the treatment of the ‘innocent young men’ was ‘deeply disturbing and gravely unjust’. To Mahmood and Sarwar, ‘irreparable damage’ to race relations had been done.


    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/gordon-brown-was-right-about-abid-naseer/

    The mindset of people who respond like this is that Muslims - or at least these particular Muslims - are never ever responsible for anything they do and that Muslims accused of crimes or even found guilty of crimes are never responsible for their own actions. Why they think that infantilising Muslims in this way is doing them a favour is a mystery. Best understood as part of the whole victimhood/grievance culture successfully promoted by jihadists and which has so captured a part of the liberal establishment who either cannot or refuse to see people as grown ups. Both views are deeply insulting and belittling. But curiously - in a culture where offence is taken (or pretended to be taken) at the slightest thing - no-one takes offence at this rather more serious insult.
    I agree with your sentiment, but would beg to differ on this part

    "part of the whole victimhood/grievance culture successfully promoted by jihadists and which has so captured a part of the liberal establishment "

    It is the weak multiculturalists in the establishment who promoted the victimhood & grievance culture, and the immigrants, or children of, that have been equal parts insulted by being patronised, and used it as a weapon against the rest of society

    But if power is there to be grabbed, people grab it. Doesn't matter which religion, skin colour or nationality you hide behind.. The British establishment offered it, and the Islamists took it

    Watch this video, it is the last 8 mins of the BBCs Enoch Powell programme

    From 4:12 on the "architects of multiculturalism" are interviewed, even they admit to being shocked by the unforseen consequences of their "experiment"

    "it never occurred to us..."

    "We didn't realise..."

    It occurred to someone, and he was hounded out of office for saying so

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgHh29Vhhg
    Kenan Malik's book "From Fatwa to Jihad" is very good on this.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514
    edited March 2015
    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    I refer once again to UKIP's Gerard Batten MEP, and PPC for Romford. He proposed a charter for Muslim "spokesmen", sucj as CAGE and the Muslim council, to sign to makeit clear they had no interest in supporting extremism or Jihad

    Guardianistas, and Conservatives on this site, screamed "Wacist"... despite Batten being married to a non white woman

    Read back through the old threads and see for yourself how the lazy, smug and self satisfied apologists lampooned Batten for the idea that some groups purporting to speak for Muslims might have links to extremism, and weren't all they seemed
    To be honest, I don't want spurious oaths of loyalty. Meaningless and any jihadi will give it while not meaning it. I would much rather we ignored the MCB and Cage, put pressure on those more reputable organisations funding them and made sure that we did not let into the country more jihadists or their apologists (as well as getting rid of those already here). We should also be much more aggressive about putting in the public domain who these people really are, their background, what they say, who they associate with so that people stop taking them at face value.

    Take Cage - whose spokesman was unwilling to condemn stoning. Why isn't the Minister for Women on the airwaves asking what the hell an organisation like Amnesy or the Rowntree Foundation is doing associating with a group that is in favour of stoning women?

    Why isn't the Minister for Women asking Oxford University why it has given a professorshipto Tariq Ramadan who is equally unwilling to condemn stoning? Why isn't she asking the relevant Labour Shadow and Ms Harman herself to agree that with her that this is wrong and that no group advocating this should be given government funding or help or assistance or even so much as the time of day?

    There is so much material available with which to put these people on the spot, to show them up for the disgusting barbarians they are. It's infuriating that it is not done.

    A small number of people like Douglas Murray and others at Henry Jackson and Maajid Nawaz at Quilliam Foundation have been banging on about this for years, but they are often treated like they are somehow the extremists or mad.

    When Peter Allen on R5 tried to spin that Jihadi John might have gone to Syria for noble intentions and that well are unis all sorts of whacky ideas are shared, the bod from the Henry Jackson Society armed with realms of evidence of not whacky but instances of extremist speakers, illegal material etc was basically just told yeah yeah whatever. Allen even said, well what real threat are these people to us anyway....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:



    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment. Okay, it will stop Osborne from getting public spending down to 35% of GDP, but does that really matter, now?

    Well, they could pay for it by abandoning the 0.7% aid commitment so far as I am concerned.
    Well they haven't ruled it out, have they? The Tories could simply be waiting for Labour to rule it out, only to commit to it in the Tory manifesto. Well, I can hope....
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Sunil Prasannan ‏@Sunil_P2 · 12s12 seconds ago
    Labour lead in ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) since August 2014. Lab lead w/e 8th Mar = 0.3%, lowest ever

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/574994996128014336

    Blue dot next week methinks
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Dair said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MikeK said:

    Suzanne Evans ‏@SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8
    Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.

    I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.

    That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.

    If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?

    Probably they would disband NATO?

    But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would eventually be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
    Why would they disband NATO? Most EU members are also members of NATO. It probably makes NATO easier to run if it becomes an alliance between the US, the EU, Norway, Turkey and who else?

    The proposal is more of a concern for those EU countries - like Ireland and Austria - who are declared as neutral.
    Finland and Sweden too are neutral. Malta and Cyprus aren't members either (though Turkey occupies the north!).

    Non-EU members of NATO are US, Canada, Turkey, Albania, Iceland and Norway.
    The Baltic States joining NATO and the EU will probably turn out to have been a huge mistake for them

    NATO and the EU accepting them likewise.
    When this came up on here recently I read the Wiki page on what is rather grandly called "Baltic Air Policing". This basically involves 4 fighter planes from NATO countries providing the air defence for 3 complete countries.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing

    It really is a dangerous joke that we have got away with for years because Russia itself was in such a state.

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    I very much hope that Osborne and Cameron commit to the 2%. We have taken peace dividends far too far in a dangerous world. Labour's refusal to commit is yet another reason to add to the long list of reasons why they are not fit to govern.
    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment. Okay, it will stop Osborne from getting public spending down to 35% of GDP, but does that really matter, now?
    Well, they could pay for it by abandoning the 0.7% aid commitment so far as I am concerned.
    Agreed. I find the aid commitment baffling.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514
    edited March 2015
    philiph said:

    According to twitter reports a 3rd Labour PPC has rejected "Blair's blood money" with more considering their position.

    Nick Palmer remains quiet. Perhaps he'd be willing to accept a bigger donation? Soubry's having a field day.
    He's tweeted that the money has been given to the national party not to individual wannabe MPs.

    Nick Palmer ‏@Nick4Broxtowe 3h3 hours ago
    @Anna_SoubryMP @Independent @UKLabour Had the letter - he's paying to the national party. Now, do tell us about YOUR funding sources?
    Getting feisty...
    Who's given it to the national party - Blair or Palmer?
    Blair has given the money to the national party to be distributed to the target marginals as the party sees fit (as I understand it from NP's tweets). It has not been given to individual campaigns or people.
    Labour accepted money from Blair?

    I thought he was a tax avoider or evader.

    How do they justify accepting his money?
    But but but but his tax efficiency is good tax efficiency....Tory donor tax efficiency is BAD tax efficiency. I am sure Ed will be returning the money as he wouldn't be a hypocrite now would he?

    It is like hacking, NOTW evil phone hackers, Mirror phone hacking on a much larger scale....tumbleweed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:



    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment. Okay, it will stop Osborne from getting public spending down to 35% of GDP, but does that really matter, now?

    Well, they could pay for it by abandoning the 0.7% aid commitment so far as I am concerned.
    Well they haven't ruled it out, have they? The Tories could simply be waiting for Labour to rule it out, only to commit to it in the Tory manifesto. Well, I can hope....
    Likewise. It is a golden opportunity to once again show who the grown ups are. And it is the right thing to do as well.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

    50,000 seconds
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    weejonnie said:

    perdix said:

    MP_SE said:

    Peak Kipper.

    GIN1138 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MikeK said:

    Suzanne Evans ‏@SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8
    Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.

    I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.

    That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.

    If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?

    Probably they would disband NATO?

    But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
    Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
    You think Poland and Germany would let the Russkies roll through without a fight?
    The Poles would fight to the last bullet. The Germans would do a deal.
    Bullet? Pitchfork I would have thought if they’ ve got any left when the bullets are gone. They’ve got form for doing so.
    They charged the German Panzers with cavalry - and 30 pilots were killed in the Battle Of Britain (one regrettably by an English mob who though he was German after he crashlanded)
    Cavalry were a very effective arm of battle on the Eastern Front in WWII. Men on horseback could function over terrain, and in temperatures, where machines couldn't.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Dair said:

    chestnut said:


    So, the only workable solutions in the face of a SNP landslide are for the 'English' parties to gang up and always out-vote them (counter-productive, ultimately) or for the 'UK' government to offer enough autonomy/give 'em enough rope.

    Which as I said in another post, they may be unable to do.

    Westminster will know (in all likelihood) just how much extra money is allocated to London in the UK accounts which is actually Scottish (The Scottish Government can only estimate). They know exactly how much is fudged by GERS.

    There is a very strong likelihood that Westminster KNOWS that it cannot grant FFA because, put simply, the UK Exchequer cannot afford it and for the SNP it will demonstrate the quite unpalatable truth for the Union - that Scotland is being raped**.

    ** and before someone feigns outrage, look at the actual definition of rape.

    How pleasant nationalist fundamentalism is.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited March 2015
    Dair said:

    Which as I said in another post, they may be unable to do.

    Declining greatly increased autonomy, which could be imposed anyway, would start to look a bit silly, wouldn't it?


  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514
    Mohammed Emwazi went to Tanzania 'to commit terrorism'

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31799541

    No....I am shocked I tell you. I thought he was just there to see baby Elephants while on a trip organized by Jihadi Safari Tours of West London.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Dair said:

    chestnut said:


    So, the only workable solutions in the face of a SNP landslide are for the 'English' parties to gang up and always out-vote them (counter-productive, ultimately) or for the 'UK' government to offer enough autonomy/give 'em enough rope.

    Which as I said in another post, they may be unable to do.

    Westminster will know (in all likelihood) just how much extra money is allocated to London in the UK accounts which is actually Scottish (The Scottish Government can only estimate). They know exactly how much is fudged by GERS.

    There is a very strong likelihood that Westminster KNOWS that it cannot grant FFA because, put simply, the UK Exchequer cannot afford it and for the SNP it will demonstrate the quite unpalatable truth for the Union - that Scotland is being raped**.

    ** and before someone feigns outrage, look at the actual definition of rape.
    I don't think the definition of rape is what you think it is.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041

    Mohammed Emwazi went to Tanzania 'to commit terrorism'

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31799541

    No....I am shocked I tell you. I thought he was just there to see baby Elephants while on a trip organized by Jihadi Safari Tours of West London.

    Doubt ISIS would view his drunken behaviour kindly...
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    test
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:



    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment. Okay, it will stop Osborne from getting public spending down to 35% of GDP, but does that really matter, now?

    Well, they could pay for it by abandoning the 0.7% aid commitment so far as I am concerned.
    Well they haven't ruled it out, have they? The Tories could simply be waiting for Labour to rule it out, only to commit to it in the Tory manifesto. Well, I can hope....
    But Cameron has backed himself into a corner, because just like gay marriage, not only has he done it, he has made a great deal about how important it is, and how it separates him from the evil nasty tories, who think that either might not be the best idea.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited March 2015
    Had another pair of targeted LD mailshots, one for the environmentally concerned other half implying that a Green vote is a waste of time, complete with green and white background and fonts - stresses LD 'environmental' achievements; and for me a fetching portrait of Ed Miliband and his numerous failings. Vote LD to stop Labour in Bristol West.

    Green leaflet through the door complete with dodgy bar chart based on 'recent' local government results - trying to use LD tactics.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    edited March 2015

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    Take Cage - whose spokesman was unwilling to condemn stoning. Why isn't the Minister for Women on the airwaves asking what the hell an organisation like Amnesy or the Rowntree Foundation is doing associating with a group that is in favour of stoning women?

    Why isn't the Minister for Women asking Oxford University why it has given a professorshipto Tariq Ramadan who is equally unwilling to condemn stoning? Why isn't she asking the relevant Labour Shadow and Ms Harman herself to agree that with her that this is wrong and that no group advocating this should be given government funding or help or assistance or even so much as the time of day?

    There is so much material available with which to put these people on the spot, to show them up for the disgusting barbarians they are. It's infuriating that it is not done.

    A small number of people like Douglas Murray and others at Henry Jackson and Maajid Nawaz at Quilliam Foundation have been banging on about this for years, but they are often treated like they are somehow the extremists or mad.

    When Peter Allen on R5 tried to spin that Jihadi John might have gone to Syria for noble intentions and that well are unis all sorts of whacky ideas are shared, the bod from the Henry Jackson Society armed with realms of evidence of not whacky but instances of extremist speakers, illegal material etc was basically just told yeah yeah whatever. Allen even said, well what real threat are these people to us anyway....
    Depressing I know. There are none so deaf as those that don't want to hear. And part of it is fear - of what we might have to do if we took this stuff seriously. It's as if unconsciously we've decided to accept one or two bombs or other atrocities now and again rather than do anything meaningful. Because the latter would be too hard. And would offend our delicate liberal sensibilities in a way that, for instance, having gender segregation at a British university did not, until some of us made a fuss. What we don't realise is that the ratchet moves ever in favour of the jihadist: not just a bomb now and again but a de facto and then a de jure Islamic blasphemy law and then - well who knows.

    Maajid Nawaz is my local Lib Dem candidate and for this - and other reasons - I will vote for him, even though he is most unlikely - sadly - to win.

    When he was engulfed by the Jesus and Mo cartoon furore the Tory candidate supported him. The Labour candidate - by contrast - was rather silent. Not a good omen.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    notme said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:



    I simply don't see what is stopping Cameron and Osborne from making this commitment. Okay, it will stop Osborne from getting public spending down to 35% of GDP, but does that really matter, now?

    Well, they could pay for it by abandoning the 0.7% aid commitment so far as I am concerned.
    Well they haven't ruled it out, have they? The Tories could simply be waiting for Labour to rule it out, only to commit to it in the Tory manifesto. Well, I can hope....
    But Cameron has backed himself into a corner, because just like gay marriage, not only has he done it, he has made a great deal about how important it is, and how it separates him from the evil nasty tories, who think that either might not be the best idea.
    No reason he couldn't keep the 0.7% foreign aid commitment as well as the 2% on defence.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Bets against Jim Murphy might be much more attractive than people think.

    From James Kelly's site : -
    "3) The Greens received 3% of the vote in the poll, and yet someone who attended the Greens' spring conference emailed me today to say that they'd heard the party won't be standing in East Renfrewshire."

    This on top of the 2010 weighting and Spiral of Silence. I think Jim is in a lot of trouble. The leader of Labour Branch in Scotland must be a sitting parliamentarian (MEP, MP or MSP). He will be none of those.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    @Cyclefree

    I'd find it very easy to vote for Maajid no matter which party he represented. He knows about militant Islamism, because he's been there.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    Which as I said in another post, they may be unable to do.

    Declining greatly increased autonomy, which could be imposed anyway, would start to look a bit silly, wouldn't it?


    You didn't read my post.

    WESTMINSTER may be unable to offer FFA if they know it would look positive for the SNP. Scottish FFA GDP at 110% of rUK GDP would demonstrate that the Unionists have been lying for years.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    Take Cage - whose spokesman was unwilling to condemn stoning. Why isn't the Minister for Women on the airwaves asking what the hell an organisation like Amnesy or the Rowntree Foundation is doing associating with a group that is in favour of stoning women?

    Why isn't the Minister for Women asking Oxford University why it has given a professorshipto Tariq Ramadan who is equally unwilling to condemn stoning? Why isn't she asking the relevant Labour Shadow and Ms Harman herself to agree that with her that this is wrong and that no group advocating this should be given government funding or help or assistance or even so much as the time of day

    A small number of people like Douglas Murray and others at Henry Jackson and Maajid Nawaz at Quilliam Foundation have been banging on about this for years, but they are often treated like they are somehow the extremists or mad.

    When Peter Allen on R5 tried to spin that Jihadi John might have gone to Syria for noble intentions and that well are unis all sorts of whacky ideas are shared, the bod from the Henry Jackson Society armed with realms of evidence of not whacky but instances of extremist speakers, illegal material etc was basically just told yeah yeah whatever. Allen even said, well what real threat are these people to us anyway....
    Depressing I know. There are none so deaf as those that don't want to hear. And part of it is fear - of what we might have to do if we took this stuff seriously. It's as if unconsciously we've decided to accept one or two bombs or other other atrocities now and again rather than do anything meaningful. Because the latter would be too hard. And would offend our delicate liberal sensibilities in a way that having gender segregation at a British university did not, until some of us made a fus.. What we don't realise is that the ratchet moves ever in favour of the jihadist: not just a bomb now and again but a de facto and then a de jure Islamic blasphemy law and then - well who knows.

    Maajid Nawaz is my local Lib Dem candidate and for this - and other reasons - I will vote for him, even though he is most unlikely - sadly - to win.

    When he was engulfed by the Jesus and Mo cartoon furore the Tory candidate supported him. The Labour candidate - by contrast - was rather silent. Not a good omen.

    FPT Maajid Nawaz was among those nominated for "Islamophobe of the Year" along with Douglas Murray, UKIP, and Charlie Hebdo. I'm rather pleased to see UKIP in that company.

  • PurseybearPurseybear Posts: 766
    Bit of churn in polls presently. Poss uptick for tories? Ahead of budget too.

    Do we buy into this 2010 Con-Lab comparison when ukip & LDs are completely and totally different this time round?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Sean_F said:

    Agreed. I find the aid commitment baffling.

    Did you find it baffling when William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard made it?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514
    edited March 2015
    Sean_F said:



    FPT Maajid Nawaz was among those nominated for "Islamophobe of the Year" along with Douglas Murray, UKIP, and Charlie Hebdo. I'm rather pleased to see UKIP in that company.

    Given by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), another very interesting organization....and endorsed by another idiot Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Dair said:

    You didn't read my post.

    WESTMINSTER may be unable to offer FFA if they know it would look positive for the SNP. Scottish FFA GDP at 110% of rUK GDP would demonstrate that the Unionists have been lying for years.

    I've read so many variations of what Scotland's finances are, it remains to be seen what the truth is.

    The next UK government needs to push the boundary as far as it can and see where it leads.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Dair said:

    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    Which as I said in another post, they may be unable to do.

    Declining greatly increased autonomy, which could be imposed anyway, would start to look a bit silly, wouldn't it?


    You didn't read my post.

    WESTMINSTER may be unable to offer FFA if they know it would look positive for the SNP. Scottish FFA GDP at 110% of rUK GDP would demonstrate that the Unionists have been lying for years.

    Of course, that does not follow at all. Just because it is positive in one year does not mean it has always been positive and will always be positive.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    Sean_F said:

    Agreed. I find the aid commitment baffling.

    Did you find it baffling when William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard made it?
    I thought it was folly back then, and it's folly now.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    chestnut said:

    Dair said:

    You didn't read my post.

    WESTMINSTER may be unable to offer FFA if they know it would look positive for the SNP. Scottish FFA GDP at 110% of rUK GDP would demonstrate that the Unionists have been lying for years.

    I've read so many variations of what Scotland's finances are, it remains to be seen what the truth is.

    The next UK government needs to push the boundary as far as it can and see where it leads.
    Yes, indeed there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get a proper estimate of actual Scottish GDP, especially major items like VAT and Corporation Tax being skewed by the Head Office effect.

    But Westminster *probably* knows the answer. And this would explain why the Tories - with no represenation to lose from Scottish Home Rule - are still reluctant to offer FFA.

    There is no constitutional problem with the Tories allowing FFA. Scotland would still be in the Union, the UK would still exist. Logically, the only possible reason is that Westminster has the numbers and they have supressed the reports - just like they did with McCrone for 25 years.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064

    Sean_F said:

    Agreed. I find the aid commitment baffling.

    Did you find it baffling when William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard made it?
    I did. It is a stupid idea and the Tory party needs to drop it we are funnelling billions of pounds into failed states and into the hands of dictators. Emergency disaster relief and medical aid should be the extent of our aid programme. That is, of course, unrealistic, but I would at least start with cutting all aid to India and any other developing nation which has a space programme and spends more than us on their military than we do by a proportion of GDP.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Agreed. I find the aid commitment baffling.

    Did you find it baffling when William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard made it?
    I thought it was folly back then, and it's folly now.
    Fair enough. I'm not terribly keen on it myself, for exactly the same reason that I'm not keen on a 2% defence spending commitment: I don't like arbitrary spending targets.
This discussion has been closed.