FPT: Mr. Palmer, I would recommend The Witcher 3, on the proviso you're not fussed by grimdark. I don't think it overdoes it, but from what I've read things can get a bit grim.
There's a lot of dialogue relative to combat, and many tricky decisions. It's not blue for paragon and red for renegade. And sometimes the 'nice' option leads to bad consequences.
Mr. kle4, it's better executed than Inquisition. The side-quests aren't 'fetch X for Y' so much as 'forget what the main quest is because that priest who hired you was a lying **** who's going to end up dead'.
I'm a first timer with the series. Generally finding combat good, although I'm struggling with a certain Witcher contract. Probably missing a trick.
FPT: Mr. Palmer, I would recommend The Witcher 3, on the proviso you're not fussed by grimdark. I don't think it overdoes it, but from what I've read things can get a bit grim.
There's a lot of dialogue relative to combat, and many tricky decisions. It's not blue for paragon and red for renegade. And sometimes the 'nice' option leads to bad consequences.
Mr. kle4, it's better executed than Inquisition. The side-quests aren't 'fetch X for Y' so much as 'forget what the main quest is because that priest who hired you was a lying **** who's going to end up dead'.
I'm a first timer with the series. Generally finding combat good, although I'm struggling with a certain Witcher contract. Probably missing a trick.
I am downloading Witcher3 right now Mr Dancer. Partly financed on today's F1 winnings!
SNP MSPs Rob Gibson (Caithness and Co), Dave Thompson (Ross, Skye and co), Marco Biagi (Edinburgh Central) have announced they will stand down at next Holyrood election.
Gibson's and Thompson's retirements aren't surprising. Gibson was born in 1945 and Thompson in 1949. Biagi is less expected as he's 32 but he said he wants to pursue academic career.
NB if you have side-quests in the first area you want to finish, do them before progressing with the main story, or you might not be able to complete them.
Bloody awful race from a betting perspective. It does feel like I've been unlucky this year so far, but that should even itself out [admittedly, the Kvyat and Vettel bets were just wrong, but on pace Hulkenberg would've easily been top 10].
NB if you have side-quests in the first area you want to finish, do them before progressing with the main story, or you might not be able to complete them.
Bloody awful race from a betting perspective. It does feel like I've been unlucky this year so far, but that should even itself out [admittedly, the Kvyat and Vettel bets were just wrong, but on pace Hulkenberg would've easily been top 10].
I just stopped watching after they called Hamilton in on lap 68. The commentators were apoplectic about it. Throwing away a 20 second lead and 2 places in one fell swoop.
Mr. B, it was utterly perplexing. Makes the title race closer than it should've been, and reduces the chances on my bet for Hamilton to get 14 wins to come good.
Mr. B, it was utterly perplexing. Makes the title race closer than it should've been, and reduces the chances on my bet for Hamilton to get 14 wins to come good.
Maybe it's because every race is now produced by FOM - EXCEPT Monaco, which is produced by TMC - Tele Monte Carlo.
Lots of fodder for the conspiracy theory folks - does AMG Mercedes have an office on the grassy knoll?
Mr. B, no, I think it was a cock-up rather than conspiracy. If you wanted to subtly get Rosberg the win, then today's strategy was not the right approach.
Incidentally, it seems (according to Twitter, for what it's worth) that police/council are moving to ban protests in Rotherham about the child abuse scandal. Not sure how that'll go down, if true.
Oh well, two months since my Indian sister-in-law walked out of our house without saying a word to us as she left. All it was a minor argument with mum over something petty, which was blown out of all proportion. Not heard a peep from her since.
She and my little brother got married in India just over a year ago. She first arrived on Jan 22nd after all the Visa requirements were fulfilled, and staged her walk-out on March 22nd. Apparently she's back with her parents in India.
If I was a wee bit against marrying someone from the Subcontinent before this all blew up, I certainly am now!
Don't give up too easily, surely there is a nice lass out there with an interest in politics and railways...
This whole sorry affair is of Carmichaels own making, he had an opportunity to come clean on 6th April when Jeremy's investigation was announced. Further as a solicitor he should have known better. The London MSM who were carpet bombing twitter and their columns when the story broke have gone into 3 monkeys mode. The Scottish MSM are covering it and those papers which have expressed a few see resignation as the only option.
In terms of the SNP the MSM has been after any chink in the new MPs armour and has come up with very little. I'm sure if the new MPs of other parties were subject to the same level of scrutiny similar issues would no doubt have come to light.
The SNP has produced a good summary of all of this:
Incidentally, it seems (according to Twitter, for what it's worth) that police/council are moving to ban protests in Rotherham about the child abuse scandal. Not sure how that'll go down, if true.
A three month ban on marches and protests by extremist groups.
What happens is the EDL and Britain First protest, UAF and others launch a counter protest, both sides hurl abuse at each, the EDL and Britain First hurl racist abuse and commit vandalism and the police have spent over two million pounds policing these events in the last few months.
The police, the Rotherham Commissioners and the Rotherham public think the money can be better utilised elsewhere.
Mr. kle4, it's better executed than Inquisition. The side-quests aren't 'fetch X for Y' so much as 'forget what the main quest is because that priest who hired you was a lying **** who's going to end up dead'..
Promising, as much as I loved Inquisition, or not minding fetch quests if a game bothers to give some context as to why I should care at least, but if thought is put into such things, that's a good sign.
Currently trying out older stuff though - Shadowrun Returns, apparently fantasy mixed with cyberpunk; not a combination I've ever come across before.
Incidentally, it seems (according to Twitter, for what it's worth) that police/council are moving to ban protests in Rotherham about the child abuse scandal. Not sure how that'll go down, if true.
A three month ban on marches and protests by extremist groups.
What happens is the EDL and Britain First protest, UAF and others launch a counter protest, both sides hurl abuse at each, the EDL and Britain First hurl racist abuse and commit vandalism and the police have spent over two million pounds policing these events in the last few months.
The police, the Rotherham Commissioners and the Rotherham public think the money can be better utilised elsewhere.
If the Rotherham police and the Rotherham Commissioners weren't such devious, incompetent, self serving, careerist lickspittle PC scumbags taking backhanders from the cab companies and in league with the corrupt and spineless Labour councillors the ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED GIRLS wouldn't have been raped in the first place, and there would be no protests.
I'm sure they'd like to see the protests ended.
One hopes all the authorities up there will have learned their lessons, but as we discovered when the government was forced to take over the Council, even after the initial reports they were in denial, and in fact their statement re the takeover showed the same attitude prevailed.
NB if you have side-quests in the first area you want to finish, do them before progressing with the main story, or you might not be able to complete them.
Bloody awful race from a betting perspective. It does feel like I've been unlucky this year so far, but that should even itself out [admittedly, the Kvyat and Vettel bets were just wrong, but on pace Hulkenberg would've easily been top 10].
I just stopped watching after they called Hamilton in on lap 68. The commentators were apoplectic about it. Throwing away a 20 second lead and 2 places in one fell swoop.
Isn't the real question with F1 the fact that the pits can radio the driver in the first place? I can remember when it was a sport where they had things like suspension travel and vehicles recognisable as cars. It's a sad joke. Couldn't Hamilton think for himself?
Incidentally, it seems (according to Twitter, for what it's worth) that police/council are moving to ban protests in Rotherham about the child abuse scandal. Not sure how that'll go down, if true.
A three month ban on marches and protests by extremist groups.
What happens is the EDL and Britain First protest, UAF and others launch a counter protest, both sides hurl abuse at each, the EDL and Britain First hurl racist abuse and commit vandalism and the police have spent over two million pounds policing these events in the last few months.
The police, the Rotherham Commissioners and the Rotherham public think the money can be better utilised elsewhere.
If the Rotherham police and the Rotherham Commissioners weren't such devious, incompetent, self serving, careerist lickspittle PC scumbags taking backhanders from the cab companies and in league with the corrupt and spineless Labour councillors the ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED GIRLS wouldn't have been raped in the first place, and there would be no protests.
I'm sure they'd like to see the protests ended.
One hopes all the authorities up there will have learned their lessons, but as we discovered when the government was forced to take over the Council, even after the initial reports they were in denial, and in fact their statement re the takeover showed the same attitude prevailed.
I'm certain that lots of the "authorities" want this scandal to be forgotten ASAP, so everyone can "move on" and no one loses their job or their liberty. Banning the protests assists that process. Odious.
Banning protests because of the cost of policing them seems rather like focusing on a symptom rather than the disease, at the very least. Fix the underlying issues and people won't want or need to protest there.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party
Often, no question, but I'm sure with some of the crap Labour and Tory leaders we've had in recent decades some partisans on the other side accurately predicted how the public would react to them. Though maybe that was just luck and spectacular crapness, and at the moment all I get from Burnham is blandness (his appeal being limited to Labour circles at present), so I look forward to seeing him more in the campaign (as I said, I recall liking him best of the contenders last time, if not enough to maintain that impression through 5 years)
Though maybe that was just luck and spectacular crapness, and at the moment all I get from Burnham is blandness (his appeal being limited to Labour circles at present), so I look forward to seeing him more in the campaign (as I said, I recall liking him best of the contenders last time, if not enough to maintain that impression through 5 years)
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
Maybe the same goes for political partisans from within the party electing a new leader.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
Maybe the same goes for political partisans from within the party electing a new leader.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
I am not sure i am an impartial judge though.
Oh, I'm with you on that one. My membership card is going in the bin if Kendall gets elected. I'm still kinda confident she won't be, though.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
I can almost feel another awful acronym coming on.
A small city near where I live, like most, has a medical arts building - where doctors, dentists, specialists, imaging companies etc have offices, typically with a drug store on he first floor (street level).
I was going into a drug store in such a building when I noticed a crane erecting a sign on the side of the building for a new tenant. They had already erected Sugar, Hill, and Imaging. On the truck I could see a large sign about to be lifted by the crane that said Technologies.
I pointed out what the acronym of the company would be. The last part of the sign was taken away and all the other signs were subsequently altered.
Blimey, those Spanish results really are something - big swings leftwards in all the major cities where voting took place, including Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia. In Barcelona, the Catalan nationalist parties have lost - which is lovely to see.
Blimey, those Spanish results really are something - big swings leftwards in all the major cities where voting took place, including Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia. In Barcelona, the Catalan nationalist parties have lost - which is lovely to see.
Both PSOE and IU have lost votes since 2011, it's only the centre right Citizen's Party which has gained votes.
Blimey, those Spanish results really are something - big swings leftwards in all the major cities where voting took place, including Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia. In Barcelona, the Catalan nationalist parties have lost - which is lovely to see.
Both PSOE and IU have lost votes since 2011, it's only the centre right Citizen's Party which has gained votes.
No - the results are huge for the Podemos left. Podemos wasn't standing in Madrid and Barcelona, but the candidates it supported have had huge results. PSOE has lost some votes, PP has lost a mountain. The corruption cases are killing them (and CiU in Barcelona). It looks like the left could end up controlling almost all the big cities - even, possibly, Madrid.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
Maybe the same goes for political partisans from within the party electing a new leader.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
I am not sure i am an impartial judge though.
Oh, I'm with you on that one. My membership card is going in the bin if Kendall gets elected. I'm still kinda confident she won't be, though.
Comrades! All I ask is that you vote for the candidate who will be best able to win in 2020. This time, for me, it is head before heart, pragmatism before ideology. I have had enough of the purity of opposition.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
Maybe the same goes for political partisans from within the party electing a new leader.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
I am not sure i am an impartial judge though.
Oh, I'm with you on that one. My membership card is going in the bin if Kendall gets elected. I'm still kinda confident she won't be, though.
Comrades! All I ask is that you vote for the candidate who will be best able to win in 2020. This time, for me, it is head before heart, pragmatism before ideology. I have had enough of the purity of opposition.
But I'm sceptical of whether she would win. If it was another case of Blair where the poltician was so obviously overwhelmingly talented, it might be worth putting up with the policies.
But Liz Kendall is no Blair, to put it mildly. Even leaving aside policies (and it's still far from proven that Labour lost because it was "too left-wing" anyway), Burnham has more charisma and communication skills than Kendall, and Cooper looks more like a prime minister.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
Maybe the same goes for political partisans from within the party electing a new leader.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
I am not sure i am an impartial judge though.
Oh, I'm with you on that one. My membership card is going in the bin if Kendall gets elected. I'm still kinda confident she won't be, though.
My MP is a Kendall supporter. Not popular with the activists in Chesterfield methinks.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
Maybe the same goes for political partisans from within the party electing a new leader.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
I am not sure i am an impartial judge though.
Your final sentence is accurate but I think calling her the Blair Witch Project misses an important point about where Kendall stands. Blair really did ape the Tories with his strategy of triangulation. Kendall strikes me as a very different figure as she seems much more interested in combining liberalism with classic Labour values.
I would draw a comparison with another female leader who emanated from the liberal tradition against the grain of her party but that would probably be too provocative.
If any of the leadership candidates are able to capture the public imagination in some way during the campaign (though how one would quantify that IDK), as unlikely as that is with a topic only wonks would normally be interested in, it surely has to be them chosen, whatever 'wing' of the party they are on. Kendall presumably has the best chance of that simply by virtue of being unknown and so able to make a fresh impression, but that's not a great chance either, it isn't probable. As such, I would have thought the odds favour the candidate who already has the most in party support, which is Burnham, though Cooper trying to position herself between Burnham and Cooper as supposedly dangerous extremes I guess could work.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
Maybe the same goes for political partisans from within the party electing a new leader.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
I am not sure i am an impartial judge though.
Oh, I'm with you on that one. My membership card is going in the bin if Kendall gets elected. I'm still kinda confident she won't be, though.
Comrades! All I ask is that you vote for the candidate who will be best able to win in 2020. This time, for me, it is head before heart, pragmatism before ideology. I have had enough of the purity of opposition.
Opposition this time wasnt very 'pure' though, was it? It was just a crap series of compromises that didnt hang together.
I've told Lib Dem voice that Willie Rennie's statement is all about avoiding a by-election for Carmichael based on the fact that a win in GE 2020 for the Lib Dems is more likely than a by-election victory right now.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
Maybe the same goes for political partisans from within the party electing a new leader.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
I am not sure i am an impartial judge though.
Oh, I'm with you on that one. My membership card is going in the bin if Kendall gets elected. I'm still kinda confident she won't be, though.
Comrades! All I ask is that you vote for the candidate who will be best able to win in 2020. This time, for me, it is head before heart, pragmatism before ideology. I have had enough of the purity of opposition.
But I'm sceptical of whether she would win. If it was another case of Blair where the poltician was so obviously overwhelmingly talented, it might be worth putting up with the policies.
But Liz Kendall is no Blair, to put it mildly. Even leaving aside policies (and it's still far from proven that Labour lost because it was "too left-wing" anyway), Burnham has more charisma and communication skills than Kendall, and Cooper looks more like a prime minister.
Who looks prime ministerial and even who has charisma is so subjective. Anyone with a vote in this election should cast aside any such thoughts.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
Maybe the same goes for political partisans from within the party electing a new leader.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
I am not sure i am an impartial judge though.
Oh, I'm with you on that one. My membership card is going in the bin if Kendall gets elected. I'm still kinda confident she won't be, though.
My MP is a Kendall supporter. Not popular with the activists in Chesterfield methinks.
Which is interesting because in 2010, activists voted for the Blairite Miliband over the one from the left. Has so much changed in five years.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
I can almost feel another awful acronym coming on.
A small city near where I live, like most, has a medical arts building - where doctors, dentists, specialists, imaging companies etc have offices, typically with a drug store on he first floor (street level).
I was going into a drug store in such a building when I noticed a crane erecting a sign on the side of the building for a new tenant. They had already erected Sugar, Hill, and Imaging. On the truck I could see a large sign about to be lifted by the crane that said Technologies.
I pointed out what the acronym of the company would be. The last part of the sign was taken away and all the other signs were subsequently altered.
An IT system I once worked on had a Shares Held In Trust report.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
Maybe the same goes for political partisans from within the party electing a new leader.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
I am not sure i am an impartial judge though.
Oh, I'm with you on that one. My membership card is going in the bin if Kendall gets elected. I'm still kinda confident she won't be, though.
My MP is a Kendall supporter. Not popular with the activists in Chesterfield methinks.
Which is interesting because in 2010, activists voted for the Blairite Miliband over the one from the left. Has so much changed in five years.
David M's big selling point to people who weren't onboard with Blairite policies was that he would be seen as a credible PM because of his experience and (supposed) gravitas.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
Maybe the same goes for political partisans from within the party electing a new leader.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
I am not sure i am an impartial judge though.
Oh, I'm with you on that one. My membership card is going in the bin if Kendall gets elected. I'm still kinda confident she won't be, though.
My MP is a Kendall supporter. Not popular with the activists in Chesterfield methinks.
Which is interesting because in 2010, activists voted for the Blairite Miliband over the one from the left. Has so much changed in five years.
David M's big selling point to people who weren't onboard with Blairite policies was that he would be seen as a credible PM because of his experience and (supposed) gravitas.
Fair enough, but it still indicates that the party would put up with a Blairite providing they stand a decent chance of winning power (and of course only Blairites have won Labour power in the last 40 years).
BBC News paper review: two reviewers, both of them in favour of votes for 16 and 17 year olds in the EU referendum, both of them against the blocking of EU migrants from voting in it.
And the BBC honestly believes that represents a balanced set of views...
A three month ban on marches and protests by extremist groups.
What happens is the EDL and Britain First protest, UAF and others launch a counter protest, both sides hurl abuse at each, the EDL and Britain First hurl racist abuse and commit vandalism and the police have spent over two million pounds policing these events in the last few months.
The police, the Rotherham Commissioners and the Rotherham public think the money can be better utilised elsewhere.
If the Chief Officer of Police has applied to the Council to prohibit public processions on financial grounds, his decision will be quashed. The chief officer must be reasonably satisfied that lesser powers to control processions will be insufficient to prevent serious public disorder (Public Order Act 1986, s. 13(1)). If the police and the council have been motivated by purely financial considerations, they will have committed a material error of public law.
BBC News paper review: two reviewers, both of them in favour of votes for 16 and 17 year olds in the EU referendum, both of them against the blocking of EU migrants from voting in it.
And the BBC honestly believes that represents a balanced set of views...
The franchise will almost certainly be the parliamentary roll with the addition of disqualified peers, rather than the local government roll. The AV referendum was conducted on that basis (see section 2(1) of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011). An EU referendum is not a municipal election, and citizens of the EU therefore have no right to vote in it under EU law (TFEU, arts 20(2)(b) & 22).
Danny565 I normally vote Tory, occasionally LD, and Burnham strikes me as having broader appeal than Kendall amongst potential Labour voters as today's yougov showed he leads with Labour and LD and UKIP voters and voters as a whole, Kendall runs him close with Tories, but most Tory voters are never going to vote Labour
SeanT Also agreed, they need a message that can both appeal to their working class core and the aspirational middle classes who voted for Blair, Burnham-Kendall could provide it.
As for Scotland, give it FFA and let it be other than predominantly foreign affairs and defence, the SNP will dominate for the next few decade or two at Westminster as the BQ did in Quebec from the early nineties, at Holyrood unionist parties will have to learn to vote tactically
Burnham Leader, Kendall Shadow Chancellor strikes me as Labour's best combination, that would be one to take on Cameron-Osborne
They won't be taking on Cameron-Osborne at the election.
Not that in necessarily matters. In the first instance, the 2020 election is one for the government to lose, not the opposition to win, as with all elections. Only if the government is perceived as not doing a good job will the merits of the opposition come into play.
DH Cameron won't be running again in 2020 so it may be Osborne-Javid or some other combination, after 10 years voters are often looking for change and much will also depend on the EU ref fallout especially if it leads to Tory splits
Burnham Leader, Kendall Shadow Chancellor strikes me as Labour's best combination, that would be one to take on Cameron-Osborne
Agreed. But they need to ditch all the leftwing crap. No one wants it, south of Tamworth. But then they have to accept losing Scotland.
Heh.
As John Rentoul says in the Indy, the more you look at Labour's election result, the worse it appears. Some very very ominous trends for the Left.
We're boring, we're English; we don't want a revolution. England wants a common sense government; until Labour offer that, they're irrelevant. Will Labour 'ditch the left wing crap'? Only if they want to win. At the moment, there's no sign that they do.
DH Cameron won't be running again in 2020 so it may be Osborne-Javid or some other combination, after 10 years voters are often looking for change and much will also depend on the EU ref fallout especially if it leads to Tory splits
I agree the EU vote will be critical. Be assured: there will be divisions in the Tory Party. The question is whether they can be healed or not. That will probably depend on how fair the process is seen as being and hence how legitimate the result.
Thanks for the tips, Mr Dancer. I've taken kle4's earlier advice and ordered Pillars of Eternity, since I was a big Baldur fan - when I've chewed throyugh that I'll have a go at Witcher 3.
Baskerville A Burnham-Kendal leadership could be common sense enough for swing voters especially after another 3/4 more years of austerity they may be in the mood for change and Cameron will not be running again
DH Indeed, a narrow In would be the worst result for Tories and the best for UKIP
I agree re the Tories. I suspect UKIP would take any Out over an In, despite the likelihood - to which you rightly allude - that a narrow win would be better for their long term electoral prospects.
However, I doubt it'll be a narrow result unless the In campaign is as inept as Yes to AV.
DH Indeed, a narrow In would be the worst result for Tories and the best for UKIP
I agree re the Tories. I suspect UKIP would take any Out over an In, despite the likelihood - to which you rightly allude - that a narrow win would be better for their long term electoral prospects.
However, I doubt it'll be a narrow result unless the In campaign is as inept as Yes to AV.
I feel the campaign will be more important for UKIP (a la the SNP) than the result.
Baskerville A Burnham-Kendal leadership could be common sense enough for swing voters especially after another 3/4 more years of austerity they may be in the mood for change and Cameron will not be running again
Yes, they could, but the signs from the AB camp are not encouraging for the ABLK2BPMAC* crew. (*Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall to be PM and Chancellor)
Baskerville A Burnham-Kendal leadership could be common sense enough for swing voters especially after another 3/4 more years of austerity they may be in the mood for change and Cameron will not be running again
Yes, they could, but the signs from the AB camp are not encouraging for the ABLK2BPMAC* crew. (*Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall to be PM and Chancellor)
It's got a bit of that Blair-Brown Non-Aggression Pact about it...
A vote for Burnham or Cooper as next Labour Leader, is a vote to stick to another core vote strategy that still has the Labour party refusing to admit that they had made any mistakes before or after 2010. Labour would not only lose again in 2020, but they simple wouldn't make the headway needed to position themselves for a win in the following GE. And if they write off and ignore Scotland, they simple make their task all that much harder.
Kendell is not only a fresh face and able to dispense with the last Labour Government's baggage, she is very media friendly and does not come across as too tribal. Indeed, she is already trying to reach out beyond her party's core during the Leadership contest, something that neither Burnham or Cooper are doing right now.
I suspect her polling will improve as the contest progresses and she is given a higher profile in the media that reaches the public. The Labour party have a mountain to climb to win the next GE, especially after their near wipe out in Scotland. But to stand any chance, they need to start appealing to a much wider pool of voters than their core vote in England to have any chance of increasing their current MP tally enough to even make a two term GE strategy feasible.
The Labour party really needs to remember that the Conservatives managed to remain stuck at a polling core vote level for years, languishing in Opposition for three terms with under 200 MP's. The Conservatives political fortunes only began to significantly change when they finally made a complete break with the past. And more importantly, when they went onto chose a Leader who very effectively made his own pitch to reach out beyond the Conservative party from the minute he announced he was running as a candidate in the contest.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
On 25 October 1924 the Daily Mail published the forged Zinoviev letter, which cost Ramsay MacDonald's Labour Party in the 1924 general election, held four days later.
The aim and intent of the smear on Nicola Sturgeon was the same and Michael White thinks it is OK - the mind boggles. The problem with people like White is that their hatred of the NATS obsures any semblence of rational judgement.
@fitalass Agree completely on Kendall. It's interesting how two leading Labour bloggers, Hopi Sen and Mark Ferguson have come out strongly for her - the latter quitting his job so he can work on her campaign.
Fitalass If that is true then why does Burnham lead not just with LD, Labour and UKIP voters but even, more narrowly, with Tories in today's yougov, as well as in the south, London, the Midlands and Wales and Scotland, does not sound very 'core vote' to me. He has also talked about accepting an EU referendum, Labour's overspend etc and in 2010 was considered a Blairite
@david_herdson, your assuming that Ukip will have a good campaign under Farage, already there are signs that some of the most passionate BOO out Conservative politicians have concerns that both Farage and Ukip may yet prove to be very damaging to a future EU Out campaign team. After the behaviour of both Farage and some of his previous key team members in the aftermath of the GE, it is very clear that all is not well within the Ukip leadership team despite Farage asserting his authority and bringing them all publicly into line with the threat of an imminent EU Referendum.
Not only has Farage yet again made it clear that he views Ukip as his own personal fiefdom, and in much the same manner that Gordon Brown used to do within the Scottish Labour party and then the Treasury. Farage has yet again portrayed Ukip as a one man band, and as such he will then use this position to demand a very significant role as the front man of any Out campaign team. Quite how this will play out with strong maverick Conservatives politicians such as Dan Hannan or John Redwood & Co remains to be seen, I doubt they will be any more comfortable than Douglas Carswell has appeared to be at times with some Farage's strategy antics and political outbursts.
Maybe there will be damaging Conservative divisions caused by an EU referendum campaign, but its far less likely to be the case if politicians within the Conservative party are granted the freedom to campaign on which ever side of the debate they choose to position themselves. But what shouldn't be ignored is the possibility of serious cross party divisions within either the In or Out campaign teams during the campaign. I see trouble ahead for any team that has Farage and Ukip in the mix, and then there is the unlikely bedfellows of Cameron, Sturgeon/Salmond, Lab and the Libdems shaping up within the In campaign.
One of the problems for the Yes to AV campaign back in the last Parliament was the lack of any focussed cross party combined team effort. Miliband not only wouldn't share a platform with Clegg after he entered into Coalition with the Conservatives, I suspect that many in the public would even today be surprised to learn that Miliband or the Labour party were supposed to have supported the Yes campaign during that referendum. And as for Ukip, well nobody wanted to share a platform with them so simple ignored them. And we all know how difficult it was to navigate the cross party make up of the Better Together campaign in Scotland during the Indy Referendum campaign. So there is a long way to go before we all jump the gun and assume that the Conservative party will be the only ones to suffer divisions within their own ranks.
Fitalass Of course in 2010 the Tories had the advantage of not facing Blair for the first time since 1992, in 2020 Labour will not face Cameron for the first time since 2005
As Matthew D'Ancona observed when they chose Miliband minor - they need to choose someone who will make them feel uncomfortable - goodness knows Thatcher did with swathes of her party......
The Labour party really needs to remember that the Conservatives managed to remain stuck at a polling core vote level for years, languishing in Opposition for three terms with under 200 MP's. The Conservatives political fortunes only began to significantly change when they finally made a complete break with the past. And more importantly, when they went onto chose a Leader who very effectively made his own pitch to reach out beyond the Conservative party from the minute he announced he was running as a candidate in the contest.
@paulhutcheon: Quick canvass of Tory contacts: they want Andy Burnham to win @uklabour contest
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
Are these the same people who were convinced Jim Murphy would be a roaring success as Scottish leader?
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I presumed that ToriesforBurnham think he'll not be what the voters want. ToriesforKendall on the other hand are presenting as thinking she would be what the voters want, but is it all an elaborate double bluff? Perhaps Burnham is what the public wants, and the Tories want to appear to back him as good for them, so that Labour definitely don't pick him.
But the point is that political-partisans are very bad at judging what normal voters want from the opposing party (I'm not saying this just applies to Tories, I remember all the Guardian columnists from way back smugly assuming that the public would never take to a right-wing posho like Boris).
I think you meant to say 1997 not 1992... Of course back then, Kinnock went up against both Thatcher and Major, and he and the Labour party still managed to lose both elections. Not really sure of what point you are making about Blair either, and because right now he appears even more toxic within his own party than he does to his former opponents.
Fitalass Of course in 2010 the Tories had the advantage of not facing Blair for the first time since 1992, in 2020 Labour will not face Cameron for the first time since 2005
No, the Tories faced Blair in 1997 too didn't they! Had Blair not Kinnock faced Major in 1992 he probably would have won. Cameron is not exactly loved by his base either, but both Blair and Cameron are pretty dead centre with the average voter
Carlotta The Tory base were perfectly comfortable with Thatcher, indeed she was the closest party leader to the membership since Labour was led by Attlee
Blair seems like a pretty toxic figure within the country tbh; it's only a small group of Blairites within the Conservative party (Cameron, Osborne etc.), and his remaining American admirers who still think Blair is god's greatest gift to the earth. New Labour was great at acquiring power; pretty shite at actually knowing what to do with it, though.
You are trying to argue from a point of comparing a Conservative party that won four GE's under both Thatcher and Major before it faced a melt down GE against Blair in 1997. And as opposed to a Labour party that won three GE's under Blair before it lost under Brown in 2010, and then managed to pick another totally unsuitable leader who led them to suffer a bigger electoral defeat in the following 2015 GE.
Still not sure what point you are trying to make about the mystical powers of Tony Blair in all of this, especially after a Conservative party in a third term of Government showed far better survival instincts than the last Labour Government did by holding a proper Leadership election contest instead of being cowed into a coronation whereby they knew they were backing an electorally liability.
Its worth pointing out again, Cameron achieved an amazing result in 2010, even if he didn't get the Conservative party across that majority winning line. Blair on the other hand literally just had to nip over the line and start piling up a majority in 1997, so many of those Labour MP's who finally lost their seats only did so back in 2010.
But from 1997 until 2010, the Conservatives were sitting with less than 200 MP's, their numbers have only swelled into a majority over the last five years. Do you think for a minute that this large number of new Conservative MP's lack a survival instinct which will very much rely on them being able to select the strongest two contenders to put forward to their party membership as a Leader and PM who will then appeal to the same electorate that voted into a majority Government?
While Gordon Brown spent the last few years of Blair's Premiership systematically trying to oust him from Office while briefing against and destroying any other Labour politicians Leadership ambitions so he in could become the only viable contender. Don't then go onto make the mistake of assuming that the Conservatives plan to do the same during this Parliament before Cameron stands down. If anything, expect Cameron to try to deliver a stable Government and a healthy economic legacy while he presides over a Leadership contest that could see an other new but fresh candidate emerging from within Government rather than opposition, but a candidate that is not only the Conservatives first choice, but also the public's first pick as well. There is still far too many within the Labour party and the Unions who still don't recognise just what a big political hole they have dug themselves over the last five years.
No, the Tories faced Blair in 1997 too didn't they! Had Blair not Kinnock faced Major in 1992 he probably would have won. Cameron is not exactly loved by his base either, but both Blair and Cameron are pretty dead centre with the average voter
Blair seems like a pretty toxic figure within the country tbh; it's only a small group of Blairites within the Conservative party (Cameron, Osborne etc.), and his remaining American admirers who still think Blair is god's greatest gift to the earth. New Labour was great at acquiring power; pretty shite at actually knowing what to do with it, though.
I agree. Our system is based on the assumption that those who are good at acquiring power (politics) will be good at exercising it (government). But the two require different skills: the first is mainly destructive, since you usually have to destroy the existing government, whereas the second is mainly constructive. A very rare politician, such as Clement Attlee or Margaret Thatcher, can do both well, but they are the exceptions.
The ultimate example of this is Gordon Brown, the most useless Prime Minister for decades, who spent years knifing his own leader, but, once elected, had not the slightest idea what to do with the office he'd schemed to get. I well remember the bewildered tone of some of his MPs who pointed that out at the time.
Ed Miliband, too, never gave the impression that he knew what he wanted to do with power once he got it. Fortunately, he turned out to be just as useless at acquiring power as he was at exercising it (and I have some personal knowledge of his ability at the latter, having worked with DECC during the dying days of the Brown government).
Carlotta The Tory base were perfectly comfortable with Thatcher, indeed she was the closest party leader to the membership since Labour was led by Attlee
Yes, there was a world of difference between the 'party in the country' and the 'party in parliament' - a substantial minority of the latter Thatcher battled against throughout her premiership.
It was best summed after her resignation up in a cartoon of Heseltine standing triumphant before the door to number 10 oblivious to an apoplectic Colonel swinging down on him Tarzan like, wielding his walking stick and intent on a brutal, violent and fatal revenge.
I see Michael White is supporting the notion that politicians who lie and smear should be given a second chance. I presume this 'principal's is to be enshrined in the LD constitution so they remember to apply it to other parties in the future. I mean they wouldn't wish to be tainted by hypocrisy as well as chicanery, would they?
Carlotta The Tory base were perfectly comfortable with Thatcher, indeed she was the closest party leader to the membership since Labour was led by Attlee
Yes, there was a world of difference between the 'party in the country' and the 'party in parliament' - a substantial minority of the latter Thatcher battled against throughout her premiership.
It was best summed after her resignation up in a cartoon of Heseltine standing triumphant before the door to number 10 oblivious to an apoplectic Colonel swinging down on him Tarzan like, wielding his walking stick and intent on a brutal, violent and fatal revenge.
The cartoon I remember on Thatcher's resignation had a whole series of midgets on a stage and a huge pair of legs and the bottom of a handbag walking off.
Carlotta The Tory base were perfectly comfortable with Thatcher, indeed she was the closest party leader to the membership since Labour was led by Attlee
Yes, there was a world of difference between the 'party in the country' and the 'party in parliament' - a substantial minority of the latter Thatcher battled against throughout her premiership.
It was best summed after her resignation up in a cartoon of Heseltine standing triumphant before the door to number 10 oblivious to an apoplectic Colonel swinging down on him Tarzan like, wielding his walking stick and intent on a brutal, violent and fatal revenge.
Partly because of income trends I suspect and partly because of Labour toadying to the Muslim vote. Identity politics is a pretty unpleasant business and is at least partly responsible for allowing events in Rotherham to go undetected and largely unpunished.
Different faith groups also gave very different responses, with BAME Christians and Muslims preferring Labour to the Conservatives, but Hindus and Sikhs preferring the Conservatives to Labour:
Christian: 56% Labour, 31% Conservative Muslim: 64% Labour, 25% Conservative Hindu: 41% Labour, 49% Conservative Sikh (based on a small sample): 41% Labour, 49% Conservative
Fitalass If that is true then why does Burnham lead not just with LD, Labour and UKIP voters but even, more narrowly, with Tories in today's yougov, as well as in the south, London, the Midlands and Wales and Scotland
Carlotta The Tory base were perfectly comfortable with Thatcher, indeed she was the closest party leader to the membership since Labour was led by Attlee
Yes, there was a world of difference between the 'party in the country' and the 'party in parliament' - a substantial minority of the latter Thatcher battled against throughout her premiership.
It was best summed after her resignation up in a cartoon of Heseltine standing triumphant before the door to number 10 oblivious to an apoplectic Colonel swinging down on him Tarzan like, wielding his walking stick and intent on a brutal, violent and fatal revenge.
But she was mad by then, no doubt about it.
'We are a grandmother'......oh dear........
A silly slip of the tongue. Not being PM drove Brown mad.
Comments
FPT: Mr. Palmer, I would recommend The Witcher 3, on the proviso you're not fussed by grimdark. I don't think it overdoes it, but from what I've read things can get a bit grim.
There's a lot of dialogue relative to combat, and many tricky decisions. It's not blue for paragon and red for renegade. And sometimes the 'nice' option leads to bad consequences.
Mr. kle4, it's better executed than Inquisition. The side-quests aren't 'fetch X for Y' so much as 'forget what the main quest is because that priest who hired you was a lying **** who's going to end up dead'.
I'm a first timer with the series. Generally finding combat good, although I'm struggling with a certain Witcher contract. Probably missing a trick.
Gibson's and Thompson's retirements aren't surprising. Gibson was born in 1945 and Thompson in 1949. Biagi is less expected as he's 32 but he said he wants to pursue academic career.
NB if you have side-quests in the first area you want to finish, do them before progressing with the main story, or you might not be able to complete them.
Bloody awful race from a betting perspective. It does feel like I've been unlucky this year so far, but that should even itself out [admittedly, the Kvyat and Vettel bets were just wrong, but on pace Hulkenberg would've easily been top 10].
Lots of fodder for the conspiracy theory folks - does AMG Mercedes have an office on the grassy knoll?
The government of Monaco owns 20% of TMC. Just sayin'
Incidentally, it seems (according to Twitter, for what it's worth) that police/council are moving to ban protests in Rotherham about the child abuse scandal. Not sure how that'll go down, if true.
I don't think they will be short of aspiring candidates for the SNP. Come to think of it I might give it a go myself!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/23/alistair-carmichael-liberal-democrats-byelection-threat-leak-snp-sturgeon
This whole sorry affair is of Carmichaels own making, he had an opportunity to come clean on 6th April when Jeremy's investigation was announced. Further as a solicitor he should have known better. The London MSM who were carpet bombing twitter and their columns when the story broke have gone into 3 monkeys mode. The Scottish MSM are covering it and those papers which have expressed a few see resignation as the only option.
In terms of the SNP the MSM has been after any chink in the new MPs armour and has come up with very little. I'm sure if the new MPs of other parties were subject to the same level of scrutiny similar issues would no doubt have come to light.
The SNP has produced a good summary of all of this:
https://storify.com/theSNP/telegraph-and-the-scottish-labour
What happens is the EDL and Britain First protest, UAF and others launch a counter protest, both sides hurl abuse at each, the EDL and Britain First hurl racist abuse and commit vandalism and the police have spent over two million pounds policing these events in the last few months.
The police, the Rotherham Commissioners and the Rotherham public think the money can be better utilised elsewhere.
Currently trying out older stuff though - Shadowrun Returns, apparently fantasy mixed with cyberpunk; not a combination I've ever come across before.
ToriesForBurnham™ approve this message
What Tory politicians want from a Labour leader is not the same as what the voters want.
I for one could not stomach the Blair Witch Project.
I think Lab would lose more voters from its core than it gains from the right.
I am not sure i am an impartial judge though.
If not Con notional majority = 12 + 4 (SF not present) + 2 (Carswell with Govt) = 18
So 10 Con rebels required to defeat Government (or more if some abstain).
Would be surprised if that many rebels.
Govt could lose in Lords but they'll just reverse in Commons and I doubt Lords would prevail on subject like this.
PP is right, Citizens is centre right.
PSOE is centre left.
Podemos is hard left.
PP + Citizens vote share is probably at an all time high vote share for "right wing" parties.
I was going into a drug store in such a building when I noticed a crane erecting a sign on the side of the building for a new tenant. They had already erected Sugar, Hill, and Imaging. On the truck I could see a large sign about to be lifted by the crane that said Technologies.
I pointed out what the acronym of the company would be. The last part of the sign was taken away and all the other signs were subsequently altered.
But Liz Kendall is no Blair, to put it mildly. Even leaving aside policies (and it's still far from proven that Labour lost because it was "too left-wing" anyway), Burnham has more charisma and communication skills than Kendall, and Cooper looks more like a prime minister.
I would draw a comparison with another female leader who emanated from the liberal tradition against the grain of her party but that would probably be too provocative.
Night all.
Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch 9m9 minutes ago Manhattan, NY
.@Neillbury @RecentlyRealRxx @LordBobOfCheese comparison: music piracy massive, then iTunes came along. Now nobody can be arsed #legalweed
I am "awaiting moderation"
If you need convincing take a good look at this picture and ask yourself whether you would have guessed you were looking at the future dominant figure in European politics - http://polpix.sueddeutsche.com/polopoly_fs/1.15559.1358418528!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/900x600/image.jpg
And the BBC honestly believes that represents a balanced set of views...
As for Scotland, give it FFA and let it be other than predominantly foreign affairs and defence, the SNP will dominate for the next few decade or two at Westminster as the BQ did in Quebec from the early nineties, at Holyrood unionist parties will have to learn to vote tactically
Not that in necessarily matters. In the first instance, the 2020 election is one for the government to lose, not the opposition to win, as with all elections. Only if the government is perceived as not doing a good job will the merits of the opposition come into play.
England wants a common sense government; until Labour offer that, they're irrelevant.
Will Labour 'ditch the left wing crap'? Only if they want to win. At the moment, there's no sign that they do.
However, I doubt it'll be a narrow result unless the In campaign is as inept as Yes to AV.
(*Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall to be PM and Chancellor)
Kendell is not only a fresh face and able to dispense with the last Labour Government's baggage, she is very media friendly and does not come across as too tribal. Indeed, she is already trying to reach out beyond her party's core during the Leadership contest, something that neither Burnham or Cooper are doing right now.
I suspect her polling will improve as the contest progresses and she is given a higher profile in the media that reaches the public. The Labour party have a mountain to climb to win the next GE, especially after their near wipe out in Scotland. But to stand any chance, they need to start appealing to a much wider pool of voters than their core vote in England to have any chance of increasing their current MP tally enough to even make a two term GE strategy feasible.
The Labour party really needs to remember that the Conservatives managed to remain stuck at a polling core vote level for years, languishing in Opposition for three terms with under 200 MP's. The Conservatives political fortunes only began to significantly change when they finally made a complete break with the past. And more importantly, when they went onto chose a Leader who very effectively made his own pitch to reach out beyond the Conservative party from the minute he announced he was running as a candidate in the contest.
On 25 October 1924 the Daily Mail published the forged Zinoviev letter, which cost Ramsay MacDonald's Labour Party in the 1924 general election, held four days later.
The aim and intent of the smear on Nicola Sturgeon was the same and Michael White thinks it is OK - the mind boggles. The problem with people like White is that their hatred of the NATS obsures any semblence of rational judgement.
Not only has Farage yet again made it clear that he views Ukip as his own personal fiefdom, and in much the same manner that Gordon Brown used to do within the Scottish Labour party and then the Treasury. Farage has yet again portrayed Ukip as a one man band, and as such he will then use this position to demand a very significant role as the front man of any Out campaign team. Quite how this will play out with strong maverick Conservatives politicians such as Dan Hannan or John Redwood & Co remains to be seen, I doubt they will be any more comfortable than Douglas Carswell has appeared to be at times with some Farage's strategy antics and political outbursts.
Maybe there will be damaging Conservative divisions caused by an EU referendum campaign, but its far less likely to be the case if politicians within the Conservative party are granted the freedom to campaign on which ever side of the debate they choose to position themselves. But what shouldn't be ignored is the possibility of serious cross party divisions within either the In or Out campaign teams during the campaign. I see trouble ahead for any team that has Farage and Ukip in the mix, and then there is the unlikely bedfellows of Cameron, Sturgeon/Salmond, Lab and the Libdems shaping up within the In campaign.
One of the problems for the Yes to AV campaign back in the last Parliament was the lack of any focussed cross party combined team effort. Miliband not only wouldn't share a platform with Clegg after he entered into Coalition with the Conservatives, I suspect that many in the public would even today be surprised to learn that Miliband or the Labour party were supposed to have supported the Yes campaign during that referendum. And as for Ukip, well nobody wanted to share a platform with them so simple ignored them. And we all know how difficult it was to navigate the cross party make up of the Better Together campaign in Scotland during the Indy Referendum campaign. So there is a long way to go before we all jump the gun and assume that the Conservative party will be the only ones to suffer divisions within their own ranks.
(- hink hat ll hese idiculously ong cronyms hould e anned)
Still not sure what point you are trying to make about the mystical powers of Tony Blair in all of this, especially after a Conservative party in a third term of Government showed far better survival instincts than the last Labour Government did by holding a proper Leadership election contest instead of being cowed into a coronation whereby they knew they were backing an electorally liability.
Its worth pointing out again, Cameron achieved an amazing result in 2010, even if he didn't get the Conservative party across that majority winning line. Blair on the other hand literally just had to nip over the line and start piling up a majority in 1997, so many of those Labour MP's who finally lost their seats only did so back in 2010.
But from 1997 until 2010, the Conservatives were sitting with less than 200 MP's, their numbers have only swelled into a majority over the last five years. Do you think for a minute that this large number of new Conservative MP's lack a survival instinct which will very much rely on them being able to select the strongest two contenders to put forward to their party membership as a Leader and PM who will then appeal to the same electorate that voted into a majority Government?
While Gordon Brown spent the last few years of Blair's Premiership systematically trying to oust him from Office while briefing against and destroying any other Labour politicians Leadership ambitions so he in could become the only viable contender. Don't then go onto make the mistake of assuming that the Conservatives plan to do the same during this Parliament before Cameron stands down. If anything, expect Cameron to try to deliver a stable Government and a healthy economic legacy while he presides over a Leadership contest that could see an other new but fresh candidate emerging from within Government rather than opposition, but a candidate that is not only the Conservatives first choice, but also the public's first pick as well. There is still far too many within the Labour party and the Unions who still don't recognise just what a big political hole they have dug themselves over the last five years.
The ultimate example of this is Gordon Brown, the most useless Prime Minister for decades, who spent years knifing his own leader, but, once elected, had not the slightest idea what to do with the office he'd schemed to get. I well remember the bewildered tone of some of his MPs who pointed that out at the time.
Ed Miliband, too, never gave the impression that he knew what he wanted to do with power once he got it. Fortunately, he turned out to be just as useless at acquiring power as he was at exercising it (and I have some personal knowledge of his ability at the latter, having worked with DECC during the dying days of the Brown government).
It was best summed after her resignation up in a cartoon of Heseltine standing triumphant before the door to number 10 oblivious to an apoplectic Colonel swinging down on him Tarzan like, wielding his walking stick and intent on a brutal, violent and fatal revenge.
But she was mad by then, no doubt about it.
Tories ahead among Hindus and Sikhs.
Christian: 56% Labour, 31% Conservative
Muslim: 64% Labour, 25% Conservative
Hindu: 41% Labour, 49% Conservative
Sikh (based on a small sample): 41% Labour, 49% Conservative
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11626969/Greece-to-miss-IMF-payments-amid-fears-of-catastrophic-eurozone-rupture.html
These people are going to be so disappointed when the EU finds yet another way of kicking the can down the road.