Internet polling is perhaps not familiar to some Swedish political commentators:
"Some Swedish political commentators downplayed the poll, questioning YouGov’s internet polling techniques. “The problem with YouGov is that they don’t use randomly selected people,” Andreas Johansson Heinö from the Timbro think tank, told the Expressen newspaper. “This is a self-recruited panel where we don’t know in what way respondents differ from the population as a whole.”
The Moderates are the renamed "Right" (=Tory) party, and their coalition led the Government until they lost the election to the Social Democrat coalition last year. They are relatively centrist and business-oriented (and pro-EU) and stepped down rather than consider a coalition depending on the populist right-wing Sweden Democrats.
To be fair it should be noted that the poll is very much an outlier compared with others - e.g. the most recent SIFO poll (generally seen as the gold standard in Sweden) showed the SD on 15%, still a bit up on the election but not in the same terms - but that was in June. Worth waiting for another poll to confirm whether there's been a sudden leap of 10%.
The Danish People's Party is steady on around 20%, slightly down on the election. As Andy observes it's a bit cheeky that the Government that depends on their support is proposing greater EU integration, but apparently it is just delivering a pre-election deal publicly made between the governng parties and the Social Democrats.
Someone posted a table yesterday or the day before putting the loyalist gangs top, to be honest, it doesn't matter who was the worst, they were both bad and the link between loyalist paramilitaries and certain groups in Scotland is very strong and continues to this day.
Just under 60% of all deaths in the Troubles are attributable to Republican gangs. It takes quite some statistical manipulation to come to any other conclusion. This is the normal way that the information is presented:
Killings by Military and Paramilitary Groups 1969-2001 Republicans: 2060 (58.6 percent) Loyalists: 1016 (29.2 percent) British Forces: 363 (10 percent) Others – Unknown: 89 (2.2 percent) Total: 3528
I've just peered back at the previous thread and the post I'd recalled was only quoting civilian deaths from uniondivvie
Not in terms of 'civilians'.
Of those killed by British security forces: 187 (~51.5%) were civilians
Of those killed by republican paramilitaries: 723 (~35%) were civilians
Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries: 877 (~85.4%) were civilians
On benefits, I think Cameron is only going for a three year ban, rather than a permanent one. That's a big difference. Also, the problem is the In side would have to argue that limiting benefits would only make a "tiny difference" thus undermining what they've achieved in their negotiation! Plus, I think the EEA means we can exclude NHS treatment without an insurance card - is Cameron going for that? .
Cameron will argue that he's already dealt with the problem. If the Outers get bogged down in trivial details like whether it's 3 years or 5 years or whatever they'll look like completely nutcases.
The lack of a coherent alternative plan, let alone one which they all agree on, is a really serious issue for the Out side, as I've been saying for years. Even now there is no sign that they are actually doing anything to address the issue, yet the referendum is now at most just over two years away, and may be a lot sooner.
They won't be complaining about 3 years versus 5 years. They could say "we will not give any benefits or free NHS care to foreign nationals". And then Cameron will be the nutcase having to say "well, for some of these benefits we won't pay it to some of the immigrants".
I don't see how hard a coherent alternative plan is. They could just say "a trade deal similar to what South Korea has with the EU". It would then require the In side to quibble about details that the general public won't care about.
The In side really need to recognise that they need to win this. It's not enough to go through the motions for a minor repatriation exercise that only fiddles round the edges. They won't win by default.
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
What a "steaming pile of nonsense" Andy Burnham's letter is regarding Tory infiltration. Of course, it has guaranteed headlines on all the news channels, which was the objective.
This Labour leadership contest is a complete farce.
(It's the main story on BBC five o'clock news). zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
dead cat on the table?
You're supposed to chuck the flea infested maggot ridden dead cat onto the table BEFORE the voters have voted, though.
Meanwhile in the modern world... http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/economics/article4533964.ece ''Osborne takes record income tax haul as UK growth flies'' ''the nation is not only wealthier than ever but every member of the UK’s increased population is finally better off on average as well''
There are certainly a lot of attitudes and arguments appearing in public that we haven't seen for many, many years, Mr. Path. Most of them seem to be as abhorrent and/or flawed as when they were first in vogue amongst certain groups in the 1970s. That said sectarian murder gangs running around in Scotland in 2014 and fixing elections is a new one.
Except no-one is claiming that.
All that is being pointed out is the link in individuals and mindset between the intimidation and violence during the referendum to that in Northern Ireland.
You're weak attempted straw man might play to the audience you have in mind. But it's still a lie.
Well, I don't think we should be surprised that the sore losers in the decisively-defeated Yes campaign reacted to defeat by getting the police involved.
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
I think they are gleefully pointing out that he should have complained weeks ago - when they were gleefully boasting about voting in the contest - and so maybe before most of the voters had voted?
I've just had a lifelong non-voter, who never voluntarily discusses politics, raise the Labour leadership contest with me - so well done it, for being notable enough to provoke that.
They'd heard Corbyn on the radio as well as some other stuff on the contest - they think Labour are doomed if they elect him. Clearly this anecode proves the worse fears and most glorious wet dreams of Tories will be true if Corbyn wins.
There are certainly a lot of attitudes and arguments appearing in public that we haven't seen for many, many years, Mr. Path. Most of them seem to be as abhorrent and/or flawed as when they were first in vogue amongst certain groups in the 1970s. That said sectarian murder gangs running around in Scotland in 2014 and fixing elections is a new one.
Except no-one is claiming that.
All that is being pointed out is the link in individuals and mindset between the intimidation and violence during the referendum to that in Northern Ireland.
You're weak attempted straw man might play to the audience you have in mind. But it's still a lie.
There was plenty of intimidation in the referendum, primarily from the Yes campaign.
Now, since you lost, why don't you just shut up and move on; accept the democratic decision of the Scottish people and work for the best Scotland within the UK and let the past go?
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
There are certainly a lot of attitudes and arguments appearing in public that we haven't seen for many, many years, Mr. Path. Most of them seem to be as abhorrent and/or flawed as when they were first in vogue amongst certain groups in the 1970s. That said sectarian murder gangs running around in Scotland in 2014 and fixing elections is a new one.
Except no-one is claiming that.
All that is being pointed out is the link in individuals and mindset between the intimidation and violence during the referendum to that in Northern Ireland.
You're weak attempted straw man might play to the audience you have in mind. But it's still a lie.
There was plenty of intimidation in the referendum, primarily from the Yes campaign.
Now, since you lost, why don't you just shut up and move on; accept the democratic decision of the Scottish people and work for the best Scotland within the UK and let the past go?
The only test of which side was resorting to intimidation and violence is the record of prosecutions. Claims by one side or the other are merely a "he said, she said".
And in terms of prosecutions, it is very clear that the Loyalists were the instigators of violence and intimidation.
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
And with Burnham making a big issue out of it, he looks frit.
Entryism from the Tories is almost certainly eclipsed by the numbers attempting (and probably successfully) to join from the extreme Left.
If you essentially have an open system, it is going to be used for a whole range of purposes. I am almost regretting not having paid my £3 now.
I've just had a lifelong non-voter, who never voluntarily discusses politics, raise the Labour leadership contest with me - so well done it, for being notable enough to provoke that.
They'd heard Corbyn on the radio as well as some other stuff on the contest - they think Labour are doomed if they elect him. Clearly this anecode proves the worse fears and most glorious wet dreams of Tories will be true if Corbyn wins.
Same with me a few days ago - I was astonished he raised the labour leader contest and also how angry he was about the possibility of Corbyn leading labour
I've just had a lifelong non-voter, who never voluntarily discusses politics, raise the Labour leadership contest with me - so well done it, for being notable enough to provoke that.
They'd heard Corbyn on the radio as well as some other stuff on the contest - they think Labour are doomed if they elect him. Clearly this anecode proves the worse fears and most glorious wet dreams of Tories will be true if Corbyn wins.
Our cleaner (a more apolitical person it is hard to imagine) said the other day, out of the blue:
"That Corbyn - he's a bit - dangerous - isn't he?"
I confirmed her assessment of the situation was entirely correct....
There are certainly a lot of attitudes and arguments appearing in public that we haven't seen for many, many years, Mr. Path. Most of them seem to be as abhorrent and/or flawed as when they were first in vogue amongst certain groups in the 1970s. That said sectarian murder gangs running around in Scotland in 2014 and fixing elections is a new one.
Except no-one is claiming that.
All that is being pointed out is the link in individuals and mindset between the intimidation and violence during the referendum to that in Northern Ireland.
You're weak attempted straw man might play to the audience you have in mind. But it's still a lie.
There was plenty of intimidation in the referendum, primarily from the Yes campaign.
Now, since you lost, why don't you just shut up and move on; accept the democratic decision of the Scottish people and work for the best Scotland within the UK and let the past go?
The only test of which side was resorting to intimidation and violence is the record of prosecutions. Claims by one side or the other are merely a "he said, she said".
And in terms of prosecutions, it is very clear that the Loyalists were the instigators of violence and intimidation.
No, that's nonsense. Each side does not have an equal incentive to complain - the Yes side obviously doesn't mind being bad losers (as has been amply demonstrated over the past 11 months) whereas the No side are being better people by letting it go and moving on.
I've just had a lifelong non-voter, who never voluntarily discusses politics, raise the Labour leadership contest with me - so well done it, for being notable enough to provoke that.
They'd heard Corbyn on the radio as well as some other stuff on the contest - they think Labour are doomed if they elect him. Clearly this anecode proves the worse fears and most glorious wet dreams of Tories will be true if Corbyn wins.
Conversely, one of my non-political friends, who almost voted Tory this year before deciding Labour at the last minute, is hoping Corbyn wins on the basis that he'd be a breath of fresh air and would stop young people getting shafted (though she wasn't aware of any of his specific policies).
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
And with Burnham making a big issue out of it, he looks frit.
Entryism from the Tories is almost certainly eclipsed by the numbers attempting (and probably successfully) to join from the extreme Left.
If you essentially have an open system, it is going to be used for a whole range of purposes. I am almost regretting not having paid my £3 now.
I've just had a lifelong non-voter, who never voluntarily discusses politics, raise the Labour leadership contest with me - so well done it, for being notable enough to provoke that.
They'd heard Corbyn on the radio as well as some other stuff on the contest - they think Labour are doomed if they elect him. Clearly this anecode proves the worse fears and most glorious wet dreams of Tories will be true if Corbyn wins.
Conversely, one of my non-political friends, who almost voted Tory this year before deciding Labour at the last minute, is hoping Corbyn wins on the basis that he'd be a breath of fresh air and would stop young people getting shafted (though she wasn't aware of any of his specific policies).
If those figures are worth anything, and as they are a YouGov poll that must be doubtful, then as a confirmed BOOer I am quietly heartened. It could be doable.
As a Tory for Stay I'm also heartened as I'd expect a swing to the status quo of In. I'd expected we'd have started from behind with Leave being in the lead in early polls, but still be able to overcome that.
Akin to the 2011 AV Referendum where change started in the lead by about 2-1 but lost by 2-1.
OTOH, in the Scottish independence referendum the campaign produced a big swing to Leave.
The big question is whether the AV Referendum swing was caused by a natural swing to the status quo, or whether it was caused by people wanting to give Nick Clegg a kicking.
The swing in the Scottish Referendum was entirely due to the Independence argument winning quite massively and only being stopped from crossing the line by a wide scale and quite nasty intimidation campaign by Loyalists including violence.
Yes the cybernats were so passive and meek weren't they and no Nat ever heckled a No campaigner
I've just had a lifelong non-voter, who never voluntarily discusses politics, raise the Labour leadership contest with me - so well done it, for being notable enough to provoke that.
They'd heard Corbyn on the radio as well as some other stuff on the contest - they think Labour are doomed if they elect him. Clearly this anecode proves the worse fears and most glorious wet dreams of Tories will be true if Corbyn wins.
Our cleaner (a more apolitical person it is hard to imagine) said the other day, out of the blue:
"That Corbyn - he's a bit - dangerous - isn't he?"
I confirmed her assessment of the situation was entirely correct....
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
I was one of approx 12 people to first-pref him in 2010, yet I'm in two minds about whether to do it this time.
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
Unless you assume he wanted Corbyn to win... in which case he played an absolute blinder.
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
Unless you assume he wanted Corbyn to win... in which case he played an absolute blinder.
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
I was one of approx 12 people to first-pref him in 2010, yet I'm in two minds about whether to do it this time.
He's definitely behind YC and LK in my mind - too similar to EdM, I don't think it'll be good for the country to have a virtual rerun of the last five years. My only question is where to slot JC in my preferences...
Someone posted a table yesterday or the day before putting the loyalist gangs top, to be honest, it doesn't matter who was the worst, they were both bad and the link between loyalist paramilitaries and certain groups in Scotland is very strong and continues to this day.
Just under 60% of all deaths in the Troubles are attributable to Republican gangs. It takes quite some statistical manipulation to come to any other conclusion. This is the normal way that the information is presented:
Killings by Military and Paramilitary Groups 1969-2001 Republicans: 2060 (58.6 percent) Loyalists: 1016 (29.2 percent) British Forces: 363 (10 percent) Others – Unknown: 89 (2.2 percent) Total: 3528
I've just peered back at the previous thread and the post I'd recalled was only quoting civilian deaths from uniondivvie
Not in terms of 'civilians'.
Of those killed by British security forces: 187 (~51.5%) were civilians
Of those killed by republican paramilitaries: 723 (~35%) were civilians
Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries: 877 (~85.4%) were civilians
I think I kicked off this discussion a day ago by comparing the morality of deliberately killing innocent civilians (never justified in my opinion) and killing non-civilian forces (sometimes justified). Unfortunately it turned into a rather bad-tempered emotional argument. Sorry I raised the point.
I’m sure the ‘entryists’ in the literal sense of the word, are vastly outnumbered by first time Labour voters and Union affiliates for Jeremy Corbyn.
This is all yet more nonsense from a desperate Labour candidate whose rapidly losing the plot. I doubt we’d hear a peep out of Burnham about this if he was comfortably in the lead.
Well, I don't think we should be surprised that the sore losers in the decisively-defeated Yes campaign reacted to defeat by getting the police involved.
Sadly Labour had to bus in activists from England to man the polling stations as there weren't enough activists on the ground. Most of the Indyref arrests were in connection with the Unionists "celebrations" in George Square:
I’m sure the ‘entryists’ in the literal sense of the word, are vastly outnumbered by first time Labour voters and Union affiliates for Jeremy Corbyn.
This is all yet more nonsense from a desperate Labour candidate whose rapidly losing the plot. I doubt we’d hear a peep out of Burnham about this if he was comfortably in the lead.
It did rather smack of Andy Burnham having seen some actual voting results - and gone "WTF?????"
Well, I don't think we should be surprised that the sore losers in the decisively-defeated Yes campaign reacted to defeat by getting the police involved.
Hilarious ''A MERSEYSIDE Labour MP charged with attacking a political opponent in Glasgow has asked for more time before making a plea, a court heard today. Marie Rimmer, 68, was arrested and charged with assault as she campaigned against Scottish independence in Glasgow during the referendum campaign last September after she allegedly kicked a Yes supporter outside a polling station.''
Thats 68 (!) and built like Bessie Braddock (who is currently to be found spinning in her grave BTW) and a 'kick in the shins' (allegedly!). All the SNPforCorbyns have been out in the sun too long.
Fresh elections mean the Greeks might finally be booted out ?
But the equity markets are having a very bad time. FTSE 100 down 2.8% today to 6187. Ouch. I have far far more money at stake in equity markets than in betting markets. Both are a gamble but I kid myself that one is an investment.
I’m sure the ‘entryists’ in the literal sense of the word, are vastly outnumbered by first time Labour voters and Union affiliates for Jeremy Corbyn.
This is all yet more nonsense from a desperate Labour candidate whose rapidly losing the plot. I doubt we’d hear a peep out of Burnham about this if he was comfortably in the lead.
It did rather smack of Andy Burnham having seen some actual voting results - and gone "WTF?????"
If the ERS are showing real results to candidates at this stage, then the whole thing should be called off. And the ERS disbanded.
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
I was one of approx 12 people to first-pref him in 2010, yet I'm in two minds about whether to do it this time.
He's definitely behind YC and LK in my mind - too similar to EdM, I don't think it'll be good for the country to have a virtual rerun of the last five years. My only question is where to slot JC in my preferences...
Burnham consistently comes top of the 4 in terms of polls of the public though
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
I was one of approx 12 people to first-pref him in 2010, yet I'm in two minds about whether to do it this time.
He's definitely behind YC and LK in my mind - too similar to EdM, I don't think it'll be good for the country to have a virtual rerun of the last five years. My only question is where to slot JC in my preferences...
Burnham consistently comes top of the 4 in terms of polls of the public though
I'm not sure that there are enough polls and that the polls are meaningful enough to draw any conclusions.
Fresh elections mean the Greeks might finally be booted out ?
But the equity markets are having a very bad time. FTSE 100 down 2.8% today to 6187. Ouch. I have far far more money at stake in equity markets than in betting markets. Both are a gamble but I kid myself that one is an investment.
So do I (indirectly, pension pot). So long as it picks up in the next 30 years I'll be ok though.
The letter added: "This suggests the 121,000 registered supporters could include several thousand Tory infiltrators, as well as supporters of other parties seeking to have a vote in the election."
I’m sure the ‘entryists’ in the literal sense of the word, are vastly outnumbered by first time Labour voters and Union affiliates for Jeremy Corbyn.
This is all yet more nonsense from a desperate Labour candidate whose rapidly losing the plot. I doubt we’d hear a peep out of Burnham about this if he was comfortably in the lead.
It did rather smack of Andy Burnham having seen some actual voting results - and gone "WTF?????"
If the ERS are showing real results to candidates at this stage, then the whole thing should be called off. And the ERS disbanded.
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
I was one of approx 12 people to first-pref him in 2010, yet I'm in two minds about whether to do it this time.
He's definitely behind YC and LK in my mind - too similar to EdM, I don't think it'll be good for the country to have a virtual rerun of the last five years. My only question is where to slot JC in my preferences...
Burnham consistently comes top of the 4 in terms of polls of the public though
I'm not sure that there are enough polls and that the polls are meaningful enough to draw any conclusions.
Well yougov and Mori and OBR and Comres have had him net highest Cooper generally last. Corbyn has high favourable but higher unfavourables
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
TBH he's come up to my low expectations. I've long been baffled by the fact that Labour supporters rate him, especially since they didn't in 2010. They judged him correctly then.
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
I was one of approx 12 people to first-pref him in 2010, yet I'm in two minds about whether to do it this time.
He's definitely behind YC and LK in my mind - too similar to EdM, I don't think it'll be good for the country to have a virtual rerun of the last five years. My only question is where to slot JC in my preferences...
Burnham consistently comes top of the 4 in terms of polls of the public though
The letter added: "This suggests the 121,000 registered supporters could include several thousand Tory infiltrators, as well as supporters of other parties seeking to have a vote in the election."
I’m sure the ‘entryists’ in the literal sense of the word, are vastly outnumbered by first time Labour voters and Union affiliates for Jeremy Corbyn.
This is all yet more nonsense from a desperate Labour candidate whose rapidly losing the plot. I doubt we’d hear a peep out of Burnham about this if he was comfortably in the lead.
It did rather smack of Andy Burnham having seen some actual voting results - and gone "WTF?????"
If the ERS are showing real results to candidates at this stage, then the whole thing should be called off. And the ERS disbanded.
The problem they face is trying to determine whether someone is a convert or a mischief maker.
And short of having McCarthy style hearings, they are going to struggle to prove it either way.
The letter added: "This suggests the 121,000 registered supporters could include several thousand Tory infiltrators, as well as supporters of other parties seeking to have a vote in the election."
I’m sure the ‘entryists’ in the literal sense of the word, are vastly outnumbered by first time Labour voters and Union affiliates for Jeremy Corbyn.
This is all yet more nonsense from a desperate Labour candidate whose rapidly losing the plot. I doubt we’d hear a peep out of Burnham about this if he was comfortably in the lead.
It did rather smack of Andy Burnham having seen some actual voting results - and gone "WTF?????"
If the ERS are showing real results to candidates at this stage, then the whole thing should be called off. And the ERS disbanded.
The problem they face is trying to determine whether someone is a convert or a mischief maker.
And short of having McCarthy style hearings, they are going to struggle to prove it either way.
My Dad is an old labour voter, a teacher in East Londin who voted Ukip at the GE, but prob as comfortable on a building site (his old job) had his 2p on the lab leadership/Corbyn.
Can't have a republican who takes the side of anyone who hates England on his mind.
This could be over in three days again. England often seem to play better outside London, although the statistics probably say otherwise.
It has certainly always seemed to me that the opposition always raises it's game for Lord's - because it's Lord's. The Oval is so often a dead rubber and the team that's lost seems to play much better - it certainly seemed that way when we were getting thrashed in the Ashes in the 90s.
Conservatives can't complain about Andy Burnham raising fears of Tory infiltration in the Labour leadership election process. They've been gleefully boasting about trying for weeks.
Labour is damaged by both the infiltration (if there is much) and the complaints about it, especially complaints by someone who seems like a sore loser. A result which seems illegitimate to some in the party will be particularly damaging to Labour.
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
He sensibly position himself as the unity candidate, and made actual attempts to win over people tempted by Corbyn.
Of the not-Corbyns he had easily the best campaign
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
TBH he's come up to my low expectations. I've long been baffled by the fact that Labour supporters rate him, especially since they didn't in 2010. They judged him correctly then.
From my recollection, in 2010 it wasn't so much that he was rejected, it was that he just wasn't really noticed or considered seriously. He was the least-interesting candidate behind the battle of the brothers, the marmite Brown right-hand man, and Diane the court jester.
In the 5 years since then he established himself as the soft-left mainstream's dream candidate by actually having some principles while being reasonably "human" and down-to-earth (by the low standards of the shadow cabinet of policy wonks), but then he went and ruined it by spending the first half of his campaign prattling on about "aspiration", giving a "pro-business" speech at the HQ of a major tax-dodger, and flip-flopping on the Welfare Bill.
Miss Plato, I recently glanced at the (Hnefa)tafl rules, and some sets, and they look a bit similar.
Hnefatafl, sometimes just called Tafl, is an asymmetric sort of Viking (and later variation) chess. Never played it (though I have played Tabula and Ludus Romanus, back when Past Times wasn't WWII-focused), but it looks pretty good.
My Dad is an old labour voter, a teacher in East Londin who voted Ukip at the GE, but prob as comfortable on a building site (his old job) had his 2p on the lab leadership/Corbyn.
Can't have a republican who takes the side of anyone who hates England on his mind.
Do you think any of the candidates would fare well with UKIP voters (or stop more Ukippy Labour voters defecting)?
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
TBH he's come up to my low expectations. I've long been baffled by the fact that Labour supporters rate him, especially since they didn't in 2010. They judged him correctly then.
I was going to give him my third preference after 1) Kendall and 2) Cooper, but I've decided not to bother. Corbyn will be an effing disaster, and the infinitesimal (not visible to the naked eye) degree by which Burnham would be better is so small as to be counterbalanced by the equally infinitesimal degree of personal effort involved in placing a 3 by his name.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
TBH he's come up to my low expectations. I've long been baffled by the fact that Labour supporters rate him, especially since they didn't in 2010. They judged him correctly then.
While Corbyn polls best with Labour and UKIP voters Burnham polls best with Tories and Kendall with LDs
My Dad is an old labour voter, a teacher in East Londin who voted Ukip at the GE, but prob as comfortable on a building site (his old job) had his 2p on the lab leadership/Corbyn.
Can't have a republican who takes the side of anyone who hates England on his mind.
Do you think any of the candidates would fare well with UKIP voters (or stop more Ukippy Labour voters defecting)?
No.
None of them have had anything to say about addressing immigration or improving the deal with Europe.
Jeremy Hardy, who I saw with Spike Milligan sometime in the 70s: "...accused Labour of trying to "change the rules of a game during an election". "The Labour Party might be trying to invite a legal challenge so that they can say 'let's just scrap the election'," Mr Hardy added. "They are so desperate that I wouldn't be surprised." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34013497
My Dad is an old labour voter, a teacher in East Londin who voted Ukip at the GE, but prob as comfortable on a building site (his old job) had his 2p on the lab leadership/Corbyn.
Can't have a republican who takes the side of anyone who hates England on his mind.
Do you think any of the candidates would fare well with UKIP voters (or stop more Ukippy Labour voters defecting)?
None of those 4.
Cruddas and Field are the only ones that might appeal
Mr Hardy campaigning for the Greenies could be a factor.
I've been quite entertained by the people who want to remake Labour in their own image. Respect's former leader Ms Yaqoob is on Jerry's election team FFS.
How she can be seen as a Labour supporter is beyond me. I assume she doesn't have a vote.
Jeremy Hardy, who I saw with Spike Milligan sometime in the 70s: "...accused Labour of trying to "change the rules of a game during an election". "The Labour Party might be trying to invite a legal challenge so that they can say 'let's just scrap the election'," Mr Hardy added. "They are so desperate that I wouldn't be surprised." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34013497
I'm trying to think of a single thing that Andy Burnham has got right in this campaign. I can't think of anything.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
TBH he's come up to my low expectations. I've long been baffled by the fact that Labour supporters rate him, especially since they didn't in 2010. They judged him correctly then.
I was going to give him my third preference after 1) Kendall and 2) Cooper, but I've decided not to bother. Corbyn will be an effing disaster, and the infinitesimal (not visible to the naked eye) degree by which Burnham would be better is so small as to be counterbalanced by the equally infinitesimal degree of personal effort involved in placing a 3 by his name.
Cooper is actually by far the worst of the 4 and she often polls even behind Corbyn
Jeremy Hardy, who I saw with Spike Milligan sometime in the 70s: "...accused Labour of trying to "change the rules of a game during an election". "The Labour Party might be trying to invite a legal challenge so that they can say 'let's just scrap the election'," Mr Hardy added. "They are so desperate that I wouldn't be surprised." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34013497
As was pointed out in an earlier thread, there is no legal challenge possible - as it is an election being run by a private club. Unless someone can find a contractual angle on it all, it is hard to see what sort of legal remedy someone might seek.
Mr Hardy campaigning for the Greenies could be a factor.
I've been quite entertained by the people who want to remake Labour in their own image. Respect's former leader Ms Yaqoob is on Jerry's election team FFS.
How she can be seen as a Labour supporter is beyond me. I assume she doesn't have a vote.
Jeremy Hardy, who I saw with Spike Milligan sometime in the 70s: "...accused Labour of trying to "change the rules of a game during an election". "The Labour Party might be trying to invite a legal challenge so that they can say 'let's just scrap the election'," Mr Hardy added. "They are so desperate that I wouldn't be surprised." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34013497
Following on from Kezia's announcement that she's proposing to make it a legal requirement that Holyrood has a 50 - 50 gender balance, she's today announced that 50% of the new SLAB candidates are going to be female:
Following on from Kezia's announcement that she's proposing to make it a legal requirement that Holyrood has a 50 - 50 gender balance, she's today announced that 50% of the new SLAB candidates are going to be female:
My Dad is an old labour voter, a teacher in East Londin who voted Ukip at the GE, but prob as comfortable on a building site (his old job) had his 2p on the lab leadership/Corbyn.
Can't have a republican who takes the side of anyone who hates England on his mind.
Do you think any of the candidates would fare well with UKIP voters (or stop more Ukippy Labour voters defecting)?
Some UKIP voters will like Corbyn's economic policies but his views on immigration and multiculturalism will probably put most of them off.
Jeremy Hardy, who I saw with Spike Milligan sometime in the 70s: "...accused Labour of trying to "change the rules of a game during an election". "The Labour Party might be trying to invite a legal challenge so that they can say 'let's just scrap the election'," Mr Hardy added. "They are so desperate that I wouldn't be surprised." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34013497
As was pointed out in an earlier thread, there is no legal challenge possible - as it is an election being run by a private club. Unless someone can find a contractual angle on it all, it is hard to see what sort of legal remedy someone might seek.
I've seen opinion that Labour may be breaking Data Protection Laws in how they handle subjects' data.
What's the weather like at the oval for the next three days ;-)
Cricket more than many sports (but never the less like most) is a game played in the head. England are not interested and have bowled fielded and batted accordingly. Just why were Australia put in??? This innings has been a stinkingly unprofessional performance from people paid a lot on money. Simply batting to 300 and taking a bit of time over it was all that was needed.
Following on from Kezia's announcement that she's proposing to make it a legal requirement that Holyrood has a 50 - 50 gender balance, she's today announced that 50% of the new SLAB candidates are going to be female:
Following on from Kezia's announcement that she's proposing to make it a legal requirement that Holyrood has a 50 - 50 gender balance, she's today announced that 50% of the new SLAB candidates are going to be female:
There is so much wrong with this... I don't know where to start. Or, more to the point, where it will end.
''Having a parliament that looks like the country we seek to represent'' could be dangerous. The Hollyrood Parliament serving Tennants at 8.30 in the morning?
The decision was made almost casually. There was a great deal of angst in Miliband’s office and beyond about how to change the rules for the party membership. In the end Miliband’s plans for one member one vote were widely praised. As far as the additional reform was concerned, the one that allowed more or less anyone to vote in his party’s leadership contest, there was little comment.
Why was the Labour party, the media, the wider electorate, not shocked by the idea that individuals with no connection to a party being given a chance to elect its leader?
A lot of Labour party members are shocked now, not necessarily because the new system is benefitting one candidate rather than another but because it diminishes their role and contribution.
Following on from Kezia's announcement that she's proposing to make it a legal requirement that Holyrood has a 50 - 50 gender balance, she's today announced that 50% of the new SLAB candidates are going to be female:
Following on from Kezia's announcement that she's proposing to make it a legal requirement that Holyrood has a 50 - 50 gender balance, she's today announced that 50% of the new SLAB candidates are going to be female:
Jeremy Hardy, who I saw with Spike Milligan sometime in the 70s: "...accused Labour of trying to "change the rules of a game during an election". "The Labour Party might be trying to invite a legal challenge so that they can say 'let's just scrap the election'," Mr Hardy added. "They are so desperate that I wouldn't be surprised." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34013497
Why does the BBC insist on taking seriously singers who can't sing and comedians who aren't funny, talking about politics when they clearly know nothing about that either?
Following on from Kezia's announcement that she's proposing to make it a legal requirement that Holyrood has a 50 - 50 gender balance, she's today announced that 50% of the new SLAB candidates are going to be female:
There is so much wrong with this... I don't know where to start. Or, more to the point, where it will end.
Indeed, Kezia is really digging herself into a right hole, I'm all for more equality in parliament and public bodies - but to try and force it through by unworkable legislation and announcements like today's is nothing short of barmy. A further consideration is that as well as the 73 constituency seats in Holyrood there are 56 regional list seats - time to bring in a Nobel prize winning mathematician to try and sort this one out.
What's the weather like at the oval for the next three days ;-)
Just why were Australia put in???
Given how they've batted in the last 2 games, even on a good pitch with an indifferent attack, England must have fancied their chances to roll them over fairly quickly. As you say, the game is in the head, and they probably thought the Aussies' heads were vulnerable.
Following on from Kezia's announcement that she's proposing to make it a legal requirement that Holyrood has a 50 - 50 gender balance, she's today announced that 50% of the new SLAB candidates are going to be female:
There is so much wrong with this... I don't know where to start. Or, more to the point, where it will end.
''Having a parliament that looks like the country we seek to represent'' could be dangerous. The Hollyrood Parliament serving Tennants at 8.30 in the morning?
Ignoring the cheap Tennants jibe, is look restrained to tits or is is also career paths, education, intelligence, disabilities etc etc. genuinely interested in how she thinks this will work. If indeed there has been any thought.
Bizarre and sad. I presume this has something to do with *Rotherham*.
Yes it's very sad and horribly predictable
As Enoch said in 'the road to national suicide', all it takes is mass immigration, a tiny percentage of bad people at either extreme, and an establishment acting as conductor by pretending there is no problem
Following on from Kezia's announcement that she's proposing to make it a legal requirement that Holyrood has a 50 - 50 gender balance, she's today announced that 50% of the new SLAB candidates are going to be female:
Comments
To be fair it should be noted that the poll is very much an outlier compared with others - e.g. the most recent SIFO poll (generally seen as the gold standard in Sweden) showed the SD on 15%, still a bit up on the election but not in the same terms - but that was in June. Worth waiting for another poll to confirm whether there's been a sudden leap of 10%.
http://www.tns-sifo.se/media/568778/vb_jun_2015_svd.pdf
The Danish People's Party is steady on around 20%, slightly down on the election. As Andy observes it's a bit cheeky that the Government that depends on their support is proposing greater EU integration, but apparently it is just delivering a pre-election deal publicly made between the governng parties and the Social Democrats.
Not in terms of 'civilians'.
Of those killed by British security forces:
187 (~51.5%) were civilians
Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:
723 (~35%) were civilians
Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:
877 (~85.4%) were civilians
http://tinyurl.com/ozlfr62
I don't see how hard a coherent alternative plan is. They could just say "a trade deal similar to what South Korea has with the EU". It would then require the In side to quibble about details that the general public won't care about.
The In side really need to recognise that they need to win this. It's not enough to go through the motions for a minor repatriation exercise that only fiddles round the edges. They won't win by default.
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/2207/labour-mp-accused-of-assaulting-yes-campaigner-granted-more-time-by-court-to-decide-plea
Have fun all.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/economics/article4533964.ece
''Osborne takes record income tax haul as UK growth flies''
''the nation is not only wealthier than ever but every member of the UK’s increased population is finally better off on average as well''
best idea Mr L, there's currently something rotten in the state of Scotland.
All that is being pointed out is the link in individuals and mindset between the intimidation and violence during the referendum to that in Northern Ireland.
You're weak attempted straw man might play to the audience you have in mind. But it's still a lie.
They'd heard Corbyn on the radio as well as some other stuff on the contest - they think Labour are doomed if they elect him. Clearly this anecode proves the worse fears and most glorious wet dreams of Tories will be true if Corbyn wins.
Now, since you lost, why don't you just shut up and move on; accept the democratic decision of the Scottish people and work for the best Scotland within the UK and let the past go?
Fresh elections mean the Greeks might finally be booted out ?
I don't personally think it's cricket, but that's another matter. In any case Labour are doing an impressively thorough job of self-harm even without assistance from the Toby Young Tendency.
And in terms of prosecutions, it is very clear that the Loyalists were the instigators of violence and intimidation.
Entryism from the Tories is almost certainly eclipsed by the numbers attempting (and probably successfully) to join from the extreme Left.
If you essentially have an open system, it is going to be used for a whole range of purposes. I am almost regretting not having paid my £3 now.
"That Corbyn - he's a bit - dangerous - isn't he?"
I confirmed her assessment of the situation was entirely correct....
You should learn from them.
I normally chat about their pets, admire their tattoos and the weather.
He's been hugely diminished by the process.
I wonder if Burnham is the anti-Obama when it comes to internal party campaigning.
I think I kicked off this discussion a day ago by comparing the morality of deliberately killing innocent civilians (never justified in my opinion) and killing non-civilian forces (sometimes justified). Unfortunately it turned into a rather bad-tempered emotional argument. Sorry I raised the point.
This is all yet more nonsense from a desperate Labour candidate whose rapidly losing the plot. I doubt we’d hear a peep out of Burnham about this if he was comfortably in the lead.
https://www.google.com/search?q=20th+september+2014+george+square++glasgow+unionist+images&biw=1013&bih=520&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIg9PX4c26xwIVwrwUCh3BagUc
''A MERSEYSIDE Labour MP charged with attacking a political opponent in Glasgow has asked for more time before making a plea, a court heard today.
Marie Rimmer, 68, was arrested and charged with assault as she campaigned against Scottish independence in Glasgow during the referendum campaign last September after she allegedly kicked a Yes supporter outside a polling station.''
Thats 68 (!) and built like Bessie Braddock (who is currently to be found spinning in her grave BTW) and a 'kick in the shins' (allegedly!).
All the SNPforCorbyns have been out in the sun too long.
The problem they face is trying to determine whether someone is a convert or a mischief maker.
And short of having McCarthy style hearings, they are going to struggle to prove it either way.
All good fun.
Every bit of the process has been full of holes, rules bent, partisan decisions made about who is or isn't eligible and on and on.
I don't think it'd be possible to create a farce more absurd. The problem they face is trying to determine whether someone is a convert or a mischief maker.
And short of having McCarthy style hearings, they are going to struggle to prove it either way.
All good fun.
Can't have a republican who takes the side of anyone who hates England on his mind.
Well they could get an Elvis impersonator to announce the result…! – just saying.
BTW - speaking of avatars - yours looks remarkably like a chess set my mum brought back from a trip to Norway. Is it famous?
Of the not-Corbyns he had easily the best campaign
In the 5 years since then he established himself as the soft-left mainstream's dream candidate by actually having some principles while being reasonably "human" and down-to-earth (by the low standards of the shadow cabinet of policy wonks), but then he went and ruined it by spending the first half of his campaign prattling on about "aspiration", giving a "pro-business" speech at the HQ of a major tax-dodger, and flip-flopping on the Welfare Bill.
Hnefatafl, sometimes just called Tafl, is an asymmetric sort of Viking (and later variation) chess. Never played it (though I have played Tabula and Ludus Romanus, back when Past Times wasn't WWII-focused), but it looks pretty good.
I bet the victim here wasn't gunning for Sharia Law etc
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/634764169124970498
None of them have had anything to say about addressing immigration or improving the deal with Europe.
"...accused Labour of trying to "change the rules of a game during an election".
"The Labour Party might be trying to invite a legal challenge so that they can say 'let's just scrap the election'," Mr Hardy added. "They are so desperate that I wouldn't be surprised."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34013497
Cruddas and Field are the only ones that might appeal
I've been quite entertained by the people who want to remake Labour in their own image. Respect's former leader Ms Yaqoob is on Jerry's election team FFS.
How she can be seen as a Labour supporter is beyond me. I assume she doesn't have a vote.
https://twitter.com/scottishlabour/status/634772041292316672
Easy-peasy.
This innings has been a stinkingly unprofessional performance from people paid a lot on money. Simply batting to 300 and taking a bit of time over it was all that was needed.
Fifty percent is the floor for female candidates. It's the ceiling for male candidates.
It is a noble aspiration. But I don't think legally enforceable quotas are the way to achieve it.
Having said that, she is never going to be in a position to implement it, so we needn't worry.
As Enoch said in 'the road to national suicide', all it takes is mass immigration, a tiny percentage of bad people at either extreme, and an establishment acting as conductor by pretending there is no problem