I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
Killing traitorous jihadi scum is fine by me; but the precedent of doing it in the one place in the world that parliament voted against bombing? There is a slippery slope here if a PM and military can make acts of war against the expressed will of Parliament. Well dodgy!
I agree is why I want to see the legal advice.
It's not that difficult. Military action is taken under the Royal Prerogative. It is only since 2003 that Parliament has even been given the courtesy of offering an opinion - there is no consensus that they can exercise a Veto. As far a Legal Opinion is concerned, what matters more is what is allowable under international law.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.
That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.
And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
TSE, for it to be an extra-judicial execution, presumably the Brits would have had to have been personally targeted. What is the evidence for that? Have not kept up with the news stories, so that might just be me showing my ignorance.
If they have joined the ranks of an army with whom we are effectively at war, then is it extra judicial? Which are you applying - the Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols or customary law based on chivalry? If the latter, didn't the US end that as a legal principle in the war of independence when they targeted British Officers?
Quite. The Prime Minister has the authority under the Crown to use ultimate force to act in armed defence of British subjects, and our national interest, whenever there is an imminent threat to our well-being from those that mean us harm.
To claim that this is bringing back the death penalty by the back door would be similar to saying the same of the SAS storming of the Iranian embassy in 1980.
Besides that there are the basic matters of timeliness, security, and self defence. If people think Parliament holds the reins they are mistaken. This is almost certainly not even the first time a Brit has been killed in Syria by UK forces, as there are plenty of stories about UK special forces already operating there.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
Killing traitorous jihadi scum is fine by me; but the precedent of doing it in the one place in the world that parliament voted against bombing? There is a slippery slope here if a PM and military can make acts of war against the expressed will of Parliament. Well dodgy!
I agree is why I want to see the legal advice.
Under our constitution, the Prime Minister consulting parliament for a vote on military action, and its limits, is basically nothing more than a politically convenient courtesy.
England and Wales, Labour's top 100 seats by vote share:
2010: top 100 seats are those where Labour polled 45.35%+. They received 2,120,267 out of 7,571,035 votes in England & Wales, which is 28.00%
2015: top 100 seats are those where Labour polled 50.45%+. They received 2,527,384 out of 8,640,157 in England & Wales, which is 29.25%.
Not much difference.
Doing it the other way, looking at those constituencies where Labour polled 50%+:
2010: 56 seats. 1,254,944 out of 7,571,035 = 16.58% 2015: 106 seats. 2,657,457 out of 8,640,157 = 30.76%.
So it depends how you look at it. Labour almost doubled the number of seats in England & Wales where they polled 50%+ so in that sense they piled up more votes in safe seats.
A lot of those 56 seats in 2010 would have been in Scotland. I suspect at least 15 if not more. So Labour did a lot more than just double the number of seats in rGB.
Someone needs to break it to Labourlist that the game has changed. In 2010 Nuneaton was a key marginal with a 2,000 Con majority, Labour would be expecting it to fall in their lap. Now it is a 5,000 Con majority. It is no longer a 'key marginal'.
It's a mindset they need to get into. They went backwards a few months ago, and they need to work out why.
Lest we forget labour increased its vote in England, by more than the Tories did off the back of stitching up their own mates.
It would be amusing if Corbyn further increased the vote, but did even worse because even more than Ed M he piled up votes in safe seats and lost them elsewhere. Maybe we'd finally get voting reform as even the victors felt things were getting ridiculous?
Is there any evidence that EdM piled up votes in safe seats? From what I can remember the Labour vote didn't really go anywhere.
Yes, I'll dig the figures in a thread for later on this week.
For example look at the Liverpool and Manchester seats.
Since you are busy as editor while OGH is away, I can do some number crunching for you using my Election Data, if you like. Just tell me the parameters that you want to be reported.
(OTOH if you prefer to do it yourself then I understand perfectly )
Is flight path calling me an anti-Semite for saying I don't kowtow to Israel, unlike the self proclaimed patriots here? Bizarre.
The Tories are the least patriotic of all the parties, having sold most of the country to foreigners.
No doubt thanks to the funds provided by the great world jewish conspiracy we find that the UK is able to buy up companies from all over the world. http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/national/130961-/ I for one am grateful that it is a British owned company that is able to arm a significant chunk of the the United States Armed Forces.
'On that topic, when are Bono and Geldof going to offer to house some homeless from this country, or are they insignificant in the quest for self publicity?'
No self publicity or grandstanding,wouldn't make the news.
Someone needs to break it to Labourlist that the game has changed. In 2010 Nuneaton was a key marginal with a 2,000 Con majority, Labour would be expecting it to fall in their lap. Now it is a 5,000 Con majority. It is no longer a 'key marginal'.
It's a mindset they need to get into. They went backwards a few months ago, and they need to work out why.
Lest we forget labour increased its vote in England, by more than the Tories did off the back of stitching up their own mates.
It would be amusing if Corbyn further increased the vote, but did even worse because even more than Ed M he piled up votes in safe seats and lost them elsewhere. Maybe we'd finally get voting reform as even the victors felt things were getting ridiculous?
Is there any evidence that EdM piled up votes in safe seats? From what I can remember the Labour vote didn't really go anywhere.
Yes, I'll dig the figures in a thread for later on this week.
For example look at the Liverpool and Manchester seats.
Since you are busy as editor while OGH is away, I can do some number crunching for you using my Election Data, if you like. Just tell me the parameters that you want to be reported.
(OTOH if you prefer to do it yourself then I understand perfectly )
Offer accepted, I'll message you requests in the morning.
So we actually have some members of the bourgeois elite spouting off on the legality of a drone strike on people who hate this country's guts and have the will and means to damage it.
How can I put this? Those who concern themselves with legalities and niceties over a strike like that are actually as dim as f**k. They need to get a life and a dose of brains.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.
That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.
And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
Oh behave you great dribbling moron and stop acting like a Cybernat.
I'm not condemning the attacks in fact am supportive of them.
I like to see legal advice on this basis from a professional/creative point of view.
You're talking to someone who spent far too long reading about Roger Casement
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.
That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.
And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
TSE, for it to be an extra-judicial execution, presumably the Brits would have had to have been personally targeted. What is the evidence for that? Have not kept up with the news stories, so that might just be me showing my ignorance.
If they have joined the ranks of an army with whom we are effectively at war, then is it extra judicial? Which are you applying - the Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols or customary law based on chivalry? If the latter, didn't the US end that as a legal principle in the war of independence when they targeted British Officers?
Judging by the front pages of tomorrow's papers, they were specifically targeted after they plotted to kill the Queen.
I just want to see the government's thought processes.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
Killing traitorous jihadi scum is fine by me; but the precedent of doing it in the one place in the world that parliament voted against bombing? There is a slippery slope here if a PM and military can make acts of war against the expressed will of Parliament. Well dodgy!
I agree is why I want to see the legal advice.
Surely the use of military force remains with the Crown prerogative, ie the Executive. The Commons vote was only advisory. It is well established precedent that a resolution of the house of Commons does not change the law. In any case I am sure Cameron said at the time that notwithstanding the commons vote, he reserved the right to strike in self defence.
On the personal issue, we appear to be at war with IS as we are attacking it in Iraq. So surely any enemy combatant is fair game.
Thanks for that, Dominic Grieve is someone I really like and admire, and he says this, which means there's a logical and strong legal basis for it.
Dominic Grieve QC, who was previously attorney general, told the Guardian: “I was not privy to the intelligence information or the factual basis on which the action was taken, but if the question was could there be a legal basis in self-defence under article 51 of the UN charter against someone who presents a real threat and could not be dealt with in any other way, then the answer is yes.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.
That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.
And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
TSE, for it to be an extra-judicial execution, presumably the Brits would have had to have been personally targeted. What is the evidence for that? Have not kept up with the news stories, so that might just be me showing my ignorance.
If they have joined the ranks of an army with whom we are effectively at war, then is it extra judicial? Which are you applying - the Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols or customary law based on chivalry? If the latter, didn't the US end that as a legal principle in the war of independence when they targeted British Officers?
Judging by the front pages of tomorrow's papers, they were specifically targeted after they plotted to kill the Queen.
I just want to see the government's thought processes.
We've been killing IS fighters in Iraq for 2 years. What's the difference?
Not looked at the underlying numbers but there's still a bit of spread on Labour share but maybe the band you indicate is about right (it's obviously much narrower now.
The main point I was making was about polling.
In general, everything polled about the 2015 general election was accurate with one single exception. The comparative share between Labour/UKIP/Liberal/Green was accurate, the turnout expectation was accurate (slight increase) the Scottish prediction was accurate, the higher Scottish turnout was accurate.
Everything was spot on with the sole exception of the Tory Share.
And yet, people still pop up in threads here and posts elsewhere saying that polling is suddenly unreliable and of no use. Clearly, that's bollocks.
Polling in Scotland may be good, but in England it turned out to be pretty naff!
But that's really not true.
It predicted the relative share between Labour, Liberal, UKIP and Green. It predicted the turnout. It predicted the wipeout of the Liberals in the South West despite much guffawing that their cockroach like survability would save them.
Unfortunately, it couldn't predict the Tory share (the largest party). Nor did it see the majority coming (near certainty of a hung parliament etc.). Both seem rather important.
Polling cannot predict a majority, only interpretation can.
What polling can predict if done right is party vote shares, turnout, patterns related to individual seats or geographic groups of seats.
The Tory majority was not predicted because predictions did not correctly interpret the clear message of the Ashcroft polls in the South East and the North of England (where Ashcroft was showing Labour getting *far* too many votes in safe seats).
If anything even with too low a Tory Share, the Tory Majority was probably predictable with a correct interpretation of what Ashcroft told us.
Mike Gapes lying about the rights of EU citizens in this country and UK citizens in the EU post-Brexit. Typical Europhile spreading lies. Noone will be booted out.
Did you get this exercised when Steven Woolfe lied about Sainsburys?
Spreading lies doesn't help anyone. Some lies are worse than others.
I am sure we will hear non-stop from Europhiles that all EU citizens will be kicked out of the UK after a Brexit and also all UK citizens will be booted out of the EU after a Brexit. This will be one of the Stay campaigns few arguments for remaining in the EU. An argument which is completely false.
The big lie from everybody is that there will be a big change whether it be for good or bad. It will be little difference. Being part of the EEA leaves us just as connected to the EU and following its rules including immigration and free movement of labour as now. But everything is a hostage to fortune if we make a change. Not least being required to join Schengen. Or not. Who knows?
PS If Panorama is doing a job on Corbyn (? - I've not seen it) then they are also kicking the nation's favorite republican with the other boot as well by its hagiography of our monarch (complete with a choir of angels) just finishing.
Nope. As untrue now as it has always been your desperation to cling to the EU at all costs leads you to keep nskknh these utterly false statements but the idea that EEA membership us anything like as onerous, costly or overbearing as EU membership is - as it has always been - utter bollocks.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.
That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.
And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
TSE, for it to be an extra-judicial execution, presumably the Brits would have had to have been personally targeted. What is the evidence for that? Have not kept up with the news stories, so that might just be me showing my ignorance.
If they have joined the ranks of an army with whom we are effectively at war, then is it extra judicial? Which are you applying - the Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols or customary law based on chivalry? If the latter, didn't the US end that as a legal principle in the war of independence when they targeted British Officers?
Judging by the front pages of tomorrow's papers, they were specifically targeted after they plotted to kill the Queen.
I just want to see the government's thought processes.
We've been killing IS fighters in Iraq for 2 years. What's the difference?
It appears to be specific targeting of British citizens*
*In my opinion, there's a certan automaticity of losing your British Citizenship if you go fight for Daesh
'The Tories are the least patriotic of all the parties, having sold most of the country to foreigners.'
The problem is that Labour are not very good at doing it but they did manage to offload a part of the NHS to a German company.
They aren't very good at it because they aren't quite such unpatriotic spivs as the Tories, who couldn't give a crap about the UK, and would sell off every last square inch of it to Saudi billionaires if they thought they could get away with it.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I have many concerns about it. I was more shocked, shocked i tell you, that @flightpath01 should so enthusiastically support the government's actions.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
You want to set a precedent that we cannot stop people who want to kill us? Good for the government I say. I look forward to hearing more squeals of outrage from the New Socialist Labour Party.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.
That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.
And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
TSE, for it to be an extra-judicial execution, presumably the Brits would have had to have been personally targeted. What is the evidence for that? Have not kept up with the news stories, so that might just be me showing my ignorance.
If they have joined the ranks of an army with whom we are effectively at war, then is it extra judicial? Which are you applying - the Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols or customary law based on chivalry? If the latter, didn't the US end that as a legal principle in the war of independence when they targeted British Officers?
Judging by the front pages of tomorrow's papers, they were specifically targeted after they plotted to kill the Queen.
I just want to see the government's thought processes.
I would imagine that it derives from some reading of the First Additional Protocol to the effect that, having taken up arms, they have foregone their rights of protection as civilians.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.
That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.
And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
TSE, for it to be an extra-judicial execution, presumably the Brits would have had to have been personally targeted. What is the evidence for that? Have not kept up with the news stories, so that might just be me showing my ignorance.
If they have joined the ranks of an army with whom we are effectively at war, then is it extra judicial? Which are you applying - the Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols or customary law based on chivalry? If the latter, didn't the US end that as a legal principle in the war of independence when they targeted British Officers?
Judging by the front pages of tomorrow's papers, they were specifically targeted after they plotted to kill the Queen.
I just want to see the government's thought processes.
We've been killing IS fighters in Iraq for 2 years. What's the difference?
I'm personally not convinced that Greave as AG would have agreed to this.
England and Wales, Labour's top 100 seats by vote share:
2010: top 100 seats are those where Labour polled 45.35%+. They received 2,120,267 out of 7,571,035 votes in England & Wales, which is 28.00%
2015: top 100 seats are those where Labour polled 50.45%+. They received 2,527,384 out of 8,640,157 in England & Wales, which is 29.25%.
Not much difference.
Doing it the other way, looking at those constituencies where Labour polled 50%+:
2010: 56 seats. 1,254,944 out of 7,571,035 = 16.58% 2015: 106 seats. 2,657,457 out of 8,640,157 = 30.76%.
So it depends how you look at it. Labour almost doubled the number of seats in England & Wales where they polled 50%+ so in that sense they piled up more votes in safe seats.
A lot of those 56 seats in 2010 would have been in Scotland. I suspect at least 15 if not more. So Labour did a lot more than just double the number of seats in rGB.
This is just England and Wales. I've excluded Scotland. My earlier posts included Scotland.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.
That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.
And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
TSE, for it to be an extra-judicial execution, presumably the Brits would have had to have been personally targeted. What is the evidence for that? Have not kept up with the news stories, so that might just be me showing my ignorance.
If they have joined the ranks of an army with whom we are effectively at war, then is it extra judicial? Which are you applying - the Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols or customary law based on chivalry? If the latter, didn't the US end that as a legal principle in the war of independence when they targeted British Officers?
Judging by the front pages of tomorrow's papers, they were specifically targeted after they plotted to kill the Queen.
I just want to see the government's thought processes.
I would imagine that it derives from some reading of the First Additional Protocol to the effect that, having taken up arms, they have foregone their rights of protection as civilians.
Someone needs to break it to Labourlist that the game has changed. In 2010 Nuneaton was a key marginal with a 2,000 Con majority, Labour would be expecting it to fall in their lap. Now it is a 5,000 Con majority. It is no longer a 'key marginal'.
It's a mindset they need to get into. They went backwards a few months ago, and they need to work out why.
Lest we forget labour increased its vote in England, by more than the Tories did off the back of stitching up their own mates.
It would be amusing if Corbyn further increased the vote, but did even worse because even more than Ed M he piled up votes in safe seats and lost them elsewhere. Maybe we'd finally get voting reform as even the victors felt things were getting ridiculous?
Is there any evidence that EdM piled up votes in safe seats? From what I can remember the Labour vote didn't really go anywhere.
Yes, I'll dig the figures in a thread for later on this week.
For example look at the Liverpool and Manchester seats.
Since you are busy as editor while OGH is away, I can do some number crunching for you using my Election Data, if you like. Just tell me the parameters that you want to be reported.
(OTOH if you prefer to do it yourself then I understand perfectly )
Offer accepted, I'll message you requests in the morning.
Thank you.
On that basis, how many "key marginals" are left in England?
England and Wales, Labour's top 100 seats by vote share:
2010: top 100 seats are those where Labour polled 45.35%+. They received 2,120,267 out of 7,571,035 votes in England & Wales, which is 28.00%
2015: top 100 seats are those where Labour polled 50.45%+. They received 2,527,384 out of 8,640,157 in England & Wales, which is 29.25%.
Not much difference.
Doing it the other way, looking at those constituencies where Labour polled 50%+:
2010: 56 seats. 1,254,944 out of 7,571,035 = 16.58% 2015: 106 seats. 2,657,457 out of 8,640,157 = 30.76%.
So it depends how you look at it. Labour almost doubled the number of seats in England & Wales where they polled 50%+ so in that sense they piled up more votes in safe seats.
A lot of those 56 seats in 2010 would have been in Scotland. I suspect at least 15 if not more. So Labour did a lot more than just double the number of seats in rGB.
This is just England and Wales. I've excluded Scotland. My earlier posts included Scotland.
Yeah, my apologies, posted too quickly trying to keep up with the thread and didnt read your post fully.
Is flight path calling me an anti-Semite for saying I don't kowtow to Israel, unlike the self proclaimed patriots here? Bizarre.
The Tories are the least patriotic of all the parties, having sold most of the country to foreigners.
No doubt thanks to the funds provided by the great world jewish conspiracy we find that the UK is able to buy up companies from all over the world. http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/national/130961-/ I for one am grateful that it is a British owned company that is able to arm a significant chunk of the the United States Armed Forces.
A 2013 poll showed 74% of the UK population have unfavourable views of Israel compared with 12% who have favourable views of Israel. How do you feel to share a country with such an array of vile anti-Semites?
Someone needs to break it to Labourlist that the game has changed. In 2010 Nuneaton was a key marginal with a 2,000 Con majority, Labour would be expecting it to fall in their lap. Now it is a 5,000 Con majority. It is no longer a 'key marginal'.
It's a mindset they need to get into. They went backwards a few months ago, and they need to work out why.
Lest we forget labour increased its vote in England, by more than the Tories did off the back of stitching up their own mates.
It would be amusing if Corbyn further increased the vote, but did even worse because even more than Ed M he piled up votes in safe seats and lost them elsewhere. Maybe we'd finally get voting reform as even the victors felt things were getting ridiculous?
Is there any evidence that EdM piled up votes in safe seats? From what I can remember the Labour vote didn't really go anywhere.
Yes, I'll dig the figures in a thread for later on this week.
For example look at the Liverpool and Manchester seats.
Since you are busy as editor while OGH is away, I can do some number crunching for you using my Election Data, if you like. Just tell me the parameters that you want to be reported.
(OTOH if you prefer to do it yourself then I understand perfectly )
Offer accepted, I'll message you requests in the morning.
Thank you.
On that basis, how many "key marginals" are left in England?
That's one of the pieces I'm looking at doing.
I remember on election night point out in the top 10 Labour targets the Tories had increased their majority in 8 of them.
Someone needs to break it to Labourlist that the game has changed. In 2010 Nuneaton was a key marginal with a 2,000 Con majority, Labour would be expecting it to fall in their lap. Now it is a 5,000 Con majority. It is no longer a 'key marginal'.
It's a mindset they need to get into. They went backwards a few months ago, and they need to work out why.
Lest we forget labour increased its vote in England, by more than the Tories did off the back of stitching up their own mates.
It would be amusing if Corbyn further increased the vote, but did even worse because even more than Ed M he piled up votes in safe seats and lost them elsewhere. Maybe we'd finally get voting reform as even the victors felt things were getting ridiculous?
Is there any evidence that EdM piled up votes in safe seats? From what I can remember the Labour vote didn't really go anywhere.
Yes, I'll dig the figures in a thread for later on this week.
For example look at the Liverpool and Manchester seats.
Since you are busy as editor while OGH is away, I can do some number crunching for you using my Election Data, if you like. Just tell me the parameters that you want to be reported.
(OTOH if you prefer to do it yourself then I understand perfectly )
Offer accepted, I'll message you requests in the morning.
Thank you.
On that basis, how many "key marginals" are left in England?
That's one of the pieces I'm looking at doing.
I remember on election night point out in the top 10 Labour targets the Tories had increased their majority in 8 of them.
Be good to see that piece. Although I think the words "mountain" and "climb" might be the summary. Still, everything will be fine after Saturday.
It appears to be specific targeting of British citizens*
*In my opinion, there's a certan automaticity of losing your British Citizenship if you go fight for Daesh
If they are legal targets as enemy combatants then it doesn't really matter why we targeted an individual. It's as if we had found John Amery in Germany during the war and blown him up, rather than waited until after the war and tried him for treason.
Presumably Casement's Comma means that any British person actively supporting IS in any way is actually guilty of high treason and we could try them for that if we felt like it.
It appears to be specific targeting of British citizens*
*In my opinion, there's a certan automaticity of losing your British Citizenship if you go fight for Daesh
If they are legal targets as enemy combatants then it doesn't really matter why we targeted an individual. It's as if we had found John Amery in Germany during the war and blown him up, rather than waited until after the war and tried him for treason.
Presumably Casement's Comma means that any British person actively supporting IS in any way is actually guilty of high treason and we could try them for that if we felt like it.
Indeed it does.
Cameron said it was a first, I just wanted to see the decision making process behind it
Is flight path calling me an anti-Semite for saying I don't kowtow to Israel, unlike the self proclaimed patriots here? Bizarre.
The Tories are the least patriotic of all the parties, having sold most of the country to foreigners.
No doubt thanks to the funds provided by the great world jewish conspiracy we find that the UK is able to buy up companies from all over the world. http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/national/130961-/ I for one am grateful that it is a British owned company that is able to arm a significant chunk of the the United States Armed Forces.
A 2013 poll showed 74% of the UK population have unfavourable views of Israel compared with 12% who have favourable views of Israel. How do you feel to share a country with such an array of vile anti-Semites?
Is flight path calling me an anti-Semite for saying I don't kowtow to Israel, unlike the self proclaimed patriots here? Bizarre.
The Tories are the least patriotic of all the parties, having sold most of the country to foreigners.
No doubt thanks to the funds provided by the great world jewish conspiracy we find that the UK is able to buy up companies from all over the world. http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/national/130961-/ I for one am grateful that it is a British owned company that is able to arm a significant chunk of the the United States Armed Forces.
A 2013 poll showed 74% of the UK population have unfavourable views of Israel compared with 12% who have favourable views of Israel. How do you feel to share a country with such an array of vile anti-Semites?
Is flight path calling me an anti-Semite for saying I don't kowtow to Israel, unlike the self proclaimed patriots here? Bizarre.
The Tories are the least patriotic of all the parties, having sold most of the country to foreigners.
No doubt thanks to the funds provided by the great world jewish conspiracy we find that the UK is able to buy up companies from all over the world. http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/national/130961-/ I for one am grateful that it is a British owned company that is able to arm a significant chunk of the the United States Armed Forces.
A 2013 poll showed 74% of the UK population have unfavourable views of Israel compared with 12% who have favourable views of Israel. How do you feel to share a country with such an array of vile anti-Semites?
It had clearly declined to 35% in 2014 then.
What are you talking about? I think the poll you are talking about has 35% of people with strongly unfavourable views of Israel vs 6% strongly favourable (second only to North Korea in terms of unfavourability), whereas the one I talking about merely asked for favourable vs unfavourable. The direction of travel has been for greater unfavourability in both cases.
Edit: I've just looked at the figures for 2014 and they actually show 72% unfavourable, 19% favourable, so a slight improvement on that series! Still a lot of anti-Semites though.
It appears to be specific targeting of British citizens*
*In my opinion, there's a certan automaticity of losing your British Citizenship if you go fight for Daesh
If they are legal targets as enemy combatants then it doesn't really matter why we targeted an individual. It's as if we had found John Amery in Germany during the war and blown him up, rather than waited until after the war and tried him for treason.
Presumably Casement's Comma means that any British person actively supporting IS in any way is actually guilty of high treason and we could try them for that if we felt like it.
Indeed it does.
Cameron said it was a first, I just wanted to see the decision making process behind it
You are sounding like Jeremy Corbyn. Being 'Not Jeremy Corbyn' requires making certain sacrifices. I am prepared to make them.
Spreading lies doesn't help anyone. Some lies are worse than others.
I am sure we will hear non-stop from Europhiles that all EU citizens will be kicked out of the UK after a Brexit and also all UK citizens will be booted out of the EU after a Brexit. This will be one of the Stay campaigns few arguments for remaining in the EU. An argument which is completely false.
By no conceivable stretch of the imagination is it a 'lie', that most over-used word (especially over-used by those who don't like the EU, for some reason). It is very probably an incorrect prediction, but then that depends on what treaty we sign with our EU friends. If, as is very likely in my opinion, we end up with a treaty which maintains the principle of freedom of movement, then, yes, the prediction will be incorrect. If we decide to cancel the right of EU citizens to live here, then naturally one would expect the reciprocal arrangements to be cancelled by our EU friends.
Spreading lies doesn't help anyone. Some lies are worse than others.
I am sure we will hear non-stop from Europhiles that all EU citizens will be kicked out of the UK after a Brexit and also all UK citizens will be booted out of the EU after a Brexit. This will be one of the Stay campaigns few arguments for remaining in the EU. An argument which is completely false.
By no conceivable stretch of the imagination is it a 'lie', that most over-used word (especially over-used by those who don't like the EU, for some reason). It is very probably an incorrect prediction, but then that depends on what treaty we sign with our EU friends. If, as is very likely in my opinion, we end up with a treaty which maintains the principle of freedom of movement, then, yes, the prediction will be incorrect. If we decide to cancel the right of EU citizens to live here, then naturally one would expect the reciprocal arrangements to be cancelled by our EU friends.
You are I am sure aware that it was perfectly possible for Brits to live in European countries and citizens of those countries to live here before we joined the EEC. The idea that leaving the EU will involve mass expulsions on either side is pure tosh.
Is flight path calling me an anti-Semite for saying I don't kowtow to Israel, unlike the self proclaimed patriots here? Bizarre.
The Tories are the least patriotic of all the parties, having sold most of the country to foreigners.
No doubt thanks to the funds provided by the great world jewish conspiracy we find that the UK is able to buy up companies from all over the world. http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/national/130961-/ I for one am grateful that it is a British owned company that is able to arm a significant chunk of the the United States Armed Forces.
A 2013 poll showed 74% of the UK population have unfavourable views of Israel compared with 12% who have favourable views of Israel. How do you feel to share a country with such an array of vile anti-Semites?
It had clearly declined to 35% in 2014 then.
What are you talking about? I think the poll you are talking about has 35% of people with strongly unfavourable views of Israel vs 6% strongly favourable (second only to North Korea in terms of unfavourability), whereas the one I talking about merely asked for favourable vs unfavourable. The direction of travel has been for greater unfavourability in both cases.
Edit: I've just looked at the figures for 2014 and they actually show 72% unfavourable, 19% favourable, so a slight improvement on that series! Still a lot of anti-Semites though.
Well bully for you. I know what the poll said thank you. And your anti jewish rants get boring.
Spreading lies doesn't help anyone. Some lies are worse than others.
I am sure we will hear non-stop from Europhiles that all EU citizens will be kicked out of the UK after a Brexit and also all UK citizens will be booted out of the EU after a Brexit. This will be one of the Stay campaigns few arguments for remaining in the EU. An argument which is completely false.
By no conceivable stretch of the imagination is it a 'lie', that most over-used word (especially over-used by those who don't like the EU, for some reason). It is very probably an incorrect prediction, but then that depends on what treaty we sign with our EU friends. If, as is very likely in my opinion, we end up with a treaty which maintains the principle of freedom of movement, then, yes, the prediction will be incorrect. If we decide to cancel the right of EU citizens to live here, then naturally one would expect the reciprocal arrangements to be cancelled by our EU friends.
There is clearly a vast range of policy solutions between "maintaining free movement of labour" and "kicking everyone out". The former is possible, but unlikely, while the latter is clearly never going to happen. The most likely option is that those already living in different countries are allowed to stay but there are limits on future migration.
You are I am sure aware that it was perfectly possible for Brits to live in European countries and citizens of those countries to live here before we joined the EEC. The idea that leaving the EU will involve mass expulsions on either side is pure tosh.
Spreading lies doesn't help anyone. Some lies are worse than others.
I am sure we will hear non-stop from Europhiles that all EU citizens will be kicked out of the UK after a Brexit and also all UK citizens will be booted out of the EU after a Brexit. This will be one of the Stay campaigns few arguments for remaining in the EU. An argument which is completely false.
By no conceivable stretch of the imagination is it a 'lie', that most over-used word (especially over-used by those who don't like the EU, for some reason). It is very probably an incorrect prediction, but then that depends on what treaty we sign with our EU friends. If, as is very likely in my opinion, we end up with a treaty which maintains the principle of freedom of movement, then, yes, the prediction will be incorrect. If we decide to cancel the right of EU citizens to live here, then naturally one would expect the reciprocal arrangements to be cancelled by our EU friends.
There is clearly a vast range of policy solutions between "maintaining free movement of labour" and "kicking everyone out". The former is possible, but unlikely, while the latter is clearly never going to happen. The most likely option is that those already living in different countries are allowed to stay but there are limits on future migration.
There is clearly a vast range of policy solutions between "maintaining free movement of labour" and "kicking everyone out". The former is possible, but unlikely, while the latter is clearly never going to happen. The most likely option is that those already living in different countries are allowed to stay but there are limits on future migration.
Actually the most likely option is no change. It's no coincidence that both the EEA and Swiss arrangements are effectively identical, as regards movement of people, to EU membership.
Looks like David Davis is channeling PB!!!! Hahaha
"David Davis, a former shadow home secretary, told the BBC that there should be a formal check on such decisions - suggesting they otherwise amounted to an "extra-judicial execution"."
'You are I am sure aware that it was perfectly possible for Brits to live in European countries and citizens of those countries to live here before we joined the EEC.'
Spot on, it seems to be a desperate scare story whipped up by the 'in' campaign.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
These traitors were killed on foreign soil in foreign "colours" as enemy combatants. This is an act of war not an execution which is an act of justice.
Spreading lies doesn't help anyone. Some lies are worse than others.
I am sure we will hear non-stop from Europhiles that all EU citizens will be kicked out of the UK after a Brexit and also all UK citizens will be booted out of the EU after a Brexit. This will be one of the Stay campaigns few arguments for remaining in the EU. An argument which is completely false.
By no conceivable stretch of the imagination is it a 'lie', that most over-used word (especially over-used by those who don't like the EU, for some reason). It is very probably an incorrect prediction, but then that depends on what treaty we sign with our EU friends. If, as is very likely in my opinion, we end up with a treaty which maintains the principle of freedom of movement, then, yes, the prediction will be incorrect. If we decide to cancel the right of EU citizens to live here, then naturally one would expect the reciprocal arrangements to be cancelled by our EU friends.
"To avoid uncertainty for current EU workers in the UK and those Britons working or retired in EU nations, more should be made publicly of “acquired rights” based on the Vienna Convention, where individual rights gained under existing law do not end upon treaty change or withdrawal from the EU."
@HurstLiama 'You are I am sure aware that it was perfectly possible for Brits to live in European countries and citizens of those countries to live here before we joined the EEC.' Spot on, it seems to be a desperate scare story whipped up by the 'in' campaign.
Yes it will be perfectly possible to get a visa (temporary), maybe; or maybe win a lottery for a 'green card' even. Your willingness to turn other people's lives upside down for basically nothing other than your own prejudice is duly noted. If you are confessing that leaving will make no difference to EU mobility of labour then come out with it.
Looks like David Davis is channeling PB!!!! Hahaha
"David Davis, a former shadow home secretary, told the BBC that there should be a formal check on such decisions - suggesting they otherwise amounted to an "extra-judicial execution"."
Spreading lies doesn't help anyone. Some lies are worse than others.
I am sure we will hear non-stop from Europhiles that all EU citizens will be kicked out of the UK after a Brexit and also all UK citizens will be booted out of the EU after a Brexit. This will be one of the Stay campaigns few arguments for remaining in the EU. An argument which is completely false.
By no conceivable stretch of the imagination is it a 'lie', that most over-used word (especially over-used by those who don't like the EU, for some reason). It is very probably an incorrect prediction, but then that depends on what treaty we sign with our EU friends. If, as is very likely in my opinion, we end up with a treaty which maintains the principle of freedom of movement, then, yes, the prediction will be incorrect. If we decide to cancel the right of EU citizens to live here, then naturally one would expect the reciprocal arrangements to be cancelled by our EU friends.
"To avoid uncertainty for current EU workers in the UK and those Britons working or retired in EU nations, more should be made publicly of “acquired rights” based on the Vienna Convention, where individual rights gained under existing law do not end upon treaty change or withdrawal from the EU." http://businessforbritain.org/2015/06/26/chapter-12-migration/
? convention on the law of treaties? You think? Maybe. But - ''The scope of the Convention is limited. It applies only to treaties concluded between states, so it does not cover agreements between states and international organizations or between international organizations themselves,''
If you are relying on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations - well that is not yet in force. Its not ratified by enough countries.
But hey lets risk it. Better still lets make it so there is no real difference to anything if and when we do 'leave'
Looks like David Davis is channeling PB!!!! Hahaha
"David Davis, a former shadow home secretary, told the BBC that there should be a formal check on such decisions - suggesting they otherwise amounted to an "extra-judicial execution"."
Davis is a bitter old loser. Did Davis join in Corbyn's protests over Bin Ladin's death? Or all the other US drone attacks which killed leaders of plots?
OT, but I was just finishing up watching something on the iplayer, and my recent searches caught my eye:
this week sunday politics railway portilo 2015 election daily politics great british railways journeys inside the commons train
gawd, I need a life.. LOL
Anything rail-related is fine
Portillo's train programmes have provided some of my favourite TV viewing in recent years. It's amazing no-one had the idea of doing something similar before he did.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
These traitors were killed on foreign soil in foreign "colours" as enemy combatants. This is an act of war not an execution which is an act of justice.
You might hope that there were some people that you would not have to explain that nuance to. As terrorists these 'traitors' were outside the Geneva Convention.
I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.
Shocking scenes
The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.
Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
I want to see the legal advice.
I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.
Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
These traitors were killed on foreign soil in foreign "colours" as enemy combatants. This is an act of war not an execution which is an act of justice.
Precisely - and like others on here I really could not care less about an IS fighter being killed. Let's hope all of them suffer the same fate. Anyone going to join IS should have their British passport cancelled.
Remember all the crowds at Wootten Bassett honouring the returning soldiers. I simply cannot see such people voting for a party led by a man who urged foreigners to kill British soldiers.
Davis is a bitter old loser. Did Davis join in Corbyn's protests over Bin Ladin's death? Or all the other US drone attacks which killed leaders of plots?
If you go by the official story Bin Laden was killed in an exchange of fire during at attempted arrest. Unlikely though that seems.
Someone needs to break it to Labourlist that the game has changed. In 2010 Nuneaton was a key marginal with a 2,000 Con majority, Labour would be expecting it to fall in their lap. Now it is a 5,000 Con majority. It is no longer a 'key marginal'.
It's a mindset they need to get into. They went backwards a few months ago, and they need to work out why.
Lest we forget labour increased its vote in England, by more than the Tories did off the back of stitching up their own mates.
It would be amusing if Corbyn further increased the vote, but did even worse because even more than Ed M he piled up votes in safe seats and lost them elsewhere. Maybe we'd finally get voting reform as even the victors felt things were getting ridiculous?
Is there any evidence that EdM piled up votes in safe seats? From what I can remember the Labour vote didn't really go anywhere.
Yes, I'll dig the figures in a thread for later on this week.
For example look at the Liverpool and Manchester seats.
Since you are busy as editor while OGH is away, I can do some number crunching for you using my Election Data, if you like. Just tell me the parameters that you want to be reported.
(OTOH if you prefer to do it yourself then I understand perfectly )
Offer accepted, I'll message you requests in the morning.
Thank you.
On that basis, how many "key marginals" are left in England?
That's one of the pieces I'm looking at doing.
I remember on election night point out in the top 10 Labour targets the Tories had increased their majority in 8 of them.
Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Ilford North"
Davis is a bitter old loser. Did Davis join in Corbyn's protests over Bin Ladin's death? Or all the other US drone attacks which killed leaders of plots?
If you go by the official story Bin Laden was killed in an exchange of fire during at attempted arrest. Unlikely though that seems.
No body? The US was proud to display Saddam (albeit alive) and his sons (definitely dead).
Davis is a bitter old loser. Did Davis join in Corbyn's protests over Bin Ladin's death? Or all the other US drone attacks which killed leaders of plots?
If you go by the official story Bin Laden was killed in an exchange of fire during at attempted arrest. Unlikely though that seems.
No body? The US was proud to display Saddam (albeit alive) and his sons (definitely dead).
it was an ...ahem.. traditional islamic burial at sea, as you well know.
'Yes it will be perfectly possible to get a visa (temporary), maybe; or maybe win a lottery for a 'green card' even. Your willingness to turn other people's lives upside down for basically nothing other than your own prejudice is duly noted.'
What on earth are you talking about ?
I merely stated that before we joined what was the EEC it was possible to live and own property in other European countries and many people did even though we were not members of the EEC.
Maybe the Spanish will want to see the back of all those wealthy retirees that keep so many people employed in Spain not to mention what's left of their property market alive, who knows?
'Portillo's train programmes have provided some of my favourite TV viewing in recent years. It's amazing no-one had the idea of doing something similar before he did.'
Do you know how many European one's he made? Unfortunately I only saw one..
'Portillo's train programmes have provided some of my favourite TV viewing in recent years. It's amazing no-one had the idea of doing something similar before he did.'
Do you know how many European one's he made? Unfortunately I only saw one..
He's made quite a few of them, at least six or seven I think, probably more.
'Portillo's train programmes have provided some of my favourite TV viewing in recent years. It's amazing no-one had the idea of doing something similar before he did.'
Do you know how many European one's he made? Unfortunately I only saw one..
Just got to the part where Tom Brake, LD MP spoke. I've never seen him before in my life.
He seems to be reasonable. I have met him a couple of times. During the early stage of the abortive boundary review, I was beginning to get used to the idea of him being my next MP, because the initial proposal was to combine my bit of Croydon with most of his constituency in Sutton (it would have been approximately a three-way marginal).
An interesting factoid about him is that in 2015 he got fewer votes than any of the other incumbent Lib Dem MPs in London standing for re-election, but he was the only one to be re-elected.
Panorama ended with a Corbyn rally singing "Bandiera Rossa". That song was also used at the end of Michael Cockerell's biographical documentary of Barbara Castle.
From about 1am to about 4am on 31st August 1997 I kept thinking that Princess Diana was bound to survive with some sort of injuries, because the thought that she might actually be killed by the accident was so horrendous that it was literally unimaginable as a possibility. When it was confirmed that she had actually died, it was like living in a nightmare from which it took a few hours to wake up.
I have the same sort of feeling about the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn actually winning the leadership of the Labour Party. It is such a horrendous prospect that I just can't stomach the thought that it might happen. I just keep thinking that either the slightly-OK Cooper or the pathetically-dreary Burnham will win, and the "normal" business of politics will be resumed. If Corbyn won, he would be far worse than Michael Foot in terms of statesmanship or constitutional propriety. He is completely unsuitable to be Leader of the Opposition, let alone having a remote chance of one day becoming Prime Minister.
If Corbyn does win, and if Labour somehow manages to win the general election in 2020, I have faith that Her Majesty the Queen will simply refuse to appoint him as Prime Minister. She will probably appoint someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg instead just for the fun of it.
If Corbyn does win, and if Labour somehow manages to win the general election in 2020, I have faith that Her Majesty the Queen will simply refuse to appoint him as Prime Minister. She will probably appoint someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg instead just for the fun of it.
You might get Prince Charles (King George, did he say?) and Jonathan Porritt
Comments
TSE, for it to be an extra-judicial execution, presumably the Brits would have had to have been personally targeted. What is the evidence for that? Have not kept up with the news stories, so that might just be me showing my ignorance.
If they have joined the ranks of an army with whom we are effectively at war, then is it extra judicial? Which are you applying - the Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols or customary law based on chivalry? If the latter, didn't the US end that as a legal principle in the war of independence when they targeted British Officers?
The outers have got the mo
The authority derives entirely from the Crown.
Since you are busy as editor while OGH is away, I can do some number crunching for you using my Election Data, if you like. Just tell me the parameters that you want to be reported.
(OTOH if you prefer to do it yourself then I understand perfectly
http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/national/130961-/
I for one am grateful that it is a British owned company that is able to arm a significant chunk of the the United States Armed Forces.
'On that topic, when are Bono and Geldof going to offer to house some homeless from this country, or are they insignificant in the quest for self publicity?'
No self publicity or grandstanding,wouldn't make the news.
Thank you.
How can I put this? Those who concern themselves with legalities and niceties over a strike like that are actually as dim as f**k. They need to get a life and a dose of brains.
Its a job done and done well.
I just want to see the government's thought processes.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/07/right-of-self-defence-legal-debate-syria-drone-strike
On the personal issue, we appear to be at war with IS as we are attacking it in Iraq. So surely any enemy combatant is fair game.
'The Tories are the least patriotic of all the parties, having sold most of the country to foreigners.'
The problem is that Labour are not very good at doing it but they did manage to offload a part of the NHS to a German company.
Dominic Grieve QC, who was previously attorney general, told the Guardian: “I was not privy to the intelligence information or the factual basis on which the action was taken, but if the question was could there be a legal basis in self-defence under article 51 of the UN charter against someone who presents a real threat and could not be dealt with in any other way, then the answer is yes.
What polling can predict if done right is party vote shares, turnout, patterns related to individual seats or geographic groups of seats.
The Tory majority was not predicted because predictions did not correctly interpret the clear message of the Ashcroft polls in the South East and the North of England (where Ashcroft was showing Labour getting *far* too many votes in safe seats).
If anything even with too low a Tory Share, the Tory Majority was probably predictable with a correct interpretation of what Ashcroft told us.
*In my opinion, there's a certan automaticity of losing your British Citizenship if you go fight for Daesh
until recently you DID...
Now this technology is in the hands of a global criminal enterprise bent on our destruction.
The Long Emergency has begun. No-one alive today will live to hear the "All Clear"...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QjRmYtD-jHxAWCYbMz4uqhWPTjiPNhNJDqtkNqyxwLg/edit#gid=0
You might find this article interesting.
http://hpcrresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/Session2.pdf
I remember on election night point out in the top 10 Labour targets the Tories had increased their majority in 8 of them.
Night all.
Presumably Casement's Comma means that any British person actively supporting IS in any way is actually guilty of high treason and we could try them for that if we felt like it.
Sheffield Hallam +19.7% (need I say more?)
Cameron said it was a first, I just wanted to see the decision making process behind it
The direction of travel has been for greater unfavourability in both cases.
Edit: I've just looked at the figures for 2014 and they actually show 72% unfavourable, 19% favourable, so a slight improvement on that series! Still a lot of anti-Semites though.
Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch
Looks like Biden already running. Very likely he wins nomination and be hard to beat.
A GCMG would be nice
All my service (and CO2 emissions) criss-crossing the world to ensure crossovers go unrewarded, I see
Evidence mounting that you are in fact Corbyn.
this week
sunday politics
railway
portilo
2015 election
daily politics
great british railways journeys
inside the commons
train
gawd, I need a life.. LOL
"David Davis, a former shadow home secretary, told the BBC that there should be a formal check on such decisions - suggesting they otherwise amounted to an "extra-judicial execution"."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11849862/British-jihadist-killed-after-plot-to-kill-the-Queen.html
'You are I am sure aware that it was perfectly possible for Brits to live in European countries and citizens of those countries to live here before we joined the EEC.'
Spot on, it seems to be a desperate scare story whipped up by the 'in' campaign.
Its a tough choice
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=38136
http://businessforbritain.org/2015/06/26/chapter-12-migration/
If you are confessing that leaving will make no difference to EU mobility of labour then come out with it.
convention on the law of treaties? You think? Maybe. But - ''The scope of the Convention is limited. It applies only to treaties concluded between states, so it does not cover agreements between states and international organizations or between international organizations themselves,''
If you are relying on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations - well that is not yet in force. Its not ratified by enough countries.
But hey lets risk it. Better still lets make it so there is no real difference to anything if and when we do 'leave'
As terrorists these 'traitors' were outside the Geneva Convention.
Remember all the crowds at Wootten Bassett honouring the returning soldiers. I simply cannot see such people voting for a party led by a man who urged foreigners to kill British soldiers.
'Yes it will be perfectly possible to get a visa (temporary), maybe; or maybe win a lottery for a 'green card' even. Your willingness to turn other people's lives upside down for basically nothing other than your own prejudice is duly noted.'
What on earth are you talking about ?
I merely stated that before we joined what was the EEC it was possible to live and own property in other European countries and many people did even though we were not members of the EEC.
Maybe the Spanish will want to see the back of all those wealthy retirees that keep so many people employed in Spain not to mention what's left of their property market alive, who knows?
'Portillo's train programmes have provided some of my favourite TV viewing in recent years. It's amazing no-one had the idea of doing something similar before he did.'
Do you know how many European one's he made? Unfortunately I only saw one..
Corinne Marasco @CorinneAM 3h3 hours ago
@rupertmurdoch likes to think "The Sun wot won it" for David Cameron and can do the same in the US.
Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch 2h2 hours ago
@CorinneAM the Sun did not win it for David Cameron. Nicola Sturgeon is "wot won it"!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Continental_Railway_Journeys
An interesting factoid about him is that in 2015 he got fewer votes than any of the other incumbent Lib Dem MPs in London standing for re-election, but he was the only one to be re-elected.
I have the same sort of feeling about the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn actually winning the leadership of the Labour Party. It is such a horrendous prospect that I just can't stomach the thought that it might happen. I just keep thinking that either the slightly-OK Cooper or the pathetically-dreary Burnham will win, and the "normal" business of politics will be resumed. If Corbyn won, he would be far worse than Michael Foot in terms of statesmanship or constitutional propriety. He is completely unsuitable to be Leader of the Opposition, let alone having a remote chance of one day becoming Prime Minister.
If Corbyn does win, and if Labour somehow manages to win the general election in 2020, I have faith that Her Majesty the Queen will simply refuse to appoint him as Prime Minister. She will probably appoint someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg instead just for the fun of it.