politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Day 3 in the Mail lfrom Lord A looks a bit tamer

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Day 3 in the Mail lfrom Lord A looks a bit tamer

@LordAshcroft in the Mail – Day 3 pic.twitter.com/Y3MPI5kcek

Read the full story here

AlastairMeeks

The first bullet point is both hearsay and on its face highly implausible. If a quarter of what else has been unveiled is true, our Prime Minister would not want for suppliers.

TheScreamingEagles

Gen Richards' views 'maliciously' portrayed in Lord Ashcroft Cameron biography extracts
Friends of Lord Richards of Herstmonceux said his views had been “distorted tendentiously and maliciously” in a serialisation of the book, titled "Call Me Dave", in the Daily Mail

http://bit.ly/1LMbD2r

Cyclefree

It sounds like total garbage. He could have got them from Kids Company, if the allegations about them are true.

I wonder what's happened to the money or, even, the winding up of that charity......

JEO

kle4 said:

JEO said:

Slovakia is refusing to enact the EU's decision on mandatory quotas:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34331126

So I guess the reason measures like these are rarely voted upon is because if it comes down to a vote, nations may not even bother to abide by the vote, in which case what was the point.

Right now the UK is the only mug that actually follows EU rules. We know France and Italy have long flouted laws. Greece regularly lied about its finances to get round Eurozone criteria. Germany and France both breached deficit limits. The Eurozone broke the no bailout clause. Germany, Austria and Hungary have abandoned Schengen requirements. Central Europe will now not enact the migrant placements. We need to just do what we want where the EU is not working for us. Ask forgiveness, not permission.

Tim_B

Regarding the 'big move to private diesel cars', in the USA there is no such thing. Diesel is seen as smelly and expensive. Diesel fuel here is much more expensive than gasoline.

When I get my annual emissions inspection done it is all through an OBD2 plugin, there is no engine exhaust analysis. Other than the OBD2 all they do is pressure test the fuel filler cap.

MarqueeMark

Curse of the new thread...

FPT: Quick question that someone might be able to answer. When Bill Clinton was President, Hillary was First Lady. If Hillary becomes President - Bill becomes - what? First Husband? First Lord???

It may also be complicated by the fact that he was himself also a President. I have in mind that there is a convention that even ex-Presidents are still referred to as "Mr President". If so, that would be seriously weird - Mr President and Madam President.....

JEO

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gen Richards' views 'maliciously' portrayed in Lord Ashcroft Cameron biography extracts
Friends of Lord Richards of Herstmonceux said his views had been “distorted tendentiously and maliciously” in a serialisation of the book, titled "Call Me Dave", in the Daily Mail

http://bit.ly/1LMbD2r

I think it's fairly clear at this point that Oakeshott has sold out any journalistic principles she once had for a big paycheck. Printing salacious rumours based on one guy's dinner party anecdote, twisting the words of a major general. This book has no credibility.

isam

The Guardian article linked to on the previous thread about the boy from Islington traumatised by being asked if he was involved with ISIS.., what a sad state of affairs. Just proves the point made time and again... mass immigration causes social strife, it just doesn't work

Beverley_C

Cyclefree said:

It sounds like total garbage. He could have got them from Kids Company, if the allegations about them are true.

I wonder what's happened to the money or, even, the winding up of that charity......

Errr... is finding that out not the sort of thing you do for your day job???

Just asking .....

TheScreamingEagles

MarqueeMark said:

Curse of the new thread...

FPT: Quick question that someone might be able to answer. When Bill Clinton was President, Hillary was First Lady. If Hillary becomes President - Bill becomes - what? First Husband? First Lord???

It may also be complicated by the fact that he was himself also a President. I have in mind that there is a convention that even ex-Presidents are still referred to as "Mr President". If so, that would be seriously weird - Mr President and Madam President.....

Back in 2008 he said he would be the First Laddie

RobD

Since when is prick an obscene word?

TheScreamingEagles

JEO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gen Richards' views 'maliciously' portrayed in Lord Ashcroft Cameron biography extracts
Friends of Lord Richards of Herstmonceux said his views had been “distorted tendentiously and maliciously” in a serialisation of the book, titled "Call Me Dave", in the Daily Mail

http://bit.ly/1LMbD2r

I think it's fairly clear at this point that Oakeshott has sold out any journalistic principles she once had for a big paycheck. Printing salacious rumours based on one guy's dinner party anecdote, twisting the words of a major general. This book has no credibility.

I was going to buy the book now I'm not.

glw

antifrank said:

The first bullet point is both hearsay and on its face highly implausible. If a quarter of what else has been unveiled is true, our Prime Minister would not want for suppliers.

The KGB ceased to exist in 1991, and I'm no drugs expert but I doubt that any drugs were so hard to come by at the time that some dodgy KGB agent would seem like a good source.

Speedy

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

Tim_B

MarqueeMark said:

Curse of the new thread...

FPT: Quick question that someone might be able to answer. When Bill Clinton was President, Hillary was First Lady. If Hillary becomes President - Bill becomes - what? First Husband? First Lord???

It may also be complicated by the fact that he was himself also a President. I have in mind that there is a convention that even ex-Presidents are still referred to as "Mr President". If so, that would be seriously weird - Mr President and Madam President.....

If it's Mr President would it not be Mrs President?

kle4

Speedy said:

Cyclefree said:

JEO said:

Slovakia is refusing to enact the EU's decision on mandatory quotas:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34331126

Quite right. You can't force countries to take people they don't want. Only trouble will follow if you do that. The Germans seem - once again - to have learnt all the wrong lessons from history.

Others will follow.
Once an Emperors feudal lords refuse to accept his decision then he is reduced to Emperor in name only, same goes for Merkel.

Yes, people forget that feudal systems are still two way relationships, that even if there are supposed divine obligations to the head of the pyramid, there are expectations on what are reasonable demands to those below.

The EU relies on consensus, and the problem is that sometimes it is a false consensus, where the biggest agree a position, top up with smaller enthusiastic supporters, and others than sort of join in with varying levels of enthusiasm as it's clear which way things are going and it's time to all pitch in together. Potential problems are when something arrives, perhaps this is it, where significant numbers simply don't play that game anymore.

glw

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

By worst I presume you mean the journalism?

rcs1000

kle4 said:

Speedy said:

Cyclefree said:

JEO said:

Slovakia is refusing to enact the EU's decision on mandatory quotas:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34331126

Quite right. You can't force countries to take people they don't want. Only trouble will follow if you do that. The Germans seem - once again - to have learnt all the wrong lessons from history.

Others will follow.
Once an Emperors feudal lords refuse to accept his decision then he is reduced to Emperor in name only, same goes for Merkel.

Yes, people forget that feudal systems are still two way relationships, that even if there are supposed divine obligations to the head of the pyramid, there are expectations on what are reasonable demands to those below.

The EU relies on consensus, and the problem is that sometimes it is a false consensus, where the biggest agree a position, top up with smaller enthusiastic supporters, and others than sort of join in with varying levels of enthusiasm as it's clear which way things are going and it's time to all pitch in together. Potential problems are when something arrives, perhaps this is it, where significant numbers simply don't play that game anymore.

Ultimately, that is why the EU has much less power than people think. Any brave leader can simply say no. To paraphrase Stalin, the EU has no divisions. It has no ability to enforce compliance, except by evicting a recalcitrant member - and that is something it will never do.

kle4

Reposted, it's 1)drugs 2)self awareness of poshness 3)dislikes Boris 4) Dislikes Boris

Day 4 had better pick up, this lot is weak - as has been noted, plenty of people in the party wanted Cameron to lose, he has internal enemies, so the idea he has taken shots at them too is not wholly surprising.

RobD said:

Since when is prick an obscene word?

Implied obscenity better than actual obscenity I'd guess, makes it seem ruder than in fact it is, not least since you can still see what it is.

SquareRoot

Worthy of not in the latest "revelations"

1) voters would be far more likely to believe that Gordon Brown went to parties with bricks in a plastic bag to avoid paying his round ...so to speak..

2) Oakeshott is a busted flush.. her defence for making such "revelations " is pathetic.


Who knows, some of it may be true, but her justifications is bollocks.


Oh...and ISAM..I read what you wrote.... one day, death will inevitably touch you..., remember what you said to me when it does... meantime it doesn't alter the fact that the BNP voters largely switched to UKIP.. Farage's ludicrous suggestion that "reasonable" BNP voters would switch is ludicrous. There are no reasonable BNP voters.

MarkHopkins

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

Speedy said:

Cyclefree said:

JEO said:

Slovakia is refusing to enact the EU's decision on mandatory quotas:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34331126

Quite right. You can't force countries to take people they don't want. Only trouble will follow if you do that. The Germans seem - once again - to have learnt all the wrong lessons from history.

Others will follow.
Once an Emperors feudal lords refuse to accept his decision then he is reduced to Emperor in name only, same goes for Merkel.

Yes, people forget that feudal systems are still two way relationships, that even if there are supposed divine obligations to the head of the pyramid, there are expectations on what are reasonable demands to those below.

The EU relies on consensus, and the problem is that sometimes it is a false consensus, where the biggest agree a position, top up with smaller enthusiastic supporters, and others than sort of join in with varying levels of enthusiasm as it's clear which way things are going and it's time to all pitch in together. Potential problems are when something arrives, perhaps this is it, where significant numbers simply don't play that game anymore.

Ultimately, that is why the EU has much less power than people think. Any brave leader can simply say no. To paraphrase Stalin, the EU has no divisions. It has no ability to enforce compliance, except by evicting a recalcitrant member - and that is something it will never do.

"Any brave leader can simply say no."

Not too many of those around.

foxinsoxuk

JEO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gen Richards' views 'maliciously' portrayed in Lord Ashcroft Cameron biography extracts
Friends of Lord Richards of Herstmonceux said his views had been “distorted tendentiously and maliciously” in a serialisation of the book, titled "Call Me Dave", in the Daily Mail

http://bit.ly/1LMbD2r

I think it's fairly clear at this point that Oakeshott has sold out any journalistic principles she once had for a big paycheck. Printing salacious rumours based on one guy's dinner party anecdote, twisting the words of a major general. This book has no credibility.

It is ironic that a Lord who undermines a Tory PM and wanted him defeated in May, considers that claims that Cameron undermined Johnson are a killer blow. A complete absence of insight, and further evidence that Cameron was right to not appoint him to a senior cabinet role.

Speedy

glw said:

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

By worst I presume you mean the journalism?

Well Cameron according to this conspired against his own party simply to prevent Boris from becoming Mayor.
It's one thing to be accused of having sex with a dead pig and another to electorally undermine the party you are leading.

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

Reposted, it's 1)drugs 2)self awareness of poshness 3)dislikes Boris 4) Dislikes Boris

Day 4 had better pick up, this lot is weak - as has been noted, plenty of people in the party wanted Cameron to lose, he has internal enemies, so the idea he has taken shots at them too is not wholly surprising.

RobD said:

Since when is prick an obscene word?

Implied obscenity better than actual obscenity I'd guess, makes it seem ruder than in fact it is, not least since you can still see what it is.

Repost too

I was speaking to a head of politics/history at a Uni today.

He reckons Cameron will join Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair as the most hated PMs for the same reasons they did.

They never lost a general election and that galls their opponents.

Big_G_NorthWales

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

Judging by Lord Richards denial of the story and the unverified stories both Ashcroft and Oakshott are coming out of this far worse than David Cameron

glw

Speedy said:

Well Cameron according to this conspired against his own party simply to prevent Boris from becoming Mayor.

Well he didn't do a very good job of it.

kle4

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

Speedy said:

Cyclefree said:

JEO said:

Slovakia is refusing to enact the EU's decision on mandatory quotas:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34331126

Quite right. You can't force countries to take people they don't want. Only trouble will follow if you do that. The Germans seem - once again - to have learnt all the wrong lessons from history.

Others will follow.
Once an Emperors feudal lords refuse to accept his decision then he is reduced to Emperor in name only, same goes for Merkel.

Yes, e.

Ultimately, that is why the EU has much less power than people think. Any brave leader can simply say no. To paraphrase Stalin, the EU has no divisions. It has no ability to enforce compliance, except by evicting a recalcitrant member - and that is something it will never do.

No doubt also why EU bureaucrats often seem so arrogant (in addition to simply being so I imagine) and dismissive - act as though matters are inevitable and everyone has to fall in line, and maybe you have enough who believe it (either through desire or fear) that they won't challenge it.

Also why even when Britain is not isolated, there are reports of EU leaders frustrated with us holding them back as though we were isolated - minimise any dissent so it seems a concern only to extremists.

Tim_B said:

MarqueeMark said:

Curse of the new thread...

FPT: Quick question that someone might be able to answer. When Bill Clinton was President, Hillary was First Lady. If Hillary becomes President - Bill becomes - what? First Husband? First Lord???

It may also be complicated by the fact that he was himself also a President. I have in mind that there is a convention that even ex-Presidents are still referred to as "Mr President". If so, that would be seriously weird - Mr President and Madam President.....

If it's Mr President would it not be Mrs President?

Incidentally, am I the only one who finds Americans referring to former representatives by title a bit weird? I've no idea if it is common practice, and maybe it's not the case here purely because we don't have governors, and MP comes after not before a name, but seeing long since removed governors and congressman referred to as congressman x or whatever just feels strange to me.

I suppose they must think we are disrespectful being so casual about our politicians perhaps?

MarkHopkins

Speedy said:

glw said:

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

By worst I presume you mean the journalism?

Well Cameron according to this conspired against his own party simply to prevent Boris from becoming Mayor.
It's one thing to be accused of having sex with a dead pig and another to electorally undermine the party you are leading.

Not really taking the claims seriously at this point.

rcs1000

MarkHopkins said:

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

Speedy said:

Cyclefree said:

JEO said:

Slovakia is refusing to enact the EU's decision on mandatory quotas:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34331126

Quite right. You can't force countries to take people they don't want. Only trouble will follow if you do that. The Germans seem - once again - to have learnt all the wrong lessons from history.

Others will follow.
Once an Emperors feudal lords refuse to accept his decision then he is reduced to Emperor in name only, same goes for Merkel.

Yes, people forget that feudal systems are still two way relationships, that even if there are supposed divine obligations to the head of the pyramid, there are expectations on what are reasonable demands to those below.

The EU relies on consensus, and the problem is that sometimes it is a false consensus, where the biggest agree a position, top up with smaller enthusiastic supporters, and others than sort of join in with varying levels of enthusiasm as it's clear which way things are going and it's time to all pitch in together. Potential problems are when something arrives, perhaps this is it, where significant numbers simply don't play that game anymore.

Ultimately, that is why the EU has much less power than people think. Any brave leader can simply say no. To paraphrase Stalin, the EU has no divisions. It has no ability to enforce compliance, except by evicting a recalcitrant member - and that is something it will never do.

"Any brave leader can simply say no."

Not too many of those around.

If it pays politically - as it did in Hungary and Slovakia - they will.

John_M

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

lol. It's garbage. I'm surprised the Mail is even bothering at this point. And I do so love a juicy political scandal. The current pols aren't a patch on the nineties generation.

DavidL

Wonder what the DM paid for this garbage.

Big mistake whatever it was.

TheWhiteRabbit

Speedy said:

glw said:

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

By worst I presume you mean the journalism?

Well Cameron according to this conspired against his own party simply to prevent Boris from becoming Mayor.
It's one thing to be accused of having sex with a dead pig and another to electorally undermine the party you are leading.

What's the actual accusation?

GIN1138

Looks like Lord Ashcroft is fizzling out like a soggy fireworks display...

HYUFD

Yet more enlightenment from the House of Saud

A teenager who was arrested in 2012 for taking part in an anti-government protest in Saudi Arabia will be crucified and beheaded after his latest appeal was dismissed
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/22/teenager-sentenced-to-death-by-crucifixion-in-saudi-arabia_n_8177584.html?1442939262&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Fenster

@RCS re the heads up on The Jinx. Thank you!

kle4

Speedy said:

glw said:

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

By worst I presume you mean the journalism?

Well Cameron according to this conspired against his own party simply to prevent Boris from becoming Mayor.
It's one thing to be accused of having sex with a dead pig and another to electorally undermine the party you are leading.

It's the most damning, but simultaneously the least believable - I'll be very interested to see who the source is and how credible a report it is, as the party and Cameron as a result benefited from Boris winning, even if it created some headaches and a rival, so for him to take active steps to prevent it to the point of preferring a Labour win would be very silly of him.

Beverley_C

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

Judging by Lord Richards denial of the story and the unverified stories both Ashcroft and Oakshott are coming out of this far worse than David Cameron

Ms Oakshott's comments about "signing off" quotes notwithstanding, I wonder what would happen if Lord Richards felt he had grounds to sue for libel or misrepresentation? This book seems to be annoying a lot more people than its intended target. I wonder if others will start legal action?

blackburn63

Any climate changers crying into their elderberry water tonight?

rcs1000

Fenster said:

@RCS re the heads up on The Jinx. Thank you!

My wife and I watched all four episodes back to back. It will go down as one of the greatest documentaries of all time.

But, whatever you do, do not google it. It's best watching it without any prior knowledge :-)

kle4

John_M said:

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

lol. It's garbage. I'm surprised the Mail is even bothering at this point. And I do so love a juicy political scandal. The current pols aren't a patch on the nineties generation.

I think there was a piece in the Spectator awhile back with a similar sentiment, and thanking Lord Sewell for bringing a taste of that back. This lot, well, even their scandals are bland much of the time (the dead pig has been a notable counter to that!), like over charging the tax payer for biscuits or something.

Tim_B

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

flightpath01

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

Judging by Lord Richards denial of the story and the unverified stories both Ashcroft and Oakshott are coming out of this far worse than David Cameron

Who does Speedy think he is kidding?
given the book is 600 pages long I am beginning to wonder if Oakshott is getting a bit dismayed by the Mails emphasis on about 6 of them. What has Dave (allegedly) done to her to make her so bitter and twisted as to wantnto shred her reputation for an advance from Iain Dale?

rcs1000

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Beverley_C

blackburn63 said:

Any climate changers crying into their elderberry water tonight?

???

kle4

flightpath01 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

Judging by Lord Richards denial of the story and the unverified stories both Ashcroft and Oakshott are coming out of this far worse than David Cameron

given the book is 600 pages long I am beginning to wonder if Oakshott is getting a bit dismayed by the Mails emphasis on about 6 of them.

I would regard her an an idiot or a liar if she makes noises in that direction (and she has made some already) - you don't accuse (and it is essentially an accusation in reality if not legality) the PM of sticking his dick in a pig when he was younger if you don't think you can handle people focusing on it, because you know they will, at least initially. It would be false to pretend surprise, so she must have known it and any pretense of annoyance at it is merely disingenuous theatre. If there's worth in the book it will outlast the initial hysteria, if there is not then they knew they needed the hysteria to sell copies even more than usual (I doubt these sorts of books are huge sellers without some controversy).

It was a funny story though, and like Corbyn one of the few political stories Ive seen break through to determinedly non political friends.

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively

foxinsoxuk

DavidL said:

Wonder what the DM paid for this garbage.

Big mistake whatever it was.

Maybe they were paid to publish. It all does look like vanity publishing to me.

rcs1000

Beverley_C said:

blackburn63 said:

Any climate changers crying into their elderberry water tonight?

???

Blackburn is probably referencing this: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/noaa-better-97-percent-chance-2015-will-be-hottest-year-n429261

Speedy

About the KGB drug story, it's not the first time that Cameron and the KGB had allegedly mixed up:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179152/KGB-denies-David-Cameron-s-claims-tried-recruit-operative-travelled-Soviet-Union-aged-19.html

flightpath01

Beverley_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Speedy said:

Day 3 looks the like the worst day so far, it's worse than even Day 1.

Judging by Lord Richards denial of the story and the unverified stories both Ashcroft and Oakshott are coming out of this far worse than David Cameron

Ms Oakshott's comments about "signing off" quotes notwithstanding, I wonder what would happen if Lord Richards felt he had grounds to sue for libel or misrepresentation? This book seems to be annoying a lot more people than its intended target. I wonder if others will start legal action?

I have not read the detail of Lord Richards connetion but all these stories do not operate on a vaccum. They inevitably draw on others who are either guilty or innocent of something.
Trying to use Boris as a surrogateto smear Cameron is crazy. As I recall the Mayoral bid then Cameron and co were very keen for Boris to run and it was a key point in the Tory recovery.

JonnyJimmy

I've never had any cock near pig's mouth moments, but I don't think it would require that much cash to persuade me to do so. FFS I'd put my shoe on my nob for a pound and that's a bit of dead cow.

If when I'd been at Oxford I'd had the chance to get into the bullingdon or some such by sticking my nob in a dead animal's mouth I'd have added a flourish.

isam

SquareRoot said:

Worthy of not in the latest "revelations"

1) voters would be far more likely to believe that Gordon Brown went to parties with bricks in a plastic bag to avoid paying his round ...so to speak..

2) Oakeshott is a busted flush.. her defence for making such "revelations " is pathetic.


Who knows, some of it may be true, but her justifications is bollocks.


Oh...and ISAM..I read what you wrote.... one day, death will inevitably touch you..., remember what you said to me when it does... meantime it doesn't alter the fact that the BNP voters largely switched to UKIP.. Farage's ludicrous suggestion that "reasonable" BNP voters would switch is ludicrous. There are no reasonable BNP voters.

You seem very bitter and angry and I think you should have counselling. If that's such a terrible thing to say then so be it. I don't see why your wife dying, sad as that is, gives you the right to relentlessly imply I am some kind of racist nutter all the time when I am blatantly not

glw

Speedy said:

About the KGB drug story, it's not the first time that Cameron and the KGB had allegedly mixed up:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179152/KGB-denies-David-Cameron-s-claims-tried-recruit-operative-travelled-Soviet-Union-aged-19.html

That article doesn't support the new claims, quite the opposite in fact.

rcs1000

isam said:

SquareRoot said:

Worthy of not in the latest "revelations"

1) voters would be far more likely to believe that Gordon Brown went to parties with bricks in a plastic bag to avoid paying his round ...so to speak..

2) Oakeshott is a busted flush.. her defence for making such "revelations " is pathetic.


Who knows, some of it may be true, but her justifications is bollocks.


Oh...and ISAM..I read what you wrote.... one day, death will inevitably touch you..., remember what you said to me when it does... meantime it doesn't alter the fact that the BNP voters largely switched to UKIP.. Farage's ludicrous suggestion that "reasonable" BNP voters would switch is ludicrous. There are no reasonable BNP voters.

You seem very bitter and angry and I think you should have counselling. If that's such a terrible thing to say then so be it

I hope you're not suggesting he gets counselling on the NHS at the expense of taxpayers.

Beverley_C

rcs1000 said:

Beverley_C said:

blackburn63 said:

Any climate changers crying into their elderberry water tonight?

???

Blackburn is probably referencing this: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/noaa-better-97-percent-chance-2015-will-be-hottest-year-n429261

Are they serious? My central heating stayed on all summer and it is automatic, controlled by thermostat. Normally it switches off in April(ish) and stays off until October(ish), but not this year.

We had one BBQ this "summer". All my herbs rotted in their pots because there was so much rain and so little sun. Even my sage and my mint, both of which are very hardy herbs, both of them showed the effects of poor weather.

If it is warm somewhere, can we import some?

Philip_Thompson

kle4 said:

Incidentally, am I the only one who finds Americans referring to former representatives by title a bit weird? I've no idea if it is common practice, and maybe it's not the case here purely because we don't have governors, and MP comes after not before a name, but seeing long since removed governors and congressman referred to as congressman x or whatever just feels strange to me.

I suppose they must think we are disrespectful being so casual about our politicians perhaps?

Not sure about for other roles but for President no absolutely not, there's a very sensible reason why its a title for life.

In the military your title is held for life. A retired colonel can still be addressed as a colonel. A retired general can still be addressed as a general.

As the President is the Commander in Chief of the military it makes sense that the same rules would apply to him.

Speedy

glw said:

Speedy said:

About the KGB drug story, it's not the first time that Cameron and the KGB had allegedly mixed up:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179152/KGB-denies-David-Cameron-s-claims-tried-recruit-operative-travelled-Soviet-Union-aged-19.html

That article doesn't support the new claims, quite the opposite in fact.

David Cameron himself is the source of that story.

DavidL

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

Wonder what the DM paid for this garbage.

Big mistake whatever it was.

Maybe they were paid to publish. It all does look like vanity publishing to me.

Has that feel about it, doesn't it.

Silly man.

Tim_B

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Short of an FBI indictment it seems likely Hillary can not be stopped in getting the nomination. Biden seems more likely than ever to get in, but he is still obviously grieving for his son. The pressure on Biden is immense.

Given a good Republican candidate, Hillary is very beatable, and senior Democrats know she is a poor candidate, and as a result are desperately looking for anybody else. Biden seems to be all they have. I think they know Biden can't beat Hillary.

We are a long way away and the dynamics will change once the Democratic debates and the primaries start.

There are only 6 Democratic debates scheduled and there is huge pressure on the DNC to increase the number. The Clinton campaign is desperate not to increase the number of debates - polling shows the more voters see Clinton the less they like her.

Anything can happen between now and polling day. Absolutely anything - on both sides.

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Incidentally, am I the only one who finds Americans referring to former representatives by title a bit weird? I've no idea if it is common practice, and maybe it's not the case here purely because we don't have governors, and MP comes after not before a name, but seeing long since removed governors and congressman referred to as congressman x or whatever just feels strange to me.

I suppose they must think we are disrespectful being so casual about our politicians perhaps?

Not sure about for other roles but for President no absolutely not, there's a very sensible reason why its a title for life.

In the military your title is held for life. A retired colonel can still be addressed as a colonel. A retired general can still be addressed as a general.

As the President is the Commander in Chief of the military it makes sense that the same rules would apply to him.

President, sure, there's also not many of those so it hardly matters, but a Congressman? Even a one term Congressman?

flightpath01

foxinsoxuk said:

JEO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gen Richards' views 'maliciously' portrayed in Lord Ashcroft Cameron biography extracts
Friends of Lord Richards of Herstmonceux said his views had been “distorted tendentiously and maliciously” in a serialisation of the book, titled "Call Me Dave", in the Daily Mail

http://bit.ly/1LMbD2r

I think it's fairly clear at this point that Oakeshott has sold out any journalistic principles she once had for a big paycheck. Printing salacious rumours based on one guy's dinner party anecdote, twisting the words of a major general. This book has no credibility.

It is ironic that a Lord who undermines a Tory PM and wanted him defeated in May, considers that claims that Cameron undermined Johnson are a killer blow. A complete absence of insight, and further evidence that Cameron was right to not appoint him to a senior cabinet role.

You are correct. Ashcroft supported the Tory party financially and the Tories took a lot of flack for creating him a peer, although LDs and Labour promoted their donors to the lords. But by 2005 to 2010 he was spending his own money where he wanted as part of a separate marginal seat operation to suit himself. It did not look to clever or successful to me. He made himself look a fool in 2015. All of which is sad, but none of it suggests good political jugement or suitability.

SimonStClare

"Spy claimed Dave asked KGB to get him drugs"

It’s only my opinion, but that's about as plausible as a claim as David Icke’s lizard people.

Beverley_C

flightpath01 said:

I have not read the detail of Lord Richards connetion but all these stories do not operate on a vaccum. They inevitably draw on others who are either guilty or innocent of something.

And it would seem that many people referenced in the book are unhappy. It does seem to me to be a disaster of a book. I go along with those who suspect it may have been a vanity publishing project.

glw

Speedy said:

glw said:

Speedy said:

About the KGB drug story, it's not the first time that Cameron and the KGB had allegedly mixed up:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179152/KGB-denies-David-Cameron-s-claims-tried-recruit-operative-travelled-Soviet-Union-aged-19.html

That article doesn't support the new claims, quite the opposite in fact.

David Cameron himself is the source of that story.

If you read the article it says:

‘We have cautiously asked well-informed people if there is a file on Cameron in KGB archives. We got a definite reply that there is no such file in the archives, and there was no such file earlier. The KGB was not working on Cameron.’

So unless the latest claim is an entirely separate incident the stories do not tie up. Besides the usual warnings about taking spies claims at face value.

Tim_B

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively

It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.

Speedy

SimonStClare said:

"Spy claimed Dave asked KGB to get him drugs"

It’s only my opinion, but that's about as plausible as a claim as David Icke’s lizard people.

It would be fun if it is one of those 2 blokes who approached Cameron when he was visiting the USSR and he thought they were KGB agents who tried to recruit him, the semi-official line from the Russians was that they were simply black market salesmen.

TheWhiteRabbit

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively

It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.

Will the polls turn for Trump before Iowa?

kle4

Honestly, the good lord's tweet about Cameron's 'stabbed in the back' line seems the most revealing so far, it may be even more personal than it already appeared if he thinks a PM going against a promise he supposedly made to him warrants and is the same thing as financing and publishing a book which has the primary, centrepiece accusation that the Prime Minister put his dick in a pig once without substantiation of that accusation(if proof does emerge, then fair play I guess).

I read a comedy piece once that today's billionaires just aren't as good as the tyrannical, distant powers of yesteryear, as with twitter and the like, we get to see that some are just as petty, stupid or pettily stupid as the rest of us, which is depressing when they are also unimaginably more wealthy than us.

Cyclefree

Beverley_C said:

Cyclefree said:

It sounds like total garbage. He could have got them from Kids Company, if the allegations about them are true.

I wonder what's happened to the money or, even, the winding up of that charity......

Errr... is finding that out not the sort of thing you do for your day job???

Just asking .....

Personally I would love to look into that entity. But my team is busy elsewhere....and charities are out of our scope.

MarqueeMark

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Incidentally, am I the only one who finds Americans referring to former representatives by title a bit weird? I've no idea if it is common practice, and maybe it's not the case here purely because we don't have governors, and MP comes after not before a name, but seeing long since removed governors and congressman referred to as congressman x or whatever just feels strange to me.

I suppose they must think we are disrespectful being so casual about our politicians perhaps?

Not sure about for other roles but for President no absolutely not, there's a very sensible reason why its a title for life.

In the military your title is held for life. A retired colonel can still be addressed as a colonel. A retired general can still be addressed as a general.

As the President is the Commander in Chief of the military it makes sense that the same rules would apply to him.

That does make sense....

flightpath01

Speedy said:

SimonStClare said:

"Spy claimed Dave asked KGB to get him drugs"

It’s only my opinion, but that's about as plausible as a claim as David Icke’s lizard people.

It would be fun if it is one of those 2 blokes who approached Cameron when he was visiting the USSR and he thought they were KGB agents who tried to recruit him, the semi-official line from the Russians was that they were simply black market salesmen.

What is fun is the insight you are offering into the quality of your brain cell.

HYUFD

Tim_B said:

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Short of an FBI indictment it seems likely Hillary can not be stopped in getting the nomination. Biden seems more likely than ever to get in, but he is still obviously grieving for his son. The pressure on Biden is immense.

Given a good Republican candidate, Hillary is very beatable, and senior Democrats know she is a poor candidate, and as a result are desperately looking for anybody else. Biden seems to be all they have. I think they know Biden can't beat Hillary.

We are a long way away and the dynamics will change once the Democratic debates and the primaries start.

There are only 6 Democratic debates scheduled and there is huge pressure on the DNC to increase the number. The Clinton campaign is desperate not to increase the number of debates - polling shows the more voters see Clinton the less they like her.

Anything can happen between now and polling day. Absolutely anything - on both sides.

Given the present top 3 in the GOP race are Trump, Carson and Fiorina the GOP establishment is in just as big a panic mode

SimonStClare

glw said:

antifrank said:

The first bullet point is both hearsay and on its face highly implausible. If a quarter of what else has been unveiled is true, our Prime Minister would not want for suppliers.

The KGB ceased to exist in 1991, and I'm no drugs expert but I doubt that any drugs were so hard to come by at the time that some dodgy KGB agent would seem like a good source.

It’s amazing that several million poshos, luvvies and chavs have no difficulty finding a supplier every week, but the PM needs to resort to the KGB. – I fear we have jumped the shark with this allegation.

Beverley_C

Cyclefree said:

Beverley_C said:

Cyclefree said:

It sounds like total garbage. He could have got them from Kids Company, if the allegations about them are true.

I wonder what's happened to the money or, even, the winding up of that charity......

Errr... is finding that out not the sort of thing you do for your day job???

Just asking .....

Personally I would love to look into that entity. But my team is busy elsewhere....and charities are out of our scope.

Alas.... when the press finish wondering what to do about "Call me Dave" maybe they can do some sniffing around the charity sector

Speedy

flightpath01 said:

Speedy said:

SimonStClare said:

"Spy claimed Dave asked KGB to get him drugs"

It’s only my opinion, but that's about as plausible as a claim as David Icke’s lizard people.

It would be fun if it is one of those 2 blokes who approached Cameron when he was visiting the USSR and he thought they were KGB agents who tried to recruit him, the semi-official line from the Russians was that they were simply black market salesmen.

What is fun is the insight you are offering into the quality of your brain cell.

It is ironic if it turns out that Cameron was right after all in that the KGB made an approach on him when he was vacationing in the USSR, you can't deny that it will be amusing since very few believed Cameron's story.

glw

SimonStClare said:

It’s amazing that several million poshos, luvvies and chavs have no difficulty finding a supplier every week, but the PM needs to resort to the KGB. – I fear we have jumped the shark with this allegation.

I don't know the truth of the matter, but it immediately strikes me that there is a very big difference between "Dave asked KGB" and "Spy claimed Dave asked KGB".

Tim_B

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively

It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.

Will the polls turn for Trump before Iowa?

His stock has definitely dropped since the last debate - his network TV coverage has gone negative, he has dropped about 8 points in the polls. He is doing the late night shows this week and we'll see if that helps. But the "We are going to do great things, and hire the right people to make America Great Again" schtick is starting to wear thin- folks want specifics at this point.

By contrast Mrs Specific - Carly Fiorina, has said specifics on military growth, the economy and foreign policy, and is rocketing in the polls. She can get more detail into a smaller number of words than anyone else. She actually sang a song to her dog on the Tonight Show last night, and was obviously comfortable doing so. It was good exposure for her, and the audience absolutely loved it.

This is a marathon not a sprint. As I said last week my feeling is that Trump has peaked and Fiorina is rising. But as as she rises her career at HP and Lucent will come under increasing scrutiny.

It is too early to predict anything at this point.

Cyclefree

Beverley_C said:

rcs1000 said:

Beverley_C said:

blackburn63 said:

Any climate changers crying into their elderberry water tonight?

???

Blackburn is probably referencing this: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/noaa-better-97-percent-chance-2015-will-be-hottest-year-n429261

Are they serious? My central heating stayed on all summer and it is automatic, controlled by thermostat. Normally it switches off in April(ish) and stays off until October(ish), but not this year.

We had one BBQ this "summer". All my herbs rotted in their pots because there was so much rain and so little sun. Even my sage and my mint, both of which are very hardy herbs, both of them showed the effects of poor weather.

If it is warm somewhere, can we import some?

You all need to come to my garden. It is blooming. The roses have been magnificent, the figs are looking good, the dahlias have been flowering since June and all my herbs are doing fine. Mind you, it is sheltered and south-facing.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Day 3 looks pretty pathetic tbh.

HYUFD

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively

It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.

Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination

Tim_B

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Short of an FBI indictment it seems likely Hillary can not be stopped in getting the nomination. Biden seems more likely than ever to get in, but he is still obviously grieving for his son. The pressure on Biden is immense.

Given a good Republican candidate, Hillary is very beatable, and senior Democrats know she is a poor candidate, and as a result are desperately looking for anybody else. Biden seems to be all they have. I think they know Biden can't beat Hillary.

We are a long way away and the dynamics will change once the Democratic debates and the primaries start.

There are only 6 Democratic debates scheduled and there is huge pressure on the DNC to increase the number. The Clinton campaign is desperate not to increase the number of debates - polling shows the more voters see Clinton the less they like her.

Anything can happen between now and polling day. Absolutely anything - on both sides.

Given the present top 3 in the GOP race are Trump, Carson and Fiorina the GOP establishment is in just as big a panic mode

They are not actually. Concerned yes. Fiorina or Carson they could handle. Trump is the nightmare, but they know it's probably not going to happen.

flightpath01

kle4 said:

Honestly, the good lord's tweet about Cameron's 'stabbed in the back' line seems the most revealing so far, it may be even more personal than it already appeared if he thinks a PM going against a promise he supposedly made to him warrants and is the same thing as financing and publishing a book which has the primary, centrepiece accusation that the Prime Minister put his dick in a pig once without substantiation of that accusation(if proof does emerge, then fair play I guess). Snip

Yes I agree... That's what I thought when I saw the report. It's indicative of a huge character flaw in Ashcroft, one which all good work (easy work never the less given his vast wealth) he does with VC medals cannot hide.
I also now see where Richards is unhappy about his words being twisted. This does not surprise me, its what happens in these cases.
As it happens its probably easier for Cameron and Richards to ride over this, but newspapers use the same technique with people far less able to defend themselves. The same newspapers that want to be above the law and be left to police themselves.

JEO

Front page of the Express tomorrow:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPiML18WUAAuHXW.jpg

Speedy

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively

It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.

Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination

I agree.
In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.

JEO

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

O'Malley is the most credible candidate in the race. He just needs to get the oxygen of publicity.

HYUFD

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Short of an FBI indictment it seems likely Hillary can not be stopped in getting the nomination. Biden seems more likely than ever to get in, but he is still obviously grieving for his son. The pressure on Biden is immense.

Given a good Republican candidate, Hillary is very beatable, and senior Democrats know she is a poor candidate, and as a result are desperately looking for anybody else. Biden seems to be all they have. I think they know Biden can't beat Hillary.

We are a long way away and the dynamics will change once the Democratic debates and the primaries start.

There are only 6 Democratic debates scheduled and there is huge pressure on the DNC to increase the number. The Clinton campaign is desperate not to increase the number of debates - polling shows the more voters see Clinton the less they like her.

Anything can happen between now and polling day. Absolutely anything - on both sides.

Given the present top 3 in the GOP race are Trump, Carson and Fiorina the GOP establishment is in just as big a panic mode

They are not actually. Concerned yes. Fiorina or Carson they could handle. Trump is the nightmare, but they know it's probably not going to happen.

Well despite frequent alleged 'setbacks' Trump still remains frontrunner

TGOHF

That balance that Oakenshott was talking about is really starting to show through..

Tim_B

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively

It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.

Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination

It's nothing to do with Trump vs Hillary in the primaries.

Momentum -what about the S.E.C. Primary?

Beverley_C

JEO said:

Front page of the Express tomorrow:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPiML18WUAAuHXW.jpg

And people talk about how we should accept an extra 10 or 20 thousand? I think we already have.

RobD

glw said:

SimonStClare said:

It’s amazing that several million poshos, luvvies and chavs have no difficulty finding a supplier every week, but the PM needs to resort to the KGB. – I fear we have jumped the shark with this allegation.

I don't know the truth of the matter, but it immediately strikes me that there is a very big difference between "Dave asked KGB" and "Spy claimed Dave asked KGB".

Maybe that should be "peer claims spy claimed Dave asked KGB"?

HYUFD

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively

It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.

Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination

I agree.
In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.

Indeed, though the second debate has boosted her, Ted Cruz is also trying to tap into the same voter block as Trump

Philip_Thompson

Beverley_C said:

JEO said:

Front page of the Express tomorrow:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPiML18WUAAuHXW.jpg

And people talk about how we should accept an extra 10 or 20 thousand? I think we already have.

Yeah sure what's another 10 or 20 thousand between friends?

Beverley_C

Cyclefree said:

You all need to come to my garden. It is blooming. The roses have been magnificent, the figs are looking good, the dahlias have been flowering since June and all my herbs are doing fine. Mind you, it is sheltered and south-facing.

Lucky you! My garden is also south facing, just further north than yours I suspect

Speedy

@HYUFD

Looking at the state of the GOP race I think it's Trump vs anti-Trump, but the anti-Trump crowd is divided, its looking around and are getting stuck in flavours of the month type candidates like the anti-Romney ones in 2012.
Walker rose and crashed, Carson rose and crashed, and now Fiorina rose and is crashing.
I'm hearing noises that the anti-Trumps will try Rubio next.

Tim_B

Guys - we are 14 months away from the election. Stop obsessing on polls. Track them by all means. You need to track news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on. Polls are merely snapshots.

Look at the 2008 election cycle and learn the lesson.

HYUFD

Tim_B said:

Guys - we are 14 months away from the election. Stop obsessing on polls. Track them by all means. You need to track news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on. Polls are merely snapshots.

Look at the 2008 election cycle and learn the lesson.

I prefer to look at what the actual voters are saying rather than the pundits. In 2008 McCain and Obama were second at this stage so hardly came from nowhere, in 2000 and 2012 George W Bush and Romney were ahead at this stage and became nominee

Speedy

Tim_B said:

Guys - we are 14 months away from the election. Stop obsessing on polls. Track them by all means. You need to track news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on. Polls are merely snapshots.

Look at the 2008 election cycle and learn the lesson.

If it's anything we need to learn over these past 10 years of elections is that pundits are always wrong.

And with that goodnight, oh the Daily Express front page is nothing, look at this:
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/646442708647735296/photo/1

HYUFD

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Tim_B said:

Hillary's email -

curiouser and murkier.

This just does not help her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/

If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?

I can't see it being Saunders... s

Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively

It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.

Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination

It's nothing to do with Trump vs Hillary in the primaries.

Momentum -what about the S.E.C. Primary?

Trump's strongest support is in the South

flightpath01

Speedy said:

flightpath01 said:

Speedy said:

SimonStClare said:

"Spy claimed Dave asked KGB to get him drugs"

It’s only my opinion, but that's about as plausible as a claim as David Icke’s lizard people.

It would be fun if it is one of those 2 blokes who approached Cameron when he was visiting the USSR and he thought they were KGB agents who tried to recruit him, the semi-official line from the Russians was that they were simply black market salesmen.

What is fun is the insight you are offering into the quality of your brain cell.

It is ironic if it turns out that Cameron was right after all in that the KGB made an approach on him when he was vacationing in the USSR, you can't deny that it will be amusing since very few believed Cameron's story.

You do realise that you are talking about gap year Cameron (18 years old?) pre university in 1985?
You do realise that in telling the story later when he was PM and at a reception in Moscow, he never mentioned 'spy' or KGB or anything like that? Just having lunch with 2 men who spoke good English.
As for not believing the story ... A Guardian writer said the same thing happened to him.

HYUFD

Speedy said:

@HYUFD

Looking at the state of the GOP race I think it's Trump vs anti-Trump, but the anti-Trump crowd is divided, its looking around and are getting stuck in flavours of the month type candidates like the anti-Romney ones in 2012.
Walker rose and crashed, Carson rose and crashed, and now Fiorina rose and is crashing.
I'm hearing noises that the anti-Trumps will try Rubio next.

Indeed