@IAmBirmingham: Riot vans and police outnumber protesters in #Birmingham as only 20 people show up for a #MillionMaskMarch protest. https://t.co/sswlRvI2P8
I guess that means each protester is wearing/carrying 50,000 masks.
I find it ironic that the anti-capitalist are wearing novelty masks churned out by er, capitalists.
You sound like you might have some sympathy for these idiots. When they get processed by the courts they'll be found to be people who have no just complaint against anything whatsoever. Trust fund baboons, councillors druggie offspring, and that moron that Ed consulted.
I give a reasonable estimate that Labour will coast with 50-65% of the vote with UKIP at around 30% perhaps 35% max, with the Tories down to 10% or a tad lower.
Not at all unreasonable. Certainly anything less would be a serious setback for Labour and a very personal humiliation for Corbyn. This could (should) be another Uxbridge 1997 (although the Tories had not elected Nicholas Winterton as leader). If Labour lose, of course, no amount of spin will hide the scale of the catastrophe.
However, Danczuk for Watson? (I assume Watson is the organiser. If I'm wrong, please let me know.) Not the best of swaps particularly at a rather awkward moment in his career as noncefinder general. Plus Milne in charge of the message? Whatever his faults, Baldwin was not totally insane or an avowed apologist for one of the world's worst mass murderers.
@IAmBirmingham: Riot vans and police outnumber protesters in #Birmingham as only 20 people show up for a #MillionMaskMarch protest. https://t.co/sswlRvI2P8
I guess that means each protester is wearing/carrying 50,000 masks.
I find it ironic that the anti-capitalist are wearing novelty masks churned out by er, capitalists.
I read recently about an anti-capitalist squat that lives off the abundance of excess food distributed by supermarkets...
"But I do think that British foreign policy should be determined by what is in Britain's interests. If what is in our interests annoys some youths with violent tendencies, too bad. The idea that we should make our country's interests hostage to those of violent intent within our country seems to me to be no different to appeasement. All the more so when it comes to those of violent intent in other countries (which is what Sadiq Khan seemed to be suggesting and which I was criticising). "
There's no one definition of Britain's interests. Maybe they disagree with what you or I think Britain's interests should be. But in so far as they can be objectively defined, Britain's interests include the minimisation of terror risk. And any conception of interests has to be subjugated to the long-term consequences of behaviour on the world stage - stuff as basic as having a reputation for incompetence in power projection, like that endured by the USA/UK after Iraq. So we don't agree that it is possible to calculate Britain's interests today and stop there.
Labour should hold the seat with the ethnic and public sector vote but a strong UKIP campaign could certainly slash their vote from the white working class
From what I gather, Mr Cameron is viewed as "OK" by quite a lot of people who aren't Conservatives. As others have said, pictures carry more weight than words.
Surely the association of ideas might work in the opposite direction, as an endorsement rather than a horrid warning?
Comments
The forest of smartphones recording the event is also mildly ironic.
However, Danczuk for Watson? (I assume Watson is the organiser. If I'm wrong, please let me know.) Not the best of swaps particularly at a rather awkward moment in his career as noncefinder general. Plus Milne in charge of the message? Whatever his faults, Baldwin was not totally insane or an avowed apologist for one of the world's worst mass murderers.
There's no one definition of Britain's interests. Maybe they disagree with what you or I think Britain's interests should be. But in so far as they can be objectively defined, Britain's interests include the minimisation of terror risk. And any conception of interests has to be subjugated to the long-term consequences of behaviour on the world stage - stuff as basic as having a reputation for incompetence in power projection, like that endured by the USA/UK after Iraq. So we don't agree that it is possible to calculate Britain's interests today and stop there.
Anything below 50% is a very bad sign.
Carson – 31% (21)
Trump – 19% (22)
Rubio – 10% (7)
Cruz – 10% (6)
Bush – 5% (7)
Fiorina – 3% (10)
Huckabee – 3% (4)
Paul – 2% (2)
Christie – 2% (2)
Kasich – 1% (2)
Graham – 1% (0)
Jindal – 0% (0)
Pataki – 0% (0)
Santorum – 0% (1)
Undecided – 12% (13)
General Election Matchups
Carson – 48%
Clinton – 44%
Rubio – 46%
Clinton – 45%
Clinton – 47%
Bush – 43%
Clinton – 48%
Fiorina – 42%
Clinton – 50%
Trump – 40%
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/elonpoll/110515.xhtml
From what I gather, Mr Cameron is viewed as "OK" by quite a lot of people who aren't Conservatives. As others have said, pictures carry more weight than words.
Surely the association of ideas might work in the opposite direction, as an endorsement rather than a horrid warning?