Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
I wouldn't call a thousand years of PB Tory rule a disaster for the country
HS2 Heathrow 3 Moonbase 1
Actually, we Brits are doing the last of these, at least in simulation! British (and Cambridge) company Frontier are launching their latest expansion for Elite in the next month or so. Called Horizons, it allows you to travel around airless worlds.
...
People who don't play computer games look away now.
Are you going to buy the Horizons expansion, Mr. Jessop? I really don't fancy it. I confess I finally got bored with Elite:Dangerous some months ago, after spending more than a thousand hours on it (the joys of retirement) and would welcome something to re-ignite my interest but this on-planet stuff just does not do it for me.
You say you do not want to get into an argument, but then continue to use analogies to argue your case! The comparison with Arsenal would only make sense if they were losing vast amounts of fans and revenue. But please, go ahead and pretend your party is not in trouble. As a Conservative, I would love to welcome UKIP voters into the Conservative fold, as we are the best placed to truly address their concerns.
And as a UKIP supporter, I would love to welcome immigration-sceptic and eurosceptic Tory voters into the UKIP fold, because despite being 'best placed' to deal with these concerns, the Tories in Government (as distinct from the party, and indeed the parliamentary party) have done no more than paying lip service to them, whilst quietly despising those who raise them.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgotten to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
The inability to hear any criticism is one of the hallmarks of a personality cult. I am not one of those individuals that never criticises my own side, nor am I someone who never praises other parties when they do things right. Farage did a very good job at getting UKIP to where they are, but he undermined their main selling point that they were not like other parties by breaking his pledge on resignation. Now the UKIP vote is collapsing in every election, and membership has fallen substantially. The Conservatives were willing to remove Margaret Thatcher when she ceased to be an electoral asset, and she achieved a damn sight more than Farage has or ever will.
It is still possible UKIP will be the beneficiaries of the Conservative leadership mismanaging the EU debate, but you would be in a much better place with Evans in charge. She would have helped UKIP's issues with women, represented the UKIP view in a far less inflammatory manner, and shown the party has grown beyond a personality cult.
I don't want to get into an argument, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I think it is utter nonsense
Reminds me of Arsenal fans who think we should get rid of Wenger every year when we get knocked out of the Champions League EVERY YEAR
Or in this case, Tottenham fans who think we should
You say you do not want to get into an argument, but then continue to use analogies to argue your case! The comparison with Arsenal would only make sense if they were losing vast amounts of fans and revenue. But please, go ahead and pretend your party is not in trouble. As a Conservative, I would love to welcome UKIP voters into the Conservative fold, as we are the best placed to truly address their concerns.
Don't worry yourself about UKIP... we have the most popular leader of any UK political party with the public, he has done a fantastic job and is still the best person for the job.
I am off to our own service with my wife. Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic. And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
Most of us had family members fighting for freedom in the War, some of whom didn't return - we probably shouldn't use them to make any political point. You are of course free to make any point you wish, but you're IMO mistaken to think that being married to a politician carries any obligations whatsoever. I've never seen Mrs Corbyn at a local Labour event either - so far as I know, she simply has her own life. It really is none of our business.
I agree that Tim Farron's religion has never obtruded. I was a bit shocked to read in Norman Baker's memoirs (which are partisan but good for amusing anecotes) that Simon Hughes was a fundamentalist - Norman apparently had an animal welfare proposal opposed by Simon because the Bible said that Man was placed into dominance over the animal kingdom, or words to that effect.
He can't be that much of a fundamentalist if he is bisexual
Hyufd, if you wish to google 'American pastors sex scandals', it might suggest that quite a lot of fundamentalists can simply be ordinary hypocrites. Why should Hughes be different?
Hughes is not a hypocrite though, he is openly bisexual and has always been pro homosexual equality, even if his campaign in the Southwark by election was somewhat dubious
As I recall, he repeatedly denied being bisexual before finally admitting it when he was caught out using a gay dating site. Ironically, however, my understanding is that actually it was a split in the Labour party that caused most of Tatchell's problems, with an Old-Labour candidate who thought homosexuality was pure unsophisticated evil running against him. Hughes' only contribution was the ambiguous 'straight choice' leaflet, which I must admit I would not automatically have considered to be an anti-homosexual pun.
I may of course be wrong on both counts - I am not an expert on Simon Hughes!
I don't think he ever formally denied it, he just never openly proclaimed it until recently but the main thing was his votes in the Commons eg anti Section 28, pro gay marriage, were always pro homosexual equality so he was never a hypocrite. The 'straight choice' leaflet was not his finest hour regardless of views on Tatchell
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
Exactly, Miss P, and there is no reason why they should retain this 30%ish vote in England for ever either.
P.S. Guards officers in civvie clothes were always expected, when in Town, to wear a bowler hat and carry an umbrella. Whether they were the people you were talking about I don't know - don't watch the television.
P.P.S. Thanks for the link yesterday about the bear - literally and honestly the story brought a tear to me eye. I read it to Thomas but all he did was go and sit in front of the cat's food and beer fridge staring at its door. He has no empathy.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgotten to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
The inability to hear any criticism is one of the hallmarks of a personality cult. I am not one of apsing in every election, and membership has fallen substantially. The Conservatives were willing to remove Margaret Thatcher when she ceased to be an electoral asset, and she achieved a damn sight more than Farage has or ever will.
It is still possible UKIP will be the beneficiaries of the Conservative leadership mismanaging the EU debate, but you would be in a much better place with Evans in charge. She would have helped UKIP's issues with women, represented the UKIP view in a far less inflammatory manner, and shown the party has grown beyond a personality cult.
I don't want to get into an argument, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I think it is utter nonsense
Reminds me of Arsenal fans who think we should get rid of Wenger every year when we get knocked out of the Champions League EVERY YEAR
Or in this case, Tottenham fans who think we should
You say you do not want to get into an argument, but then continue to use analogies to argue your case! The comparison with Arsenal would only make sense if they were losing vast amounts of fans and revenue. But please, go ahead and pretend your party is not in trouble. As a Conservative, I would love to welcome UKIP voters into the Conservative fold, as we are the best placed to truly address their concerns.
Don't worry yourself about UKIP... we have the most popular leader of any UK political party with the public, he has done a fantastic job and is still the best person for the job.
Dunno about that...he didn't even think that himself on May 8
You say you do not want to get into an argument, but then continue to use analogies to argue your case! The comparison with Arsenal would only make sense if they were losing vast amounts of fans and revenue. But please, go ahead and pretend your party is not in trouble. As a Conservative, I would love to welcome UKIP voters into the Conservative fold, as we are the best placed to truly address their concerns.
And as a UKIP supporter, I would love to welcome immigration-sceptic and eurosceptic Tory voters into the UKIP fold, because despite being 'best placed' to deal with these concerns, the Tories in Government (as distinct from the party, and indeed the parliamentary party) have done no more than paying lip service to them, whilst quietly despising those who raise them.
Other than a referendum, of course, which is far more than UKIP have ever done.
You have to ask the question though, is Farage a boorish chauvinistic loose cannon who has damaged the anti-EU cause, or is it the anti-EU cause that has damaged Farage by virtue of the vituperative and frankly disturbing mass-media and political class campaign against it and him?
When the media gets an agenda between its teeth it can still make or break anyone. As an example, the father of Aylan Kurdi is a saint in the media. If you actually look into his actions, what he did is criminally neglectful at best, cold blooded murder at worst. But the media was not a whit dissuaded by the glaring inconsistencies in his story - they simply kept pushing. Deliberately and dangerously manipulative.
My point is not that Farage has not done or said a stupid thing in his life, but that all these sins have been brought to light in the worst possible way, and his opponent's weaknesses never mentioned. The same could (and if she gets in will) happen to Suzanne Evans. She might have a brief period where she can try to seize the media agenda and get some positive momentum, but it won't be long before the teeth sink in.
IMO the main problem is that Farage revels in the attention, and brings much of the ire down on himself. There is a dichotomy in trying to be an anti-politician whilst leading a political party, and he makes it far too easy for people to criticise him.
That's his first problem. His second is that his party management is awful, as has been seen many times in the past. As an example, Bloom should have gone long before he did. Loyalty to friends and colleagues is all good and well, but not when that friend and colleague is a loose cannon. His party mismanagment skills were also seen in the election's aftermath.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
If Evans is a loser, then so is Farage by any benchmark.
I wouldn't want to be nasty and call Suzanne a loser, I am just pointing out that the same shit would get flung at her.
I wouldn't call Farage a loser either, though I can see its an easy thing to say. He has almost single handedly dragged UKIP up to the modest level they are now. True, he has failed to become an MP many times, but only once, last May, did he have any real chance
In any case he has done a lot more with his life than most people, including me, and if I called him a loser to his face, I am sure I would be the one who lost the game of top trumps
It would be much harder to fling the same muck at her, as she does not have the same track record of saying some rather stupid things that are easy to attack. She'd be a fresh face to the public, most of whom will not be aware of her. Some of the guns routinely trained on UKIP would be spiked if she were leader, at least initially. She also seems to respond better in the media to problems than Farage: I think she's much more of an instinctual politician.
If you keep on mentioning her losing her seat on the council, then it's only right to accept Farage's own terrible electoral record. And I'm really not sure your assertion that he never really had a chance in previous elections is really right.
Evans was in charge of writing the 2015 manifesto, which as I pointed out before the GE, was so much more professional than the ridiculous 2010 one that was signed by Farage.
UKIP needs to move on. Evans seems the person to move it on. Then again, I'm not a UKIPper.
You don't like Farage and I do, it boils down to little more than that. I have met, and like, Suzanne Evans, and feel a bit mean that it looks like I am dissing her. I think she is nice, but to think she would be as effective a leader as Farage is insane IMO.
He is the most popular leader with the British public
In betting terms, Farage was a big outsider in all his attempts bar this years election
It is funny to see you argue that the "good" manifesto under his leadership is nothing to do with him, but he is responsible for the "bad" one that he didn't write when he wasn't the leader!!
Yes, thanx bowlers and umbrellas - very smart. I loved the cohort of veterans on matching red mobility scooters too. There aren't many Chelsea Pensioners today - but one with a Victoria Cross paraded too.
I shed several myself - a lovely story. Impossible today - sadly.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
Exactly, Miss P, and there is no reason why they should retain this 30%ish vote in England for ever either.
P.S. Guards officers in civvie clothes were always expected, when in Town, to wear a bowler hat and carry an umbrella. Whether they were the people you were talking about I don't know - don't watch the television.
P.P.S. Thanks for the link yesterday about the bear - literally and honestly the story brought a tear to me eye. I read it to Thomas but all he did was go and sit in front of the cat's food and beer fridge staring at its door. He has no empathy.
Best placed maybe, but have no intention of actually doing so.
We have made substantial limits on immigration, including closing off entire visa tiers, taking chunks of student immigration off the table, putting an income requirement on marriage visas etc, all while in government with the Liberal Democrats. Of course, we can go further, such as removing visas for student dependents and household workers, and we also need to do something major on the EU, but we have done a lot and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgotten to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
The inability to hear any criticism is one of the hallmarks of a personality cult. I am not one of those individuals that never criticises my own side, nor am I someone who never praises other parties when they do things right. Farage did a very good job at getting UKIP to where they are, but he undermined their main selling point that they were not like other parties by breaking his pledge on resignation. Now the UKIP vote is collapsing in every election, and membership has fallen substantially. The Conservatives were willing to remove Margaret Thatcher when she ceased to be an electoral asset, and she achieved a damn sight more than Farage has or ever will.
It is still possible UKIP will be the beneficiaries of the Conservative leadership mismanaging the EU debate, but you would be in a much better place with Evans in charge. She would have helped UKIP's issues with women, represented the UKIP view in a far less inflammatory manner, and shown the party has grown beyond a personality cult.
I don't want to get into an argument, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I think it is utter nonsense
Reminds me of Arsenal fans who think we should get rid of Wenger every year when we get knocked out of the Champions League EVERY YEAR
Or in this case, Tottenham fans who think we should
... As a Conservative, I would love to welcome UKIP voters into the Conservative fold, as we are the best placed to truly address their concerns.
Best placed maybe, but have no intention of actually doing so.
Although I let my UKIP membership lapse and am now a Tory, I know deep down they will continue to pay lip service to my concerns and also a great many other members' concerns.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
snip
As a Kipper (who has forgotten to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
The inability to hear any criticism is one of the hallmarks of a personality cult. I am not one of those individuals that never criticises my own side, nor am I someone who never praises other parties when they do things right. Farage did a very good job at getting UKIP to where they are, but he undermined their main selling point that they were not like other parties by breaking his pledge on resignation. Now the UKIP vote is collapsing in every election, and membership has fallen substantially. The Conservatives were willing to remove Margaret Thatcher when she ceased to be an electoral asset, and she achieved a damn sight more than Farage has or ever will.
It is still possible UKIP will be the beneficiaries of the Conservative leadership mismanaging the EU debate, but you would be in a much better place with Evans in charge. She would have helped UKIP's issues with women, represented the UKIP view in a far less inflammatory manner, and shown the party has grown beyond a personality cult.
I don't want to get into an argument, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I think it is utter nonsense
Reminds me of Arsenal fans who think we should get rid of Wenger every year when we get knocked out of the Champions League EVERY YEAR
Or in this case, Tottenham fans who think we should
... As a Conservative, I would love to welcome UKIP voters into the Conservative fold, as we are the best placed to truly address their concerns.
Best placed maybe, but have no intention of actually doing so.
Although I let my UKIP membership lapse and am now a Tory, I know deep down they will continue to pay lip service to my concerns and also a great many other members' concerns.
You have to ask the question though, is Farage a boorish chauvinistic loose cannon who has damaged the anti-EU cause, or is it the anti-EU cause that has damaged Farage by virtue of the vituperative and frankly disturbing mass-media and political class campaign against it and him?
When the media gets an agenda between its teeth it can still make or break anyone. As an example, the father of Aylan Kurdi is a saint in the media. If you actually look into his actions, what he did is criminally neglectful at best, cold blooded murder at worst. But the media was not a whit dissuaded by the glaring inconsistencies in his story - they simply kept pushing. Deliberately and dangerously manipulative.
My point is not that Farage has not done or said a stupid thing in his life, but that all these sins have been brought to light in the worst possible way, and his opponent's weaknesses never mentioned. The same could (and if she gets in will) happen to Suzanne Evans. She might have a brief period where she can try to seize the media agenda and get some positive momentum, but it won't be long before the teeth sink in.
IMO the main problem is that Farage revels in the attention, and brings much of the ire down on himself. There is a dichotomy in trying to be an anti-politician whilst leading a political party, and he makes it far too easy for people to criticise him.
That's his first problem. His second is that his party management is awful, as has been seen many times in the past. As an example, Bloom should have gone long before he did. Loyalty to friends and colleagues is all good and well, but not when that friend and colleague is a loose cannon. His party mismanagment skills were also seen in the election's aftermath.
I doubt it, Mr. D., I shall see what actually is released if and when it is released but so far it does fire any enthusiasm. Elite Dangerous was what the Elite that I played and loved in 1984 properly matured into. It was enormous fun then and even more so now. No man's Sky looks like a different genre game.
I doubt I shall buy Fallout4 either. I thoroughly enjoyed Fallout3 and New Vegas but 4 looks, from what I have seen, too similar and giving the main character a dog companion is going to lead to too many reloads.
No Mans Sky is interesting, and I might get it. But I'd like to see some full gameplay, and I don't exactly have a great deal of free time - I last fired up my Type-9 in Elite three weeks ago.
There's also a new game in Kickstarter that looks promising: Infinity Battlescape. As ever with Kickstarter, be aware that all you are getting initially is hope. But they've developed what looks like a rather spiffing engine, which is a good basis. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/309114309/infinity-battlescape
Then there's Star Citizen, a phenomenon that, if they manage to meet their aims will be incredible. But their aims are rather grand to say the least, and so will the rig you need to run the thing. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/
For me, it'll have to waste my precious spare time exploring the galaxy in Elite.
All well and good on this thread and as we remember our dead of 2 world wars and more, let us remind ourselves of what will be stabbing us all in the back, if we are not careful:
Hmm. I really don't like any of this theocratic stuff.
The Roman Catholic Church is at the centre of a row after ordering its schools to teach Judaism alongside Christianity in GCSE religious studies – ruling out Islam or other faiths.
The edict was described as ‘very disappointing’ by senior Muslim leaders. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, former secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the decision undermined Pope Francis’s message of greater tolerance between the faiths, and urged Catholic leader Cardinal Vincent Nichols to think again.
The Church’s move follows last year’s reforms to the GCSE exam. Under the new rules, schools are required to teach two religions rather than one.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
I wouldn't call a thousand years of PB Tory rule a disaster for the country
HS2 Heathrow 3 Moonbase 1
Actually, we Brits are doing the last of these, at least in simulation! British (and Cambridge) company Frontier are launching their latest expansion for Elite in the next month or so. Called Horizons, it allows you to travel around airless worlds.
Naturally, we PBTories know that this is really a training simulator for Maggie 1, the moonbase we're building in Thebit crater, which will be renamed 'Tebbit'. Other craters will be renamed 'Falklands', 'Up yours Delors', and 'HMS Conquerer'. The waste dump will be 'Scargill pit'.The experimental atmosphere generator will be named after the Welsh Windbag himself, and will frequently blow itself out.
Crater 'poll tax' will be on the far side of the moon, out of sight ...
Best placed maybe, but have no intention of actually doing so.
We have made substantial limits on immigration, including closing off entire visa tiers, taking chunks of student immigration off the table, putting an income requirement on marriage visas etc, all while in government with the Liberal Democrats. Of course, we can go further, such as removing visas for student dependents and household workers, and we also need to do something major on the EU, but we have done a lot and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
It counts for very little in the eyes of the public unless net immigration levels come down.
Best placed maybe, but have no intention of actually doing so.
We have made substantial limits on immigration, including closing off entire visa tiers, taking chunks of student immigration off the table, putting an income requirement on marriage visas etc, all while in government with the Liberal Democrats. Of course, we can go further, such as removing visas for student dependents and household workers, and we also need to do something major on the EU, but we have done a lot and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
This is nonsense, I'm sorry to say. Doing things is not the same as achieving things, and they should not be conflated. The Conservatives, whether in coalition or as a majority have achieved nothing effectual in respect of immigration.
Best placed maybe, but have no intention of actually doing so.
We have made substantial limits on immigration, including closing off entire visa tiers, taking chunks of student immigration off the table, putting an income requirement on marriage visas etc, all while in government with the Liberal Democrats. Of course, we can go further, such as removing visas for student dependents and household workers, and we also need to do something major on the EU, but we have done a lot and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Super, just tell me what the last year's immigration figures were?
Anyway, for me immigration is only one aspect. What really motivates me is for a party that gives a voice to the "little people" and addresses the concerns of the strivers, the people who try and do the right thing. Cameron's Conservatives ain't that.
Although I let my UKIP membership lapse and am now a Tory, I know deep down they will continue to pay lip service to my concerns and also a great many other members' concerns.
I have maintained my UKIP membership but only because I am hanging on for the post Farage era and the hope that I can be involved in some small way in shaping what happens afterwards. I don't believe there is any way forward for them as a party under Farage now - although I accept he has done wonders for both the party and the Eurosceptic movement in the - fast retreating - past.
One thing I would not do is join the Tory party though. I find their authoritarian and pro-EU agenda increasingly unacceptable and, as a small businessman about to see a massive hike in taxes and also facing the prospect that I may actually be driven out of business by some of the changes being floated, I will certainly not be supporting them even if I left UKIP.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
snip
As a Kipper (who has forgotten to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
The inability to hear any criticism is one of the hallmarks of a personality cult. I am not one of those individuals that never criticises my own side, nor am I someone who never praises other parties when they do things right. Farage did a very good job at getting UKIP to where they are, but he undermined their main selling point that they were not like other parties by breaking his pledge on resignation. Now the UKIP vote is collapsing in every election, and membership has fallen substantially. The Conservatives were willing to remove Margaret Thatcher when she ceased to be an electoral asset, and she achieved a damn sight more than Farage has or ever will.
It is still possible UKIP will be the beneficiaries of the Conservative leadership mismanaging the EU debate, but you would be in a much better place with Evans in charge. She would have helped UKIP's issues with women, represented the UKIP view in a far less inflammatory manner, and shown the party has grown beyond a personality cult.
I don't want to get into an argument, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I think it is utter nonsense
Reminds me of Arsenal fans who think we should get rid of Wenger every year when we get knocked out of the Champions League EVERY YEAR
Or in this case, Tottenham fans who think we should
... As a Conservative, I would love to welcome UKIP voters into the Conservative fold, as we are the best placed to truly address their concerns.
Best placed maybe, but have no intention of actually doing so.
Although I let my UKIP membership lapse and am now a Tory, I know deep down they will continue to pay lip service to my concerns and also a great many other members' concerns.
I would not be able to have my membership lapse through forgetfulness as it is automatically renewed each year unless I stop it.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
Tories can also go the same way if they are not careful
OT. I find myself in the very rare position of being in agreement with Jon Snow. Given that C4 doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny and that in its current arrangement it is able to do exactly what it was set up for - which is to be challenging and different - why would anyone want to mess with its current status?
iSam. A successful party requires more than one able participant. A one man band with a Leader who falls out with any one showing a modicum of success is not a party. You attack Suzanne Evans when there is no evidence of her attacking Farage..... of course some of us are very happy for UKIP to carry on in this way except that their divise approach to everything will undermine an effective joined up campaign for the Leave vote. It is no surprise that the Remain campaigns seem able to agree whereas the Leave campaigns are split, because of the role of Farage's group in UKIP.
Hmm. I really don't like any of this theocratic stuff.
The Roman Catholic Church is at the centre of a row after ordering its schools to teach Judaism alongside Christianity in GCSE religious studies – ruling out Islam or other faiths.
The edict was described as ‘very disappointing’ by senior Muslim leaders. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, former secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the decision undermined Pope Francis’s message of greater tolerance between the faiths, and urged Catholic leader Cardinal Vincent Nichols to think again.
The Church’s move follows last year’s reforms to the GCSE exam. Under the new rules, schools are required to teach two religions rather than one.
To be exact, teachers have in effect a choice of three religions from which we teach two:
1) Christianity (or Roman Catholic Christianity, which is slightly different)
2) Islam
3) Judaism.
That is because, for the full and short courses to be co-teachable, we cannot do Hinduism or Buddhism or secular humanism (which is a disappointment to me, as I had hoped to teach Buddhism).* I am also going with Judaism, because there is significant overlap between Judaism and Christianity and therefore useful parallels can be drawn, not to mention much time saved in not endlessly repeating the basics. Islam has a somewhat different basic theology, although it is still Abrahamic.
I think actually this just recognised a fait accompli and while I can't understand the need to impose it by diktat, it's the Department for Education and Ofqual who came up with the new deeply flawed syllabus that the Muslims should be criticising.
*These options remain for the full course, but not many schools offer that, and for a variety of reasons I have to teach the full course and a short course together, so my options are in practice restricted to those available for the short course.
The head of the UK armed forces, Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton, has said he would have considerable reservations about Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister in the light of his views on nuclear weapons.
In an unusually political intervention, Houghton said he would be worried by any prospect of Corbyn’s views being “translated into power” because the Labour leader has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons.
Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent, Houghton said in an interview on BBC1’s Andrew Marr show.
In a further twist, Houghton received the backing of Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, who said that the chief of the defence staff was within his rights to express his doubts about her party leader becoming prime minister.
I'm happy for C4 to be controversial in the extreme - I watch more More4 and C4 docus than any others. But their news is usually so unbalanced it falls over.
TV news is meant to be impartial here. I'm quite happy for it to be partial, but until then C4 need to pack a lot of it in - along with the BBC's own bias on many subjects. Sky aren't blameless here either re refugees.
OT. I find myself in the very rare position of being in agreement with Jon Snow. Given that C4 doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny and that in its current arrangement it is able to do exactly what it was set up for - which is to be challenging and different - why would anyone want to mess with its current status?
iSam. A successful party requires more than one able participant. A one man band with a Leader who falls out with any one showing a modicum of success is not a party. You attack Suzanne Evans when there is no evidence of her attacking Farage..... of course some of us are very happy for UKIP to carry on in this way except that their divise approach to everything will undermine an effective joined up campaign for the Leave vote. It is no surprise that the Remain campaigns seem able to agree whereas the Leave campaigns are split, because of the role of Farage's group in UKIP.
It baffles me why people on here get so het up about trying to win an argument that hey tell outright lies. Why would you bother?
I have not attacked Suzanne Evans at all, in fact I said I thought she was a very nice person. All I pointed out was that she failed in a few things in the same way as Farage had, which meant she would get the same abuse he does
Was it you that claimed Farage had been knocked back in an attempt to become a Tory PPC? I didn't know that, but Suzanne Evans has, that's why she left the Tories
I saw a *fascinating* docu about the actual Noah's Ark history the other day - all Babylonian history and flood avoidance tactics adopted by exiled Judeans and then turned into Old Testament stories. I was quite convinced by it. The producers even made a massive coracle to show it was possible.
Hmm. I really don't like any of this theocratic stuff.
The Roman Catholic Church is at the centre of a row after ordering its schools to teach Judaism alongside Christianity in GCSE religious studies – ruling out Islam or other faiths.
The edict was described as ‘very disappointing’ by senior Muslim leaders. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, former secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the decision undermined Pope Francis’s message of greater tolerance between the faiths, and urged Catholic leader Cardinal Vincent Nichols to think again.
The Church’s move follows last year’s reforms to the GCSE exam. Under the new rules, schools are required to teach two religions rather than one.
To be exact, teachers have in effect a choice of three religions from which we teach two:
1) Christianity (or Roman Catholic Christianity, which is slightly different)
2) Islam
3) Judaism.
That is because, for the full and short courses to be co-teachable, we cannot do Hinduism or Buddhism or secular humanism (which is a disappointment to me, as I had hoped to teach Buddhism).* I am also going with Judaism, because there is significant overlap between Judaism and Christianity and therefore useful parallels can be drawn, not to mention much time saved in not endlessly repeating the basics. Islam has a somewhat different basic theology, although it is still Abrahamic.
I think actually this just recognised a fait accompli and while I can't understand the need to impose it by diktat, it's the Department for Education and Ofqual who came up with the new deeply flawed syllabus that the Muslims should be criticising.
*These options remain for the full course, but not many schools offer that, and for a variety of reasons I have to teach the full course and a short course together, so my options are in practice restricted to those available for the short course.
I admire the eternal optimism that keeps the LibDems going.The cost of an office carpet is unlikely to be a gamechanger.The Lds need to address their underlying problem of being a male,sexist party.AWS is needed.
Miss Plato, stopped watching Channel 4 News when the cretinous Snow claimed that it was Soviet style censorship that a D-notice had been put out to stop the media reporting on Prince Harry's whereabouts on the front line [until the Drudge Report made it public].
This just does not seem to be worth it to me although more explicit protection for freedom of the press than the idiotic Leveson proposals would be welcome.
There's more to it than that. The 1998 HRA makes the whole European Convention enforceable through our domestic courts, and leads judges to make their own interpretations against those principles which then become precedent.
That has driven great difficulty in deportations of dangerous criminals, the right to family life has been used to drive increases in immigration, and the right to life has been taken out of all context in relation to the armed forces.
There is an opportunity to now correct some of that by statute.
Lord Stewart had no problems in rejecting a right for family visits between 2 predatory paedophiles in 2 different prisons after conviction and finding that this did not come within article 8. The case was dismissed. If we have a new set of rules with new criteria these ridiculous arguments will need to be had again.
The Courts have recently upheld the validity of out of jurisdiction appeals for overstayers in respect of Visas etc. In short they are sent home and can appeal from there if they are so minded. The reality may be that such appeals are much more difficult to pursue and it is much less likely that they will do so having lost residence and, usually, employment here. We risk losing all of this jurisprudence if we have a new set of rules.
Different judges will have different perspective on different cases.
But even if we have to have similar arguments again, I struggle to see how repatriating the bounds of interpretation of human rights to within this country - corrected by the UK parliament when necessary to override judicial activism - can be anything less than a positive step.
Honestly I do have real concerns about the current CDS being so political.
I think he needs to remember that he swears allegiance to the Queen and not to any particular political party or Government. As such I don't believe it is right for him to comment on who the people should be electing.
OT. I find myself in the very rare position of being in agreement with Jon Snow. Given that C4 doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny and that in its current arrangement it is able to do exactly what it was set up for - which is to be challenging and different - why would anyone want to mess with its current status?
Without trying to out-libertarian you why should the State in the indie-label extra tv channel business at all, even if it made a stonking profit?
In 1983 Labour polled more than 20,000 votes in 13 Welsh constituencies, (which was 34% of the total of 38 seats at the time). This year they failed to do so in any Welsh constituency, the highest being 19,966 in Cardiff South & Penarth.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
I admire the eternal optimism that keeps the LibDems going.The cost of an office carpet is unlikely to be a gamechanger.The Lds need to address their underlying problem of being a male,sexist party.AWS is needed.
I admire the eternal optimism that keeps the LibDems going.The cost of an office carpet is unlikely to be a gamechanger.The Lds need to address their underlying problem of being a male,sexist party.AWS is needed.
You omitted white.
Ah, so he didn't mean All White Shortlist - which is what they seem to have been running for years.
iSam. A successful party requires more than one able participant. A one man band with a Leader who falls out with any one showing a modicum of success is not a party. You attack Suzanne Evans when there is no evidence of her attacking Farage..... of course some of us are very happy for UKIP to carry on in this way except that their divise approach to everything will undermine an effective joined up campaign for the Leave vote. It is no surprise that the Remain campaigns seem able to agree whereas the Leave campaigns are split, because of the role of Farage's group in UKIP.
Was it you that claimed Farage had been knocked back in an attempt to become a Tory PPC? I didn't know that, but Suzanne Evans has, that's why she left the Tories
Not I. But you did draw attention to Suzanne's past. aka smearing aka an attack.
The head of the UK armed forces, Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton, has said he would have considerable reservations about Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister in the light of his views on nuclear weapons.
In an unusually political intervention, Houghton said he would be worried by any prospect of Corbyn’s views being “translated into power” because the Labour leader has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons.
Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent, Houghton said in an interview on BBC1’s Andrew Marr show.
In a further twist, Houghton received the backing of Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, who said that the chief of the defence staff was within his rights to express his doubts about her party leader becoming prime minister.
I disagree with the view that the CDS should openly be making such statements, but even considering Labour's, er, robust internal debate about its direction, I find it astounding Eagle would respond to his comments in that fashion.
In 1983 Labour polled more than 20,000 votes in 13 Welsh constituencies, (which was 34% of the total of 38 seats at the time). This year they failed to do so in any Welsh constituency, the highest being 19,966 in Cardiff South & Penarth.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
Overall though Labour won 37.53% in Wales in 1983, not much different from the 36.9% it got in 2015 and polls show Labour has made its biggest gains outside London in Wales under Corbyn
I admire the eternal optimism that keeps the LibDems going.The cost of an office carpet is unlikely to be a gamechanger.The Lds need to address their underlying problem of being a male,sexist party.AWS is needed.
You omitted white.
Ah, so he didn't mean All White Shortlist - which is what they seem to have been running for years.
All Wealthy Shortlist as it takes deep pockets to fund yourself.
OT. I find myself in the very rare position of being in agreement with Jon Snow. Given that C4 doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny and that in its current arrangement it is able to do exactly what it was set up for - which is to be challenging and different - why would anyone want to mess with its current status?
Without trying to out-libertarian you why should the State in the indie-label extra tv channel business at all, even if it made a stonking profit?
There is indeed an argument that it shouldn't. I can't defend my position purely on Libertarian grounds.
But our country is filled with anachronisms and exceptions that serve us very well and I see no reason to rock the boat on this for purely ideological reasons when I think almost everyone would agree that the result would be a diminished service.
As another example I am not opposed to the concept of a state broadcaster such as the BBC if it were run on pure public service ideals - providing programming that cannot be produced in the commercial sector. What I do object to is the state broadcaster being just another clone of commercial TV and then people being forced to pay for it.
In fact to my mind C4 is far more successful as a pure public service broadcaster than the BBC has been for a good many years. And it doesn't cost us a penny.
Miss Plato, stopped watching Channel 4 News when the cretinous Snow claimed that it was Soviet style censorship that a D-notice had been put out to stop the media reporting on Prince Harry's whereabouts on the front line [until the Drudge Report made it public].
iSam. A successful party requires more than one able participant. A one man band with a Leader who falls out with any one showing a modicum of success is not a party. You attack Suzanne Evans when there is no evidence of her attacking Farage..... of course some of us are very happy for UKIP to carry on in this way except that their divise approach to everything will undermine an effective joined up campaign for the Leave vote. It is no surprise that the Remain campaigns seem able to agree whereas the Leave campaigns are split, because of the role of Farage's group in UKIP.
Was it you that claimed Farage had been knocked back in an attempt to become a Tory PPC? I didn't know that, but Suzanne Evans has, that's why she left the Tories
Not I. But you did draw attention to Suzanne's past. aka smearing aka an attack.
How is it smearing to point out that someone that is being touted as a replacement for a leader criticised for not winning by elections, has lost several elections herself and faile dto make it as a PPC for a different party?!
You sound completely crazy! I am just stating fact, not smearing at all, I think she is nice.. how could that possibly be a smear???!"!! Mental
Best placed maybe, but have no intention of actually doing so.
We have made substantial limits on immigration, including closing off entire visa tiers, taking chunks of student immigration off the table, putting an income requirement on marriage visas etc, all while in government with the Liberal Democrats. Of course, we can go further, such as removing visas for student dependents and household workers, and we also need to do something major on the EU, but we have done a lot and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Who is 'we'? You habitually use 'we' to describe, in various contexts, NATO, the UK and US, the Tory Party and the Tory membership, and the UK - it's naive. As a Tory member (I assume), you have nothing to do with Government policy - no influence over it, and no responsibility for it. UKIP have more influence than you - we have a referendum to fend off a challenge from outside; we would never have got one to please some grass-roots collywobbles from the Shires.
iSam. A successful party requires more than one able participant. A one man band with a Leader who falls out with any one showing a modicum of success is not a party. You attack Suzanne Evans when there is no evidence of her attacking Farage..... of course some of us are very happy for UKIP to carry on in this way except that their divise approach to everything will undermine an effective joined up campaign for the Leave vote. It is no surprise that the Remain campaigns seem able to agree whereas the Leave campaigns are split, because of the role of Farage's group in UKIP.
Was it you that claimed Farage had been knocked back in an attempt to become a Tory PPC? I didn't know that, but Suzanne Evans has, that's why she left the Tories
Not I. But you did draw attention to Suzanne's past. aka smearing aka an attack.
How is it smearing to point out that someone that is being touted as a replacement for a leader criticised for not winning by elections, has lost several elections herself and faile dto make it as a PPC for a different party?!
You sound completely crazy! I am just stating fact, not smearing at all, I think she is nice.. how could that possibly be a smear???!"!! Mental
As we have learned from the Corbynites, even quoting someone's own words can be a smear. Somehow.
You don't like Farage and I do, it boils down to little more than that. I have met, and like, Suzanne Evans, and feel a bit mean that it looks like I am dissing her. I think she is nice, but to think she would be as effective a leader as Farage is insane IMO.
He is the most popular leader with the British public
In betting terms, Farage was a big outsider in all his attempts bar this years election
It is funny to see you argue that the "good" manifesto under his leadership is nothing to do with him, but he is responsible for the "bad" one that he didn't write when he wasn't the leader!!
Great Stuff!
The way UKIP and Farage tried to disown the 2010 manifesto is hilarious: it's hardly a good indication of management skills if he claims not to have read it (*), yet his signature was prominent on every copy!
Evans was in charge of, and primary author of (if links are to be believed) the 2015 manifesto. Trying to give Farage credit for it seems rather odd - I'd not give Cameron credit for the manifesto, only for being nominally in charge of the team.
She didn't exactly get a fitting reward for her hard work after the election, did she?
I fear your fondness for Farage is blinding you to the problems he causes the party.
The head of the UK armed forces, Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton, has said he would have considerable reservations about Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister in the light of his views on nuclear weapons.
In an unusually political intervention, Houghton said he would be worried by any prospect of Corbyn’s views being “translated into power” because the Labour leader has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons.
Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent, Houghton said in an interview on BBC1’s Andrew Marr show.
In a further twist, Houghton received the backing of Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, who said that the chief of the defence staff was within his rights to express his doubts about her party leader becoming prime minister.
I disagree with the view that the CDS should openly be making such statements, but even considering Labour's, er, robust internal debate about its direction, I find it astounding Eagle would respond to his comments in that fashion.
Did she say to Corbyn, look, I'll be Shadow Defence, but only if I get to criticise you over Trident?
In 1983 Labour polled more than 20,000 votes in 13 Welsh constituencies, (which was 34% of the total of 38 seats at the time). This year they failed to do so in any Welsh constituency, the highest being 19,966 in Cardiff South & Penarth.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
The head of the UK armed forces, Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton, has said he would have considerable reservations about Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister in the light of his views on nuclear weapons.
In an unusually political intervention, Houghton said he would be worried by any prospect of Corbyn’s views being “translated into power” because the Labour leader has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons.
Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent, Houghton said in an interview on BBC1’s Andrew Marr show.
In a further twist, Houghton received the backing of Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, who said that the chief of the defence staff was within his rights to express his doubts about her party leader becoming prime minister.
I disagree with the view that the CDS should openly be making such statements, but even considering Labour's, er, robust internal debate about its direction, I find it astounding Eagle would respond to his comments in that fashion.
Did she say to Corbyn, look, I'll be Shadow Defence, but only if I get to criticise you over Trident?
Presumably. Although doing that is one thing, defending the CDS interfering in politics at the same time is another, and is the main thing that surprises me.
The head of the UK armed forces, Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton, has said he would have considerable reservations about Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister in the light of his views on nuclear weapons.
In an unusually political intervention, Houghton said he would be worried by any prospect of Corbyn’s views being “translated into power” because the Labour leader has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons.
Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent, Houghton said in an interview on BBC1’s Andrew Marr show.
In a further twist, Houghton received the backing of Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, who said that the chief of the defence staff was within his rights to express his doubts about her party leader becoming prime minister.
I disagree with the view that the CDS should openly be making such statements, but even considering Labour's, er, robust internal debate about its direction, I find it astounding Eagle would respond to his comments in that fashion.
You don't like Farage and I do, it boils down to little more than that. I have met, and like, Suzanne Evans, and feel a bit mean that it looks like I am dissing her. I think she is nice, but to think she would be as effective a leader as Farage is insane IMO.
He is the most popular leader with the British public
In betting terms, Farage was a big outsider in all his attempts bar this years election
It is funny to see you argue that the "good" manifesto under his leadership is nothing to do with him, but he is responsible for the "bad" one that he didn't write when he wasn't the leader!!
Great Stuff!
The way UKIP and Farage tried to disown the 2010 manifesto is hilarious: it's hardly a good indication of management skills if he claims not to have read it (*), yet his signature was prominent on every copy!
Evans was in charge of, and primary author of (if links are to be believed) the 2015 manifesto. Trying to give Farage credit for it seems rather odd - I'd not give Cameron credit for the manifesto, only for being nominally in charge of the team.
She didn't exactly get a fitting reward for her hard work after the election, did she?
I fear your fondness for Farage is blinding you to the problems he causes the party.
(*) From memory.
Very busy day for me today workwise, I really cant get into any more epic debates about this.. who cares really?
iSam. A successful party requires more than one able participant. A one man band with a Leader who falls out with any one showing a modicum of success is not a party. You attack Suzanne Evans when there is no evidence of her attacking Farage..... of course some of us are very happy for UKIP to carry on in this way except that their divise approach to everything will undermine an effective joined up campaign for the Leave vote. It is no surprise that the Remain campaigns seem able to agree whereas the Leave campaigns are split, because of the role of Farage's group in UKIP.
It baffles me why people on here get so het up about trying to win an argument that hey tell outright lies. Why would you bother?
I have not attacked Suzanne Evans at all, in fact I said I thought she was a very nice person. All I pointed out was that she failed in a few things in the same way as Farage had, which meant she would get the same abuse he does
(snip)
To be fair, whenever anyone touts her as a potential replacement for Farage, you mention the fact that she lost her seat on Merton Council. Whilst factual, it's also rather biased as you never mention (or seem to account for) Farage's repeated failures.
I wouldn't accuse you of smearing, just blindness.
iSam. A successful party requires more than one able participant. A one man band with a Leader who falls out with any one showing a modicum of success is not a party. You attack Suzanne Evans when there is no evidence of her attacking Farage..... of course some of us are very happy for UKIP to carry on in this way except that their divise approach to everything will undermine an effective joined up campaign for the Leave vote. It is no surprise that the Remain campaigns seem able to agree whereas the Leave campaigns are split, because of the role of Farage's group in UKIP.
Was it you that claimed Farage had been knocked back in an attempt to become a Tory PPC? I didn't know that, but Suzanne Evans has, that's why she left the Tories
Not I. But you did draw attention to Suzanne's past. aka smearing aka an attack.
How is it smearing to point out that someone that is being touted as a replacement for a leader criticised for not winning by elections, has lost several elections herself and faile dto make it as a PPC for a different party?! You sound completely crazy! I am just stating fact, not smearing at all, I think she is nice.. how could that possibly be a smear???!"!! Mental
As someone from the other end of Toryism - why did you lapse your UKIP membership?
The large % that have done so either from forgetfulness or whatever has surprised me.
The Tories are able to accommodate a wide range of views. With a sufficient number of small c conservatives I hope that there will be sufficient pressure to prevent a lurch to the centre ground.
It is difficult to explain exactly why I let my UKIP membership lapse but I find them incredibly incompetent at times. They have done very little to help themselves and are now borderline toxic.
In 1983 Labour polled more than 20,000 votes in 13 Welsh constituencies, (which was 34% of the total of 38 seats at the time). This year they failed to do so in any Welsh constituency, the highest being 19,966 in Cardiff South & Penarth.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
The latest Wales poll at the end of September suggests that in Wales at least Corbyn has got a bounce. Labour is on 42% compared with 37% in May, the Tories on 26% compared to 27%, Plaid on 10% compared to 12%, the LDs on 5% compared to 7% and UKIP on 16%. So that suggests Corbyn has made gains from Plaid and the LDs with the Tories largely unchanged with about a 1% loss to UKIP http://www.itv.com/news/wales/story/2015-09-25/welsh-barometer-poll/
PB Tories have criticised the Chief of the Defence Staff for his comments on Corbyn, but Corbyn's own shadow defence secretary has defended the CDS.
She is the lesser of the two Eagles. Enough said.
And while I entirely agree with the good General's comments, I am absolutely horrified at the thought of a serving general being actively involved in partisan politics. However well-meaning, or indeed correct he is, generals and politics do not mix well - and I think we all understand that.
In 1983 Labour polled more than 20,000 votes in 13 Welsh constituencies, (which was 34% of the total of 38 seats at the time). This year they failed to do so in any Welsh constituency, the highest being 19,966 in Cardiff South & Penarth.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
PB Tories have criticised the Chief of the Defence Staff for his comments on Corbyn, but Corbyn's own shadow defence secretary has defended the CDS.
She is the lesser of the two Eagles. Enough said.
And while I entirely agree with the good General's comments, I am absolutely horrified at the thought of a serving general being actively involved in partisan politics. However well-meaning, or indeed correct he is, generals and politics do not mix well - and I think we all understand that.
Thanx you. The large number who've done the same says that UKIP needs to do something to address real concerns within their base.
All Parties have fair weather friends/electoral cycle supporters - but to lose so many in a short period and now be suffering from a giant dent in donations vs Leave must surely force some serious thinking.
As someone from the other end of Toryism - why did you lapse your UKIP membership?
The large % that have done so either from forgetfulness or whatever has surprised me.
The Tories are able to accommodate a wide range of views. With a sufficient number of small c conservatives I hope that there will be sufficient pressure to prevent a lurch to the centre ground.
It is difficult to explain exactly why I let my UKIP membership lapse but I find them incredibly incompetent at times. They have done very little to help themselves and are now borderline toxic.
Just been to a Remembrance Sunday wreath laying. What struck me was just how difficult it is going to be for for someone like Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister. The bulk of the people there were ordinary working people, bound together by a commemoration of our past, the people lost, but also importantly the current people who serve in the armed forces. The dozens of local working mens institutions, clubs and societies all laying wreaths. All deeply proud of the sacrifices made in the past. The spontaneous applauding of the marching servicemen by the large crowds.
Labour could find themselves alienating this group of people, not by the actions of the wider party, but by the attitudes of the leader. It doesnt need to be of course, but he must tread carefully and be aware that the disdain and contempt of many things that people feel pride and affection for across the nation, may go down well in North London, but if he ever hopes to lead this nation, he needs to learn that that might involve leading it into doing things that he might wish he would never need to do.
In 1983 Labour polled more than 20,000 votes in 13 Welsh constituencies, (which was 34% of the total of 38 seats at the time). This year they failed to do so in any Welsh constituency, the highest being 19,966 in Cardiff South & Penarth.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
Overall though Labour won 37.53% in Wales in 1983, not much different from the 36.9% it got in 2015 and polls show Labour has made its biggest gains outside London in Wales under Corbyn
I was focusing on votes rather than percentages. There comes a point where if your vote keep declining it eventually hits you where it matters even if you've got away with maintaining a particular percentage share for 30 years. It'll be interesting to see how Labour actually does in the Welsh Assembly election next year, as opposed to the polls.
In 1983 Labour polled more than 20,000 votes in 13 Welsh constituencies, (which was 34% of the total of 38 seats at the time). This year they failed to do so in any Welsh constituency, the highest being 19,966 in Cardiff South & Penarth.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
I'd be surprised if UKIP's membership has dropped by 25% in six months, in the light of current poll ratings. Here in Luton and SW Beds., membership is at 200, compared to 110 when I joined two years ago. And, we're not a strong branch.
Financially, the party is run on a shoestring, and always has been.
The big party effort at the moment is going into public meetings and debates about the EU. There are loads taking place, now. Whatever his faults, Farage remains a crowd-pulled.
PB Tories have criticised the Chief of the Defence Staff for his comments on Corbyn, but Corbyn's own shadow defence secretary has defended the CDS.
Clearly the military advice is to replace Trident. I guess the foreign office advice would be ditto. How do we judge the opinion of a political leader that so openly ignores it and is clearly blind to all the principles that lie behind it.
Can anyone give me a link to the facts behind the NHS 7-day working v. junior doctor contract debate?
I'm thinking there must be some logic and thinking to Hunt's position.
All I can find online is heavily skewed towards the junior doctor/BMA point of view.
I'm not sure there is a particular link, but I guess the factors which are heavily influential are:
a) Increased mortality rates at weekends;
b) Lack of GP access leading to unnecessary A and E calls - a family friend took her daughter there for tonsilitis the other day;
c) The Public Sector Pay Freeze that really isn't a pay freeze, as Time Served pay increments still flow freely at an extra cost that rises by nearly £1bn a year in the NHS;
As with tax credits, the public are being led to believe that some people are getting a rough deal when they are actually doing much better than many realise.
Again, the government PR machine is failing to get messages across.
PB Tories have criticised the Chief of the Defence Staff for his comments on Corbyn, but Corbyn's own shadow defence secretary has defended the CDS.
She is the lesser of the two Eagles. Enough said.
And while I entirely agree with the good General's comments, I am absolutely horrified at the thought of a serving general being actively involved in partisan politics. However well-meaning, or indeed correct he is, generals and politics do not mix well - and I think we all understand that.
I would agree with all of that. On the other hand the CDS should have a right to speak out where he can see the safety and security of the realm being seriously undermined. It perhaps would be better behind closed doors but the fact this has been made public makes me wonder how bad this really now is.
Eagles comments are completely stunning though even though they are on the face of it very sensible. It just shows yet again what a seriously bad place Labour are in at this moment. For years Labour have shouted " split" at even the slightest disagreement in any other party. This in Labour isn't splits, it's not even crevices ...........we are into San Andreas fault country here.
PB Tories have criticised the Chief of the Defence Staff for his comments on Corbyn, but Corbyn's own shadow defence secretary has defended the CDS.
She is the lesser of the two Eagles. Enough said.
And while I entirely agree with the good General's comments, I am absolutely horrified at the thought of a serving general being actively involved in partisan politics. However well-meaning, or indeed correct he is, generals and politics do not mix well - and I think we all understand that.
Seconded.
Agreed. Not on. He should be reprimanded and visibly so. The government might snigger at his attacks on the opposition, but he needs carpeted for doing it. Either by the PM, or far more effectively, a message from HMQ that she does not appreciate her generals involving themselves in the politics of parliament.
I was focusing on votes rather than percentages. There comes a point where if your vote keep declining it eventually hits you where it matters even if you've got away with maintaining a particular percentage share for 30 years. It'll be interesting to see how Labour actually does in the Welsh Assembly election next year, as opposed to the polls.
I would guess worse than in the Westminster elections - Plaid Cymru are a much more formidable force in Wales itself. Moreover, Labour are completed exhausted in Cardiff and the government seems to be more or less disintegrating of its own volition as its members age or become completely discredited and have to drop out (before coming back, in the case of Leighton Andrews). They will do very well in the Valleys, possibly less well elsewhere.
The interesting one to watch could be Llanelli. If Plaid Cymru take it back, it's a sign that tacking to the left under Corbyn has not shored up the core working-class vote. I would guess Labour will also do badly in Clwyd - Delyn looks vulnerable and Alyn and Deeside might also be in play on a bad night for Labour. It would be surprising if they lost Wrexham, but it would not be that surprising if Wrexham were the only Labour seat left outside the Valleys.
PB Tories have criticised the Chief of the Defence Staff for his comments on Corbyn, but Corbyn's own shadow defence secretary has defended the CDS.
Clearly the military advice is to replace Trident. I guess the foreign office advice would be ditto. How do we judge the opinion of a political leader that so openly ignores it and is clearly blind to all the principles that lie behind it.
We can judge it how we like, but it's for other politicians to take him to task over it. That Eagle didn't say something like 'My own views on Trident are well known and stand, but the General's comments were inappropriate' is not a good sign for Labour.
The latest Wales poll at the end of September suggests that in Wales at least Corbyn has got a bounce. Labour is on 42% compared with 37% in May, the Tories on 26% compared to 27%, Plaid on 10% compared to 12%, the LDs on 5% compared to 7% and UKIP on 16%. So that suggests Corbyn has made gains from Plaid and the LDs with the Tories largely unchanged with about a 1% loss to UKIP http://www.itv.com/news/wales/story/2015-09-25/welsh-barometer-poll/
Those are figures from polling companies? When considering such things you may wish to remember Mr. Smithson saying on here that it was impossible, not unlikely but impossible, for the Conservatives to win the last GE unless they were ten point something ahead in the polls.
You may also wish to remember the two mutually exclusive trends picked up the polling companies in the run up to the GE (until they strangely enough coincided at a position where nobody could be that far adrift from any other company), and the poll that one company refused to publish because it didn't "feel right" - i.e. it didn't match the polling companies' group think, it just happened to be as it turned out accurate.
In short if you believe anything that the polling companies come up with is anything other than massaged figures, and figures massaged to suit someone's needs, then you need treatment.
The CDS should have a right to speak out where he can see the safety and security of the realm being seriously undermined. It perhaps would be better behind closed doors but the fact this has been made public makes me wonder how bad this really now is.
While there is merit in that, I do not see how Corbyn's stance seriously undermines the safety of the realm. He is not in power, and there seems only a very remote chance he ever will be. If we were five months from an election and it looked as though Corbyn would win that argument might have force (although that would be an even more terrifying intervention). But we're not, and he isn't going to. Indeed, the odds of him even fighting an election are no better than even.
So we come back to the point - the army should be politically neutral. The last time the army's top echelons became involved in partisan politics was over the Irish Home Rule crisis - where at one time there was a serious threat that they would mutiny en masse and even possibly effectively disband themselves just as Europe lurched towards war. Their behaviour was a complete disaster all around, and I never want to see something like that happen in my lifetime.
I think the problem with opinion polling is that between elections it tends to reflect a generalised feeling on the part of the electorate of being slightly p*ssed off with whoever's running the country, and the opposition automatically gets a boost from that. But it doesn't necessarily reflect how people will actually vote on election day itself. There isn't really any other explanation for why Ed was leading in the polls for most of the time between 2010 and 2015.
The latest Wales poll at the end of September suggests that in Wales at least Corbyn has got a bounce. Labour is on 42% compared with 37% in May, the Tories on 26% compared to 27%, Plaid on 10% compared to 12%, the LDs on 5% compared to 7% and UKIP on 16%. So that suggests Corbyn has made gains from Plaid and the LDs with the Tories largely unchanged with about a 1% loss to UKIP http://www.itv.com/news/wales/story/2015-09-25/welsh-barometer-poll/
Those are figures from polling companies? When considering such things you may wish to remember Mr. Smithson saying on here that it was impossible, not unlikely but impossible, for the Conservatives to win the last GE unless they were ten point something ahead in the polls.
You may also wish to remember the two mutually exclusive trends picked up the polling companies in the run up to the GE (until they strangely enough coincided at a position where nobody could be that far adrift from any other company), and the poll that one company refused to publish because it didn't "feel right" - i.e. it didn't match the polling companies' group think, it just happened to be as it turned out accurate.
In short if you believe anything that the polling companies come up with is anything other than massaged figures, and figures massaged to suit someone's needs, then you need treatment.
The CDS should have a right to speak out where he can see the safety and security of the realm being seriously undermined. It perhaps would be better behind closed doors but the fact this has been made public makes me wonder how bad this really now is.
While there is merit in that, I do not see how Corbyn's stance seriously undermines the safety of the realm. He is not in power, and there seems only a very remote chance he ever will be. If we were five months from an election and it looked as though Corbyn would win that argument might have force (although that would be an even more terrifying intervention). But we're not, and he isn't going to. Indeed, the odds of him even fighting an election are no better than even.
So we come back to the point - the army should be politically neutral. The last time the army's top echelons became involved in partisan politics was over the Irish Home Rule crisis - where at one time there was a serious threat that they would mutiny en masse and even possibly effectively disband themselves just as Europe lurched towards war. Their behaviour was a complete disaster all around, and I never want to see something like that happen in my lifetime.
You seem to forget that time when the chiefs of all three services went publicly to the then PM to complain about proposed defence cuts. Callaghan was the PM off the top of my head I can't remember the exact year.
Comments
Are you going to buy the Horizons expansion, Mr. Jessop? I really don't fancy it. I confess I finally got bored with Elite:Dangerous some months ago, after spending more than a thousand hours on it (the joys of retirement) and would welcome something to re-ignite my interest but this on-planet stuff just does not do it for me.
P.S. Guards officers in civvie clothes were always expected, when in Town, to wear a bowler hat and carry an umbrella. Whether they were the people you were talking about I don't know - don't watch the television.
P.P.S. Thanks for the link yesterday about the bear - literally and honestly the story brought a tear to me eye. I read it to Thomas but all he did was go and sit in front of the cat's food and beer fridge staring at its door. He has no empathy.
That's his first problem. His second is that his party management is awful, as has been seen many times in the past. As an example, Bloom should have gone long before he did. Loyalty to friends and colleagues is all good and well, but not when that friend and colleague is a loose cannon. His party mismanagment skills were also seen in the election's aftermath.
He is the most popular leader with the British public
In betting terms, Farage was a big outsider in all his attempts bar this years election
It is funny to see you argue that the "good" manifesto under his leadership is nothing to do with him, but he is responsible for the "bad" one that he didn't write when he wasn't the leader!!
Great Stuff!
I shed several myself - a lovely story. Impossible today - sadly.
Not my cup of tea, but might be yours.
The large % that have done so either from forgetfulness or whatever has surprised me.
I doubt I shall buy Fallout4 either. I thoroughly enjoyed Fallout3 and New Vegas but 4 looks, from what I have seen, too similar and giving the main character a dog companion is going to lead to too many reloads.
There's also a new game in Kickstarter that looks promising: Infinity Battlescape. As ever with Kickstarter, be aware that all you are getting initially is hope. But they've developed what looks like a rather spiffing engine, which is a good basis.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/309114309/infinity-battlescape
Then there's Star Citizen, a phenomenon that, if they manage to meet their aims will be incredible. But their aims are rather grand to say the least, and so will the rig you need to run the thing.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/
For me, it'll have to waste my precious spare time exploring the galaxy in Elite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_German_federal_election#Poll_results
Anyway, for me immigration is only one aspect. What really motivates me is for a party that gives a voice to the "little people" and addresses the concerns of the strivers, the people who try and do the right thing. Cameron's Conservatives ain't that.
One thing I would not do is join the Tory party though. I find their authoritarian and pro-EU agenda increasingly unacceptable and, as a small businessman about to see a massive hike in taxes and also facing the prospect that I may actually be driven out of business by some of the changes being floated, I will certainly not be supporting them even if I left UKIP.
1) Christianity (or Roman Catholic Christianity, which is slightly different)
2) Islam
3) Judaism.
That is because, for the full and short courses to be co-teachable, we cannot do Hinduism or Buddhism or secular humanism (which is a disappointment to me, as I had hoped to teach Buddhism).* I am also going with Judaism, because there is significant overlap between Judaism and Christianity and therefore useful parallels can be drawn, not to mention much time saved in not endlessly repeating the basics. Islam has a somewhat different basic theology, although it is still Abrahamic.
I think actually this just recognised a fait accompli and while I can't understand the need to impose it by diktat, it's the Department for Education and Ofqual who came up with the new deeply flawed syllabus that the Muslims should be criticising.
*These options remain for the full course, but not many schools offer that, and for a variety of reasons I have to teach the full course and a short course together, so my options are in practice restricted to those available for the short course.
The head of the UK armed forces, Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton, has said he would have considerable reservations about Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister in the light of his views on nuclear weapons.
In an unusually political intervention, Houghton said he would be worried by any prospect of Corbyn’s views being “translated into power” because the Labour leader has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons.
Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent, Houghton said in an interview on BBC1’s Andrew Marr show.
In a further twist, Houghton received the backing of Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, who said that the chief of the defence staff was within his rights to express his doubts about her party leader becoming prime minister.
http://bit.ly/1iL4uaW
I'm thinking there must be some logic and thinking to Hunt's position.
All I can find online is heavily skewed towards the junior doctor/BMA point of view.
TV news is meant to be impartial here. I'm quite happy for it to be partial, but until then C4 need to pack a lot of it in - along with the BBC's own bias on many subjects. Sky aren't blameless here either re refugees.
I have not attacked Suzanne Evans at all, in fact I said I thought she was a very nice person. All I pointed out was that she failed in a few things in the same way as Farage had, which meant she would get the same abuse he does
Was it you that claimed Farage had been knocked back in an attempt to become a Tory PPC? I didn't know that, but Suzanne Evans has, that's why she left the Tories
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-real-noahs-ark-secret-history/on-demand To be exact, teachers have in effect a choice of three religions from which we teach two:
1) Christianity (or Roman Catholic Christianity, which is slightly different)
2) Islam
3) Judaism.
That is because, for the full and short courses to be co-teachable, we cannot do Hinduism or Buddhism or secular humanism (which is a disappointment to me, as I had hoped to teach Buddhism).* I am also going with Judaism, because there is significant overlap between Judaism and Christianity and therefore useful parallels can be drawn, not to mention much time saved in not endlessly repeating the basics. Islam has a somewhat different basic theology, although it is still Abrahamic.
I think actually this just recognised a fait accompli and while I can't understand the need to impose it by diktat, it's the Department for Education and Ofqual who came up with the new deeply flawed syllabus that the Muslims should be criticising.
*These options remain for the full course, but not many schools offer that, and for a variety of reasons I have to teach the full course and a short course together, so my options are in practice restricted to those available for the short course.
But even if we have to have similar arguments again, I struggle to see how repatriating the bounds of interpretation of human rights to within this country - corrected by the UK parliament when necessary to override judicial activism - can be anything less than a positive step.
The military and policy should not be making political statements.
PS I once worked for someone who later went on to head up the comms in a Conservative and a Labour Govt.
But you did draw attention to Suzanne's past. aka smearing aka an attack.
But our country is filled with anachronisms and exceptions that serve us very well and I see no reason to rock the boat on this for purely ideological reasons when I think almost everyone would agree that the result would be a diminished service.
As another example I am not opposed to the concept of a state broadcaster such as the BBC if it were run on pure public service ideals - providing programming that cannot be produced in the commercial sector. What I do object to is the state broadcaster being just another clone of commercial TV and then people being forced to pay for it.
In fact to my mind C4 is far more successful as a pure public service broadcaster than the BBC has been for a good many years. And it doesn't cost us a penny.
I do have lots of respect for him personally because of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnLpsvpj6ig
You sound completely crazy! I am just stating fact, not smearing at all, I think she is nice.. how could that possibly be a smear???!"!! Mental
Could they do it? And how?
Here's @reporterboy #bbcsp film https://t.co/p1nv6ZD26c
Evans was in charge of, and primary author of (if links are to be believed) the 2015 manifesto. Trying to give Farage credit for it seems rather odd - I'd not give Cameron credit for the manifesto, only for being nominally in charge of the team.
She didn't exactly get a fitting reward for her hard work after the election, did she?
I fear your fondness for Farage is blinding you to the problems he causes the party.
(*) From memory.
PS I've tried contacting @Financier and no luck - anyone else heard from him recently? I hope he's well.
Until you're no longer on the HMG payroll - it's wrong to state your opinion from your Official Pulpit.
I wouldn't accuse you of smearing, just blindness.
PB Tories have criticised the Chief of the Defence Staff for his comments on Corbyn, but Corbyn's own shadow defence secretary has defended the CDS.
It is difficult to explain exactly why I let my UKIP membership lapse but I find them incredibly incompetent at times. They have done very little to help themselves and are now borderline toxic.
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/story/2015-09-25/welsh-barometer-poll/
And while I entirely agree with the good General's comments, I am absolutely horrified at the thought of a serving general being actively involved in partisan politics. However well-meaning, or indeed correct he is, generals and politics do not mix well - and I think we all understand that.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/profile/financier
All Parties have fair weather friends/electoral cycle supporters - but to lose so many in a short period and now be suffering from a giant dent in donations vs Leave must surely force some serious thinking.
Labour could find themselves alienating this group of people, not by the actions of the wider party, but by the attitudes of the leader. It doesnt need to be of course, but he must tread carefully and be aware that the disdain and contempt of many things that people feel pride and affection for across the nation, may go down well in North London, but if he ever hopes to lead this nation, he needs to learn that that might involve leading it into doing things that he might wish he would never need to do.
Financially, the party is run on a shoestring, and always has been.
The big party effort at the moment is going into public meetings and debates about the EU. There are loads taking place, now. Whatever his faults, Farage remains a crowd-pulled.
a) Increased mortality rates at weekends;
b) Lack of GP access leading to unnecessary A and E calls - a family friend took her daughter there for tonsilitis the other day;
c) The Public Sector Pay Freeze that really isn't a pay freeze, as Time Served pay increments still flow freely at an extra cost that rises by nearly £1bn a year in the NHS;
As with tax credits, the public are being led to believe that some people are getting a rough deal when they are actually doing much better than many realise.
Again, the government PR machine is failing to get messages across.
Eagles comments are completely stunning though even though they are on the face of it very sensible. It just shows yet again what a seriously bad place Labour are in at this moment. For years Labour have shouted " split" at even the slightest disagreement in any other party. This in Labour isn't splits, it's not even crevices ...........we are into San Andreas fault country here.
That would stop him in his tracks.
The interesting one to watch could be Llanelli. If Plaid Cymru take it back, it's a sign that tacking to the left under Corbyn has not shored up the core working-class vote. I would guess Labour will also do badly in Clwyd - Delyn looks vulnerable and Alyn and Deeside might also be in play on a bad night for Labour. It would be surprising if they lost Wrexham, but it would not be that surprising if Wrexham were the only Labour seat left outside the Valleys.
You may also wish to remember the two mutually exclusive trends picked up the polling companies in the run up to the GE (until they strangely enough coincided at a position where nobody could be that far adrift from any other company), and the poll that one company refused to publish because it didn't "feel right" - i.e. it didn't match the polling companies' group think, it just happened to be as it turned out accurate.
In short if you believe anything that the polling companies come up with is anything other than massaged figures, and figures massaged to suit someone's needs, then you need treatment.
So we come back to the point - the army should be politically neutral. The last time the army's top echelons became involved in partisan politics was over the Irish Home Rule crisis - where at one time there was a serious threat that they would mutiny en masse and even possibly effectively disband themselves just as Europe lurched towards war. Their behaviour was a complete disaster all around, and I never want to see something like that happen in my lifetime.