It amazes me about the apparent softness of some Labour MPs. Is it really "bullying" to be sent pictures of the aftermath of bombing, being called a "warmongerer" and that there's "blood on their hands"? That seems pretty par for the course given the subject matter. I guess MPs like living in their own isolated little bubble and don't like to be exposed to unpleasant opinions or the consequences of their actions. It's pathetic, frankly.
It continues to feel like there is a major disconnect between the Labour base and careerist Blairite Labour MPs.
In my view, the ultimate long-term failure of Blair-ism is that New Labour introduced very few left-wing policies, it resulted in weak careerist relatively right-wing Labour MPs, and ultimately made the current hard-right Conservative government appear moderate. In almost all ways, this current government has policies far more extreme than Thatcher ever did, and she was hardly a moderate herself.
All part of the kinder, gentler politics
Well, "kinder, gentler politics" is an inane, ridiculous notion.
I've long spoken about the left needing to resist their impulses to do holier-than-thou hand-wringing and take a long hard look towards how the right operates. Blair had the right idea in that regard.
Apparently the Tories are sending out Christmas cards showing Rudolph with his throat slit and spit roasted on the BBQ
Not a fan of reindeer meat, but if elk where being offered, that would be different ...
I'm hugely in favour of allowing deselection and against mandatory re-selection. The idea that MPs can land in safe seats and effectively get jobs of life regardless of the views of the local or broader party membership is ridiculous.
If local party members feel strongly enough about bombing (or any other issue) that they want to replace their candidate over it then why shouldn't they be able to?
They have automatic re-selection in the US. It is called primaries.
I get the feeling that Mr Surbiton has his hand on the race card and his trigger finger is twitching. Go on, you're itching to accuse somebody of racism, let it all out.
I noted whilst travelling in China that young women there wanted to look as white as possible, umbrellas out in the sunshine was common place. Also the paler your skin the more money you tend to earn in Bollywood.
I dated someone of Indian origin who went through aa brief phase of wearing fake tan. They were really really really light skinned.
"Whether Benn’s speech will do to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership what Howe’s did to Thatcher’s has to be doubtful, although it certainly raises the question. I know no critic of Corbyn who isn’t intensely queasy about any move against him any time soon, on both political and democratic grounds. Even the most apocalyptic pessimist thinks this is far too early, that the electoral evidence must be allowed to tell a story, assuming it does, that makes even Corbyn supporters pause for thought."
I'm hugely in favour of allowing deselection and against mandatory re-selection. The idea that MPs can land in safe seats and effectively get jobs of life regardless of the views of the local or broader party membership is ridiculous.
If local party members feel strongly enough about bombing (or any other issue) that they want to replace their candidate over it then why shouldn't they be able to?
To people in the US, the very term 'deselection' is strange. Every sitting representative or senator is open to challenge in every election season. You have to be positively selected each time - or run as an independent if you fail to get the party's nomination. You are not deselected if you fail to get renominated - you have failed to win selection.
This happens to some very big political names in virtually every political cycle, in both parties. For the most part, the failed candidate is blamed, not the party, even when it is the Tea Party leading the charge in the challenge.
This only proved beyond doubt that Hilary Benn is worth ten of Alex Salmond. Indeed, such is the former SNP leader is devaluing himself at such a rapid rate that Hilary Benn will soon be worth twenty Alex Salmonds.
"Scotland’s MPs were evenly divided on the question. David Mundell and Alistair Carmichael supported air strikes while Ian Murray and Nicola Sturgeon opposed. "
I noted whilst travelling in China that young women there wanted to look as white as possible, umbrellas out in the sunshine was common place. Also the paler your skin the more money you tend to earn in Bollywood.
Amy Jackson for example.. scouser, no Asian heritage, but a Bollywood hit playing Asian women
I'm hugely in favour of allowing deselection and against mandatory re-selection. The idea that MPs can land in safe seats and effectively get jobs of life regardless of the views of the local or broader party membership is ridiculous.
If local party members feel strongly enough about bombing (or any other issue) that they want to replace their candidate over it then why shouldn't they be able to?
In my heart of hearts, I think it will come down to a slugfest between Rubio and Cruz, but I am worried and getting more so ...
That prospect hardly appeals. Rubio still seems utterly lightweight to me and his rhetoric about Putin being a 'gangster' is embarrassing. He'd be way out of his depth as President.
It amazes me about the apparent softness of some Labour MPs. Is it really "bullying" to be sent pictures of the aftermath of bombing, being called a "warmongerer" and that there's "blood on their hands"?
You know perfectly well that it is bullying and intimidation - and if it was happening to another party that is exactly what you would be calling it.
''But a President Cruz is only a little scarier than a President Trump, and far less likely than President Any Other GOP Candidate.''
When people talk of Trump or Cruz being 'scary', what are they actually referring to??
What is it about these men that 'scares' you??
PS that was meant to read 'only a little less scary' than Trump.
For Trump, his rashness and shooting from the hip leading us into war(s) or foreign policy disasters. For Cruz, a right wing agenda of a messianic nature that will cripple the economy (austerity on steroids) and set back society on a whole range of social issues.
Cards on the table. I see myself as a libertarian - small government, fiscal, foreign policy and law and order conservative who is liberal on social issues but against governmental social engineering through the budget. So I am not a reflexive critic of GOP candidates and certainly do not subscribe to the clown car terminology used to describe them. Indeed, all 17 candidates are very intelligent and accomplished persons, although you would not get that from reading the press. Cruz was clerk to Renquist, so you know he is super smart. I just hate his politics.
I noted whilst travelling in China that young women there wanted to look as white as possible, umbrellas out in the sunshine was common place. Also the paler your skin the more money you tend to earn in Bollywood.
It used to be the same here and has all got to do with status and wealth.
In days of yore, when you worked in the fields and had a spartan diet you were brown and thin. The rich stayed indoors and were pale, and eating well, plump. Then with the industrial revolution the poor worked in factories, so became white, while the rich, who could flee northern winters to warmer climes began sporting tans. Eventually the lumpen proletariate ate copiously if not well, and became plump too - so the rich became thin. Finally cheap travel and sunbeds brought tans to the poor, so now the rich are pale and thin, while the poor are plump and brown.......
It amazes me about the apparent softness of some Labour MPs. Is it really "bullying" to be sent pictures of the aftermath of bombing, being called a "warmongerer" and that there's "blood on their hands"?
You know perfectly well that it is bullying and intimidation - and if it was happening to another party that is exactly what you would be calling it.
Not at all. I'm very much in favour of abortion rights but if "pro-life" activists want to send pictures of aborted foetuses to MPs and call them baby murderers then I'm fine with that too. It's one of those things that goes with the territory.
''But a President Cruz is only a little scarier than a President Trump, and far less likely than President Any Other GOP Candidate.''
When people talk of Trump or Cruz being 'scary', what are they actually referring to??
What is it about these men that 'scares' you??
PS that was meant to read 'only a little less scary' than Trump.
For Trump, his rashness and shooting from the hip leading us into war(s) or foreign policy disasters. For Cruz, a right wing agenda of a messianic nature that will cripple the economy (austerity on steroids) and set back society on a whole range of social issues.
Cards on the table. I see myself as a libertarian - small government, fiscal, foreign policy and law and order conservative who is liberal on social issues but against governmental social engineering through the budget. So I am not a reflexive critic of GOP candidates and certainly do not subscribe to the clown car terminology used to describe them. Indeed, all 17 candidates are very intelligent and accomplished persons, although you would not get that from reading the press. Cruz was clerk to Renquist, so you know he is super smart. I just hate his politics.
Labour 1/8 with Paddy now, I assume that's to do with postal votes being counted, far too early for exit polls
Postal votes won't be counted until this evening. They will have been verified over the last 10 days or so, as they came in, so I can't see that any info should be leaking out now.
I am indeed, why do you ask that? he said in trepidation
LOL. With the status of life on US campuses, I think Surbiton would have a talking to about the bullying tone of his question. Except of course he wouldn't as it fits the politically correct view of the official bullies.
This only proved beyond doubt that Hilary Benn is worth ten of Alex Salmond. Indeed, such is the former SNP leader is devaluing himself at such a rapid rate that Hilary Benn will soon be worth twenty Alex Salmonds.
I noted whilst travelling in China that young women there wanted to look as white as possible, umbrellas out in the sunshine was common place. Also the paler your skin the more money you tend to earn in Bollywood.
It used to be the same here and has all got to do with status and wealth.
In days of yore, when you worked in the fields and had a spartan diet you were brown and thin. The rich stayed indoors and were pale, and eating well, plump. Then with the industrial revolution the poor worked in factories, so became white, while the rich, who could flee northern winters to warmer climes began sporting tans. Eventually the lumpen proletariate ate copiously if not well, and became plump too - so the rich became thin. Finally cheap travel and sunbeds brought tans to the poor, so now the rich are pale and thin, while the poor are plump and brown.......
The odd ones out being the Scots, who are pale, fat and impoverished.
''But a President Cruz is only a little scarier than a President Trump, and far less likely than President Any Other GOP Candidate.''
When people talk of Trump or Cruz being 'scary', what are they actually referring to??
What is it about these men that 'scares' you??
PS that was meant to read 'only a little less scary' than Trump.
For Trump, his rashness and shooting from the hip leading us into war(s) or foreign policy disasters. For Cruz, a right wing agenda of a messianic nature that will cripple the economy (austerity on steroids) and set back society on a whole range of social issues.
Cards on the table. I see myself as a libertarian - small government, fiscal, foreign policy and law and order conservative who is liberal on social issues but against governmental social engineering through the budget. So I am not a reflexive critic of GOP candidates and certainly do not subscribe to the clown car terminology used to describe them. Indeed, all 17 candidates are very intelligent and accomplished persons, although you would not get that from reading the press. Cruz was clerk to Renquist, so you know he is super smart. I just hate his politics.
Confusion as to motive. It seems possible that this was a personnel issue gone very bad, but terrorism is not being ruled out. It seems odd that they had the wherewithal to perpetrate this at such short notice.
''For Trump, his rashness and shooting from the hip leading us into war(s) or foreign policy disasters. For Cruz, a right wing agenda of a messianic nature that will cripple the economy (austerity on steroids) and set back society on a whole range of social issues.''
Fair enough, but for me, its still a lot less scary than ISIS.
I noted whilst travelling in China that young women there wanted to look as white as possible, umbrellas out in the sunshine was common place. Also the paler your skin the more money you tend to earn in Bollywood.
It used to be the same here and has all got to do with status and wealth.
In days of yore, when you worked in the fields and had a spartan diet you were brown and thin. The rich stayed indoors and were pale, and eating well, plump. Then with the industrial revolution the poor worked in factories, so became white, while the rich, who could flee northern winters to warmer climes began sporting tans. Eventually the lumpen proletariate ate copiously if not well, and became plump too - so the rich became thin. Finally cheap travel and sunbeds brought tans to the poor, so now the rich are pale and thin, while the poor are plump and brown.......
I noted whilst travelling in China that young women there wanted to look as white as possible, umbrellas out in the sunshine was common place. Also the paler your skin the more money you tend to earn in Bollywood.
It used to be the same here and has all got to do with status and wealth.
In days of yore, when you worked in the fields and had a spartan diet you were brown and thin. The rich stayed indoors and were pale, and eating well, plump. Then with the industrial revolution the poor worked in factories, so became white, while the rich, who could flee northern winters to warmer climes began sporting tans. Eventually the lumpen proletariate ate copiously if not well, and became plump too - so the rich became thin. Finally cheap travel and sunbeds brought tans to the poor, so now the rich are pale and thin, while the poor are plump and brown.......
The odd ones out being the Scots, who are pale, fat and impoverished.
I get the feeling that Mr Surbiton has his hand on the race card and his trigger finger is twitching. Go on, you're itching to accuse somebody of racism, let it all out.
Not an explosives expert, but from the damage, that seems to have been a pretty small bomb.
They have plenty of videos of the results of bigger bombs if you want. My point were more that the Russians have a team subcontracted by the state broadcaster to be pumping out this HD video propaganda from drones of Russian at work in Syria, usually complete with rousing soundtrack.
I noted whilst travelling in China that young women there wanted to look as white as possible, umbrellas out in the sunshine was common place. Also the paler your skin the more money you tend to earn in Bollywood.
It used to be the same here and has all got to do with status and wealth.
In days of yore, when you worked in the fields and had a spartan diet you were brown and thin. The rich stayed indoors and were pale, and eating well, plump. Then with the industrial revolution the poor worked in factories, so became white, while the rich, who could flee northern winters to warmer climes began sporting tans. Eventually the lumpen proletariate ate copiously if not well, and became plump too - so the rich became thin. Finally cheap travel and sunbeds brought tans to the poor, so now the rich are pale and thin, while the poor are plump and brown.......
The odd ones out being the Scots, who are pale, fat and impoverished.
LOL If you think the Cameron Tories are hard right, come spend some time in the States. They are all socialists, didn't you know?
The Democrats are so far to the right that the GOP is being forced into taking loony positions for oppositions sake, all the while being fuelled by a rabid (and highly profitable) toxic right-wing media circus which has taken hold in lieu of any real party leadership. The current GOP situation has been decades in the making, going all the way back to the Southern strategy, with their base long being a delicate coalition of people with very disparate interests which is slowly exploding on them.
Couple that with the US having an utterly dysfunctional political system (the fun combination of mass gerrymandering, the electoral college and filibustering), and the Democrats being legislatively uninspiring, dysfunctional and overly-willing-to-compromise "moderates".
All that said, I can still see the GOP winning the presidential election, assuming they end up selecting someone like Rubio. I think Democrats are taking victory for granted and, contrary to popular belief, I don't think Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate, with too much baggage associated with her.
In my heart of hearts, I think it will come down to a slugfest between Rubio and Cruz, but I am worried and getting more so ...
That prospect hardly appeals. Rubio still seems utterly lightweight to me and his rhetoric about Putin being a 'gangster' is embarrassing. He'd be way out of his depth as President.
He's smart, willing to listen and will come with a good foreign policy and defence team, so that does not worry me.
Cruz is smart and thinks he knows everything. He is unwilling to listen and blind to his shortcomings, as witnessed by his recent humiliation in the Senate by his own party. That is a dangerous character set. Same could be said for Trump.
Not an explosives expert, but from the damage, that seems to have been a pretty small bomb.
They have plenty of videos of the results of bigger bombs if you want. My point were more that the Russians have a team subcontracted by the state broadcaster to be pumping out this HD video propaganda from drones of Russian at work in Syria, usually complete with rousing soundtrack.
Propaganda?!!! Careful, or you'll face the wrath of Lovelyboy1983. It's 'independent news reporting'.
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
Amir playing in the mentioned cricket match. How old is he now ? It didn't take too long for Shoaib Malik and Umar Akmal to turn up. They were in Sharjah the other day.
Not an explosives expert, but from the damage, that seems to have been a pretty small bomb.
They have plenty of videos of the results of bigger bombs if you want. My point were more that the Russians have a team subcontracted by the state broadcaster to be pumping out this HD video propaganda from drones of Russian at work in Syria, usually complete with rousing soundtrack.
Not as impressed as you, Mr FU. My drone produces much prettier pictures.
@JoeWatts_: During applause for Benn, most shad minstrs looked ahead. Only DianeAbbott turned to note MPs cheering against the leader. https://t.co/x3sv9VwIFA
LOL If you think the Cameron Tories are hard right, come spend some time in the States. They are all socialists, didn't you know?
The Democrats are so far to the right that the GOP is being forced into taking loony positions for oppositions sake, all the while being fuelled by a rabid (and highly profitable) toxic right-wing media circus which has taken hold in lieu of any real party leadership. The current GOP situation has been decades in the making, going all the way back to the Southern strategy, with their base long being a delicate coalition of people with very disparate interests which is slowly exploding on them.
Couple that with the US having an utterly dysfunctional political system (the fun combination of mass gerrymandering, the electoral college and filibustering), and the Democrats being legislatively uninspiring, dysfunctional and overly-willing-to-compromise "moderates".
All that said, I can still see the GOP winning the presidential election, assuming they end up selecting someone like Rubio. I think Democrats are taking victory for granted and, contrary to popular belief, I don't think Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate, with too much baggage associated with her.
From opposite ends of the spectrum, we pretty much agree.
Labour 1/8 with Paddy now, I assume that's to do with postal votes being counted, far too early for exit polls
Postal votes won't be counted until this evening. They will have been verified over the last 10 days or so, as they came in, so I can't see that any info should be leaking out now.
The betting market was all over the place in May on the day. I wouldn't read too much into it.
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
Not an explosives expert, but from the damage, that seems to have been a pretty small bomb.
They have plenty of videos of the results of bigger bombs if you want. My point were more that the Russians have a team subcontracted by the state broadcaster to be pumping out this HD video propaganda from drones of Russian at work in Syria, usually complete with rousing soundtrack.
Not as impressed as you, Mr FU. My drone produces much prettier pictures.
The imbedded video is on showing on 480p. The stuff on RussiaWorks is 1080p+.
Labour 1/8 with Paddy now, I assume that's to do with postal votes being counted, far too early for exit polls
Postal votes won't be counted until this evening. They will have been verified over the last 10 days or so, as they came in, so I can't see that any info should be leaking out now.
The betting market was all over the place in May on the day. I wouldn't read too much into it.
Labour were 1.01 all day in Heywood and Middleton last year I believe
FWIW, I'm still not convinced by the sincerity of Trump's candidacy. It feels too much like he's playing a character, a caricature. It feels like a joke that has gone too far.
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
I suppose that might be worth a thread header.
Is interesting that seat isn't even in UKIP's top 150 target seats for 2020 says a lot about the way this by election has panned out.
Not an explosives expert, but from the damage, that seems to have been a pretty small bomb.
They have plenty of videos of the results of bigger bombs if you want. My point were more that the Russians have a team subcontracted by the state broadcaster to be pumping out this HD video propaganda from drones of Russian at work in Syria, usually complete with rousing soundtrack.
Propaganda?!!! Careful, or you'll face the wrath of Lovelyboy1983. It's 'independent news reporting'.
Services PMI: 55.9 Construction PMI: 55.3 Manufacturing PMI: 52.7
GDP quarterly expectation: 0.6
Which part of Manufacturing is expanding, I'd like to know ?
"By sector, the strongest expansion in output was seen at consumer goods producers. Solid growth was also registered in the investment goods sector. Although the upturn continued at intermediate goods producers, the sector experienced a sharp growth slowdown in November."
@JoeWatts_: During applause for Benn, most shad minstrs looked ahead. Only DianeAbbott turned to note MPs cheering against the leader. https://t.co/x3sv9VwIFA
Abbott's a vile creature. Still, Jess Phillips has got the measure of her.
Watching Comilla vs Chittagon in the BPL t20, the fashion for Bangladeshi girls in the crowd to "white up" using face powder is quite extraordinary
They look like 18th Century Brits! Or the actors in BlackAdder the Third
Stark contrast with English girls who pile on the fake tan
Middle ground seems the aim.. lucky mixed race!
Surely the fashion is always what is most expensive to achieve. Hence in times when the 'common people' have to work outside and thus have a farmer's tan, being lilly white is considered fashionable. When flying to the Caribbean in winter is out of the ordinary person's budget, a full tan is fashionable. When skiing holidays are for only the snobs, raccoon tans are in. As the rabble become able to do all these things, the visible signs of doing them become less fashionable.
In the States, where enough people can afford to do virtually any activity that none of them are elitist, perhaps being thin is the new thing rather than a particular level of skin pigmentation - it seems to be the hardest to achieve
In "Bonfire of the Vanities" there is a great phrase about New York socialites being "fashionably emaciated"
FWIW, I'm still not convinced by the sincerity of Trump's candidacy. It feels too much like he's playing a character, a caricature. It feels like a joke that has gone too far.
I am with you there. There are many here who are convinced that this is all just a protracted publicity stunt to further build the Trump brand. And why not? It's all free advertising.
The danger is that his polling lead holds up and he starts to take his candidacy seriously. FWIW I think we have passed that point, alas.
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
I suppose that might be worth a thread header.
What is your preferred measure? Presumably part of your thinking is that on a 'Swing' basis, the '3-ways' such a Thurrock would be gimme's, whereas actually they might be better going for seats where they are the only opposition and the main party has ignored the seat for years. (cf SNP-Lab swings in the Glasgow seats vs the Edinburgh seats)
Watching Comilla vs Chittagon in the BPL t20, the fashion for Bangladeshi girls in the crowd to "white up" using face powder is quite extraordinary
They look like 18th Century Brits! Or the actors in BlackAdder the Third
Stark contrast with English girls who pile on the fake tan
Middle ground seems the aim.. lucky mixed race!
Surely the fashion is always what is most expensive to achieve. Hence in times when the 'common people' have to work outside and thus have a farmer's tan, being lilly white is considered fashionable. When flying to the Caribbean in winter is out of the ordinary person's budget, a full tan is fashionable. When skiing holidays are for only the snobs, raccoon tans are in. As the rabble become able to do all these things, the visible signs of doing them become less fashionable.
In the States, where enough people can afford to do virtually any activity that none of them are elitist, perhaps being thin is the new thing rather than a particular level of skin pigmentation - it seems to be the hardest to achieve
In "Bonfire of the Vanities" there is a great phrase about New York socialites being "fashionably emaciated"
I think it was American Psycho where I first encountered the term 'hard body'.
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
I suppose that might be worth a thread header.
Is interesting that seat isn't even in UKIP's top 150 target seats for 2020 says a lot about the way this by election has panned out.
To be fair it's distorted, Ukip have limited resources which was a major issue at the GE and Bickley is a very good candidate which can't be said of them all. In fighting to one degree or other 600 seats Ukip are massively disadvantaged.
Not an explosives expert, but from the damage, that seems to have been a pretty small bomb.
They have plenty of videos of the results of bigger bombs if you want. My point were more that the Russians have a team subcontracted by the state broadcaster to be pumping out this HD video propaganda from drones of Russian at work in Syria, usually complete with rousing soundtrack.
Propaganda?!!! Careful, or you'll face the wrath of Lovelyboy1983. It's 'independent news reporting'.
are you channeling Windsor Davies? I loved it ain't half hot mum
Watching Comilla vs Chittagon in the BPL t20, the fashion for Bangladeshi girls in the crowd to "white up" using face powder is quite extraordinary
They look like 18th Century Brits! Or the actors in BlackAdder the Third
Stark contrast with English girls who pile on the fake tan
Middle ground seems the aim.. lucky mixed race!
Surely the fashion is always what is most expensive to achieve. Hence in times when the 'common people' have to work outside and thus have a farmer's tan, being lilly white is considered fashionable. When flying to the Caribbean in winter is out of the ordinary person's budget, a full tan is fashionable. When skiing holidays are for only the snobs, raccoon tans are in. As the rabble become able to do all these things, the visible signs of doing them become less fashionable.
In the States, where enough people can afford to do virtually any activity that none of them are elitist, perhaps being thin is the new thing rather than a particular level of skin pigmentation - it seems to be the hardest to achieve
In "Bonfire of the Vanities" there is a great phrase about New York socialites being "fashionably emaciated"
The phrase 'social X-rays' is the one I remember from that book.
In a way, although Conservative supporters are obviously happy that they won a majority, knowing what we know now, ie Corbyn Labour, split opposition, might it have been better if they were still in Coalition with the Lib Dems?
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
I suppose that might be worth a thread header.
Is interesting that seat isn't even in UKIP's top 150 target seats for 2020 says a lot about the way this by election has panned out.
To be fair it's distorted, Ukip have limited resources which was a major issue at the GE and Bickley is a very good candidate which can't be said of them all. In fighting to one degree or other 600 seats Ukip are massively disadvantaged.
UKIP are the new Lib Dems in that respect. It's not the seat that matters it's that it is a by election and there is no alternative.
The Lib Dems were masters of making any by election count if there was no other alternative. If UKIP are to be a plausible third party then that is the path they need to follow.
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
I suppose that might be worth a thread header.
Is interesting that seat isn't even in UKIP's top 150 target seats for 2020 says a lot about the way this by election has panned out.
To be fair it's distorted, Ukip have limited resources which was a major issue at the GE and Bickley is a very good candidate which can't be said of them all. In fighting to one degree or other 600 seats Ukip are massively disadvantaged.
I think next May's locals will help UKIP immensely for 2020.
The seats being contested next May will be the ones that will be contested again in May 2020.
Should help with targeting the right parliamentary seats.
In a way, although Conservative supporters are obviously happy that they won a majority, knowing what we know now, ie Corbyn Labour, split opposition, might it have been better if they were still in Coalition with the Lib Dems?
Nope, wouldn't get the boundary changes through. It's a great shame that they've become partisan.
FWIW, I'm still not convinced by the sincerity of Trump's candidacy. It feels too much like he's playing a character, a caricature. It feels like a joke that has gone too far.
I am with you there. There are many here who are convinced that this is all just a protracted publicity stunt to further build the Trump brand. And why not? It's all free advertising.
The danger is that his polling lead holds up and he starts to take his candidacy seriously. FWIW I think we have passed that point, alas.
I'm hugely in favour of allowing deselection and against mandatory re-selection. The idea that MPs can land in safe seats and effectively get jobs of life regardless of the views of the local or broader party membership is ridiculous.
If local party members feel strongly enough about bombing (or any other issue) that they want to replace their candidate over it then why shouldn't they be able to?
To people in the US, the very term 'deselection' is strange. Every sitting representative or senator is open to challenge in every election season. You have to be positively selected each time - or run as an independent if you fail to get the party's nomination. You are not deselected if you fail to get renominated - you have failed to win selection.
This happens to some very big political names in virtually every political cycle, in both parties. For the most part, the failed candidate is blamed, not the party, even when it is the Tea Party leading the charge in the challenge.
In theory, parties always have the option of deselection. In practice, it's a tool rarely used because the bar for initiating proceedings to deselect is usually seen as quite high. One significant difference with the US is that in the UK it's a two-stage process: first decide whether or not to run a full selection or nominate the incumbent on the nod and only if that results in the MP not being directly renominated does a full selection follow. Anne McIntosh was deselected for the last GE but hers was a rare exception, and in fact was a good example: the reason the constituency party was upset with her was not her views but her attention to her constituency.
What's new with Labour is the attempt to deselect on grounds of policy. Traditionally, local parties have been very relaxed about their MPs votes in parliament, though candidates' views do matter during initial selection. To start deselecting (or purging) on ideological grounds is somewhere Labour went in the early 1980s with little positive result, but would otherwise be an innovation.
FWIW, I'm still not convinced by the sincerity of Trump's candidacy. It feels too much like he's playing a character, a caricature. It feels like a joke that has gone too far.
I am with you there. There are many here who are convinced that this is all just a protracted publicity stunt to further build the Trump brand. And why not? It's all free advertising.
The danger is that his polling lead holds up and he starts to take his candidacy seriously. FWIW I think we have passed that point, alas.
Services PMI: 55.9 Construction PMI: 55.3 Manufacturing PMI: 52.7
GDP quarterly expectation: 0.6
Wow, that's a good set of numbers. Maybe George will be that lucky with his revenues after all.
Given the size of the Financial Stimulus -(the Deficit) - over £70B this year, growth is expected as long as Europe is not in recession..
Incorrect logic. If you believe a deficit causes growth (I don't) then the deficit is long since priced in to existing GDP figures. You need to look at the change in the deficit to figure out its impact on the change of GDP.
Using your logic the deficit is falling so should have a contractionary impact (though as I said I disagree).
Mr. Thompson, there's that, but it's also worth noting that there is effective free movement since Mad Merkel decided even pretending to have borders was *so* last century.
Of course, as we're not in Schengen and only have a land border with the Republic of Ireland, we're not quite in the same kettle of monkeys.
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats: 127 have leads less than this. 104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
I have given quite a bit of thought to this over the summer. My conclusion is that swing required is not the best measure for UKIP to determine target seats. By my preferred measure, Oldham West & Royton is a relatively good prospect for UKIP (though it would still be a gigantic success for the kippers to take it).
I suppose that might be worth a thread header.
Is interesting that seat isn't even in UKIP's top 150 target seats for 2020 says a lot about the way this by election has panned out.
To be fair it's distorted, Ukip have limited resources which was a major issue at the GE and Bickley is a very good candidate which can't be said of them all. In fighting to one degree or other 600 seats Ukip are massively disadvantaged.
I think next May's locals will help UKIP immensely for 2020.
The seats being contested next May will be the ones that will be contested again in May 2020.
Should help with targeting the right parliamentary seats.
How many locals are there next year? We did pretty well in those in May
Run some late numbers, and get to Lab 40%, UKIP 37%, Con 16%, LD 5%, Grn 1% for #OldhamWest at 32% turnout. Hey, what do I know?
Certainly plausible enough, although I'd be surprised if turnout is quite as low as that. He might have access to canvassing data, though, whereas I'm just guessing.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder, if that proved spot on, whether in 2020 that would provoke some blue to purple tactical voting.
If Corbyn's still leading Labour, it might.
We might see a sort of anti-1997 where Labour has the worst leader possible [well, presumably] and blue-purple tactical voting sees UKIP take a huge chunk out of the reds.
Comments
When people talk of Trump or Cruz being 'scary', what are they actually referring to??
What is it about these men that 'scares' you??
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/03/hilary-benn-speech-syria-labour-mps-war
As so often, the most important point is buried:
"Whether Benn’s speech will do to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership what Howe’s did to Thatcher’s has to be doubtful, although it certainly raises the question. I know no critic of Corbyn who isn’t intensely queasy about any move against him any time soon, on both political and democratic grounds. Even the most apocalyptic pessimist thinks this is far too early, that the electoral evidence must be allowed to tell a story, assuming it does, that makes even Corbyn supporters pause for thought."
This happens to some very big political names in virtually every political cycle, in both parties. For the most part, the failed candidate is blamed, not the party, even when it is the Tea Party leading the charge in the challenge.
Which is falling faster - Crude oil price or Eck's stock ?
I liked this one :
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1334625-stephen-daisley-on-the-house-of-commons-debate-on-isis-and-syria/
"Scotland’s MPs were evenly divided on the question. David Mundell and Alistair Carmichael supported air strikes while Ian Murray and Nicola Sturgeon opposed. "
Construction PMI: 55.3
Manufacturing PMI: 52.7
GDP quarterly expectation: 0.6
For Trump, his rashness and shooting from the hip leading us into war(s) or foreign policy disasters. For Cruz, a right wing agenda of a messianic nature that will cripple the economy (austerity on steroids) and set back society on a whole range of social issues.
Cards on the table. I see myself as a libertarian - small government, fiscal, foreign policy and law and order conservative who is liberal on social issues but against governmental social engineering through the budget. So I am not a reflexive critic of GOP candidates and certainly do not subscribe to the clown car terminology used to describe them. Indeed, all 17 candidates are very intelligent and accomplished persons, although you would not get that from reading the press. Cruz was clerk to Renquist, so you know he is super smart. I just hate his politics.
In days of yore, when you worked in the fields and had a spartan diet you were brown and thin. The rich stayed indoors and were pale, and eating well, plump. Then with the industrial revolution the poor worked in factories, so became white, while the rich, who could flee northern winters to warmer climes began sporting tans. Eventually the lumpen proletariate ate copiously if not well, and became plump too - so the rich became thin. Finally cheap travel and sunbeds brought tans to the poor, so now the rich are pale and thin, while the poor are plump and brown.......
I do hope the paining he unveiled was in oil.....should have been a lot cheaper than when commissioned.....
Fair enough, but for me, its still a lot less scary than ISIS.
In Oldham West and Royton, Labour have a lead over UKIP of 14,738 Votes
Of the 232 labour seats:
127 have leads less than this.
104 have leads more than this.
(this includes seats were UKIP are 2nd, 3rd, 4th....)
So depending on how tonight goes, possibly more than half the Labour seats could be vulnerable to UKIP, if another By-election happens.
Couple that with the US having an utterly dysfunctional political system (the fun combination of mass gerrymandering, the electoral college and filibustering), and the Democrats being legislatively uninspiring, dysfunctional and overly-willing-to-compromise "moderates".
All that said, I can still see the GOP winning the presidential election, assuming they end up selecting someone like Rubio. I think Democrats are taking victory for granted and, contrary to popular belief, I don't think Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate, with too much baggage associated with her.
Cruz is smart and thinks he knows everything. He is unwilling to listen and blind to his shortcomings, as witnessed by his recent humiliation in the Senate by his own party. That is a dangerous character set. Same could be said for Trump.
I suppose that might be worth a thread header.
Yir da's deid ya prick.
Stunning.
https://t.co/uQxFAAt3a1
https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/86337d457d8c4dc3a13b8812e1074671
I would be interested in comparing to my list of possibles I made in May 2013
The danger is that his polling lead holds up and he starts to take his candidacy seriously. FWIW I think we have passed that point, alas.
Thurrock, my main bet, was closest I think, even though they came 3rd
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/united_kingdom/targets/ukip
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1X3MzejJOTmQtQ00/view?usp=sharing
By vote share, see here, courtesy of AndyJS (see sheet 4):
https://t.co/fV4nrLu4WV
The Lib Dems were masters of making any by election count if there was no other alternative. If UKIP are to be a plausible third party then that is the path they need to follow.
The seats being contested next May will be the ones that will be contested again in May 2020.
Should help with targeting the right parliamentary seats.
What's new with Labour is the attempt to deselect on grounds of policy. Traditionally, local parties have been very relaxed about their MPs votes in parliament, though candidates' views do matter during initial selection. To start deselecting (or purging) on ideological grounds is somewhere Labour went in the early 1980s with little positive result, but would otherwise be an innovation.
https://nataschaengelmp.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/airstrikes-on-syria/#comment-308
Using your logic the deficit is falling so should have a contractionary impact (though as I said I disagree).
27 Nov = 4.5 a Keelung
2 Dec = 4.7 and 4.5 both near Hualien
Now this.
Run some late numbers, and get to Lab 40%, UKIP 37%, Con 16%, LD 5%, Grn 1% for #OldhamWest at 32% turnout. Hey, what do I know?
Of course, as we're not in Schengen and only have a land border with the Republic of Ireland, we're not quite in the same kettle of monkeys.
40% - nearly 5% lower than a Foot led Labour.
If Corbyn's still leading Labour, it might.
We might see a sort of anti-1997 where Labour has the worst leader possible [well, presumably] and blue-purple tactical voting sees UKIP take a huge chunk out of the reds.