Listened to a bit of the podcast. I think it can be summarised as Labour being up a brown creek with no paddles.
Not quite. There are two paddles floating in the sewage. The closest is ten yards away but the blade has been half eaten away by sewer rats. The other paddle is further away but seems to be in good condition. Meanwhile the canoe has sprung a leak and liquid excrement is pouring in.
Your move.
We had a commodore 64, and it had an adventure game based on the hobbit.
There was a bit where you got stuck in a cave (I think) and had to wait for Gandalf to turn up.
It went a bit like this:
Wait
You wait, time passes
Wait
You wait, time passes
(x 5000)
This seems to be the labour moderates strategy
(or perhaps I will learn different after hearing the podcast...
Regarding the point raised in the podcast and elsewhere about 'is it Corbyn, or some of those around him?', isn't that just the latest version of the old refrain of blaming a king's advisers as a way of attacking the king without seeming to attack the king?
The difference is that the king can rectify it if it's his advisers (whether they will or not obviously depends on the king), but if it's the king he has to go to fix it.
Yes, but my point is sometimes people want to attack the king, but pretend that is not what they are doing by targeting the advisers, whether or not they are indeed essentially acting rogue or are incompetent and letting the king down. It just feels like a very standard, very old tactic of those plotting against a leader to present as not doing so until they are strong enough. Some may well be genuine, but others I do not believe, particularly when the leader is backing those advisers who are attached - in which case the distinction is meaningless.
Civil wars can be tragically hilarious in that respect, trying to present as still loyal, in theory, to a ruler, even as you are fighting battles against them. They are being led astray and poorly advised, you see.
I like Keiran's lament about those willing to wait their turn for a socialist paradise essentially giving the Tories a 15 year head start each generation to shape the nation. Sounded heartfelt.
Does anyone else think Test Match Special has been ruined by all the matey / laddish commentators? It was far better with people like Bill Frindall and Christopher Martin-Jenkins IMO.
Wow, Owen Jones says something not completely stupid
But my view is that the role of the media has become a crutch for the left, a convenient deflection from our own failure to convince and persuade. We fail to get traction, not because we have failed to communicate an inspiring alternative, but because the evil old media has brainwashed the public. This is clearly patronising, reducing sentient human beings to sheep or robots, lacking agency and programmed by media oligarchs. It is a defeatist attitude, too, because if millions of people can simply be instructed what to think by powerful forces in society, then we will never win any battle. It stops us from being critical of our own failures and seeking to address them.
Does anyone else think Test Match Special has been ruined by all the matey / laddish commentators? It was far better with people like Bill Frindall and Christopher Martin-Jenkins IMO.
I like a certain amount of matey banter personally, which is not to say it cannot be excessive at times. I certainly would not mind a CMJ type in there again, although where would one find such a person thesedays?
If I was to download this, I am not certain even a months worth of showers would make me feel clean again. Man is pure filth.
In what way is McBride more "filth" than Lynton Crosby, apart from the latter's political preference aligning more with your own?
Crosby didn't smear political opponents and imply female MPs were lesbians to journalists. You may not like Crosby's politics but he never lied about the opposition and never involved family members. McBride is in a league of his own.
Anyone who thinks Crosby doesn't do personal attacks or go for family members is to put it politely naive. Did you not see the boris v ken elections or the treatment of ed miliband. Crosby may have more 'plausible deniability' because there is always a media outlet who will do the job for him but to suggest a moral difference between him and mc bride is a somewhat partisan view of the world.
Find me evidence that he was anywhere near Tory smears on Labour MPs wives and children and I'll agree. He eviscerated Ed for sure, but Ed was leader of the opposition, that was his job. I didn't say he never went negative or personal, he just didn't cross over that line where family members were targeted for smears and lies.
Dave, Ed, George, Balls and others are all soldiers, their families are civilians. Targeting civilians is just not cricket. I haven't seen any evidence, even a hint of any evidence that Crosby went after family members.
McBride was part of a conspiracy to *invent* lies about opposition politicians families. Including disabled children. He was caught before he could carry out his actions.
The Ken vs Boris election is actually a perfect example of a campaign staying away from someones family. A nastier person could have done said ugly things concerning Ken's family. Or, indeed a couple of things about Ken himself.
Regarding the point raised in the podcast and elsewhere about 'is it Corbyn, or some of those around him?', isn't that just the latest version of the old refrain of blaming a king's advisers as a way of attacking the king without seeming to attack the king?
The difference is that the king can rectify it if it's his advisers (whether they will or not obviously depends on the king), but if it's the king he has to go to fix it.
Yes, but my point is sometimes people want to attack the king, but pretend that is not what they are doing by targeting the advisers, whether or not they are indeed essentially acting rogue or are incompetent and letting the king down. It just feels like a very standard, very old tactic of those plotting against a leader to present as not doing so until they are strong enough. Some may well be genuine, but others I do not believe, particularly when the leader is backing those advisers who are attached - in which case the distinction is meaningless.
Civil wars can be tragically hilarious in that respect, trying to present as still loyal, in theory, to a ruler, even as you are fighting battles against them. They are being led astray and poorly advised, you see.
That's absolutely right and is also the rational approach. You have a leader who has been elected on a reputation for niceness and openness to debate. They then appoint a team who entirely contradict that. In response step 1 is attack the team and encourage them to behave at their worst. Step 2 is to point this out to the leader. Step 3 is to challenge he leader to distance himself from the unpleasant cohorts which he can't do. Then you challenge. Both sides are playing passive aggressive at present.
With the anger of the floods any self respecting opposition party would not only have retained the seat but increased their majority. Corbyn even visited the area - this result may well be the first indication that he will loose large parts of the north
Perhaps - or perhaps the classic of an Independent who is a well known local figure, running against a dull hack. With a local scandal thrown in.
If I was to download this, I am not certain even a months worth of showers would make me feel clean again. Man is pure filth.
In what way is McBride more "filth" than Lynton Crosby, apart from the latter's political preference aligning more with your own?
Crosby didn't smear political opponents and imply female MPs were lesbians to journalists. You may not like Crosby's politics but he never lied about the opposition and never involved family members. McBride is in a league of his own.
Anyone who thinks Crosby doesn't do personal attacks or go for family members is to put it politely naive. Did you not see the boris v ken elections or the treatment of ed miliband. Crosby may have more 'plausible deniability' because there is always a media outlet who will do the job for him but to suggest a moral difference between him and mc bride is a somewhat partisan view of the world.
Find me evidence that he was anywhere near Tory smears on Labour MPs wives and children and I'll agree. He eviscerated Ed for sure, but Ed was leader of the opposition, that was his job. I didn't say he never went negative or personal, he just didn't cross over that line where family members were targeted for smears and lies.
Dave, Ed, George, Balls and others are all soldiers, their families are civilians. Targeting civilians is just not cricket. I haven't seen any evidence, even a hint of any evidence that Crosby went after family members.
McBride was part of a conspiracy to *invent* lies about opposition politicians families. Including disabled children. He was caught before he could carry out his actions.
The Ken vs Boris election is actually a perfect example of a campaign staying away from someones family. A nastier person could have done said ugly things concerning Ken's family. Or, indeed a couple of things about Ken himself.
The only things the papers have ever held back on ken is things they couldn't stand up.
Wow, Owen Jones says something not completely stupid
But my view is that the role of the media has become a crutch for the left, a convenient deflection from our own failure to convince and persuade. We fail to get traction, not because we have failed to communicate an inspiring alternative, but because the evil old media has brainwashed the public. This is clearly patronising, reducing sentient human beings to sheep or robots, lacking agency and programmed by media oligarchs. It is a defeatist attitude, too, because if millions of people can simply be instructed what to think by powerful forces in society, then we will never win any battle. It stops us from being critical of our own failures and seeking to address them.
He honestly doesn't seem like a stupid chap, it really is just the case his focuses and interpretations are, to many on here at the least, incorrect, and on that particular point, which he mentions as a crutch for the left but I feel is an analysis which can be presented non partisanly very easily, he seems spot on. Corbyn, for one, has expressed the view the people did not really support Tory policies, they didn't understand what voting Tory would actually mean, which is very patronising, even if one is forgiving and acknowledges all of us, and the public, will have gaps in our knowledge of what each party proposes. And he is not alone in that type of view, people on all sides can be amazing at finding ways to not blame the public for not voting for them, by deciding they would have...if only they understood, if only they had been allowed to hear the truth.
Regarding the point raised in the podcast and elsewhere about 'is it Corbyn, or some of those around him?', isn't that just the latest version of the old refrain of blaming a king's advisers as a way of attacking the king without seeming to attack the king?
The difference is that the king can rectify it if it's his advisers (whether they will or not obviously depends on the king), but if it's the king he has to go to fix it.
Yes, but my point is sometimes people want to attack the king, but pretend that is not what they are doing by targeting the advisers, whether or not they are indeed essentially acting rogue or are incompetent and letting the king down. It just feels like a very standard, very old tactic of those plotting against a leader to present as not doing so until they are strong enough. Some may well be genuine, but others I do not believe, particularly when the leader is backing those advisers who are attached - in which case the distinction is meaningless.
Civil wars can be tragically hilarious in that respect, trying to present as still loyal, in theory, to a ruler, even as you are fighting battles against them. They are being led astray and poorly advised, you see.
That's absolutely right and is also the rational approach. You have a leader who has been elected on a reputation for niceness and openness to debate. They then appoint a team who entirely contradict that. In response step 1 is attack the team and encourage them to behave at their worst. Step 2 is to point this out to the leader. Step 3 is to challenge he leader to distance himself from the unpleasant cohorts which he can't do. Then you challenge. Both sides are playing passive aggressive at present.
Yes, it may well be rational, tactically. I do think it useful, if possible, to not acknowledge the passive aggressive framing at times though - it's part of the game being played of course, but sometimes they can push to pretense too far to accept.
If I was to download this, I am not certain even a months worth of showers would make me feel clean again. Man is pure filth.
In what way is McBride more "filth" than Lynton Crosby, apart from the latter's political preference aligning more with your own?
Crosby didn't smear political opponents and imply female MPs were lesbians to journalists. You may not like Crosby's politics but he never lied about the opposition and never involved family members. McBride is in a league of his own.
Anyone who thinks Crosby doesn't do personal attacks or go for family members is to put it politely naive. Did you not see the boris v ken elections or the treatment of ed miliband. Crosby may have more 'plausible deniability' because there is always a media outlet who will do the job for him but to suggest a moral difference between him and mc bride is a somewhat partisan view of the world.
Find me evidence that he was anywhere near Tory smears on Labour MPs wives and children and I'll agree. He eviscerated Ed for sure, but Ed was leader of the opposition, that was his job. I didn't say he never went negative or personal, he just didn't cross over that line where family members were targeted for smears and lies.
Dave, Ed, George, Balls and others are all soldiers, their families are civilians. Targeting civilians is just not cricket. I haven't seen any evidence, even a hint of any evidence that Crosby went after family members.
McBride was part of a conspiracy to *invent* lies about opposition politicians families. Including disabled children. He was caught before he could carry out his actions.
The Ken vs Boris election is actually a perfect example of a campaign staying away from someones family. A nastier person could have done said ugly things concerning Ken's family. Or, indeed a couple of things about Ken himself.
The only things the papers have ever held back on ken is things they couldn't stand up.
No - there is one story that hasn't been written yet about Ken himself. I am not going to use OGHs site as a scandal sheet, but it is there. It is damaging to Ken - and indeed could well be seen as a legitimate story.
As to his family, no-one has gone there. Again, I can think of several things that could have been said.
My point was that the Johnson campaign never went within a hundred miles of any of this. Ken did himself in with Lee Jasper and the personal finance thing - particularly the latter.
Britain Elects @britainelects 2m2 minutes ago Despite notable investment in barriers for Botcherby years ago, the ward still experienced flooding. This may explain the Independent gain.
@SimonStClare - perhaps support fell as the flood defences fell?
This is absurd. I represented the ward myself fifteen years ago. I know it fairly well, this independent won, on the back of the reputation of another hard working independent. The election was called before the floods happened, and it would not have had an impact on the result.
Owen jones writes some interesting stuff and more thoughtful than his sometimes spiky twitter persona.
This written just before corbyn's victory told them effectively what they needed to do to have a chance of success (it's a kind of left wing new labour for slow learners). You may disagree win what he says - I do with alot of it - but it was their only chance electorally. That they haven't done this and in many cases done the opposite shows what their priorities are:
Britain Elects @britainelects 2m2 minutes ago Despite notable investment in barriers for Botcherby years ago, the ward still experienced flooding. This may explain the Independent gain.
@SimonStClare - perhaps support fell as the flood defences fell?
This is absurd. I represented the ward myself fifteen years ago. I know it fairly well, this independent won, on the back of the reputation of another hard working independent. The election was called before the floods happened, and it would not have had an impact on the result.
Isn't this what's wrong with anti flooding protests. This place had investment in barriers but still flooded. Are we turning into a nation of Canutes.
If you can provide the back up to stop them being sued the daily mail will give you £50k for the story. Fill yer boots.
The dogs in the streets know all the stories about ken but so what? It's worth as much as all of the child abuse stories about 80s Tory mps that people are 'convinced' are true because someone told them.
If you all want to believe that mcbride is a labour aberration, brown was uniquely venal, and that the Conservative party never gets involved in that kind of crap,then fine. I'll leave you to it.
Wow, Owen Jones says something not completely stupid
But my view is that the role of the media has become a crutch for the left, a convenient deflection from our own failure to convince and persuade. We fail to get traction, not because we have failed to communicate an inspiring alternative, but because the evil old media has brainwashed the public. This is clearly patronising, reducing sentient human beings to sheep or robots, lacking agency and programmed by media oligarchs. It is a defeatist attitude, too, because if millions of people can simply be instructed what to think by powerful forces in society, then we will never win any battle. It stops us from being critical of our own failures and seeking to address them.
Except there is no inspiring alternative. Labour have done nothing to show they are fit to govern for years and years. At the first whiff of actually trying to recant from past mistakes the semi sane candidates (the more sane the more vitriol was poured on them) for leader were blown away in favour of more of the same from a total dope. His is a load of self serving rubbish.
Does anyone else think Test Match Special has been ruined by all the matey / laddish commentators? It was far better with people like Bill Frindall and Christopher Martin-Jenkins IMO.
I like a certain amount of matey banter personally, which is not to say it cannot be excessive at times. I certainly would not mind a CMJ type in there again, although where would one find such a person thesedays?
I'd be interested to know what you mean by CMJ "type".
Do you want hinterland, cricket knowledge, offbeat anecdotes or Public School types who found cricket not rugby?
Given that it is cricket, I expect they are everywhere.
Picking names out of the air, perhaps Mike Brearley or Gideon Haigh.
The Labour vote held steady tonight with the Tory vote down a fair bit despite the absence of a UKIP candidate.
Yes, but according to Harrry's thread below it had been between 50 and 60% consistently before that. Carslisle is a key marginal with a swing against labour in 2015 - to be doing as badly as that now is an awful result regardless of the strength of independents. Corbyn's position on trident could see labour wiped out in Cumbria - which is why woodcock and read have been two of his most vociferous opponents.
Owen jones writes some interesting stuff and more thoughtful than his sometimes spiky twitter persona.
This written just before corbyn's victory told them effectively what they needed to do to have a chance of success (it's a kind of left wing new labour for slow learners). You may disagree win what he says - I do with alot of it - but it was their only chance electorally. That they haven't done this and in many cases done the opposite shows what their priorities are:
That's a very interesting read. Owen Jones is perplexing. He has a lot of insight up to a point, then not. I don't think he gets small-c conservative people.
Regarding TMS (our one true religion), I think it's an institution that should change gradually and gracefully with the times and imo it has been doing that very successfully.
"A writer who said he would streak down Whitehall if UKIP secured more than 6% of the popular vote in the general election has kept his pledge - sort of.
Telegraph blogger Dan Hodges tweeted last May that he would streak naked "in a Nigel Farage mask whilst singing Land of Hope and Glory" if the party performed better than he forecast."
You only have to look back at the reaction to Tyson Fury. And even better example is the whole Dapper Laughs thing, the same people who are very quiet on this absolutely lost their s##t over him, demanding he should be banned from ever working again.
Even with the whole issue with FGM, the central issue is tiptoed around.
"Two teenage girls gang-raped by four 'Syrian nationals' in southern Germany Reports flood in of sexual assaults against women across Germany as leaked police report states Cologne suspects 'claimed to be Syrian refugees'"
"Two teenage girls gang-raped by four 'Syrian nationals' in southern Germany Reports flood in of sexual assaults against women across Germany as leaked police report states Cologne suspects 'claimed to be Syrian refugees'"
The Labour vote held steady tonight with the Tory vote down a fair bit despite the absence of a UKIP candidate.
You realise that this ward is the kind of ward that you would think would pull to Corbyn?
A potted history of Botcherby. It is one of the most deprived wards in the north west of England, it is made up of several distinct areas, two large council (now housing association) estates. While the city doesnt really have slums, it is certainly one of the most difficult areas.
It is ordinarily a solid Labour ward. It has been for its entire history since 1974, except for a brief interlude in 1999 when I topped the polls along with two others (a multi member ward in an all out election), the seat was lost over the next few years.
In 2003 I lost the seat as the last tory, it reverted to Labour, with 60% of the vote. In 2004 Labour won with 57.4% of the vote In 2005 (county seat, General Election) Labour won with In 2006 Labour won 55.5% In 2007 Labour won 50% In 2008 Labour won 36% (independent stood and got 22%) In 2009 Indie won county In 2010 Indie won city (same person) 44% In 2011 Lab won 50% In 2012 Lab won 54% In 2013 Indie kept county seat In 2014 Indie kept city seat 52% (cons on 8%) In 2015 Lab won 33% (a second Indie made a very strong showing, combined with it being a general election, and a full get out the vote by all parties) In 2016 Second Indie won 51%
If Labour some how thing that theyve done better out of this they are deluded. These independents have come about, in some cases as a result of poor councillors, and this last specific case because the Labour council ripped out a kiddie play area in the ward.
The Tory vote was 8% in 2014, under very similar circumstances, the Conservatives then went to take the marginal constituency by just under 3,000.
(PS this was quite a nasty by election, with the first independent vilified across three sets of leaflets by Labour, despite him not being the candidate!)
Just "risk" deportation? And where are you going to send them? And what about if they come back given your open door policy?
Two more countries to add to the list...
"Meanwhile, similar incidents from New Year's Eve have been reported in Finland and Switzerland. Similar attacks were also reported in Hamburg and in Stuttgart. In Finland, police said they had received reports of "widespread sexual harassment" in Helsinki on New Year's Eve. A police official said they were tipped off that groups of asylum seekers had planned to sexually harass women and that three asylum seekers had been arrested."
"This is a completely new phenomenon in Helsinki." [I bet it is] -----
This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.
This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.
That worrying bit is that the powers that be across the EU don't even want to talk about it, and in fact are colluding in covering it up, what are the chances of them actually doing anything about it ? Lets face it we have see people attempt to deflect and explain away this criminal behaviour within the last day or two on these very forums.
An interesting podcast (featuring TSE) that touched on Corbyn inheriting his team from Ken's days at the Gherkin. One question arising from this that was not addressed is whether the London-centric nature of Corbyn's team meant they missed the impact of the floods -- London remained dry while the top half of the country was under two feet of water.
Owen jones writes some interesting stuff and more thoughtful than his sometimes spiky twitter persona.
This written just before corbyn's victory told them effectively what they needed to do to have a chance of success (it's a kind of left wing new labour for slow learners). You may disagree win what he says - I do with alot of it - but it was their only chance electorally. That they haven't done this and in many cases done the opposite shows what their priorities are:
Jones does allude to what seems to be a growing minority opinion on the left: that AV would allow Labour to split into two parties, and that after an election, the far left faction would have far more influence as the smaller part of a coalition government than it has had in the governments of the current, "broad church" party where the left can be marginalised.
On topic, I've not had time to listen to the podcast (I will tonight) but the reshuffle matters far less for the personnel promoted, sacked or resigning than for what it says about Corbyn's intentions. He is clearly set on pushing as hard as he can to turn Labour into a vehicle for his kind of policies and politics. He is constrained in that by his lack of support within the PLP and, to an extent, within the Shadow Cabinet so little steps for now. But the message is crystal clear.
Of course, it also confirms that he's not remotely interested in doing politics the traditional way. He probably feels confident that he doesn't need to, having seen off three traditional candidates at the leadership election and Labour having polled quite well in Oldham; that his new way is at least as good in terms of practical results. Alternatively (or perhaps also - it's not an either/or), he doesn't much care about electoral results as long as he can reform Labour: they are, after all, still one of the two main parties and under no threat at the moment outside Scotland to that position. UKIP, the Lib Dems and Greens are in no position to replace them. Yet.
As for who Labour should or shouldn't want to face, one name that doesn't get mentioned frequently (don't know if it's in the podcast) but should do is Hammond. If Cameron does win his referendum, it strikes me that Hammond could be quite well placed. His age counts against him but he has few political negatives and that, as much as anything, is a critical factor in Tory elections. Would his role in the referendum count against him? Perhaps, although it seems that Cameron is doing most of the legwork himself so not necessarily to the extent that it might otherwise. He's currently 25/1 which I think has some value to it.
An interesting podcast (featuring TSE) that touched on Corbyn inheriting his team from Ken's days at the Gherkin. One question arising from this that was not addressed is whether the London-centric nature of Corbyn's team meant they missed the impact of the floods -- London remained dry while the top half of the country was under two feet of water.
Never mind the Gherkin, it seems that Corbyn is intent on recreating Ken's GLC. But Labour's failure to make an impact re the floods is another black mark for Burnham, albeit that Merseyside wasn't much affected either.
In answer to earlier questions about who the left would have put up had they expected to win, although I don't know for sure the man said to be pretty blue about it was Jon Trickett. He is also just about the only one of the far left with practical experience of government and unlike Jeremy Corbyn has the reputation of being quite intelligent.
That being said, it's not as though he's exactly emerged as a major player even though all the talent has bled away from the shadow cabinet. So perhaps he was over-rating himself somewhat.
Mind you, when you are in the same wing of the party as Diane Abbott and Clive Lewis, must be difficult not to get an inflated idea of your own powers!
If you can provide the back up to stop them being sued the daily mail will give you £50k for the story. Fill yer boots.
The dogs in the streets know all the stories about ken but so what? It's worth as much as all of the child abuse stories about 80s Tory mps that people are 'convinced' are true because someone told them.
If you all want to believe that mcbride is a labour aberration, brown was uniquely venal, and that the Conservative party never gets involved in that kind of crap,then fine. I'll leave you to it.
No, the dogs on the street don't know these stories - unless you are referring to journalists. In which case they seem to be fairly well known.
Ironically the reason that McBride did what he did, was because he thought as you do. Everyone is doing it, so why shouldn't I? Except that simply isn't true.
In answer to earlier questions about who the left would have put up had they expected to win, although I don't know for sure the man said to be pretty blue about it was Jon Trickett. He is also just about the only one of the far left with practical experience of government and unlike Jeremy Corbyn has the reputation of being quite intelligent.
That being said, it's not as though he's exactly emerged as a major player even though all the talent has bled away from the shadow cabinet. So perhaps he was over-rating himself somewhat.
Mind you, when you are in the same wing of the party as Diane Abbott and Clive Lewis, must be difficult not to get an inflated idea of your own powers!
Turning the question round, given what ultimately happened, who could the left have put up last summer and not won with? Could we realistically have had a Diane Abbott leadership now?
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
In answer to earlier questions about who the left would have put up had they expected to win, although I don't know for sure the man said to be pretty blue about it was Jon Trickett. He is also just about the only one of the far left with practical experience of government and unlike Jeremy Corbyn has the reputation of being quite intelligent.
That being said, it's not as though he's exactly emerged as a major player even though all the talent has bled away from the shadow cabinet. So perhaps he was over-rating himself somewhat.
Mind you, when you are in the same wing of the party as Diane Abbott and Clive Lewis, must be difficult not to get an inflated idea of your own powers!
Turning the question round, given what ultimately happened, who could the left have put up last summer and not won with? Could we realistically have had a Diane Abbott leadership now?
I can recommend the Channel 4 series Deutschland 83, in part for its excellent eigties sound track, but also for its depiction of the East German regime. The second part is on sunday night.
Mr Corbyn chose to take a young Ms Abbott there on a romantic motorcycle tour, so we should not be too surprised at either his politics or his exercise of power.
No decision that Jeremy Corbyn will ever take will have greater political significance than the fact that he is making it. The Labour party is led by a troupe of malevolent clowns and Mr Corbyn is Charlie Cairoli.
The Labour party is already fighting the 2025 election, having lost in 2020. Every passing day is cementing the idea that it is a party of innumerate surrender-monkeys.
I reckon JJ should invite Moazzam Begg and his CAGE mates around for a cup of tea and a chat. That will boost his ratings. The thing is with hand on heart, you couldn't rule that out could you.
In answer to earlier questions about who the left would have put up had they expected to win, although I don't know for sure the man said to be pretty blue about it was Jon Trickett. He is also just about the only one of the far left with practical experience of government and unlike Jeremy Corbyn has the reputation of being quite intelligent.
That being said, it's not as though he's exactly emerged as a major player even though all the talent has bled away from the shadow cabinet. So perhaps he was over-rating himself somewhat.
Mind you, when you are in the same wing of the party as Diane Abbott and Clive Lewis, must be difficult not to get an inflated idea of your own powers!
Turning the question round, given what ultimately happened, who could the left have put up last summer and not won with? Could we realistically have had a Diane Abbott leadership now?
It strikes me as unlikely. I think Corbyn won because actually, nobody knew anything about him. They could project their hopes and dreams for a left wing party onto him, and not realise that his appalling faults meant he had no chance of delivering it (cf Nick Palmer, even though he knows Corbyn personally, among others). I think that could have happened with any obscure leftist candidate.
With Abbott, on the other hand, who has a high media profile and a long track record of disasters (not to mention very plausible charges of chauvinism) I don't think they would have been able to kid themselves about what she would provide.
Like others here, I won't be listening to Mr McBride either. I haven't read his words or watched him on TV since he was cast into outer darkness. He occasionally writes for the Times and judging by the comments, there's a substantial number of their readers who feel the same.
Just "risk" deportation? And where are you going to send them? And what about if they come back given your open door policy?
Two more countries to add to the list...
"Meanwhile, similar incidents from New Year's Eve have been reported in Finland and Switzerland. Similar attacks were also reported in Hamburg and in Stuttgart. In Finland, police said they had received reports of "widespread sexual harassment" in Helsinki on New Year's Eve. A police official said they were tipped off that groups of asylum seekers had planned to sexually harass women and that three asylum seekers had been arrested."
"This is a completely new phenomenon in Helsinki." [I bet it is] -----
This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.
I'm not sure about pre-planned. My guess is that it was a flash-mob thing, which escalated rapidly (via social media) when the perpetrators realised that the police weren't stopping them.
Something similar to the London Get-A-Flatscreen riots.
This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.
That worrying bit is that the powers that be across the EU don't even want to talk about it, and in fact are colluding in covering it up, what are the chances of them actually doing anything about it ? Lets face it we have see people attempt to deflect and explain away this criminal behaviour within the last day or two on these very forums.
The thing that must be terrifying the powers that be is this was the first outing for the New Terrorism - no guns, no explosives, just using weight of numbers in a well co-ordinated attempt to say "we're here and this is the way it is going to be. And you let us in..." It is a perfect storm for political paralysis....
If I was to download this, I am not certain even a months worth of showers would make me feel clean again. Man is pure filth.
In what way is McBride more "filth" than Lynton Crosby, apart from the latter's political preference aligning more with your own?
Crosby didn't smear political opponents and imply female MPs were lesbians to journalists. You may not like Crosby's politics but he never lied about the opposition and never involved family members. McBride is in a league of his own.
Anyone who thinks Crosby doesn't do personal attacks or go for family members is to put it politely naive. Did you not see the boris v ken elections or the treatment of ed miliband. Crosby may have more 'plausible deniability' because there is always a media outlet who will do the job for him but to suggest a moral difference between him and mc bride is a somewhat partisan view of the world.
Find me evidence that he was anywhere near Tory smears on Labour MPs wives and children and I'll agree. He eviscerated Ed for sure, but Ed was leader of the opposition, that was his job. I didn't say he never went negative or personal, he just didn't cross over that line where family members were targeted for smears and lies.
Dave, Ed, George, Balls and others are all soldiers, their families are civilians. Targeting civilians is just not cricket. I haven't seen any evidence, even a hint of any evidence that Crosby went after family members.
You're probably correct, milibands father came in for stick but no idea if Crosby was behind it.
In my naive view of how politics should be run there'd be no place for Crosby or McBride, the spin doctors become the story far too often, Cameron's main man was jailed let's not forget.
"However the Telegraph understands that European states are now offering Mr Cameron a deal that would require new British workers aged 18-22 to wait four years for in-work benefits, while simultaneously finding a back-door "fix" to ensure those workers were not left out of pocket."
Like others here, I won't be listening to Mr McBride either. I haven't read his words or watched him on TV since he was cast into outer darkness. He occasionally writes for the Times and judging by the comments, there's a substantial number of their readers who feel the same.
His book Power Trip is the best political book I've ever read.
An interesting podcast (featuring TSE) that touched on Corbyn inheriting his team from Ken's days at the Gherkin. One question arising from this that was not addressed is whether the London-centric nature of Corbyn's team meant they missed the impact of the floods -- London remained dry while the top half of the country was under two feet of water.
I've heard City Hall referred to as an armadillo, a headlamp and a glass testicle, but the Gherkin is on the other side of the River.
We have some weird building nicknames but this is my favourite.
Any female who's been to places such as the smaller Moroccan towns know precisely how the men treat Western women. As sex doll slags. To be felt up, pestered and openly asked for sex with added leering.
I find it incomprehensible that this behaviour is/was being hand waved away. Just a casual search of Twitter shows cellphone videos of women having their skirts pulled up, being groped and intimidated.
Anyone who expected their new arrivals to act differently is lying to themselves.
This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.
That worrying bit is that the powers that be across the EU don't even want to talk about it, and in fact are colluding in covering it up, what are the chances of them actually doing anything about it ? Lets face it we have see people attempt to deflect and explain away this criminal behaviour within the last day or two on these very forums.
The thing that must be terrifying the powers that be is this was the first outing for the New Terrorism - no guns, no explosives, just using weight of numbers in a well co-ordinated attempt to say "we're here and this is the way it is going to be. And you let us in..." It is a perfect storm for political paralysis....
In answer to earlier questions about who the left would have put up had they expected to win, although I don't know for sure the man said to be pretty blue about it was Jon Trickett. He is also just about the only one of the far left with practical experience of government and unlike Jeremy Corbyn has the reputation of being quite intelligent.
That being said, it's not as though he's exactly emerged as a major player even though all the talent has bled away from the shadow cabinet. So perhaps he was over-rating himself somewhat.
Mind you, when you are in the same wing of the party as Diane Abbott and Clive Lewis, must be difficult not to get an inflated idea of your own powers!
Turning the question round, given what ultimately happened, who could the left have put up last summer and not won with? Could we realistically have had a Diane Abbott leadership now?
I can recommend the Channel 4 series Deutschland 83, in part for its excellent eigties sound track, but also for its depiction of the East German regime. The second part is on sunday night.
Mr Corbyn chose to take a young Ms Abbott there on a romantic motorcycle tour, so we should not be too surprised at either his politics or his exercise of power.
Yes watched it on +1 after War and Peace and thought it was the better of the two
This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.
That worrying bit is that the powers that be across the EU don't even want to talk about it, and in fact are colluding in covering it up, what are the chances of them actually doing anything about it ? Lets face it we have see people attempt to deflect and explain away this criminal behaviour within the last day or two on these very forums.
The thing that must be terrifying the powers that be is this was the first outing for the New Terrorism - no guns, no explosives, just using weight of numbers in a well co-ordinated attempt to say "we're here and this is the way it is going to be. And you let us in..." It is a perfect storm for political paralysis....
This hardly seems to be being hushed up, indeed hardly off the news.
It looks to me a case of distraction robbery rather than terrorism. Clearly a contemptuous misogyny as well as contempt for the law and norms of law abiding German behaviour.
Any female who's been to places such as the smaller Moroccan towns know precisely how the men treat Western women. As sex doll slags. To be felt up, pestered and openly asked for sex with added leering.
I find it incomprehensible that this behaviour is/was being hand waved away. Just a casual search of Twitter shows cellphone videos of women having their skirts pulled up, being groped and intimidated.
Anyone who expected their new arrivals to act differently is lying to themselves.
This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.
That worrying bit is that the powers that be across the EU don't even want to talk about it, and in fact are colluding in covering it up, what are the chances of them actually doing anything about it ? Lets face it we have see people attempt to deflect and explain away this criminal behaviour within the last day or two on these very forums.
The thing that must be terrifying the powers that be is this was the first outing for the New Terrorism - no guns, no explosives, just using weight of numbers in a well co-ordinated attempt to say "we're here and this is the way it is going to be. And you let us in..." It is a perfect storm for political paralysis....
Chris Gayle might feel a sense of injustice after the treatment he received this week for saying "don't blush".
Some absolutely devastating detail here, out of Cologne. The story won't die down, indeed it looks like the German papers are finally doing their job.
"Police identified some suspects who harassed women in Cologne on New Year's Eve as asylum seekers, media reports say. City police reportedly did not want to publicize this because of its "politically awkward" nature."
Milliband's father became 'a target' after Milliband cited him as one of the biggest influences in his political life. While perhaps distasteful, its not remotely comparable to going for the wife and kids.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If the medical establishment hadn't demonstrably plucked past guideline figures out of their fundaments, they might have more credibility when issuing warnings like this.
Any female who's been to places such as the smaller Moroccan towns know precisely how the men treat Western women. As sex doll slags. To be felt up, pestered and openly asked for sex with added leering.
I find it incomprehensible that this behaviour is/was being hand waved away. Just a casual search of Twitter shows cellphone videos of women having their skirts pulled up, being groped and intimidated.
Anyone who expected their new arrivals to act differently is lying to themselves.
This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.
That worrying bit is that the powers that be across the EU don't even want to talk about it, and in fact are colluding in covering it up, what are the chances of them actually doing anything about it ? Lets face it we have see people attempt to deflect and explain away this criminal behaviour within the last day or two on these very forums.
The thing that must be terrifying the powers that be is this was the first outing for the New Terrorism - no guns, no explosives, just using weight of numbers in a well co-ordinated attempt to say "we're here and this is the way it is going to be. And you let us in..." It is a perfect storm for political paralysis....
Chris Gayle might feel a sense of injustice after the treatment he received this week for saying "don't blush".
Milliband's father became 'a target' after Milliband cited him as one of the biggest influences in his political life. While perhaps distasteful, its not remotely comparable to going for the wife and kids.
Even the Mafia don't do that.
Ffs.
How about politicians are judged on what they do and the money spent on spin and PR is sent to flood victims.
Some absolutely devastating detail here, out of Cologne. The story won't die down, indeed it looks like the German papers are finally doing their job.
"Police identified some suspects who harassed women in Cologne on New Year's Eve as asylum seekers, media reports say. City police reportedly did not want to publicize this because of its "politically awkward" nature."
Milliband's father became 'a target' after Milliband cited him as one of the biggest influences in his political life. While perhaps distasteful, its not remotely comparable to going for the wife and kids.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
Owen jones writes some interesting stuff and more thoughtful than his sometimes spiky twitter persona.
This written just before corbyn's victory told them effectively what they needed to do to have a chance of success (it's a kind of left wing new labour for slow learners). You may disagree win what he says - I do with alot of it - but it was their only chance electorally. That they haven't done this and in many cases done the opposite shows what their priorities are:
That's a very interesting read. Owen Jones is perplexing. He has a lot of insight up to a point, then not. I don't think he gets small-c conservative people.
There's a guy on another board I frequent who genuinely seems to get the underlying stuff, with some deep and cutting analysis of the circumstances, but every single thing has to be turned into "... and this will be bad for the Tories because ... " and then logic and sense go out the window and do a fandango.
With that article, btw, five key points would have done. Maybe a follow up article summarising the other 23 in a couple of broader points. My eyes went cross-eyed after ten.
Milliband's father became 'a target' after Milliband cited him as one of the biggest influences in his political life. While perhaps distasteful, its not remotely comparable to going for the wife and kids.
Even the Mafia don't do that.
Ffs.
How about politicians are judged on what they do and the money spent on spin and PR is sent to flood victims.
Milliband did - he spoke about his influences - and people judged him on those influences.
Any female who's been to places such as the smaller Moroccan towns know precisely how the men treat Western women. As sex doll slags. To be felt up, pestered and openly asked for sex with added leering.
I find it incomprehensible that this behaviour is/was being hand waved away. Just a casual search of Twitter shows cellphone videos of women having their skirts pulled up, being groped and intimidated.
Anyone who expected their new arrivals to act differently is lying to themselves.
This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.
That worrying bit is that the powers that be across the EU don't even want to talk about it, and in fact are colluding in covering it up, what are the chances of them actually doing anything about it ? Lets face it we have see people attempt to deflect and explain away this criminal behaviour within the last day or two on these very forums.
The thing that must be terrifying the powers that be is this was the first outing for the New Terrorism - no guns, no explosives, just using weight of numbers in a well co-ordinated attempt to say "we're here and this is the way it is going to be. And you let us in..." It is a perfect storm for political paralysis....
Chris Gayle might feel a sense of injustice after the treatment he received this week for saying "don't blush".
Thank you for saying as a lady what I can't say. Gayle demonstrated he's an immature, egotistical sportsman, but there was no real harm done when compared to Cologne, I doubt anybody in Cologne will be treated the way Gayle has.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
Milliband's father became 'a target' after Milliband cited him as one of the biggest influences in his political life. While perhaps distasteful, its not remotely comparable to going for the wife and kids.
Even the Mafia don't do that.
Ffs.
How about politicians are judged on what they do and the money spent on spin and PR is sent to flood victims.
Milliband did - he spoke about his influences - and people judged him on those influences.
So when Dave speaks fondly of his wife it's different to Ed speaking fondly of his Dad.
Milliband's father became 'a target' after Milliband cited him as one of the biggest influences in his political life. While perhaps distasteful, its not remotely comparable to going for the wife and kids.
Even the Mafia don't do that.
Ffs.
How about politicians are judged on what they do and the money spent on spin and PR is sent to flood victims.
Milliband did - he spoke about his influences - and people judged him on those influences.
So when Dave speaks fondly of his wife it's different to Ed speaking fondly of his Dad.
Gotcha.
Oh come on! is Cameron saying that his wife is a direct influence and inspiration on his current political beliefs.
No.
Definitely not.
You're making a ludicrous point.
Anyway, thankfully, we're wasting our time on a has-been and a never-was.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
err actually it is, its for the people who are too stupid to realise what they are doing, same for warnings on obesity and type 2 diabetes...., drugs .... the list is endless I'd draw the line if they said too much sex was bad for you.
Owen jones writes some interesting stuff and more thoughtful than his sometimes spiky twitter persona.
This written just before corbyn's victory told them effectively what they needed to do to have a chance of success (it's a kind of left wing new labour for slow learners). You may disagree win what he says - I do with alot of it - but it was their only chance electorally. That they haven't done this and in many cases done the opposite shows what their priorities are:
That's a very interesting read. Owen Jones is perplexing. He has a lot of insight up to a point, then not. I don't think he gets small-c conservative people.
My opinion of him went up after seeing him interview Peter Hitchens in a video blog. He came across as more open to challenging his own beliefs than I would have expected.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
I would agree, to a degree, but you complained about it as though the state was imposing something (hence anger at not 'rolling back' the state as though this was the opposite) and that is apparently not the case. There's better things for the state to be doing, ut putting out a message saying drink less is pretty low on the scale of unpalatable state interactions.
Milliband's father became 'a target' after Milliband cited him as one of the biggest influences in his political life. While perhaps distasteful, its not remotely comparable to going for the wife and kids.
Even the Mafia don't do that.
Ffs.
How about politicians are judged on what they do and the money spent on spin and PR is sent to flood victims.
Milliband did - he spoke about his influences - and people judged him on those influences.
So when Dave speaks fondly of his wife it's different to Ed speaking fondly of his Dad.
Gotcha.
Oh come on! is Cameron saying that his wife is a direct influence and inspiration on his current political beliefs.
No.
Definitely not.
You're making a ludicrous point.
Anyway, thankfully, we're wasting our time on a has-been and a never-was.
My ludicrous point is that we should ignore spin and concentrate on what a politician does. To argue that one set of nasty, conniving spin doctors are better than other is puerile.
Do you think Coulson went to jail for failing to return library books?
This is the problem when people engage in tribal politics, the comparisons descend to the gutter and the main issues are ignored. They're all scum who will do anything to curry the favour of their paymasters.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
If there is scientific evidence that something is harmful, smoking for example or drinking to excess, then I'm glad that the Government lets me know. I can then choose to ignore that information if I choose. If the Government wishes to discourage people from harming their health which they judge might hit productivity or cause the NHS to have to spend more, then they can discourage that behaviour via taxation.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
If doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
err actually it is, its for the people who are too stupid to realise what they are doing, same for warnings on obesity and type 2 diabetes...., drugs .... the list is endless I'd draw the line if they said too much sex was bad for you.
So people are stupid, until drinking becomes illegal govt needs to shut the phuck up and get out of people's lives.
Comments
There was a bit where you got stuck in a cave (I think) and had to wait for Gandalf to turn up.
It went a bit like this:
Wait
You wait, time passes
Wait
You wait, time passes
(x 5000)
This seems to be the labour moderates strategy
(or perhaps I will learn different after hearing the podcast...
Civil wars can be tragically hilarious in that respect, trying to present as still loyal, in theory, to a ruler, even as you are fighting battles against them. They are being led astray and poorly advised, you see.
Oh.
The Ken vs Boris election is actually a perfect example of a campaign staying away from someones family. A nastier person could have done said ugly things concerning Ken's family. Or, indeed a couple of things about Ken himself.
He honestly doesn't seem like a stupid chap, it really is just the case his focuses and interpretations are, to many on here at the least, incorrect, and on that particular point, which he mentions as a crutch for the left but I feel is an analysis which can be presented non partisanly very easily, he seems spot on. Corbyn, for one, has expressed the view the people did not really support Tory policies, they didn't understand what voting Tory would actually mean, which is very patronising, even if one is forgiving and acknowledges all of us, and the public, will have gaps in our knowledge of what each party proposes. And he is not alone in that type of view, people on all sides can be amazing at finding ways to not blame the public for not voting for them, by deciding they would have...if only they understood, if only they had been allowed to hear the truth.
Good night all.
Police alerted the school about the planned event two days before it was due to go ahead.
Staff had no idea that its hall had been booked by CAGE or that it was to be used to showcase some of Britain’s most notorious Islamists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389607/Islamists-bid-meet-primary-school-Extremists-tried-use-football-tournament-cover-planned-meeting-staff-no-idea-police-raised-alarm.html
As to his family, no-one has gone there. Again, I can think of several things that could have been said.
My point was that the Johnson campaign never went within a hundred miles of any of this. Ken did himself in with Lee Jasper and the personal finance thing - particularly the latter.
This is absurd. I represented the ward myself fifteen years ago. I know it fairly well, this independent won, on the back of the reputation of another hard working independent. The election was called before the floods happened, and it would not have had an impact on the result.
This written just before corbyn's victory told them effectively what they needed to do to have a chance of success (it's a kind of left wing new labour for slow learners). You may disagree win what he says - I do with alot of it - but it was their only chance electorally. That they haven't done this and in many cases done the opposite shows what their priorities are:
https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-honest-thoughts-on-the-corbyn-campaign-and-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884#.ij9mdubik
An interesting insight into something most of us have found inexplicable
Are we turning into a nation of Canutes.
If you can provide the back up to stop them being sued the daily mail will give you £50k for the story. Fill yer boots.
The dogs in the streets know all the stories about ken but so what? It's worth as much as all of the child abuse stories about 80s Tory mps that people are 'convinced' are true because someone told them.
If you all want to believe that mcbride is a labour aberration, brown was uniquely venal, and that the Conservative party never gets involved in that kind of crap,then fine. I'll leave you to it.
Except there is no inspiring alternative. Labour have done nothing to show they are fit to govern for years and years. At the first whiff of actually trying to recant from past mistakes the semi sane candidates (the more sane the more vitriol was poured on them) for leader were blown away in favour of more of the same from a total dope.
His is a load of self serving rubbish.
Where the F have you been?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12088341/Two-teenage-girls-gang-raped-by-four-Syrian-nationals-in-southern-Germany.html
Do you want hinterland, cricket knowledge, offbeat anecdotes or Public School types who found cricket not rugby?
Given that it is cricket, I expect they are everywhere.
Picking names out of the air, perhaps Mike Brearley or Gideon Haigh.
Carslisle is a key marginal with a swing against labour in 2015 - to be doing as badly as that now is an awful result regardless of the strength of independents. Corbyn's position on trident could see labour wiped out in Cumbria - which is why woodcock and read have been two of his most vociferous opponents.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/why-are-feminists-refusing-to-discuss-the-cologne-sex-attacks/
Telegraph blogger Dan Hodges tweeted last May that he would streak naked "in a Nigel Farage mask whilst singing Land of Hope and Glory" if the party performed better than he forecast."
http://news.sky.com/story/1618279/blogger-streaks-in-pants-over-lost-ukip-bet
Even with the whole issue with FGM, the central issue is tiptoed around.
"Two teenage girls gang-raped by four 'Syrian nationals' in southern Germany
Reports flood in of sexual assaults against women across Germany as leaked police report states Cologne suspects 'claimed to be Syrian refugees'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12088341/Two-teenage-girls-gang-raped-by-four-Syrian-nationals-in-southern-Germany.html
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tCufUeYIpA4J:www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/82a00c77-c0cc-4e79-99ca-25e9c21d01a7+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Are the complainers suggesting the BBC would have handled it differently if it was a Tory resignation?
Seriously?
A potted history of Botcherby. It is one of the most deprived wards in the north west of England, it is made up of several distinct areas, two large council (now housing association) estates. While the city doesnt really have slums, it is certainly one of the most difficult areas.
It is ordinarily a solid Labour ward. It has been for its entire history since 1974, except for a brief interlude in 1999 when I topped the polls along with two others (a multi member ward in an all out election), the seat was lost over the next few years.
In 2003 I lost the seat as the last tory, it reverted to Labour, with 60% of the vote.
In 2004 Labour won with 57.4% of the vote
In 2005 (county seat, General Election) Labour won with
In 2006 Labour won 55.5%
In 2007 Labour won 50%
In 2008 Labour won 36% (independent stood and got 22%)
In 2009 Indie won county
In 2010 Indie won city (same person) 44%
In 2011 Lab won 50%
In 2012 Lab won 54%
In 2013 Indie kept county seat
In 2014 Indie kept city seat 52% (cons on 8%)
In 2015 Lab won 33% (a second Indie made a very strong showing, combined with it being a general election, and a full get out the vote by all parties)
In 2016 Second Indie won 51%
If Labour some how thing that theyve done better out of this they are deluded. These independents have come about, in some cases as a result of poor councillors, and this last specific case because the Labour council ripped out a kiddie play area in the ward.
The Tory vote was 8% in 2014, under very similar circumstances, the Conservatives then went to take the marginal constituency by just under 3,000.
(PS this was quite a nasty by election, with the first independent vilified across three sets of leaflets by Labour, despite him not being the candidate!)
I wonder if justin124 is London based?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35259224
Just "risk" deportation? And where are you going to send them? And what about if they come back given your open door policy?
Two more countries to add to the list...
"Meanwhile, similar incidents from New Year's Eve have been reported in Finland and Switzerland. Similar attacks were also reported in Hamburg and in Stuttgart. In Finland, police said they had received reports of "widespread sexual harassment" in Helsinki on New Year's Eve. A police official said they were tipped off that groups of asylum seekers had planned to sexually harass women and that three asylum seekers had been arrested."
"This is a completely new phenomenon in Helsinki." [I bet it is]
-----
This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.
Of course, it also confirms that he's not remotely interested in doing politics the traditional way. He probably feels confident that he doesn't need to, having seen off three traditional candidates at the leadership election and Labour having polled quite well in Oldham; that his new way is at least as good in terms of practical results. Alternatively (or perhaps also - it's not an either/or), he doesn't much care about electoral results as long as he can reform Labour: they are, after all, still one of the two main parties and under no threat at the moment outside Scotland to that position. UKIP, the Lib Dems and Greens are in no position to replace them. Yet.
As for who Labour should or shouldn't want to face, one name that doesn't get mentioned frequently (don't know if it's in the podcast) but should do is Hammond. If Cameron does win his referendum, it strikes me that Hammond could be quite well placed. His age counts against him but he has few political negatives and that, as much as anything, is a critical factor in Tory elections. Would his role in the referendum count against him? Perhaps, although it seems that Cameron is doing most of the legwork himself so not necessarily to the extent that it might otherwise. He's currently 25/1 which I think has some value to it.
That being said, it's not as though he's exactly emerged as a major player even though all the talent has bled away from the shadow cabinet. So perhaps he was over-rating himself somewhat.
Mind you, when you are in the same wing of the party as Diane Abbott and Clive Lewis, must be difficult not to get an inflated idea of your own powers!
Ironically the reason that McBride did what he did, was because he thought as you do. Everyone is doing it, so why shouldn't I? Except that simply isn't true.
Though I think the Leicester City reserves are value over Spurs reserves. They were last year...
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
Mr Corbyn chose to take a young Ms Abbott there on a romantic motorcycle tour, so we should not be too surprised at either his politics or his exercise of power.
With Abbott, on the other hand, who has a high media profile and a long track record of disasters (not to mention very plausible charges of chauvinism) I don't think they would have been able to kid themselves about what she would provide.
Something similar to the London Get-A-Flatscreen riots.
In my naive view of how politics should be run there'd be no place for Crosby or McBride, the spin doctors become the story far too often, Cameron's main man was jailed let's not forget.
"However the Telegraph understands that European states are now offering Mr Cameron a deal that would require new British workers aged 18-22 to wait four years for in-work benefits, while simultaneously finding a back-door "fix" to ensure those workers were not left out of pocket."
We have some weird building nicknames but this is my favourite.
I find it incomprehensible that this behaviour is/was being hand waved away. Just a casual search of Twitter shows cellphone videos of women having their skirts pulled up, being groped and intimidated.
Anyone who expected their new arrivals to act differently is lying to themselves.
It looks to me a case of distraction robbery rather than terrorism. Clearly a contemptuous misogyny as well as contempt for the law and norms of law abiding German behaviour.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
Even the Mafia don't do that.
But it's so much easier to get outraged about a guy asking girl out than industrial scale sexual assaults. Even being black didn't help him much.
How about politicians are judged on what they do and the money spent on spin and PR is sent to flood victims.
With that article, btw, five key points would have done. Maybe a follow up article summarising the other 23 in a couple of broader points. My eyes went cross-eyed after ten.
It's not what govt is for.
Gotcha.
No.
Definitely not.
You're making a ludicrous point.
Anyway, thankfully, we're wasting our time on a has-been and a never-was.
Just on the Gayle incident, nobody cared about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-FIfVfvOMo
Not saying it's especially professional, but there we are.
I'd draw the line if they said too much sex was bad for you.
Do you think Coulson went to jail for failing to return library books?
This is the problem when people engage in tribal politics, the comparisons descend to the gutter and the main issues are ignored. They're all scum who will do anything to curry the favour of their paymasters.
If the Government wishes to discourage people from harming their health which they judge might hit productivity or cause the NHS to have to spend more, then they can discourage that behaviour via taxation.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.