Interesting that there was some discussion about whether Sadiq Khan would want the job, rather than serve as a cabinet minister in a Miliband government.
Labour might want to make sure there are no skeletons in Sadiq Khan's cupboard before putting him forward. He was the MP whose calls with Babar Ahmed (charged by the US with terrorism offences) were bugged and questions were raised about whether he had been transparent to the Commons about the nature and length of his relationship.
Also what's his expenses record like?
Given some of Livingstone's dubious friendships/alliances, I would have thought that Labour would want to ensure that any future candidate does not face similar criticisms.
More of the same...Babar Ahmed who was paid 60,000 by the Met police after being beaten up and the same Babir Ahmed who Boris Johnson set up an enquiry about in 2010? What is it about certain posters on here and people with non English sounding names? And lets check his expenses......
Well, Ms Cyclefree seems to have been on the money in 2013, given that Ahmad subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, and was sentenced to 12.5 years.
You may be surprised. I was reading that Adam Johnson has indeed received a lot of support on social media, with considerable abuse being directed at his victim,
Interesting that there was some discussion about whether Sadiq Khan would want the job, rather than serve as a cabinet minister in a Miliband government.
Labour might want to make sure there are no skeletons in Sadiq Khan's cupboard before putting him forward. He was the MP whose calls with Babar Ahmed (charged by the US with terrorism offences) were bugged and questions were raised about whether he had been transparent to the Commons about the nature and length of his relationship.
Also what's his expenses record like?
Given some of Livingstone's dubious friendships/alliances, I would have thought that Labour would want to ensure that any future candidate does not face similar criticisms.
More of the same...Babar Ahmed who was paid 60,000 by the Met police after being beaten up and the same Babir Ahmed who Boris Johnson set up an enquiry about in 2010? What is it about certain posters on here and people with non English sounding names? And lets check his expenses......
Well, Ms Cyclefree seems to have been on the money in 2013, given that Ahmad subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, and was sentenced to 12.5 years.
What is it about certain posters on here, indeed?
Ironically Corbyn and McDonnell have helped Khan here, it is almost priced in now, Labour being portrayed as terrorist sympathisers
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
The whole point of the King Canute story is that he wanted to prove that he COULD NOT hold back the tide!
Not even King Canute can hold back the tide of misunderstanding...
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, via RCP, ironically looks at the wall of Hispanic voters likely to prevent Trump from becoming POTUS and the long term consequences for the GOP :
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
We can send the Navy to turn back all boats to the nearest safe North African port. Doing that for 3-6 months will stop the flow from North Africa. We can designate Pakistan a safe country so anyone from there is immediately denied asylum and sent on the first plane back. We can designate Iraq as a safe country and do the same. Even Afghanistan tbh. European countries all have ID cards as well, so they can basically force the issue and demand papers from everyone entering and exiting train stations etc... for a few weeks and get all of the illegals deported back to North Africa.
It needs tough action and hard headedness. There seems to be none of that in Europe at the moment and the one nation that might do it, the UK, has washed its hands of the whole situation by opting out of the migrant quota.
That can all be done, if we're prepared to face down the hand-wringers. If.
I've just listened to the recording of Nick Ferrari grilling Mrs Balls on whether she has taken in her (refugee lodger) yet. It was just so utterly embarrassing, I can't even raise a smile. There was absolutely no trace of her 'posh' voice.
Didn't Owen Jones lookalike Tim Farron also say he would take in a refugee? If so, then he needs holding to account as well. I don't know why they make these ridiculous comments, it always comes back to bite them on the bum!
Interesting that there was some discussion about whether Sadiq Khan would want the job, rather than serve as a cabinet minister in a Miliband government.
Labour might want to make sure there are no skeletons in Sadiq Khan's cupboard before putting him forward. He was the MP whose calls with Babar Ahmed (charged by the US with terrorism offences) were bugged and questions were raised about whether he had been transparent to the Commons about the nature and length of his relationship.
Also what's his expenses record like?
Given some of Livingstone's dubious friendships/alliances, I would have thought that Labour would want to ensure that any future candidate does not face similar criticisms.
More of the same...Babar Ahmed who was paid 60,000 by the Met police after being beaten up and the same Babir Ahmed who Boris Johnson set up an enquiry about in 2010? What is it about certain posters on here and people with non English sounding names? And lets check his expenses......
Well, Ms Cyclefree seems to have been on the money in 2013, given that Ahmad subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, and was sentenced to 12.5 years.
What is it about certain posters on here, indeed?
Ironically Corbyn and McDonnell have helped Khan here, it is almost priced in now, Labour being portrayed as terrorist sympathisers
For the record, I don't think Khan is a terrorist sympathiser. And it's almost inevitable that some of his political supporters on his way up will have been, so he's in a difficult position.
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
Interesting that there was some discussion about whether Sadiq Khan would want the job, rather than serve as a cabinet minister in a Miliband government.
Labour might want to make sure there are no skeletons in Sadiq Khan's cupboard before putting him forward. He was the MP whose calls with Babar Ahmed (charged by the US with terrorism offences) were bugged and questions were raised about whether he had been transparent to the Commons about the nature and length of his relationship.
Also what's his expenses record like?
Given some of Livingstone's dubious friendships/alliances, I would have thought that Labour would want to ensure that any future candidate does not face similar criticisms.
I have long had doubts about Mr Khan on account of the friendships and alliances he has had. These are not "accidents". You make a choice when you decide to appoint someone without vetting them properly and/or without making clear what your expectations of behaviour are. You make a choice when you describe someone as a "friend". You make a choice when you decide to speak at rallies/seminars organised by pro-terrorist organisations such as Cage.
These are choices. Not accidents.
And they tell us something about the judgment of the person making them. And the best way of testing someone's judgment is to see what they do when someone is not looking, not when there is the glare of publicity. Getting rid of an aide because what they have said is embarrassing and has been made public is less praiseworthy than not appointing them in the first place or getting rid of them because you did not like how they behaved. The latter decision is based on substance; the former on appearance. They do not have the same moral weight, IMO, anyway.
You may be surprised. I was reading that Adam Johnson has indeed received a lot of support on social media, with considerable abuse being directed at his victim,
Jesus wept.
She was under the age of consent, he knew she was under the age of consent, he pleaded guilty to grooming.
Mr. Eagles, Labour's problem is that if Khan wins it helps Corbyn remain in place, and any question marks over Khan's friends will come into play when the Conservatives stop eating their own face and remember they have to hold an election in 2020.
You may be surprised. I was reading that Adam Johnson has indeed received a lot of support on social media, with considerable abuse being directed at his victim,
Jesus wept.
She was under the age of consent, he knew she was under the age of consent, he pleaded guilty to grooming.
You can guess. She's a "slut" a "whore" a "bitch" who "led him on."
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
Most LEAVERS never expected to win the referendum and therefore have never really had to worry about being held accountable for the claims they are making for an EU independent UK.
If they do manage to win it will largely on the back of whipping up a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment. LEAVES' problems will then begin big-time once they have to make good on all the things they have been promising people if they vote to BREXIT. That is when the fur will fly.
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
The whole point of the King Canute story is that he wanted to prove that he COULD NOT hold back the tide!
Not even King Canute can hold back the tide of misunderstanding...
They need a dose of the carrot and the stick.
No, any kind of carrot will encourage more to come. We have to be in the "send them all back" mode by default, and only let in those who meet the criteria, i.e. being Syrian. The other chancers need to be sent home by default.
Interesting that there was some discussion about whether Sadiq Khan would want the job, rather than serve as a cabinet minister in a Miliband government.
Labour might want to make sure there are no skeletons in Sadiq Khan's cupboard before putting him forward. He was the MP whose calls with Babar Ahmed (charged by the US with terrorism offences) were bugged and questions were raised about whether he had been transparent to the Commons about the nature and length of his relationship.
Also what's his expenses record like?
Given some of Livingstone's dubious friendships/alliances, I would have thought that Labour would want to ensure that any future candidate does not face similar criticisms.
More of the same...Babar Ahmed who was paid 60,000 by the Met police after being beaten up and the same Babir Ahmed who Boris Johnson set up an enquiry about in 2010? What is it about certain posters on here and people with non English sounding names? And lets check his expenses......
Well, Ms Cyclefree seems to have been on the money in 2013, given that Ahmad subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, and was sentenced to 12.5 years.
What is it about certain posters on here, indeed?
Ironically Corbyn and McDonnell have helped Khan here, it is almost priced in now, Labour being portrayed as terrorist sympathisers
For the record, I don't think Khan is a terrorist sympathiser. And it's almost inevitable that some of his political supporters on his way up will have been, so he's in a difficult position.
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
I agree with all of that.
I was told by one pollster, that during a focus group, they quoted some of Corbyn and McDonnell's past comments on the IRA/terrorists/terrorism, and the focus groups refused to believe that they had said that until they were shown footage.
I believe McDonnell's wish to honour IRA bombers was the one they all struggled to believe.
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
We can send the Navy to turn back all boats to the nearest safe North African port. Doing that for 3-6 months will stop the flow from North Africa. We can designate Pakistan a safe country so anyone from there is immediately denied asylum and sent on the first plane back. We can designate Iraq as a safe country and do the same. Even Afghanistan tbh. European countries all have ID cards as well, so they can basically force the issue and demand papers from everyone entering and exiting train stations etc... for a few weeks and get all of the illegals deported back to North Africa.
It needs tough action and hard headedness. There seems to be none of that in Europe at the moment and the one nation that might do it, the UK, has washed its hands of the whole situation by opting out of the migrant quota.
That can all be done, if we're prepared to face down the hand-wringers. If.
The bottom line is that upwards of half a billion people would probably prefer to live in the EU, and they will increasingly have the means to attempt to do so. Hard headedness is the only reasonable response to that, notwithstanding the need for targeted humanitarian assistance to those genuinely displaced by war or oppression.
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
Most LEAVERS never expected to win the referendum and therefore have never really had to worry about being held accountable for the claims they are making for an EU independent UK.
If they do manage to win it will largely on the back of whipping up a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment. LEAVES' problems will then begin big-time once they have to make good on all the things they have been promising people if they vote to BREXIT. That is when the fur will fly.
Interesting that there was some discussion about whether Sadiq Khan would want the job, rather than serve as a cabinet minister in a Miliband government.
Labour might want to make sure there are no skeletons in Sadiq Khan's cupboard before putting him forward. He was the MP whose calls with Babar Ahmed (charged by the US with terrorism offences) were bugged and questions were raised about whether he had been transparent to the Commons about the nature and length of his relationship.
Also what's his expenses record like?
Given some of Livingstone's dubious friendships/alliances, I would have thought that Labour would want to ensure that any future candidate does not face similar criticisms.
I have long had doubts about Mr Khan on account of the friendships and alliances he has had. These are not "accidents". You make a choice when you decide to appoint someone without vetting them properly and/or without making clear what your expectations of behaviour are. You make a choice when you describe someone as a "friend". You make a choice when you decide to speak at rallies/seminars organised by pro-terrorist organisations such as Cage.
These are choices. Not accidents.
And they tell us something about the judgment of the person making them. And the best way of testing someone's judgment is to see what they do when someone is not looking, not when there is the glare of publicity. Getting rid of an aide because what they have said is embarrassing and has been made public is less praiseworthy than not appointing them in the first place or getting rid of them because you did not like how they behaved. The latter decision is based on substance; the former on appearance. They do not have the same moral weight, IMO, anyway.
His speech writer was a very good example of this (and not really explained properly in the reports). He made a lot of the social media posts prior to joining Khan, so it was all out there. And he was hardly an outstanding candidate to begin with, with that degree from top law school the Uni of Luton, sorry Bedfordshire.
So did Khan have him checked out? And if so did he just ignore all the homophobic, sexist and racist ranting? Then he carried on making similar social media posts and again nobody thought that might be an issue. When you work for an MP, it isn't like you are just a "number", one of 100,000 of employees at a multi-national firm.
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
We can send the Navy to turn back all boats to the nearest safe North African port. Doing that for 3-6 months will stop the flow from North Africa. We can designate Pakistan a safe country so anyone from there is immediately denied asylum and sent on the first plane back. We can designate Iraq as a safe country and do the same. Even Afghanistan tbh. European countries all have ID cards as well, so they can basically force the issue and demand papers from everyone entering and exiting train stations etc... for a few weeks and get all of the illegals deported back to North Africa.
It needs tough action and hard headedness. There seems to be none of that in Europe at the moment and the one nation that might do it, the UK, has washed its hands of the whole situation by opting out of the migrant quota.
The second any navy attempts to force any boat to turn back, those on board will scuttle it. And then what? Leave the occupants to drown, or rescue them, and take them to an African nation willing to accept refugees? Good luck with that. Which one is willing to take them?
Funny you should mention the RN. Some enterprising MP should ask HMG why they've sent a RFA vessel, rather than a proper warship. And watch the MoD squirm.
Interesting that there was some discussion about whether Sadiq Khan would want the job, rather than serve as a cabinet minister in a Miliband government.
Labour might want to make sure there are no skeletons in Sadiq Khan's cupboard before putting him forward. He was the MP whose calls with Babar Ahmed (charged by the US with terrorism offences) were bugged and questions were raised about whether he had been transparent to the Commons about the nature and length of his relationship.
Also what's his expenses record like?
Given some of Livingstone's dubious friendships/alliances, I would have thought that Labour would want to ensure that any future candidate does not face similar criticisms.
More of the same...Babar Ahmed who was paid 60,000 by the Met police after being beaten up and the same Babir Ahmed who Boris Johnson set up an enquiry about in 2010? What is it about certain posters on here and people with non English sounding names? And lets check his expenses......
Well, Ms Cyclefree seems to have been on the money in 2013, given that Ahmad subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, and was sentenced to 12.5 years.
What is it about certain posters on here, indeed?
Ironically Corbyn and McDonnell have helped Khan here, it is almost priced in now, Labour being portrayed as terrorist sympathisers
For the record, I don't think Khan is a terrorist sympathiser. And it's almost inevitable that some of his political supporters on his way up will have been, so he's in a difficult position.
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
Well he just hired two ex-Lutfur Rahman staffers for his campaign recently. Hardly "on his way up" or a long time ago. He has spoken to and supported disgusting organisation like CAGE, and until yesterday had a staffer who thinks that the murder of Lee Rigby is some kind of conspiracy.
As I said, once is an accident, twice is stupidity, more than that and it begins to paint an ugly picture of the man.
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
We can send the Navy to turn back all boats to the nearest safe North African port. Doing that for 3-6 months will stop the flow from North Africa. We can designate Pakistan a safe country so anyone from there is immediately denied asylum and sent on the first plane back. We can designate Iraq as a safe country and do the same. Even Afghanistan tbh. European countries all have ID cards as well, so they can basically force the issue and demand papers from everyone entering and exiting train stations etc... for a few weeks and get all of the illegals deported back to North Africa.
It needs tough action and hard headedness. There seems to be none of that in Europe at the moment and the one nation that might do it, the UK, has washed its hands of the whole situation by opting out of the migrant quota.
The second any navy attempts to force any boat to turn back, those on board will scuttle it. And then what? Leave the occupants to drown, or rescue them, and take them to an African nation willing to accept refugees? Good luck with that. Which one is willing to take them?
Funny you should mention the RN. Some enterprising MP should ask HMG why they've sent a RFA vessel, rather than a proper warship. And watch the MoD squirm.
If someone did scuttle their boat, in that situation, I would be inclined to leave them to it.
Interesting that there was some discussion about whether Sadiq Khan would want the job, rather than serve as a cabinet minister in a Miliband government.
Labour might want to make sure there are no skeletons in Sadiq Khan's cupboard before putting him forward. He was the MP whose calls with Babar Ahmed (charged by the US with terrorism offences) were bugged and questions were raised about whether he had been transparent to the Commons about the nature and length of his relationship.
Also what's his expenses record like?
Given some of Livingstone's dubious friendships/alliances, I would have thought that Labour would want to ensure that any future candidate does not face similar criticisms.
More of the same...Babar Ahmed who was paid 60,000 by the Met police after being beaten up and the same Babir Ahmed who Boris Johnson set up an enquiry about in 2010? What is it about certain posters on here and people with non English sounding names? And lets check his expenses......
Well, Ms Cyclefree seems to have been on the money in 2013, given that Ahmad subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, and was sentenced to 12.5 years.
What is it about certain posters on here, indeed?
Try reading the link and then you'll understand why it wasn't surprising that Khan had been in contact with him. My point was so had Johnson but obviously not being a Muslim no seedy connection could be made by the usual suspects
You may be surprised. I was reading that Adam Johnson has indeed received a lot of support on social media, with considerable abuse being directed at his victim,
Jesus wept.
She was under the age of consent, he knew she was under the age of consent, he pleaded guilty to grooming.
You can guess. She's a "slut" a "whore" a "bitch" who "led him on."
reading the comments on guido fawkes is a mistake, as discussed earlier
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
We can send the Navy to turn back all boats to the nearest safe North African port. Doing that for 3-6 months will stop the flow from North Africa. We can designate Pakistan a safe country so anyone from there is immediately denied asylum and sent on the first plane back. We can designate Iraq as a safe country and do the same. Even Afghanistan tbh. European countries all have ID cards as well, so they can basically force the issue and demand papers from everyone entering and exiting train stations etc... for a few weeks and get all of the illegals deported back to North Africa.
It needs tough action and hard headedness. There seems to be none of that in Europe at the moment and the one nation that might do it, the UK, has washed its hands of the whole situation by opting out of the migrant quota.
The second any navy attempts to force any boat to turn back, those on board will scuttle it. And then what? Leave the occupants to drown, or rescue them, and take them to an African nation willing to accept refugees? Good luck with that. Which one is willing to take them?
Funny you should mention the RN. Some enterprising MP should ask HMG why they've sent a RFA vessel, rather than a proper warship. And watch the MoD squirm.
Do nothing. It's the only thing that worked for Australia.
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
Most LEAVERS never expected to win the referendum and therefore have never really had to worry about being held accountable for the claims they are making for an EU independent UK.
If they do manage to win it will largely on the back of whipping up a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment. LEAVES' problems will then begin big-time once they have to make good on all the things they have been promising people if they vote to BREXIT. That is when the fur will fly.
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
I do believe in Britain, just not Farage & IDS's vision of it.
I've been doing a bit of racial profiling on the Hillary Clinton vote ^_~
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
Yes, and honestly I actually think calling Corbyn and McDonnell terrorist sympathisers is fair enough.
But Khan just isn't. If anything, him secretly having terrorist-sympathetic views might make him a bit less terminally dull (to my eyes, he seems a "typical politician" with no principles and who flip-flops on any position when it becomes inconvenient).
Labour might want to make sure there are no skeletons in Sadiq Khan's cupboard before putting him forward. He was the MP whose calls with Babar Ahmed (charged by the US with terrorism offences) were bugged and questions were raised about whether he had been transparent to the Commons about the nature and length of his relationship.
Also what's his expenses record like?
Given some of Livingstone's dubious friendships/alliances, I would have thought that Labour would want to ensure that any future candidate does not face similar criticisms.
I have long had doubts about Mr Khan on account of the friendships and alliances he has had. These are not "accidents". You make a choice when you decide to appoint someone without vetting them properly and/or without making clear what your expectations of behaviour are. You make a choice when you describe someone as a "friend". You make a choice when you decide to speak at rallies/seminars organised by pro-terrorist organisations such as Cage.
These are choices. Not accidents.
And they tell us something about the judgment of the person making them. And the best way of testing someone's judgment is to see what they do when someone is not looking, not when there is the glare of publicity. Getting rid of an aide because what they have said is embarrassing and has been made public is less praiseworthy than not appointing them in the first place or getting rid of them because you did not like how they behaved. The latter decision is based on substance; the former on appearance. They do not have the same moral weight, IMO, anyway.
His speech writer was a very good example of this (and not really explained properly in the reports). He made a lot of the social media posts prior to joining Khan, so it was all out there. And he was hardly an outstanding candidate to begin with, with that degree from top law school the Uni of Luton, sorry Bedfordshire.
So did Khan have him checked out? And if so did he just ignore all the homophobic, sexist and racist ranting? Then he carried on making similar social media posts and again nobody thought that might be an issue. When you work for an MP, it isn't like you are just a "number", one of 100,000 of employees at a multi-national firm.
Roger desperately spinning for Khan...remember the issue wasn't just with his friend the convicted terrorist, it was that Khan claims that he was a friend, then no wasn't a friend just a constituent, yes he was, but only childhood etc etc etc...it didn't stack up.
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
Yes, and honestly I actually think calling Corbyn and McDonnell terrorist sympathisers is fair enough.
But Khan just isn't. If anything, him secretly having terrorist-sympathetic views might make him a bit less terminally dull (to my eyes, he seems a "typical politician" with no principles and who flip-flops on any position when it becomes inconvenient).
Then why has he hired two people from the Lutfur Rahman campaign?
I've been doing a bit of racial profiling on the Hillary Clinton vote ^_~
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.
HRC is toxic among whites, males in particular, that is a big problem for November.
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
Yes, and honestly I actually think calling Corbyn and McDonnell terrorist sympathisers is fair enough.
But Khan just isn't. If anything, him secretly having terrorist-sympathetic views might make him a bit less terminally dull (to my eyes, he seems a "typical politician" with no principles and who flip-flops on any position when it becomes inconvenient).
Then why has he hired two people from the Lutfur Rahman campaign?
Do those people from the Lutfur Rahman campaign have any record of terrorist-sympathising comments in their own right? (Serious question.)
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
We can send the Navy to turn back all boats to the nearest safe North African port. Doing that for 3-6 months will stop the flow from North Africa. We can designate Pakistan a safe country so anyone from there is immediately denied asylum and sent on the first plane back. We can designate Iraq as a safe country and do the same. Even Afghanistan tbh. European countries all have ID cards as well, so they can basically force the issue and demand papers from everyone entering and exiting train stations etc... for a few weeks and get all of the illegals deported back to North Africa.
It needs tough action and hard headedness. There seems to be none of that in Europe at the moment and the one nation that might do it, the UK, has washed its hands of the whole situation by opting out of the migrant quota.
The second any navy attempts to force any boat to turn back, those on board will scuttle it. And then what? Leave the occupants to drown, or rescue them, and take them to an African nation willing to accept refugees? Good luck with that. Which one is willing to take them?
Funny you should mention the RN. Some enterprising MP should ask HMG why they've sent a RFA vessel, rather than a proper warship. And watch the MoD squirm.
Do nothing. It's the only thing that worked for Australia.
It simply won't happen. No EU navy will sit on their hands and watch whilst people drown. And the smugglers know it.
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
Yes, and honestly I actually think calling Corbyn and McDonnell terrorist sympathisers is fair enough.
But Khan just isn't. If anything, him secretly having terrorist-sympathetic views might make him a bit less terminally dull (to my eyes, he seems a "typical politician" with no principles and who flip-flops on any position when it becomes inconvenient).
Then why has he hired two people from the Lutfur Rahman campaign?
I'm not sure it's fair to describe Lutfur as a terrorist sympathiser either. He's obviously an unpleasant machine politician who used the politics of race to his advantage. He did have links to organisations that had Islamist sections or tendencies.
Mildly amused that the story is very much against the John Lewis employee who asked the mother of a tantrum-throwing toddler to leave, but every single one of the top comments agrees with it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35753732
I've got Trump at more or less the cashout value of my book right now (+13), Cruz is in theory (+19), Rubio +10.5, Kasich +8.3. That lot assumes Hillary is the nominee and Trump is just over 2-1, Cruz just over 3-1.
Trump looks to be well on course, but a few slip ups and its brokered time. Who knows what happens then...
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
Yes, and honestly I actually think calling Corbyn and McDonnell terrorist sympathisers is fair enough.
But Khan just isn't. If anything, him secretly having terrorist-sympathetic views might make him a bit less terminally dull (to my eyes, he seems a "typical politician" with no principles and who flip-flops on any position when it becomes inconvenient).
Then why has he hired two people from the Lutfur Rahman campaign?
Do those people from the Lutfur Rahman campaign have any record of terrorist-sympathising comments in their own right? (Serious question.)
They are damaged goods. Look at what happened in Tower Hamlets under Rahman.
Well, Ms Cyclefree seems to have been on the money in 2013, given that Ahmad subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, and was sentenced to 12.5 years.
What is it about certain posters on here, indeed?
Ironically Corbyn and McDonnell have helped Khan here, it is almost priced in now, Labour being portrayed as terrorist sympathisers
For the record, I don't think Khan is a terrorist sympathiser. And it's almost inevitable that some of his political supporters on his way up will have been, so he's in a difficult position.
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
Well he just hired two ex-Lutfur Rahman staffers for his campaign recently. Hardly "on his way up" or a long time ago. He has spoken to and supported disgusting organisation like CAGE, and until yesterday had a staffer who thinks that the murder of Lee Rigby is some kind of conspiracy.
As I said, once is an accident, twice is stupidity, more than that and it begins to paint an ugly picture of the man.
Any candidate who makes much of his Muslimness - as Khan has done by saying what a wonderful thing it would say about London if it were to elect a Muslim mayor, as if someone's religion should be the key issue to consider (something I strongly disagree with), as if voters have to pass some sort of test imposed by one of the candidates rather than the candidates passing the voters' test - should have thought hard in advance about making sure that very characteristic did not also have downsides and raise questions, particularly at a time when there has been Islamist terrorism in the West and London is at serious risks of future attacks.
Ensuring that you take care about whom you associate with, whom you employ and what you say and at what events is the very least the voters have a right to expect. After all, he had only to look at the difficulties Livingstone had with Qaradawi and Rahman and some of his more offensive remarks about Jews. If Khan either could not be bothered to do that or think that it mattered, then it doesn't say much for either his judgment or his ability to be Mayor of a city like London.
Mildly amused that the story is very much against the John Lewis employee who asked the mother of a tantrum-throwing toddler to leave, but every single one of the top comments agrees with it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35753732
I've been doing a bit of racial profiling on the Hillary Clinton vote ^_~
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.
HRC is toxic among whites, males in particular, that is a big problem for November.
Seriously, you really believe Clinton is "toxic" among whites?
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
Yes, and honestly I actually think calling Corbyn and McDonnell terrorist sympathisers is fair enough.
But Khan just isn't. If anything, him secretly having terrorist-sympathetic views might make him a bit less terminally dull (to my eyes, he seems a "typical politician" with no principles and who flip-flops on any position when it becomes inconvenient).
Then why has he hired two people from the Lutfur Rahman campaign?
Do those people from the Lutfur Rahman campaign have any record of terrorist-sympathising comments in their own right? (Serious question.)
There is quite a lot of material available about the East London Mosque in Tower Hamlets and some of the speakers it hosts who are very dubious indeed. It would need a bit of digging to see the extent to which, if at all, the people whom Khan has hired are associated with such unpleasant characters.
But why hire anyone from the Rahman campaign team at all?
This is a team which worked on a campaign which was found to have been guilty of electoral malpractice on a pretty widespread scale. Someone who wants to win the Mayoral election thinks that people involved in electoral malpractice are the right people to hire. Seriously??
This is a campaign team for a candidate who was thrown out of the Labour party. Someone who is the Labour Mayoral candidate thinks that someone who worked against the interests of the Labour party is the right person to hire. Again, seriously??
It shows - at best - appalling judgment. At worst, well you can work that out for yourself.
I've been doing a bit of racial profiling on the Hillary Clinton vote ^_~
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.
HRC is toxic among whites, males in particular, that is a big problem for November.
Seriously, you really believe Clinton is "toxic" among whites?
I wouldn't say toxic, but definitely not popular. She has worked so hard to be the candidate of immigrants and minorities that she has alienated a lot of whites which is why Trump has a look in against her.
I think Remain are at least 80% likely to win at the moment.
Important to note that 80% does not equal 100% likely, but I'm struggling to see any path for Leave to win, nor any signs of improvement around the corner.
I've been doing a bit of racial profiling on the Hillary Clinton vote ^_~
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.
HRC is toxic among whites, males in particular, that is a big problem for November.
Seriously, you really believe Clinton is "toxic" among whites?
If a state is 100% white, we can expect HRC to get 41%. Hardly toxic.
Mind you this model does have her on 103% in the District of Columbia .
Miss Plato, it sounds like a clash of chatterati and the great unwashed, not unlike the massive sympathy broadcast media has for the migrant crisis, and the electorate who think Cameron's (relatively tough) stance is either ok or too soft.
Edited extra bit: reminds me of when a woman was walking with her kid [she was on the phone] whilst I was out with the dog [a previous hound]. My dog was on a short lead, but the little boy, perhaps six, didn't take the unsubtle hint (I said "Don't come near him" in a clear manner), and the mother did sod all.
Had the silly little bastard stressed out my dog enough to earn himself a bite, the mother would've gone mental and the dog would've been put down.
That aggravated me quite a lot. Fortunately, Kai the dog was about as meek as a hound could be (he didn't even retaliate when he got the tip of his ear bitten off).
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
Yes, and honestly I actually think calling Corbyn and McDonnell terrorist sympathisers is fair enough.
But Khan just isn't. If anything, him secretly having terrorist-sympathetic views might make him a bit less terminally dull (to my eyes, he seems a "typical politician" with no principles and who flip-flops on any position when it becomes inconvenient).
Then why has he hired two people from the Lutfur Rahman campaign?
Do those people from the Lutfur Rahman campaign have any record of terrorist-sympathising comments in their own right? (Serious question.)
There is quite a lot of material available about the East London Mosque in Tower Hamlets and some of the speakers it hosts who are very dubious indeed. It would need a bit of digging to see the extent to which, if at all, the people whom Khan has hired are associated with such unpleasant characters.
But why hire anyone from the Rahman campaign team at all?
This is a team which worked on a campaign which was found to have been guilty of electoral malpractice on a pretty widespread scale. Someone who wants to win the Mayoral election thinks that people involved in electoral malpractice are the right people to hire. Seriously??
This is a campaign team for a candidate who was thrown out of the Labour party. Someone who is the Labour Mayoral candidate thinks that someone who worked against the interests of the Labour party is the right person to hire. Again, seriously??
It shows - at best - appalling judgment. At worst, well you can work that out for yourself.
Jahadi Jez still loves to hang out at Finsbury Park Mosque, despite official government report only a couple of months ago saying that it still have serious issues with extremism...
Jeremy Corbyn has thrown down the gauntlet to Donald Trump, inviting him to Finsbury Park Mosque in London to show him how “multicultural, multifaith” Britain works.
Well, Ms Cyclefree seems to have been on the money in 2013, given that Ahmad subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, and was sentenced to 12.5 years.
What is it about certain posters on here, indeed?
As I said, once is an accident, twice is stupidity, more than that and it begins to paint an ugly picture of the man.
Any candidate who makes much of his Muslimness - as Khan has done by saying what a wonderful thing it would say about London if it were to elect a Muslim mayor, as if someone's religion should be the key issue to consider (something I strongly disagree with), as if voters have to pass some sort of test imposed by one of the candidates rather than the candidates passing the voters' test - should have thought hard in advance about making sure that very characteristic did not also have downsides and raise questions, particularly at a time when there has been Islamist terrorism in the West and London is at serious risks of future attacks.
Ensuring that you take care about whom you associate with, whom you employ and what you say and at what events is the very least the voters have a right to expect. After all, he had only to look at the difficulties Livingstone had with Qaradawi and Rahman and some of his more offensive remarks about Jews. If Khan either could not be bothered to do that or think that it mattered, then it doesn't say much for either his judgment or his ability to be Mayor of a city like London.
I think it's worse than that. I think Khan seriously sympathises with Islamism, otherwise he wouldn't have made 489,000 "mistakes" in hiring, aiding, consorting, speechifying, rallying, employing, and generally supporting Islamists.
He is a symptom of the disease that is western islamism, a disease which is eating into the bones of the British Left. If they don't cut out this tumour soon, it will cripple and disfigure Labour forever.
Nick Cohen agrees with you. He thinks it's already too late for the British Left.
I think Remain are at least 80% likely to win at the moment.
Important to note that 80% does not equal 100% likely, but I'm struggling to see any path for Leave to win, nor any signs of improvement around the corner.
Leave is dependent on events to get a route to victory. Given the instabilities in the EU, that's not a completely hopeless position, but it is strategically inept to be so reliant on things going in a particular way. Events might just as easily go in the opposite direction.
Well, Ms Cyclefree seems to have been on the money in 2013, given that Ahmad subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, and was sentenced to 12.5 years.
What is it about certain posters on here, indeed?
Ironically Corbyn and McDonnell have helped Khan here, it is almost priced in now, Labour being portrayed as terrorist sympathisers
For the record, I don't think Khan is a terrorist sympathiser. And it's almost inevitable that some of his political supporters on his way up will have been, so he's in a difficult position.
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
As I said, once is an accident, twice is stupidity, more than that and it begins to paint an ugly picture of the man.
or of a city like London.
I think it's worse than that. I think Khan seriously sympathises with Islamism, otherwise he wouldn't have made 489,000 "mistakes" in hiring, aiding, consorting, speechifying, rallying, employing, and generally supporting Islamists.
He is a symptom of the disease that is western islamism, a disease which is eating into the bones of the British Left. If they don't cut out this tumour soon, it will cripple and disfigure Labour forever.
controlling for hyperbole, that's still an unfair comment.
Given the various questions asked about Khan and Islamism, and having done some but not exhaustive reading around Babar Ahmed, I can say that I would prefer a candidate such as Khan who is probably aware of those questions and will seek by word and deed to distance himself from them completely.
Rather than eg. another Labour loon, say a white middle class Islingtonian who would probably feel quite unabashed at attending, eg. Freedom for Palestine rallies.
Mildly amused that the story is very much against the John Lewis employee who asked the mother of a tantrum-throwing toddler to leave, but every single one of the top comments agrees with it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35753732
No surprise that the BBC was in favour of Remain ;-)
I've been doing a bit of racial profiling on the Hillary Clinton vote ^_~
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.
HRC is toxic among whites, males in particular, that is a big problem for November.
Seriously, you really believe Clinton is "toxic" among whites?
I wouldn't say toxic, but definitely not popular. She has worked so hard to be the candidate of immigrants and minorities that she has alienated a lot of whites which is why Trump has a look in against her.
Recent favourability ratings (Gallup, Feb 26 to 3 March):
I've been doing a bit of racial profiling on the Hillary Clinton vote ^_~
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.
HRC is toxic among whites, males in particular, that is a big problem for November.
Seriously, you really believe Clinton is "toxic" among whites?
I wouldn't say toxic, but definitely not popular. She has worked so hard to be the candidate of immigrants and minorities that she has alienated a lot of whites which is why Trump has a look in against her.
Recent favourability ratings (Gallup, Feb 26 to 3 March):
I've been doing a bit of racial profiling on the Hillary Clinton vote ^_~
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.
HRC is toxic among whites, males in particular, that is a big problem for November.
Seriously, you really believe Clinton is "toxic" among whites?
I wouldn't say toxic, but definitely not popular. She has worked so hard to be the candidate of immigrants and minorities that she has alienated a lot of whites which is why Trump has a look in against her.
Recent favourability ratings (Gallup, Feb 26 to 3 March):
Well, Ms Cyclefree seems to have been on the money in 2013, given that Ahmad subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, and was sentenced to 12.5 years.
What is it about certain posters on here, indeed?
As I said, once is an accident, twice is stupidity, more than that and it begins to paint an ugly picture of the man.
or of a city like London.
I think it's worse than that. I think Khan seriously sympathises with Islamism, otherwise he wouldn't have made 489,000 "mistakes" in hiring, aiding, consorting, speechifying, rallying, employing, and generally supporting Islamists.
He is a symptom of the disease that is western islamism, a disease which is eating into the bones of the British Left. If they don't cut out this tumour soon, it will cripple and disfigure Labour forever.
controlling for hyperbole, that's still an unfair comment.
Given the various questions asked about Khan and Islamism, and having done some but not exhaustive reading around Babar Ahmed, I can say that I would prefer a candidate such as Khan who is probably aware of those questions and will seek by word and deed to distance himself from them completely.
Rather than eg. another Labour loon, say a white middle class Islingtonian who would probably feel quite unabashed at attending, eg. Freedom for Palestine rallies.
Plus there is the (anyone but) Zac factor also.
The criticism of Khan, however, is that he has not by word and deed distanced himself from them completely and that he has been inconsistent and less than transparent in what he has said about the basis of his relationship with Mr Ahmed at various stages. A good barrister would be able to make mincemeat of him and the answers he has given.
Cage has long been an utterly dubious organisation. And yet Khan was still willing to be associated with it. So in what sense has he distanced himself?
1) The migration deal proposed by Merkel as it stands is downright bonkers. Try and imagine the distressing scenes with TV crews on hand in April, May and June as thousands in Greek camps are removed by force, and sent to Turkey, which they paid a lot to leave...
If we don't want migrants coming north and we don't want them to stay in Greece then we are going to have to be prepared to move them to some other place, against their wishes, by force if necessary, while the event is being live-streamed.
There is no nice way to turn away these people.
The EU are merely fiddling whilst Rome burns. Short of armed intervention against the smugglers, there's nothing that they can do to stem the flow. King Cnut had more luck trying to hold back the sea.
Most LEAVERS never expected to win the referendum and therefore have never really had to worry about being held accountable for the claims they are making for an EU independent UK.
If they do manage to win it will largely on the back of whipping up a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment. LEAVES' problems will then begin big-time once they have to make good on all the things they have been promising people if they vote to BREXIT. That is when the fur will fly.
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
I do believe in Britain, just not Farage & IDS's vision of it.
What's Farage vision of Britain then ? What part of the north west do you live ?
I've been doing a bit of racial profiling on the Hillary Clinton vote ^_~
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.
HRC is toxic among whites, males in particular, that is a big problem for November.
Seriously, you really believe Clinton is "toxic" among whites?
I wouldn't say toxic, but definitely not popular. She has worked so hard to be the candidate of immigrants and minorities that she has alienated a lot of whites which is why Trump has a look in against her.
Recent favourability ratings (Gallup, Feb 26 to 3 March):
The last ten polls (all in the last month) give her ratings in the range -21 (twice) to -9 and an average of about -14.
Bad things happen to candidate's poll numbers when Trump starts attacking them, Rubio is the most recent victim of this phenomenon. I think he should have directed more fire at Cruz, especially as he is second choice for many Cruz voters and Cruz has by far the best organisation (even somehow getting a win in Maine).
I think Remain are at least 80% likely to win at the moment.
Important to note that 80% does not equal 100% likely, but I'm struggling to see any path for Leave to win, nor any signs of improvement around the corner.
Leave is dependent on events to get a route to victory. Given the instabilities in the EU, that's not a completely hopeless position, but it is strategically inept to be so reliant on things going in a particular way. Events might just as easily go in the opposite direction.
I agree. My confidence is not helped by the fact I haven't heard a peep from Vote Leave despite writing to them more than a week ago.
I've been doing a bit of racial profiling on the Hillary Clinton vote ^_~
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.
HRC is toxic among whites, males in particular, that is a big problem for November.
Seriously, you really believe Clinton is "toxic" among whites?
I wouldn't say toxic, but definitely not popular. She has worked so hard to be the candidate of immigrants and minorities that she has alienated a lot of whites which is why Trump has a look in against her.
Recent favourability ratings (Gallup, Feb 26 to 3 March):
The last ten polls (all in the last month) give her ratings in the range -21 (twice) to -9 and an average of about -14.
Those are overall figures or among whites?
Overall. Hillary's will almost certainly be among whites. The Huff Post link to Gallup didn't work and I could be bothered to find the details independently (if, indeed, they're available - I don't know whether there's an equivalent of BPC standards in the US).
Well, Ms Cyclefree seems to have been on the money in 2013, given that Ahmad subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, and was sentenced to 12.5 years.
What is it about certain posters on here, indeed?
Ironically Corbyn and McDonnell have helped Khan here, it is almost priced in now, Labour being portrayed as terrorist sympathisers
For the record, I don't think Khan is a terrorist sympathiser. And it's almost inevitable that some of his political supporter trove.
As I said, once is an accident, twice is stupidity, more than that and it begins to paint an ugly picture of the man.
or of a city like London.
I thr.
controlling for hyperbole, that's still an unfair comment.
Given the various questions asked about Khan and Islamism, and having done some but not exhaustive reading around Babar Ahmed, I can say that I would prefer a candidate such as Khan who is probably aware of those questions and will seek by word and deed to distance himself from them completely.
Rather than eg. another Labour loon, say a white middle class Islingtonian who would probably feel quite unabashed at attending, eg. Freedom for Palestine rallies.
Plus there is the (anyone but) Zac factor also.
"I'd rather have a proven Fascist sympathiser who is now nervous of his image, in prefeence than a lefty idiot who thinks Fascism is cool", is what you're saying.
Well, it's an opinion. And indeed there may be something to it.
But I'd far rather have someone with no links to Fascism at all, thanks very much. So Zac it is, for all his faults.
Well if he is an Islamist sympathiser then he has balls the size of cannonballs to hire all these people, speak out for having a muslim London mayor, etc in the face of what he must realise will be such scrutiny.
That, or monumentally stupid.
I don't think he is an Islamist sympathiser, nor monumentally stupid...so that leaves him as a guy who has been in the same vicinity previously as some bad eggs and whose campaign manager needs a b*ll*cking for some inadequate background checks.
I've been doing a bit of racial profiling on the Hillary Clinton vote ^_~
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.
HRC is toxic among whites, males in particular, that is a big problem for November.
Seriously, you really believe Clinton is "toxic" among whites?
I wouldn't say toxic, but definitely not popular. She has worked so hard to be the candidate of immigrants and minorities that she has alienated a lot of whites which is why Trump has a look in against her.
Recent favourability ratings (Gallup, Feb 26 to 3 March):
The last ten polls (all in the last month) give her ratings in the range -21 (twice) to -9 and an average of about -14.
Bad things happen to candidate's poll numbers when Trump starts attacking them, Rubio is the most recent victim of this phenomenon. I think he should have directed more fire at Cruz, especially as he is second choice for many Cruz voters and Cruz has by far the best organisation (even somehow getting a win in Maine).
I think Trump's played the game just about perfectly. Rubio was his biggest threat, as the ratings show and formerly the betting showed; killing his chances off was essential. Trump can always wheel out any amount of stuff against Cruz but there's a reason he wants him on a one-to-one which is that he believes he can beat him there. From eligibility to government shutdowns to the Cat in the Hat, Cruz is weak on record (and boring and odd). Had he gone for Cruz first and then found himself one-on-one with Rubio, life might be more difficult.
Mr. Taffys, you should still check, I've not paid much attention (although I have noticed the UN seems to think it may be illegal).
On his Blog, John Redwood notes there is some confusion on this and asks the PM for urgent clarification. I think we can expect a question in the house.
How can it be good for a city that is already heavily segregated to have a Mayor that appeals only to a certain group and is abhorrent to so many others
The worst thing for London would be a left wing muslim or a right wing "islamaphobe"
Probably the best thing would be a non white Conservative.. not Winston Mckenzie
Trevor Phillips maybe
Trevor Phillips is probably a good shout. Someone who is respected on the left and does, from time to time, speak truth to power. I would vote for him if he supported Heathrow.
I'd love to vote for Zac, but his opposition to Heathrow expansion counts him out. I'll probably abstain.
Unfortunately there is no pro-Heathrow candidate and not voting for Zac is almost as bad as voting for Khan.
Both Zac and Sadiq are anti-LHR3 and opposed to Uber. Both very wrong positions in my view.
Zac is anti Uber???
I cannot - in all good conscience - vote for anyone opposed to both Uber and Terminal 3 a third runway at Heathrow.
People of PB.com. Nominate me for the mayoral position. I'm pro Heathrow, pro Uber, and not obsessed by Europe.
Still, it would be a shame if all that good intention came to naught. So why don’t we cut through the red tape – and send the celebrities to live with the refugees instead?
It’d be good for net migration, and we could even make a new reality TV show out of it to raise funds for Amnesty UK. Think Bear Grylls’ Celebrity Survival Academy meets the Calais Jungle and you’re on the right track.
We could set it somewhere warm and welcoming: Lesbos, for example, which had 450,000 refugees pass through it in 2015. I propose we call it Luvvie Island. The cast list would be box office gold.
How can it be good for a city that is already heavily segregated to have a Mayor that appeals only to a certain group and is abhorrent to so many others
The worst thing for London would be a left wing muslim or a right wing "islamaphobe"
Probably the best thing would be a non white Conservative.. not Winston Mckenzie
Trevor Phillips maybe
Trevor Phillips is probably a good shout. Someone who is respected on the left and does, from time to time, speak truth to power. I would vote for him if he supported Heathrow.
I'd love to vote for Zac, but his opposition to Heathrow expansion counts him out. I'll probably abstain.
Unfortunately there is no pro-Heathrow candidate and not voting for Zac is almost as bad as voting for Khan.
Both Zac and Sadiq are anti-LHR3 and opposed to Uber. Both very wrong positions in my view.
Zac is anti Uber???
I cannot - in all good conscience - vote for anyone opposed to both Uber and Terminal 3.
People of PB.com. Nominate me for the mayoral position. I'm pro Heathrow, pro Uber, and not obsessed by Europe.
My dress is sense is better than TSE's, also.
What is your stance on the gays? If it is also non-obsessed, we may have a proposition for you
How can it be good for a city that is already heavily segregated to have a Mayor that appeals only to a certain group and is abhorrent to so many others
The worst thing for London would be a left wing muslim or a right wing "islamaphobe"
Probably the best thing would be a non white Conservative.. not Winston Mckenzie
Trevor Phillips maybe
Trevor Phillips is probably a good shout. Someone who is respected on the left and does, from time to time, speak truth to power. I would vote for him if he supported Heathrow.
I'd love to vote for Zac, but his opposition to Heathrow expansion counts him out. I'll probably abstain.
Unfortunately there is no pro-Heathrow candidate and not voting for Zac is almost as bad as voting for Khan.
Both Zac and Sadiq are anti-LHR3 and opposed to Uber. Both very wrong positions in my view.
Zac is anti Uber???
I cannot - in all good conscience - vote for anyone opposed to both Uber and Terminal 3.
People of PB.com. Nominate me for the mayoral position. I'm pro Heathrow, pro Uber, and not obsessed by Europe.
Just been reading about Trump University and the claims that have been made about...I wonder if this could be what really does for Trump.
Just reminds me how dumb some people really are.
It is scary how popular these kind of "educational" schemes are, not just in the US, but here in the UK. The classic come for a "free seminar", where you are hard sold the paid courses appear still to be working wonders.
How can it be good for a city that is already heavily segregated to have a Mayor that appeals only to a certain group and is abhorrent to so many others
The worst thing for London would be a left wing muslim or a right wing "islamaphobe"
Probably the best thing would be a non white Conservative.. not Winston Mckenzie
Trevor Phillips maybe
Trevor Phillips is probably a good shout. Someone who is respected on the left and does, from time to time, speak truth to power. I would vote for him if he supported Heathrow.
I'd love to vote for Zac, but his opposition to Heathrow expansion counts him out. I'll probably abstain.
Unfortunately there is no pro-Heathrow candidate and not voting for Zac is almost as bad as voting for Khan.
Both Zac and Sadiq are anti-LHR3 and opposed to Uber. Both very wrong positions in my view.
Zac is anti Uber???
I cannot - in all good conscience - vote for anyone opposed to both Uber and Terminal 3.
People of PB.com. Nominate me for the mayoral position. I'm pro Heathrow, pro Uber, and not obsessed by Europe.
My dress is sense is better than TSE's, also.
It's bizarre that anyone should be anti-Uber. I'd vote for you.
Comments
What is it about certain posters on here, indeed?
Trump holding in Florida despite the onslaught of negative ads. Still the only candidate leading HRC there.
The larger NBC national survey has Trump on 39%, so holding nationally.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helmut-norpoth/trump-nearcertain-to-defe_b_9403762.html
Norpoth on his model again.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/08/will_latinos_wall_off_trump_129896.html
Didn't Owen Jones lookalike Tim Farron also say he would take in a refugee? If so, then he needs holding to account as well. I don't know why they make these ridiculous comments, it always comes back to bite them on the bum!
Whereas I don't think the nature of Corbyn & McDonnell's sympathy is fully priced in yet. CCHQ must be sitting on a treasure trove.
These are choices. Not accidents.
And they tell us something about the judgment of the person making them. And the best way of testing someone's judgment is to see what they do when someone is not looking, not when there is the glare of publicity. Getting rid of an aide because what they have said is embarrassing and has been made public is less praiseworthy than not appointing them in the first place or getting rid of them because you did not like how they behaved. The latter decision is based on substance; the former on appearance. They do not have the same moral weight, IMO, anyway.
She was under the age of consent, he knew she was under the age of consent, he pleaded guilty to grooming.
Mr. Eagles, Labour's problem is that if Khan wins it helps Corbyn remain in place, and any question marks over Khan's friends will come into play when the Conservatives stop eating their own face and remember they have to hold an election in 2020.
If they do manage to win it will largely on the back of whipping up a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment. LEAVES' problems will then begin big-time once they have to make good on all the things they have been promising people if they vote to BREXIT. That is when the fur will fly.
I was told by one pollster, that during a focus group, they quoted some of Corbyn and McDonnell's past comments on the IRA/terrorists/terrorism, and the focus groups refused to believe that they had said that until they were shown footage.
I believe McDonnell's wish to honour IRA bombers was the one they all struggled to believe.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Price, I concur entirely.
Be LEAVE!
So did Khan have him checked out? And if so did he just ignore all the homophobic, sexist and racist ranting? Then he carried on making similar social media posts and again nobody thought that might be an issue. When you work for an MP, it isn't like you are just a "number", one of 100,000 of employees at a multi-national firm.
The gap in male & female life expectancy continues to close https://t.co/z4A7J9aNmX https://t.co/sizpEZbPLv
There were more than twice as many women as men aged 90+ in the UK in 2014 https://t.co/A5JBE5MEkI #IWD2016
Funny you should mention the RN. Some enterprising MP should ask HMG why they've sent a RFA vessel, rather than a proper warship. And watch the MoD squirm.
As I said, once is an accident, twice is stupidity, more than that and it begins to paint an ugly picture of the man.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3482214/Five-migrants-arrested-suspected-sex-attack-girl-12-using-waterslide-pools-Cologne.html
The correlation coefficient thus far to the black vote is 0.83, only slightly weaker than the polling which is 0.90 !
Racial profiling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 86% in Mississippi tonight.
The polling predicts 58% for HRC in Michigan and 77% in Mississippi tonight.
American Samoa excluded from the analysis, Minnesota is the outlier on the polling (Old polls). Vermont for the black correlation (Home state of Sanders).
But Khan just isn't. If anything, him secretly having terrorist-sympathetic views might make him a bit less terminally dull (to my eyes, he seems a "typical politician" with no principles and who flip-flops on any position when it becomes inconvenient).
Some very odd judgement whichever way one looks at it.
Also:
Illinois Republican Presidential Primary Chicago Tribune : Trump 32, Rubio 21, Cruz 22, Kasich 18
HRC is toxic among whites, males in particular, that is a big problem for November.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35753732
Follow them for the Labour case to leave the EU! #LabourGO https://t.co/VGPU1EHIYv
Trump looks to be well on course, but a few slip ups and its brokered time. Who knows what happens then...
From my @timesredbox piece: to win in 2020, Corbyn would need 5m non-voters to vote Labour https://t.co/keeLqiokC8 https://t.co/DCCdksaLv8
Ensuring that you take care about whom you associate with, whom you employ and what you say and at what events is the very least the voters have a right to expect. After all, he had only to look at the difficulties Livingstone had with Qaradawi and Rahman and some of his more offensive remarks about Jews. If Khan either could not be bothered to do that or think that it mattered, then it doesn't say much for either his judgment or his ability to be Mayor of a city like London.
Latest #EURef Betfair betting
#ProjectFear 70%
#ProjectWhinge 30%
But why hire anyone from the Rahman campaign team at all?
This is a team which worked on a campaign which was found to have been guilty of electoral malpractice on a pretty widespread scale. Someone who wants to win the Mayoral election thinks that people involved in electoral malpractice are the right people to hire. Seriously??
This is a campaign team for a candidate who was thrown out of the Labour party. Someone who is the Labour Mayoral candidate thinks that someone who worked against the interests of the Labour party is the right person to hire. Again, seriously??
It shows - at best - appalling judgment. At worst, well you can work that out for yourself.
Important to note that 80% does not equal 100% likely, but I'm struggling to see any path for Leave to win, nor any signs of improvement around the corner.
Mind you this model does have her on 103% in the District of Columbia
Give me 5 mins and I'll send you a précis via vanilla mail.
Edited extra bit: reminds me of when a woman was walking with her kid [she was on the phone] whilst I was out with the dog [a previous hound]. My dog was on a short lead, but the little boy, perhaps six, didn't take the unsubtle hint (I said "Don't come near him" in a clear manner), and the mother did sod all.
Had the silly little bastard stressed out my dog enough to earn himself a bite, the mother would've gone mental and the dog would've been put down.
That aggravated me quite a lot. Fortunately, Kai the dog was about as meek as a hound could be (he didn't even retaliate when he got the tip of his ear bitten off).
Jeremy Corbyn has thrown down the gauntlet to Donald Trump, inviting him to Finsbury Park Mosque in London to show him how “multicultural, multifaith” Britain works.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/19/jeremy-corbyn-invites-donald-trump-london_n_8846078.html
See - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/told-effing-fools-euston-manifesto-10-years/
Certainly, the longer Corbyn and friends remain in charge, there is no chance of Labour rediscovering its liberal principles.
Given the various questions asked about Khan and Islamism, and having done some but not exhaustive reading around Babar Ahmed, I can say that I would prefer a candidate such as Khan who is probably aware of those questions and will seek by word and deed to distance himself from them completely.
Rather than eg. another Labour loon, say a white middle class Islingtonian who would probably feel quite unabashed at attending, eg. Freedom for Palestine rallies.
Plus there is the (anyone but) Zac factor also.
Was this the archive which was at risk of being destroyed, only to be saved when they found s home for it in CCHQ?
Trump 30/60 = -33
Rubio 34/38 = -4
Cruz 29/50 = -21
Hillary 41/53 = -12
The last ten polls (all in the last month) give her ratings in the range -21 (twice) to -9 and an average of about -14.
That's quite amusing for one of the USA's big two parties.
If the Democrats could have written this script for the GOP race, it'd be rejected as massively over optimistic by their strategists.
Cage has long been an utterly dubious organisation. And yet Khan was still willing to be associated with it. So in what sense has he distanced himself?
A deal in which the British people will have no sanction or say?
I'm not reading this wrong, am I?
So we are not included in this deal with the devil.
That, or monumentally stupid.
I don't think he is an Islamist sympathiser, nor monumentally stupid...so that leaves him as a guy who has been in the same vicinity previously as some bad eggs and whose campaign manager needs a b*ll*cking for some inadequate background checks.
Go Zac!
I cannot - in all good conscience - vote for anyone opposed to both Uber and Terminal 3 a third runway at Heathrow.
People of PB.com. Nominate me for the mayoral position. I'm pro Heathrow, pro Uber, and not obsessed by Europe.
My dress is sense is better than TSE's, also.
Let's hope it's answered promptly.