It'll be under 50%. That should make it a much tighter race.
It was 38% in 2012 when the candidates were Boris and Ken, charisma bypass operation patients Zac and Sadiq won't help turnout.
Low turnout should help Zac but I fully expect Khan to win next week.
Zac's campaign may also have galvanised anti-Tory sentiment and made generic anti-Tories more likely to vote. It'll be an interesting one. You're right, though: if 2012 was 38%, it's hard to see this year going any higher.
I think the last couple of days may end up depressing turnout from that particular group and fire up a few Tories and neutrals that were looking to sit this one out.
The vast majority of the population have a negative view of Israel and will view this with indifference or as a Westminster bubble smear campaign.
For all Israel's many failings I'd hazard the vast majority of the population have a much more negative view of Hitler, before or after "he went a bit mad"
The only genuine anti-semitic behaviour I have encountered in the UK has been from right-wingers.
Do you live on some remote Scottish island?
Clearly, you have no time to read any newspapers, even 'The Guardian':
CST said in 2014 there were 81 violent assaults, 81 incidents of damage and desecration of Jewish property, and 884 cases of abusive behaviour, more than double the number in 2013, several hundred of which involved social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. CST’s logs include a letter sent to a Jewish organisation which read: “Gaza is the Auschwitz. The inmates are fighting back. The Jew wears the jackboot and armband now.”
The charity said the surge in antisemitism was fuelled by reactions to the conflict in Gaza in July and August that claimed the lives of 2,131 Palestinians and 71 Israelis, according to the UN. It appears to reflect an international trend. Last year in France and Austria the number of incidents doubled, according to reports by the Service de Protection de la Communauté Juive and the Vienna-based Forum Against Antisemitism.
Any proof these were left-wingers? To be fair, comparing the acts of Israeli Armed Forces to the Nazis may be over the top and distasteful, but I dont see how it can fairly be called anti-semitic. (use of the term jew here could tip that comment over)
Gruesome headlines for Labour. Meanwhile, Telegraph reporting that Miliband Snr is to take top US job if Clinton wins. Even the Prince Over the Water has thrown in the towel.
It'll be under 50%. That should make it a much tighter race.
It was 38% in 2012 when the candidates were Boris and Ken, charisma bypass operation patients Zac and Sadiq won't help turnout.
Low turnout should help Zac but I fully expect Khan to win next week.
Zac's campaign may also have galvanised anti-Tory sentiment and made generic anti-Tories more likely to vote. It'll be an interesting one. You're right, though: if 2012 was 38%, it's hard to see this year going any higher.
I think the last couple of days may end up depressing turnout from that particular group and fire up a few Tories and neutrals that were looking to sit this one out.
The vast majority of the population have a negative view of Israel and will view this with indifference or as a Westminster bubble smear campaign.
For all Israel's many failings I'd hazard the vast majority of the population have a much more negative view of Hitler, before or after "he went a bit mad"
Are we forgetting that Labour outperformed the polls in the last Mayoral election, when turnout was also poor?
So the pollsters haven't quite got a handle on industrial-scale vote harvesting? You may well be right.
Sadiq Khan will benefit from the votes of many who will never have seen their ballot paper, will not know they voted, still less who they voted for - and may not even know they are registered in the first place. Quite a challenge for pollsters to make much sense of that.
One unknown in this election is the effect of the new individual voter registration. In theory the issue of a dozen people registered in a 500sqft apartment has got a lot better than in previous years. This unwinding in itself could lead to a measurable drop in turnout, and the two average candidates this time could see it drop substantially from 2012's 39%
The right wing anti-semitism I've encountered has come from marginal figures like Gregory Lauder Frost, or Christopher Luke, rather than elected representatives.
London is an urban Labour bastion. You wouldn't expect a Tory Mayor of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. That Boris infiltrated himself in is a measure of how remarkable his personal appeal extended.
I'm also expecting some remarkable levels of vote harvesting for the Great Khan in parts of inner London, based on the expectation of the resulting, er, patronage that helping secure his tenure will bring certain "community leaders".
'vote harvesting' 'patronage' 'many voters not bothered about anti-semitism' (Dr. Fox)
This is our liberal, progressive capital, right?
To be fair the folk that sing about gassing Jews at Stamford Bridge, Upton Park and the New Den don't tend to be Moslems. As the story posted yesterday on here demonstrated, anti-Semitism is still fairly widespread in the UK. What makes Labour unique among the mainstream parties is the way so many of its activists are happy to parade their anti-Semitism and/or to indulge it in others. Seamus Milne does not hate Jews, but he does hate America and will stand shoulder to shoulder with whoever else does. And Seamus is not alone.
The football crowds singing about gassing jews are pretty repellant, but that is football rather than ethnic rivalry (just as Spurs fans singing Yid Army are often not jewish). I have never heard any such racist chanting at Leicester City BTW.
Residual anti-semitism in Britain is distasteful, but what is particularly is particularly worrying about the new anti-semitism of the left is that it justifies and legitimises violence and even murder. It also carries a lot of misogynistic and homophobic baggage with it.
Singing about gassing Jews is anti-Semitism. But I agree that the hard left's version is on another level.
No a reduction in home ownership rates for North London suburbs. Lots of local Tories know that until the government step in and force private landlords out of the market in London the city is lost to us within the next 2-3 electoral cycles.
Forcing private landlords out will not reduce prices - there's too much demand.
The only way to deal with it is to reduce immigration, but many in London don't want that.
People would own (and not rent) if they could afford to buy, but the prices are just too high with the extra demand.
But it is no cheaper to rent. Buy to let mortgages means the renter's are having to pay off someone's mortage.
BTL mortgages often pay higher interest rates, so that's not the issue.
Getting a normal mortgage is much more difficult than renting. The deposit is much higher because of the house prices, and 'affordability' can kill off a mortgage, even though they are paying more in rent.
Fundamentally it is the price (caused by demand) that is the problem. Private landlords are just someone "easy" to blame.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I don't have any BTL property).
London is an urban Labour bastion. You wouldn't expect a Tory Mayor of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. That Boris infiltrated himself in is a measure of how remarkable his personal appeal extended.
I'm also expecting some remarkable levels of vote harvesting for the Great Khan in parts of inner London, based on the expectation of the resulting, er, patronage that helping secure his tenure will bring certain "community leaders".
'vote harvesting' 'patronage' 'many voters not bothered about anti-semitism' (Dr. Fox)
This is our liberal, progressive capital, right?
To be fair the folk that sing about gassing Jews at Stamford Bridge, Upton Park and the New Den don't tend to be Moslems. As the story posted yesterday on here demonstrated, anti-Semitism is still fairly widespread in the UK. What makes Labour unique among the mainstream parties is the way so many of its activists are happy to parade their anti-Semitism and/or to indulge it in others. Seamus Milne does not hate Jews, but he does hate America and will stand shoulder to shoulder with whoever else does. And Seamus is not alone.
Its always puzzled me, I wonder if Roman had heard the hissing when Chelsea play Spurs before he bought the club.
And I wonder where the Jewish community fit in to Labour's multicultural utopia.
London is an urban Labour bastion. You wouldn't expect a Tory Mayor of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. That Boris infiltrated himself in is a measure of how remarkable his personal appeal extended.
I'm also expecting some remarkable levels of vote harvesting for the Great Khan in parts of inner London, based on the expectation of the resulting, er, patronage that helping secure his tenure will bring certain "community leaders".
'vote harvesting' 'patronage' 'many voters not bothered about anti-semitism' (Dr. Fox)
This is our liberal, progressive capital, right?
To be fair the folk that sing about gassing Jews at Stamford Bridge, Upton Park and the New Den don't tend to be Moslems. As the story posted yesterday on here demonstrated, anti-Semitism is still fairly widespread in the UK. What makes Labour unique among the mainstream parties is the way so many of its activists are happy to parade their anti-Semitism and/or to indulge it in others. Seamus Milne does not hate Jews, but he does hate America and will stand shoulder to shoulder with whoever else does. And Seamus is not alone.
Residual anti-semitism in Britain is distasteful, but what is particularly worrying about the new anti-semitism of the left is that it justifies and legitimises violence and even murder. It also carries a lot of misogynistic and homophobic baggage with it.
Gruesome headlines for Labour. Meanwhile, Telegraph reporting that Miliband Snr is to take top US job if Clinton wins. Even the Prince Over the Water has thrown in the towel.
Two questions for :Tory Peebies.
First, what benefit does England enjoy from the Labour Party's being legal?
Second, what would have to happen for it to cease to enjoy that benefit?
The only genuine anti-semitic behaviour I have encountered in the UK has been from right-wingers.
Do you live on some remote Scottish island?
Clearly, you have no time to read any newspapers, even 'The Guardian':
CST said in 2014 there were 81 violent assaults, 81 incidents of damage and desecration of Jewish property, and 884 cases of abusive behaviour, more than double the number in 2013, several hundred of which involved social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. CST’s logs include a letter sent to a Jewish organisation which read: “Gaza is the Auschwitz. The inmates are fighting back. The Jew wears the jackboot and armband now.”
The charity said the surge in antisemitism was fuelled by reactions to the conflict in Gaza in July and August that claimed the lives of 2,131 Palestinians and 71 Israelis, according to the UN. It appears to reflect an international trend. Last year in France and Austria the number of incidents doubled, according to reports by the Service de Protection de la Communauté Juive and the Vienna-based Forum Against Antisemitism.
Have to say I have never seen any anti-semitic behaviour either, I am not on a remote island but in west of Scotland. Plenty of other racism and bigotry, so maybe they don't have time for it. Not everywhere is like London or big cities where the most scumbags congregate.
PS: you have to be pretty desperate if you read the Guardian , again for ponces in the city
This is reporting an official report, a report which later cites numerous reports of 'Asian' threats and attacks on Jews in London and other British cities. If you classify reading this as desperate that is, in my opinion, a severe misjudgment. It would be kind to merely classify you as complacent.
@Ruth_E_Davidson: Children told mum, dad, gran etc might be gardeners in their lives - but their Named Person is the 'Head Gardener'. https://t.co/68cT2tcGge
Would the remain campaign and the remain apologists on here like to confirm that this is true? Is this really the kind of European Union that the UK should wish to remain a member of?
As I said yesterday, when the going gets tough for governments such as now, throughout history they always turn AGAINST the people.
London is an urban Labour bastion. You wouldn't expect a Tory Mayor of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. That Boris infiltrated himself in is a measure of how remarkable his personal appeal extended.
Don't write off Boris as Tory leader just yet. He has appeal cross party lines, apparently a buffoon but intelligent and self deprecating. A populist with a way with words and a way with the media. And from what I can see the Tory grass roots love him.
Compared to some of the other viable options touted such as May (psychotic) or Hammond (like Major minus the personality) he might actually have a chance of connectino with the electorate.
But before he gets to the general electorate, he has to appeal to (1) Tory MPs and (2) Tory members. Besides, after a decade or so of his antics, I wonder whether the appeal is waring off a little with the public, never mind the smaller electorates?
Whoever first put forward Boris for Mayor of London was a genius. It was a superb meshing of the man and the role.
However, Boris's presence seemed to do little or nothing in helping the Conservatives in marginal Westminster seats across London during his tenure.
There was a post from Ipsos MORI last night which showed how striking was the degree of correlation between the proportion of White people in any given ward in London and Boris Johnson's support. I imagine that correlation will apply to Zac Goldsmith, but running about 10% below the level of support that Boris got. The only wards that buck this trend are Kenton in Brent, and a number of wards in Harrow and Barnet.
Which would be Jews and affluent Hindus voting anti-Ken.
Aren't people disgusted at how religion has now become a feature of British elections ?
Not so long ago we thought Northern Ireland was backwards and bigoted because of this.
London is an urban Labour bastion. You wouldn't expect a Tory Mayor of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. That Boris infiltrated himself in is a measure of how remarkable his personal appeal extended.
I'm also expecting some remarkable levels of vote harvesting for the Great Khan in parts of inner London, based on the expectation of the resulting, er, patronage that helping secure his tenure will bring certain "community leaders".
'vote harvesting' 'patronage' 'many voters not bothered about anti-semitism' (Dr. Fox)
This is our liberal, progressive capital, right?
To be fair the folk that sing about gassing Jews at Stamford Bridge, Upton Park and the New Den don't tend to be Moslems. As the story posted yesterday on here demonstrated, anti-Semitism is still fairly widespread in the UK. What makes Labour unique among the mainstream parties is the way so many of its activists are happy to parade their anti-Semitism and/or to indulge it in others. Seamus Milne does not hate Jews, but he does hate America and will stand shoulder to shoulder with whoever else does. And Seamus is not alone.
Residual anti-semitism in Britain is distasteful, but what is particularly worrying about the new anti-semitism of the left is that it justifies and legitimises violence and even murder. It also carries a lot of misogynistic and homophobic baggage with it.
Welcome to Islam.
Plenty wearing The Grim Reaper garb, here in Birmingham.
Gruesome headlines for Labour. Meanwhile, Telegraph reporting that Miliband Snr is to take top US job if Clinton wins. Even the Prince Over the Water has thrown in the towel.
Two questions for :Tory Peebies.
First, what benefit does England enjoy from the Labour Party's being legal?
Second, what would have to happen for it to cease to enjoy that benefit?
Gruesome headlines for Labour. Meanwhile, Telegraph reporting that Miliband Snr is to take top US job if Clinton wins. Even the Prince Over the Water has thrown in the towel.
Two questions for :Tory Peebies.
First, what benefit does England enjoy from the Labour Party's being legal?
Second, what would have to happen for it to cease to enjoy that benefit?
Gruesome headlines for Labour. Meanwhile, Telegraph reporting that Miliband Snr is to take top US job if Clinton wins. Even the Prince Over the Water has thrown in the towel.
Two questions for :Tory Peebies.
First, what benefit does England enjoy from the Labour Party's being legal?
Second, what would have to happen for it to cease to enjoy that benefit?
The Tories to win on a manifesto commitment to ban the Labour Party, though it would just reform under a new name
@Ruth_E_Davidson: Children told mum, dad, gran etc might be gardeners in their lives - but their Named Person is the 'Head Gardener'. https://t.co/68cT2tcGge
what utter bollocks, how low can the Tories stoop. Ruthie could limbo dance under a rattlesnakes belly. How can despicable Tories lie so much and still sleep at night.
PS: Still she will attract all the crackpots, homophobes etc so Tory surge.
I can't see the Labour party getting much sympathy. Their usual response to anything they don't like is to accuse someone of a being 'ist' or being a 'phobe'.
Ken may have 'mis-spoke" in Clintonese, but it's the biter bit.
Gruesome headlines for Labour. Meanwhile, Telegraph reporting that Miliband Snr is to take top US job if Clinton wins. Even the Prince Over the Water has thrown in the towel.
Two questions for :Tory Peebies.
First, what benefit does England enjoy from the Labour Party's being legal?
Second, what would have to happen for it to cease to enjoy that benefit?
As a matter of interest what point are you trying to make with this? The answers are so obvious no one can be bothered to type them out.
Gruesome headlines for Labour. Meanwhile, Telegraph reporting that Miliband Snr is to take top US job if Clinton wins. Even the Prince Over the Water has thrown in the towel.
Two questions for :Tory Peebies.
First, what benefit does England enjoy from the Labour Party's being legal?
Second, what would have to happen for it to cease to enjoy that benefit?
First, we have freedom of speech and freedom of accociation. This includes freedom to have diverse and conflicting viewpoints.
Second, there's no reason at all why we would ban a political party. If we disagree with them then we call them out. If they are racist then we make sure people know they are racist.
It is the Left who have, with their "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings", the propensity to want to ban comments and views with which they disagree.
The beginning of the end for the BNP was Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time. He was called out for who he was and could no longer hide behind his banning as a way of attracting supporters who didn't understand who he really was.
@wildernessyrs: Alan Johnson: "It's certainly true there's no Labour problem that the arrival of Ken Livingstone can't make worse." https://t.co/3996DObxvr
It'll be under 50%. That should make it a much tighter race.
It was 38% in 2012 when the candidates were Boris and Ken, charisma bypass operation patients Zac and Sadiq won't help turnout.
Low turnout should help Zac but I fully expect Khan to win next week.
Zac's campaign may also have galvanised anti-Tory sentiment and made generic anti-Tories more likely to vote. It'll be an interesting one. You're right, though: if 2012 was 38%, it's hard to see this year going any higher.
I think the last couple of days may end up depressing turnout from that particular group and fire up a few Tories and neutrals that were looking to sit this one out.
The vast majority of the population have a negative view of Israel and will view this with indifference or as a Westminster bubble smear campaign.
I think that says rather more about you than the population.
The correct statement would be that vast majority of the population don't give a hoot about either Israel or Palestine.
You are half right. Consistently those that have a view in polling are overwhelmingly negative, with huge numbers also indifferent. Those with a favourable view of Israel are in a tiny minority, except amongst our media and political elites. People are sick of this constant boy-who-cried-wolf schtick from a racist state and its followers.
Yes that is the impression I have. Reinforces the point that Israel has an unhealthy influence in our country.
Would the remain campaign and the remain apologists on here like to confirm that this is true? Is this really the kind of European Union that the UK should wish to remain a member of?
As I said yesterday, when the going gets tough for governments such as now, throughout history they always turn AGAINST the people.
You realise that website he is quoting from is for conspiracy theorist fruit bats ? I guess probably not.
How reliable are the "German Economic News"? If you like dark machinations claims without being able to prove somehow, is not a news portal, but a blog for conspiracy theorists. It says a lot about the journalistic self-image of the German Economic News, that they just weave such claims in their coverage of an acute global political crisis that is doing very many people fear.
London is an urban Labour bastion. You wouldn't expect a Tory Mayor of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. That Boris infiltrated himself in is a measure of how remarkable his personal appeal extended.
Don't write off Boris as Tory leader just yet. He has appeal cross party lines, apparently a buffoon but intelligent and self deprecating. A populist with a way with words and a way with the media. And from what I can see the Tory grass roots love him.
Compared to some of the other viable options touted such as May (psychotic) or Hammond (like Major minus the personality) he might actually have a chance of connectino with the electorate.
But before he gets to the general electorate, he has to appeal to (1) Tory MPs and (2) Tory members. Besides, after a decade or so of his antics, I wonder whether the appeal is waring off a little with the public, never mind the smaller electorates?
Whoever first put forward Boris for Mayor of London was a genius. It was a superb meshing of the man and the role.
However, Boris's presence seemed to do little or nothing in helping the Conservatives in marginal Westminster seats across London during his tenure.
There was a post from Ipsos MORI last night which showed how striking was the degree of correlation between the proportion of White people in any given ward in London and Boris Johnson's support. I imagine that correlation will apply to Zac Goldsmith, but running about 10% below the level of support that Boris got. The only wards that buck this trend are Kenton in Brent, and a number of wards in Harrow and Barnet.
Which would be Jews and affluent Hindus voting anti-Ken.
Aren't people disgusted at how religion has now become a feature of British elections ?
Not so long ago we thought Northern Ireland was backwards and bigoted because of this.
Increasingly, there seem to be two broad new political coalitions forming in this country. One that's based on rural areas, medium-sized towns, and small cities. It's middle and working class, older than average, mostly White, mostly private sector. The opposing coalition is based on Greater London, Scotland, and core cities, with lots of backing from students, public sector workers, and ethnic minorities. Religion is only a part of that.
@wildernessyrs: Alan Johnson: "It's certainly true there's no Labour problem that the arrival of Ken Livingstone can't make worse." https://t.co/3996DObxvr
I think that was pointed out on PB.Com when Ken first returned to front line politics – as was the likelihood of a major embarrassment leading to his dismissal. #Predictable.
Are we forgetting that Labour outperformed the polls in the last Mayoral election, when turnout was also poor?
Noone want to comment on this point?
It's 8am, give it time. I believe you are correct on that one. Was that just part of the Boris factor - while he does better there than other Tories, it means he is overestimated, meaning labour out perform? - or is it often that way in London?
I know it's the same logic I used, incorrectly, for the ge, but the polls need to not only be wrong but really really wrong for sac to have any chance. And he probably needs low turnout. And for Khan to take a hit from wider labour troubles.
He needs all that and more, he needs to do it despite coming across as a charisma free zone. Khan is not great in that area but seems to be viewed as more heavyweight. Cameron had, despite the polls, the advantage of leadership ratings. Where foes zac have an advantage. Khan as lo seems to be acceptable to moderates and corbynites.
The only genuine anti-semitic behaviour I have encountered in the UK has been from right-wingers.
The left right spectrum is nonsense, but even if we take how people define themselves on it, as Sean f demonstrates, it's easy to find examples of how your experience is not universal in where such behaviour comes from on that spectrum.
It'll be under 50%. That should make it a much tighter race.
It was 38% in 2012 when the candidates were Boris and Ken, charisma bypass operation patients Zac and Sadiq won't help turnout.
Low turnout should help Zac but I fully expect Khan to win next week.
Zac's campaign may also have galvanised anti-Tory sentiment and made generic anti-Tories more likely to vote. It'll be an interesting one. You're right, though: if 2012 was 38%, it's hard to see this year going any higher.
I think the last couple of days may end up depressing turnout from that particular group and fire up a few Tories and neutrals that were looking to sit this one out.
The vast majority of the population have a negative view of Israel and will view this with indifference or as a Westminster bubble smear campaign.
I think that says rather more about you than the population.
The correct statement would be that vast majority of the population don't give a hoot about either Israel or Palestine.
You are half right. Consistently those that have a view in polling are overwhelmingly negative, with huge numbers also indifferent. Those with a favourable view of Israel are in a tiny minority, except amongst our media and political elites. People are sick of this constant boy-who-cried-wolf schtick from a racist state and its followers.
Yes that is the impression I have. Reinforces the point that Israel has an unhealthy influence in our country.
Why is Israel unhealthy?
Let's all be honest here, anti semitism is borne out of envy, has been for centuries. Take Israel, a prosperous country in the middle of an area full of poverty, the Israelis get on and work while others sit around. I'd be interested to hear about unemployment rates among Jews in the UK.
Israel is an easy target for chip on the shoulder lefties.
I'd like to canvas the PB commentariat's views on our speech laws. I think we don't have free speech. You can be arrested and imprisoned for saying the wrong thing. This is usually because it is an 'incitement to hatred'. Or to actual violence. I don't see how this squares with the general commitment of a tolerant society to not get overwhelmed the truly deeply intolerant.
If you say 'I think Muslims are terrible intolerant and violent people and we should kill them' then, yes, that should be illegal as it is an incitement to violence.
But if you say 'I hate Islam because it has no accommodation for individual rights or desires and overtly seeks to oppress or kill some people like women, gays, Jews and apostates' then I suspect in today's UK you might be committing a crime.
How will this country ever really deal with Islamic fundamentalism if talking about it openly risks you getting your collar felt? If Dave is serious about the problem, as he appeared to be after Paris and Brussels, then let us judge him by his actions not his words. Bring back free speech.
I can't see the Labour party getting much sympathy. Their usual response to anything they don't like is to accuse someone of a being 'ist' or being a 'phobe'.
Ken may have 'mis-spoke" in Clintonese, but it's the biter bit.
There's about 700 comments on Ken and Naz in the Times. A remarkable minority defend Ken or her - trying to nitpick Hitler and anti semitic views. I'd say about 10% I've been really surprised
If someone made a comment about Israel being a disease that needs to be eradicated - my response would NOT be to reply "OK, thank you for your call." He may not be an anti-Semite but he's incapable of challenging it in debate or even appearing shocked or disturbed.
Gruesome headlines for Labour. Meanwhile, Telegraph reporting that Miliband Snr is to take top US job if Clinton wins. Even the Prince Over the Water has thrown in the towel.
Two questions for :Tory Peebies.
First, what benefit does England enjoy from the Labour Party's being legal?
Second, what would have to happen for it to cease to enjoy that benefit?
I don't understand why you persist with this notion that Conservatives want to make the Labour Party illegal.
Well given Livingstone has finally been thrown out (albeit temporarily until the dust settles) I guess that leaves Lady Colonel Thornberry to throw out Trident on her own form Labours defence review
Ken will be back off the Naughty Step well before that document is laid in front of the public.
His mate Jeremy will see to it. No crime is so great as to get in the way of delivering unilateral nuclear disarmament...
Gruesome headlines for Labour. Meanwhile, Telegraph reporting that Miliband Snr is to take top US job if Clinton wins. Even the Prince Over the Water has thrown in the towel.
Two questions for :Tory Peebies.
First, what benefit does England enjoy from the Labour Party's being legal?
Second, what would have to happen for it to cease to enjoy that benefit?
As a matter of interest what point are you trying to make with this? The answers are so obvious no one can be bothered to type them out.
My point is that we have banned political parties in the past, and will no doubt do so again in the future. From the way some people here speak about Labour, I wonder what the difference is.
Surely it can't be true that Tories sometimes say things they don't mean? That's my space!
London is an urban Labour bastion. You wouldn't expect a Tory Mayor of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. That Boris infiltrated himself in is a measure of how remarkable his personal appeal extended.
Don't write off Boris as Tory leader just yet. He has appeal cross party lines, apparently a buffoon but intelligent and self deprecating. A populist with a way with words and a way with the media. And from what I can see the Tory grass roots love him.
Compared to some of the other viable options touted such as May (psychotic) or Hammond (like Major minus the personality) he might actually have a chance of connectino with the electorate.
But before he gets to the general electorate, he has to appeal to (1) Tory MPs and (2) Tory members. Besides, after a decade or so of his antics, I wonder whether the appeal is waring off a little with the public, never mind the smaller electorates?
Whoever first put forward Boris for Mayor of London was a genius. It was a superb meshing of the man and the role.
However, Boris's presence seemed to do little or nothing in helping the Conservatives in marginal Westminster seats across London during his tenure.
There was a post from Ipsos MORI last night which showed how striking was the degree of correlation between the proportion of White people in any given ward in London and Boris Johnson's support. I imagine that correlation will apply to Zac Goldsmith, but running about 10% below the level of support that Boris got. The only wards that buck this trend are Kenton in Brent, and a number of wards in Harrow and Barnet.
Which would be Jews and affluent Hindus voting anti-Ken.
Aren't people disgusted at how religion has now become a feature of British elections ?
Not so long ago we thought Northern Ireland was backwards and bigoted because of this.
Increasingly, there seem to be two broad new political coalitions forming in this country. One that's based on rural areas, medium-sized towns, and small cities. It's middle and working class, older than average, mostly White, mostly private sector. The opposing coalition is based on Greater London, Scotland, and core cities, with lots of backing from students, public sector workers, and ethnic minorities. Religion is only a part of that.
And it's a split on values more than it is on economics.
I'd like to canvas the PB commentariat's views on our speech laws. I think we don't have free speech. You can be arrested and imprisoned for saying the wrong thing. This is usually because it is an 'incitement to hatred'. Or to actual violence. I don't see how this squares with the general commitment of a tolerant society to not get overwhelmed the truly deeply intolerant.
If you say 'I think Muslims are terrible intolerant and violent people and we should kill them' then, yes, that should be illegal as it is an incitement to violence.
But if you say 'I hate Islam because it has no accommodation for individual rights or desires and overtly seeks to oppress or kill some people like women, gays, Jews and apostates' then I suspect in today's UK you might be committing a crime.
How will this country ever really deal with Islamic fundamentalism if talking about it openly risks you getting your collar felt? If Dave is serious about the problem, as he appeared to be after Paris and Brussels, then let us judge him by his actions not his words. Bring back free speech.
Yep, all those numpties with their "je suis Charlie" placards, perfectly illustrates your point. They'll put down their posters and say "you can't say that" if you say anything remotely critical of Islam. Criticism of christianity is right on, of course.
It'll be under 50%. That should make it a much tighter race.
It was 38% in 2012 when the candidates were Boris and Ken, charisma bypass operation patients Zac and Sadiq won't help turnout.
Low turnout should help Zac but I fully expect Khan to win next week.
Zac's campaign may also have galvanised anti-Tory sentiment and made generic anti-Tories more likely to vote. It'll be an interesting one. You're right, though: if 2012 was 38%, it's hard to see this year going any higher.
I think the last couple of days may end up depressing turnout from that particular group and fire up a few Tories and neutrals that were looking to sit this one out.
The vast majority of the population have a negative view of Israel and will view this with indifference or as a Westminster bubble smear campaign.
I think that says rather more about you than the population.
The correct statement would be that vast majority of the population don't give a hoot about either Israel or Palestine.
You are half right. Consistently those that have a view in polling are overwhelmingly negative, with huge numbers also indifferent. Those with a favourable view of Israel are in a tiny minority, except amongst our media and political elites. People are sick of this constant boy-who-cried-wolf schtick from a racist state and its followers.
Yes that is the impression I have. Reinforces the point that Israel has an unhealthy influence in our country.
I do t have a favourable view of many Israeli state actions. Ken and shah s behaviour still appalls me. Does that pass muster or am I too beholden to the influence of Israel without knowing it?
London is an urban Labour bastion. You wouldn't expect a Tory Mayor of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. That Boris infiltrated himself in is a measure of how remarkable his personal appeal extended.
Don't write off Boris as Tory leader just yet. He has appeal cross party lines, apparently a buffoon but intelligent and self deprecating. A populist with a way with words and a way with the media. And from what I can see the Tory grass roots love him.
Compared to some of the other viable options touted such as May (psychotic) or Hammond (like Major minus the personality) he might actually have a chance of connectino with the electorate.
But before he gets to the general electorate, he has to appeal to (1) Tory MPs and (2) Tory members. Besides, after a decade or so of his antics, I wonder whether the appeal is waring off a little with the public, never mind the smaller electorates?
Whoever first put forward Boris for Mayor of London was a genius. It was a superb meshing of the man and the role.
However, Boris's presence seemed to do little or nothing in helping the Conservatives in marginal Westminster seats across London during his tenure.
There was a post from Ipsos MORI last night which showed how striking was the degree of correlation between the proportion of White people in any given ward in London and Boris Johnson's support. I imagine that correlation will apply to Zac Goldsmith, but running about 10% below the level of support that Boris got. The only wards that buck this trend are Kenton in Brent, and a number of wards in Harrow and Barnet.
Which would be Jews and affluent Hindus voting anti-Ken.
Aren't people disgusted at how religion has now become a feature of British elections ?
Not so long ago we thought Northern Ireland was backwards and bigoted because of this.
Increasingly, there seem to be two broad new political coalitions forming in this country. One that's based on rural areas, medium-sized towns, and small cities. It's middle and working class, older than average, mostly White, mostly private sector. The opposing coalition is based on Greater London, Scotland, and core cities, with lots of backing from students, public sector workers, and ethnic minorities. Religion is only a part of that.
[snip] If you say 'I think Muslims are terrible intolerant and violent people and we should kill them' then, yes, that should be illegal as it is an incitement to violence.
Gruesome headlines for Labour. Meanwhile, Telegraph reporting that Miliband Snr is to take top US job if Clinton wins. Even the Prince Over the Water has thrown in the towel.
Two questions for :Tory Peebies.
First, what benefit does England enjoy from the Labour Party's being legal?
Second, what would have to happen for it to cease to enjoy that benefit?
As a matter of interest what point are you trying to make with this? The answers are so obvious no one can be bothered to type them out.
My point is that we have banned political parties in the past, and will no doubt do so again in the future. From the way some people here speak about Labour, I wonder what the difference is.
Surely it can't be true that Tories sometimes say things they don't mean? That's my space!
Have we banned political parties? I would sincerely hope not.
Would the remain campaign and the remain apologists on here like to confirm that this is true? Is this really the kind of European Union that the UK should wish to remain a member of?
As I said yesterday, when the going gets tough for governments such as now, throughout history they always turn AGAINST the people.
Yes, the EU army in the Europe, and the black UN helicopters in the US are preparing for a military coup.
Would the remain campaign and the remain apologists on here like to confirm that this is true? Is this really the kind of European Union that the UK should wish to remain a member of?
As I said yesterday, when the going gets tough for governments such as now, throughout history they always turn AGAINST the people.
Yes, the EU army in the Europe, and the black UN helicopters in the US are preparing for a military coup.
London is an urban Labour bastion. You wouldn't expect a Tory Mayor of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. That Boris infiltrated himself in is a measure of how remarkable his personal appeal extended.
Don't write off Boris as Tory leader just yet. He has appeal cross party lines, apparently a buffoon but intelligent and self deprecating. A populist with a way with words and a way with the media. And from what I can see the Tory grass roots love him.
Compared to some of the other viable options touted such as May (psychotic) or Hammond (like Major minus the personality) he might actually have a chance of connectino with the electorate.
But before he gets to the general electorate, he has to appeal to (1) Tory MPs and (2) Tory members. Besides, after a decade or so of his antics, I wonder whether the appeal is waring off a little with the public, never mind the smaller electorates?
Whoever first put forward Boris for Mayor of London was a genius. It was a superb meshing of the man and the role.
However, Boris's presence seemed to do little or nothing in helping the Conservatives in marginal Westminster seats across London during his tenure.
There was a post from Ipsos MORI last night which showed how striking was the degree of correlation between the proportion of White people in any given ward in London and Boris Johnson's support. I imagine that correlation will apply to Zac Goldsmith, but running about 10% below the level of support that Boris got. The only wards that buck this trend are Kenton in Brent, and a number of wards in Harrow and Barnet.
Which would be Jews and affluent Hindus voting anti-Ken.
Aren't people disgusted at how religion has now become a feature of British elections ?
Not so long ago we thought Northern Ireland was backwards and bigoted because of this.
Increasingly, there seem to be two broad new political coalitions forming in this country. One that's based on rural areas, medium-sized towns, and small cities. It's middle and working class, older than average, mostly White, mostly private sector. The opposing coalition is based on Greater London, Scotland, and core cities, with lots of backing from students, public sector workers, and ethnic minorities. Religion is only a part of that.
And it's a split on values more than it is on economics.
How will this country ever really deal with Islamic fundamentalism if talking about it openly risks you getting your collar felt? If Dave is serious about the problem, as he appeared to be after Paris and Brussels, then let us judge him by his actions not his words. Bring back free speech.
I agree in general terms. We don't have real free speech. I would support First Amendment rights in the UK. Our problem will be the same as it increasingly is in the USA, it doesnt matter what the laws says when you are no-platformed and shouted down by the mob. This poison spread further when various trolls on social media start forwarding on "edgy" but legal speech to employers who are mostly frit and would rather sack you than risk the associated bad publicity of standing up for your rights. If free speech is failing in the Land of the Free, where the population has an enduring and visceral attachment to that right, its got no chance in the timorous politically correct, and lets face it, frit, UK.
I can't see the Labour party getting much sympathy. Their usual response to anything they don't like is to accuse someone of a being 'ist' or being a 'phobe'.
Ken may have 'mis-spoke" in Clintonese, but it's the biter bit.
There's about 700 comments on Ken and Naz in the Times. A remarkable minority defend Ken or her - trying to nitpick Hitler and anti semitic views. I'd say about 10% I've been really surprised
Sadly I've not been surprised at arguments floating around that because Mann opposes Corbyn, which he does, and wants to damage him, which he does, that must mean he and others don't care what Ken said or think it wrong, but are just acting. The possibility of people both genuinely caring and seeking political advantage is not possible in some minds.
How will this country ever really deal with Islamic fundamentalism if talking about it openly risks you getting your collar felt? If Dave is serious about the problem, as he appeared to be after Paris and Brussels, then let us judge him by his actions not his words. Bring back free speech.
I agree in general terms. We don't have real free speech. I would support First Amendment rights in the UK. Our problem will be the same as it increasingly is in the USA, it doesnt matter what the laws says when you are no-platformed and shouted down by the mob. This poison spread further when various trolls on social media start forwarding on "edgy" but legal speech to employers who are mostly frit and would rather sack you than risk the associated bad publicity of standing up for your rights. If free speech is failing in the Land of the Free, where the population has an enduring and visceral attachment to that right, its got no chance in the timorous politically correct, and lets face it, frit, UK.
London is an urban Labour bastion. You wouldn't expect a Tory Mayor of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. That Boris infiltrated himself in is a measure of how remarkable his personal appeal extended.
Don't write off Boris as Tory leader just yet. He has appeal cross party lines, apparently a buffoon but intelligent and self deprecating. A populist with a way with words and a way with the media. And from what I can see the Tory grass roots love him.
Compared to some of the other viable options touted such as May (psychotic) or Hammond (like Major minus the personality) he might actually have a chance of connectino with the electorate.
But before he gets to the general electorate, he has to appeal to (1) Tory MPs and (2) Tory members. Besides, after a decade or so of his antics, I wonder whether the appeal is waring off a little with the public, never mind the smaller electorates?
Whoever first put forward Boris for Mayor of London was a genius. It was a superb meshing of the man and the role.
However, Boris's presence seemed to do little or nothing in helping the Conservatives in marginal Westminster seats across London during his tenure.
There was a post from Ipsos MORI last night which showed how striking was the degree of correlation between the proportion of White people in any given ward in London and Boris Johnson's support. I imagine that correlation will apply to Zac Goldsmith, but running about 10% below the level of support that Boris got. The only wards that buck this trend are Kenton in Brent, and a number of wards in Harrow and Barnet.
Which would be Jews and affluent Hindus voting anti-Ken.
Aren't people disgusted at how religion has now become a feature of British elections ?
Not so long ago we thought Northern Ireland was backwards and bigoted because of this.
Increasingly, there seem to be two broad new political coalitions forming in this country. One that's based on rural areas, medium-sized towns, and small cities. It's middle and working class, older than average, mostly White, mostly private sector. The opposing coalition is based on Greater London, Scotland, and core cities, with lots of backing from students, public sector workers, and ethnic minorities. Religion is only a part of that.
@LOS_Fisher: EXCL: Top 10 Labour donor pulls support from central party, saying Corbyn has "unleashed whirlwind of antisemitism" https://t.co/ra3qQE4ZMh
Would the remain campaign and the remain apologists on here like to confirm that this is true? Is this really the kind of European Union that the UK should wish to remain a member of?
As I said yesterday, when the going gets tough for governments such as now, throughout history they always turn AGAINST the people.
You realise that website he is quoting from is for conspiracy theorist fruit bats ? I guess probably not.
How reliable are the "German Economic News"? If you like dark machinations claims without being able to prove somehow, is not a news portal, but a blog for conspiracy theorists. It says a lot about the journalistic self-image of the German Economic News, that they just weave such claims in their coverage of an acute global political crisis that is doing very many people fear.
And the MSM is reliable? Let's see. We've been lied to over Iraq, Libya and Syria.we've been lied to about global warming. Child abuse has been covered up. 788 790 Finchley Road and all that fraud covered up. Hillsborough and numerous public inquiry cover ups. You simply cannot trust the MSM as a source of news any more. Yes the alternative media is far from perfect but in the absence of the MSM doing its job properly is no wonder that something had filled the vacuum. Remember nature abhors a vacuum.
I'd like to canvas the PB commentariat's views on our speech laws. I think we don't have free speech. You can be arrested and imprisoned for saying the wrong thing. This is usually because it is an 'incitement to hatred'. Or to actual violence. I don't see how this squares with the general commitment of a tolerant society to not get overwhelmed the truly deeply intolerant.
If you say 'I think Muslims are terrible intolerant and violent people and we should kill them' then, yes, that should be illegal as it is an incitement to violence.
But if you say 'I hate Islam because it has no accommodation for individual rights or desires and overtly seeks to oppress or kill some people like women, gays, Jews and apostates' then I suspect in today's UK you might be committing a crime.
How will this country ever really deal with Islamic fundamentalism if talking about it openly risks you getting your collar felt? If Dave is serious about the problem, as he appeared to be after Paris and Brussels, then let us judge him by his actions not his words. Bring back free speech.
Yep, all those numpties with their "je suis Charlie" placards, perfectly illustrates your point. They'll put down their posters and say "you can't say that" if you say anything remotely critical of Islam. Criticism of christianity is right on, of course.
I reserve my right to be equally critical of Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
I hope this diversion into labour squabbling enables people to refresh their batteries on eu arguments and Tory battling,there's another 2 months practically to go after all. Maybe Ken can pop up again in a few weeks for another diversion.
@LOS_Fisher: EXCL: Top 10 Labour donor pulls support from central party, saying Corbyn has "unleashed whirlwind of antisemitism" https://t.co/ra3qQE4ZMh
What crisis?
I think somebody need to start the save the jezza organisation like the one which was established for ed.
I'd like to canvas the PB commentariat's views on our speech laws. I think we don't have free speech. You can be arrested and imprisoned for saying the wrong thing. This is usually because it is an 'incitement to hatred'. Or to actual violence. I don't see how this squares with the general commitment of a tolerant society to not get overwhelmed the truly deeply intolerant.
If you say 'I think Muslims are terrible intolerant and violent people and we should kill them' then, yes, that should be illegal as it is an incitement to violence.
But if you say 'I hate Islam because it has no accommodation for individual rights or desires and overtly seeks to oppress or kill some people like women, gays, Jews and apostates' then I suspect in today's UK you might be committing a crime.
How will this country ever really deal with Islamic fundamentalism if talking about it openly risks you getting your collar felt? If Dave is serious about the problem, as he appeared to be after Paris and Brussels, then let us judge him by his actions not his words. Bring back free speech.
I would like to think that your comments on Islam are not illegal. That is different though from saying they are not free from consequences - which may include upsetting or illegal activity on the part of others such as your being harassed, followed, threats made against you etc etc.
This is the reason the media chose not to publish the Danish cartoons, they didn't want the fate that later befel Charlie Hebdo. The real issue is therefore how we deal with people who take exaggerated offence at the slightest perceived criticism, and that is more difficult than it sounds.
@LOS_Fisher: EXCL: Top 10 Labour donor pulls support from central party, saying Corbyn has "unleashed whirlwind of antisemitism" https://t.co/ra3qQE4ZMh
What crisis?
“To fight Livingstone using his own Nazi references, this would be an argument of which Joseph Goebbels would be proud.”
Entertaining stuff in the Telegraph from Mike Petley
'Since majority voting was introduced in the 1980s, the UK has voted against proposed EU legislation 70 times, and lost 70 times. Despite being the second largest financial contributor, the reality remains that, when it counts, the UK actually has little or no influence. It is wholly delusional to consider that anyone in Brussels will want to hear another squeak from the UK following a Remain vote which will be taken by the EU political elite as a de facto endorsement of their policies.'
'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
It is now time for some reality and sanity. We all listened to these same institutions and people trying to convince us to join the euro. We resisted and went with our instincts. Once again, we need to resist and trust our instincts.'
London is an urban Labour bastion. You wouldn't expect a Tory Mayor of Manchester or Liverpool or Newcastle. That Boris infiltrated himself in is a measure of how remarkable his personal appeal extended.
Don't write off Boris as Tory leader just yet. He has appeal cross party lines, apparently a buffoon but intelligent and self deprecating. A populist with a way with words and a way with the media. And from what I can see the Tory grass roots love him.
Compared to some of the other viable options touted such as May (psychotic) or Hammond (like Major minus the personality) he might actually have a chance of connectino with the electorate.
But before he gets to the general electorate, he has to appeal to (1) Tory MPs and (2) Tory members. Besides, after a decade or so of his antics, I wonder whether the appeal is waring off a little with the public, never mind the smaller electorates?
Whoever first put forward Boris for Mayor of London was a genius. It was a superb meshing of the man and the role.
However, Boris's presence seemed to do little or nothing in helping the Conservatives in marginal Westminster seats across London during his tenure.
There
Which would be Jews and affluent Hindus voting anti-Ken.
Aren't people disgusted at how religion has now become a feature of British elections ?
Not so long ago we thought Northern Ireland was backwards and bigoted because of this.
Increasingly, there seem to be two broad new political coalitions forming in this country. One that's based on rural areas, medium-sized towns, and small cities. It's middle and working class, older than average, mostly White, mostly private sector. The opposing coalition is based on Greater London, Scotland, and core cities, with lots of backing from students, public sector workers, and ethnic minorities. Religion is only a part of that.
And it's a split on values more than it is on economics.
Personally, I'm quite uncomfortable with it.
Maybe it's time to split the UK.
I really don't want to have to do this but, if that's what's required for England to become an Elizabethan free globally trading wealthy nation again, then so be it.
I'd hope Wales could be a co-partner in a co-federal Union (not sure they want to go) and for us to set up some sort of Council of the Isles to coordinate defence, security, foreign policy, fisheries etc. when all nations agree to do so.
Entertaining stuff in the Telegraph from Mike Petley
'Since majority voting was introduced in the 1980s, the UK has voted against proposed EU legislation 70 times, and lost 70 times. Despite being the second largest financial contributor, the reality remains that, when it counts, the UK actually has little or no influence. It is wholly delusional to consider that anyone in Brussels will want to hear another squeak from the UK following a Remain vote which will be taken by the EU political elite as a de facto endorsement of their policies.'
'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
It is now time for some reality and sanity. We all listened to these same institutions and people trying to convince us to join the euro. We resisted and went with our instincts. Once again, we need to resist and trust our instincts.'
Sorry Moscow Bobski, if you don't understand you never will.
I have no interest in Pakistan's position.
Who is speaking about Pakistan?
You seem to be the conspiracy theorist, explain to me how this all works?
I thought I had hit rock bottom last week when an Ulsterman accused me of being xenophobic but getting called a conspiracy theorist by you is much worse.
He (Lord Sugar) stated that Livingstone was "obsessed" with "Hitler, concentration camps and Jews" but believes he will "talk his way out" of expulsion from the party.
I'd like to canvas the PB commentariat's views on our speech laws. I think we don't have free speech. You can be arrested and imprisoned for saying the wrong thing. This is usually because it is an 'incitement to hatred'. Or to actual violence. I don't see how this squares with the general commitment of a tolerant society to not get overwhelmed the truly deeply intolerant.
If you say 'I think Muslims are terrible intolerant and violent people and we should kill them' then, yes, that should be illegal as it is an incitement to violence.
But if you say 'I hate Islam because it has no accommodation for individual rights or desires and overtly seeks to oppress or kill some people like women, gays, Jews and apostates' then I suspect in today's UK you might be committing a crime.
How will this country ever really deal with Islamic fundamentalism if talking about it openly risks you getting your collar felt? If Dave is serious about the problem, as he appeared to be after Paris and Brussels, then let us judge him by his actions not his words. Bring back free speech.
I would like to think that your comments on Islam are not illegal. That is different though from saying they are not free from consequences - which may include upsetting or illegal activity on the part of others such as your being harassed, followed, threats made against you etc etc.
This is the reason the media chose not to publish the Danish cartoons, they didn't want the fate that later befel Charlie Hebdo. The real issue is therefore how we deal with people who take exaggerated offence at the slightest perceived criticism, and that is more difficult than it sounds.
We start by not suggesting they are correct by seeming to admit every minor comment or action that someone claims to perceive as criticism is legitimate, which we do when we are too quick to condemn to the extreme when someone Ames their display of exagerratec offence.
Ken is an interesting case study, as the same principle coukd app,y, but it is not inly what he said but his repeated history of it and his very bitter hostile politics which inform that this time the offence is justified.
Comments
Gruesome headlines for Labour. Meanwhile, Telegraph reporting that Miliband Snr is to take top US job if Clinton wins. Even the Prince Over the Water has thrown in the towel.
Getting a normal mortgage is much more difficult than renting. The deposit is much higher because of the house prices, and 'affordability' can kill off a mortgage, even though they are paying more in rent.
Fundamentally it is the price (caused by demand) that is the problem. Private landlords are just someone "easy" to blame.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I don't have any BTL property).
And I wonder where the Jewish community fit in to Labour's multicultural utopia.
First, what benefit does England enjoy from the Labour Party's being legal?
Second, what would have to happen for it to cease to enjoy that benefit?
(he asks, hopefully)
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/eu-conducts-military-exercises-based-on-civil-war-theories/
Would the remain campaign and the remain apologists on here like to confirm that this is true? Is this really the kind of European Union that the UK should wish to remain a member of?
As I said yesterday, when the going gets tough for governments such as now, throughout history they always turn AGAINST the people.
Aren't people disgusted at how religion has now become a feature of British elections ?
Not so long ago we thought Northern Ireland was backwards and bigoted because of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqytjlHNIM
PS: Still she will attract all the crackpots, homophobes etc so Tory surge.
Ken may have 'mis-spoke" in Clintonese, but it's the biter bit.
Second, there's no reason at all why we would ban a political party. If we disagree with them then we call them out. If they are racist then we make sure people know they are racist.
It is the Left who have, with their "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings", the propensity to want to ban comments and views with which they disagree.
The beginning of the end for the BNP was Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time. He was called out for who he was and could no longer hide behind his banning as a way of attracting supporters who didn't understand who he really was.
http://www.vice.com/alps/read/wie-serioes-sind-die-deutschen-wirtschafts-nachrichten-283
Corbyn later advises a caller to complain to the BBC about the "Zionist liars" and praises his "good point"
https://www.youtube.com/embed/-1JUztMcg9A?start=457
https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/725949597856600064
An apt profile pick for you.
I know it's the same logic I used, incorrectly, for the ge, but the polls need to not only be wrong but really really wrong for sac to have any chance. And he probably needs low turnout. And for Khan to take a hit from wider labour troubles.
He needs all that and more, he needs to do it despite coming across as a charisma free zone. Khan is not great in that area but seems to be viewed as more heavyweight. Cameron had, despite the polls, the advantage of leadership ratings. Where foes zac have an advantage. Khan as lo seems to be acceptable to moderates and corbynites.
Zac could get pummelled here. The left right spectrum is nonsense, but even if we take how people define themselves on it, as Sean f demonstrates, it's easy to find examples of how your experience is not universal in where such behaviour comes from on that spectrum.
Let's all be honest here, anti semitism is borne out of envy, has been for centuries. Take Israel, a prosperous country in the middle of an area full of poverty, the Israelis get on and work while others sit around. I'd be interested to hear about unemployment rates among Jews in the UK.
Israel is an easy target for chip on the shoulder lefties.
If you say 'I think Muslims are terrible intolerant and violent people and we should kill them' then, yes, that should be illegal as it is an incitement to violence.
But if you say 'I hate Islam because it has no accommodation for individual rights or desires and overtly seeks to oppress or kill some people like women, gays, Jews and apostates' then I suspect in today's UK you might be committing a crime.
How will this country ever really deal with Islamic fundamentalism if talking about it openly risks you getting your collar felt? If Dave is serious about the problem, as he appeared to be after Paris and Brussels, then let us judge him by his actions not his words. Bring back free speech.
He may not be an anti-Semite but he's incapable of challenging it in debate or even appearing shocked or disturbed.
666 seconds
Honestly. Corbyn is so placid most of the time. There are occasions it can be positive, but there are issues one should not be placid about.
Surely it can't be true that Tories sometimes say things they don't mean? That's my space!
Personally, I'm quite uncomfortable with it.
Conor Pope
This situation is like a Russian doll of terrible people defending another; each one worse than the last. https://t.co/SzIUzJxUuK
Cuckoo.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of the latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection :
Should The United Kingdom Remain A Member Of The European Union Or Leave The European Union?
Remain 55.5% (-1.5) .. Leave 44.5% (+1.5)
Turnout Projection 62.5% (-0.5)
Changes from 26th April.
......................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
What crisis?
When was the last time both the Tories and Labour had leadership elections in the same year ?
Has it ever happened before ?
This is the reason the media chose not to publish the Danish cartoons, they didn't want the fate that later befel Charlie Hebdo. The real issue is therefore how we deal with people who take exaggerated offence at the slightest perceived criticism, and that is more difficult than it sounds.
Entertaining stuff in the Telegraph from Mike Petley
'Since majority voting was introduced in the 1980s, the UK has voted against proposed EU legislation 70 times, and lost 70 times. Despite being the second largest financial contributor, the reality remains that, when it counts, the UK actually has little or no influence. It is wholly delusional to consider that anyone in Brussels will want to hear another squeak from the UK following a Remain vote which will be taken by the EU political elite as a de facto endorsement of their policies.'
'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
It is now time for some reality and sanity. We all listened to these same institutions and people trying to convince us to join the euro. We resisted and went with our instincts. Once again, we need to resist and trust our instincts.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/28/the-eu-merry-go-round-is-broken-time-to-get-off/
Good day to all
I'd hope Wales could be a co-partner in a co-federal Union (not sure they want to go) and for us to set up some sort of Council of the Isles to coordinate defence, security, foreign policy, fisheries etc. when all nations agree to do so.
He (Lord Sugar) stated that Livingstone was "obsessed" with "Hitler, concentration camps and Jews" but believes he will "talk his way out" of expulsion from the party.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/725960907180789765
Ken is an interesting case study, as the same principle coukd app,y, but it is not inly what he said but his repeated history of it and his very bitter hostile politics which inform that this time the offence is justified.
Robert Colville
I love the idea (put forward by her aide) that @HackneyAbbott just spring-cleans her Twitter timeline as the mood takes her