Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM blow for Corbyn as he tries to hang on: LAB now 16% beh

12346

Comments

  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    It's more that areas of Wales have been in receipt of Objective-1 and successor funding programs for decades, and the Welsh economy is still a basket case. In this aspect, its similar to Scotland - Labour were in power since Adam was a lad and nothing changed.

    A lot of money has gone on structural things (e.g. dualling the HoTV road) but money doesn't solve the fundamental issues. It's a challenge for all governments - throwing money at a problem does not guarantee success.

    When you look at the job creation side of things, EU funding has been very poor value for money. The last figures I've seen were from 2014, and it was claimed (by a pro-EU source) that 29,800 jobs had been created, which is pitiful.
    There was a USA study that found government spending (in a US state) had no correlation with economic growth. From memory, private sector R&D spending did have a positive correlation with economic growth.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Sky

    Priest was forced to his knees, had his throat cut and filmed it all. Police don't know if the attackers uploaded the footage before being killed. Very similar to the police chief/his girlfriend who were stabbed/throat slashed at their own home.
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Lennon said:

    Lennon said:

    Cookie said:

    There was some talk yesterday of whether Tory or Labour seats were more marginal.

    I took these lists: http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/labour and http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative, and for each rank pair (Con most marginal-Lab most marginal; Con 2nd most marginal-Lab 2nd most marginal; etc.) I calculated a "Labour safer by" figure as (Lab swing to lose - Con swing to lose) /Con swing to lose, which gives the following chart:

    image

    So at nearly all points the Labour seat is safer, often considerably so.

    Please point out all the obvious flaws in my argument!

    Nice bit of analysis! My thoughts after the last general election were similar - the Conservatives did pretty much as well as was reasonably possible; there were hardly any seats vulnerable to another final heave or a bit of local luck, and lots of Conservative seats which could easily fall away again. That was last year though - if the current poll is accurate then the world changes completely.
    The other issue with your analysis is that they are not starting on an equal footing as the number of seats that each holds is not equal. If you assume that the current position is the 'midpoint' then you want to 'spread' the Labour seats equally amongst the Tory seats so that as well as matching the most marginal vs the most marginal, you also match the safest vs the safest. (If you see what I mean)
    I do. I don't have the data to do that to hand. I should also ideally eliminate seats where the challenger is a third party too.

    But what this does show is that if UNS holds, a given swing to Labour wins them more seats than a given swing to the Tories does likewise, which IIRC was the question.
    That's true - I think that my point was in part that is a simple consequence of Labour having "fewer" seats, and so you would expect them to have fewer seats in the 0-5% band, but you would also expect them to have fewer seats in the 50%+ band as they just have 'fewer' seats.
    I don't think that's necessarily true. It's possible that Con/Lab seats could be evenly distributed from Lab lead by 50 to Con lead by 50, and then wherever the national position falls there'd still be the same number of seats within a given percentage each way.

    I'm not too sure what this actually means, though!
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667
    edited July 2016

    Scott_P said:

    @NCPoliticsUK: In Scotland, Sturgeon's ratings improve, Davidson's soar, May starts strongly, Labour's Caledonian calamity deepens https://t.co/I5e130BEmT

    If Scottish politics move towards a more unionist/nationalist split then Ruth Davidson is well placed to profit from that as a centrist Conservative.

    It's not inconceivable she could get to c.22% to 30% of Scottish votes, but probably not higher.

    Still, that could block a lot of what the SNP want to do.
    Some very interesting results there, even the SNP voters rate Ruth. I thought the referendum was supposed to be a disaster for her and the Scots Tories? So far I don't see this disaster and nor do I see any big groundswell of change on Indy because of Brexit. If Sturgeon thought it was winnable then she would be agitating for it, not binding her time. The fundamentals for Scottish independence haven't changed, if anything they've got worse because of falling oil prices and reserves.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,596
    Feeling a bit down this late afternoon? In need of a laugh?

    Ten minutes reading the comments on LabourList should perk you up.

    Here's a taster (my emphasis):

    "We all know that the blairites have the pollsters in their pockets. These latest polls are manipulated to pile pressure on Jeremy corbyn. In reality the party probably have 33% 34% of the vote , and if the MPs would just accept Jeremy's huge mandate and have up the ghost on the second referendum, labour could even be taking a lead."

    "Jeremy`s strength lies in playing his own game, not theirs. He is increasingly looking strong and statesmanlike, they are increasingly looking like spoilt children at a posh school. We`ll see who the public prefers in time."
  • Options
    runnymede said:

    MattW said:

    kle4 said:

    This is what the Head of Global Estates at the British Council had to say about Prince George:

    http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/26/british-council-worker-described-prince-george-as-a-fking-dkhead-6029047/

    She says she is sound in her socialist, atheist and republican opinions.

    Seriously though, even privately why be such a dick about a child, expressing socialist, atheist and republican opinions is possible even on here without being so, and it is probably less welcoming to all three than facebook.
    She would have been irritated by the photos and their prominence in the news because she thought they might increase public affection for the Royal Family for another generation.

    She would have assumed her social media account was a safe space to vent about it and assert what she would like to think are her progressive egalitarian and meritocratic credentials.
    That latter assumption would be even more stupid than the decision to have a go at the royal family from her professional position.

    All in all, sounds like she really deserves her massive salary, doesn't it?

    I imagine she spends a lot of time spitting to her chums about how 'stupid' Brexit voters are as well.
    I'm going to stick up for her. Calling a 3 year old kid from a wealthy family rich and privileged is hardly the crime of the century [remember, it's not alleged except in the Metro that she called him a dickhead - which would, of course, have been rude regardless of his age]. She's not, I guess, in a public facing or representational role at the British Council. Had it not been for the press taking the remarks and *definitely* misrepresenting her in headlines, this wouldn't have been news.

    And while the Prince can hardly defend himself, he's being used in a similar way to sell papers. It's one of the downsides of a monarchy - he might be rich and never have to worry about putting food on the table, but the biggest choice that Prince George will face personally is which branch of the armed services he'll join. His life is mapped out and there's nothing he can do to escape the public eye.

    So long as she can manage the British Council's portfolio of property, I think she deserves her salary.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024

    Scott_P said:

    @NCPoliticsUK: In Scotland, Sturgeon's ratings improve, Davidson's soar, May starts strongly, Labour's Caledonian calamity deepens https://t.co/I5e130BEmT

    If Scottish politics move towards a more unionist/nationalist split then Ruth Davidson is well placed to profit from that as a centrist Conservative.

    It's not inconceivable she could get to c.22% to 30% of Scottish votes, but probably not higher.

    Still, that could block a lot of what the SNP want to do.
    Interesting Ruth is doing well with all the parties, whereas Nicola is doing well with all except Scots Tories who seem to hate her. She needs to gain independence from the left only.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,554
    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    It's more that areas of Wales have been in receipt of Objective-1 and successor funding programs for decades, and the Welsh economy is still a basket case. In this aspect, its similar to Scotland - Labour were in power since Adam was a lad and nothing changed.

    A lot of money has gone on structural things (e.g. dualling the HoTV road) but money doesn't solve the fundamental issues. It's a challenge for all governments - throwing money at a problem does not guarantee success.

    When you look at the job creation side of things, EU funding has been very poor value for money. The last figures I've seen were from 2014, and it was claimed (by a pro-EU source) that 29,800 jobs had been created, which is pitiful.
    What does change things? If you ranked the areas of the country from richest to poorest 40 years ago, would any have noticeably climbed or descended the rankings? How has that come about?
    Locally, Central Manchester has done well - but Greater Manchester has probably remained steadily in the bottom half. I'm looking for areas of county level and above that have improved.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Good evening from Bloomsbury.
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    DaveDave said:

    There was some talk yesterday of whether Tory or Labour seats were more marginal.

    I took these lists: http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/labour and http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative, and for each rank pair (Con most marginal-Lab most marginal; Con 2nd most marginal-Lab 2nd most marginal; etc.) I calculated a "Labour safer by" figure as (Lab swing to lose - Con swing to lose) /Con swing to lose, which gives the following chart:

    image

    So at nearly all points the Labour seat is safer, often considerably so.

    Please point out all the obvious flaws in my argument!

    I agree. Labour have very safe seats. 20% lead required to really move things. That said,Tories win 165 seats at General even if Corbyn was Tory Leader!
    Labour's voter allocation is very inefficient. They've stockpiled voters in safe seats where they can do no good, and can't reach them in marginals where they actually matter.

    To be the largest party in (October? 2018? 2020?) general election they'll need to flip a lot of voters that voted Tory in 2015. 4 out of every 5 voters they'd need to reach a plurality in fact will be soft Tories in suburban English marginals.

    They are so fucked.
    It seems highly conceivable that their inefficient distribution will get even worse under Corbyn.

    Even more votes from the Village People in places like Walthamstow, Dulwich, Stoke Newington while the London fringes as well as Wales and the Midlands marginals become ever more hostile.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    May well be the case, but at least the EU gave a f***. There is no way these structural funds will come to Wales from Westminster. 'aint ever gonna happen.
    Genuine question. Do you live in Wales?
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388

    Feeling a bit down this late afternoon? In need of a laugh?

    Ten minutes reading the comments on LabourList should perk you up.

    Here's a taster (my emphasis):

    "We all know that the blairites have the pollsters in their pockets. These latest polls are manipulated to pile pressure on Jeremy corbyn. In reality the party probably have 33% 34% of the vote , and if the MPs would just accept Jeremy's huge mandate and have up the ghost on the second referendum, labour could even be taking a lead."

    "Jeremy`s strength lies in playing his own game, not theirs. He is increasingly looking strong and statesmanlike, they are increasingly looking like spoilt children at a posh school. We`ll see who the public prefers in time."

    This is a systemic failure now.

    Any apparent loss is blamed on some conspiracy. There is not point at which his proponents will accept defeat, not if they fall to fifty seats. Even Blair realised when his time was up. So did Cameron.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,399
    edited July 2016
    nunu said:

    Scott_P said:

    @NCPoliticsUK: In Scotland, Sturgeon's ratings improve, Davidson's soar, May starts strongly, Labour's Caledonian calamity deepens https://t.co/I5e130BEmT

    If Scottish politics move towards a more unionist/nationalist split then Ruth Davidson is well placed to profit from that as a centrist Conservative.

    It's not inconceivable she could get to c.22% to 30% of Scottish votes, but probably not higher.

    Still, that could block a lot of what the SNP want to do.
    Interesting Ruth is doing well with all the parties, whereas Nicola is doing well with all except Scots Tories who seem to hate her. She needs to gain independence from the left only.
    Sturgeon is +57 with Remain voters, which is nice.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited July 2016

    Scott_P said:

    @NCPoliticsUK: In Scotland, Sturgeon's ratings improve, Davidson's soar, May starts strongly, Labour's Caledonian calamity deepens https://t.co/I5e130BEmT

    If Scottish politics move towards a more unionist/nationalist split then Ruth Davidson is well placed to profit from that as a centrist Conservative.

    It's not inconceivable she could get to c.22% to 30% of Scottish votes, but probably not higher.

    Still, that could block a lot of what the SNP want to do.
    It does look like Davidson is soaking up votes as the (rather than a) alternative to the SNP.

    Sturgeon's safe for as long as she wants it, pretty much. But her successor might find it a lot more difficult.
    Pretty much what I expected.
    The SNP can't be everything for everyone for too long.

    When the SNP moved left to destroy Labour they temporarily retained their old right wing core, but they are now leaving for the Tories because they can't stand the SNP's left wing policies in power.

    I think scotland is returning in the long term to the status quo pre-Thatcer, with the SNP having replaced Labour as the dominant left wing party.
    There is nothing Labour can do until left wing voters get tired of the SNP, due to FPTP.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2016
    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    It's more that areas of Wales have been in receipt of Objective-1 and successor funding programs for decades, and the Welsh economy is still a basket case. In this aspect, its similar to Scotland - Labour were in power since Adam was a lad and nothing changed.

    A lot of money has gone on structural things (e.g. dualling the HoTV road) but money doesn't solve the fundamental issues. It's a challenge for all governments - throwing money at a problem does not guarantee success.

    When you look at the job creation side of things, EU funding has been very poor value for money. The last figures I've seen were from 2014, and it was claimed (by a pro-EU source) that 29,800 jobs had been created, which is pitiful.
    What does change things? If you ranked the areas of the country from richest to poorest 40 years ago, would any have noticeably climbed or descended the rankings? How has that come about?
    Locally, Central Manchester has done well - but Greater Manchester has probably remained steadily in the bottom half. I'm looking for areas of county level and above that have improved.
    Its hard to find comparable figures that date back that far. Too many methodological changes.

    The best I can do for you is a comparison 1997-2014. Linkie here:

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_426841.pdf

    Check out figure 3 on page 10. Brief summary: with the exception of the SE, everywhere is going backwards compared to London. Wales is going backwards faster than most other regions.

  • Options
    grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Hey France:

    What the fuck are you doing?

    Love, the world

    xxx
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    kle4 said:

    This is what the Head of Global Estates at the British Council had to say about Prince George:

    http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/26/british-council-worker-described-prince-george-as-a-fking-dkhead-6029047/

    She says she is sound in her socialist, atheist and republican opinions.

    Seriously though, even privately why be such a dick about a child, expressing socialist, atheist and republican opinions is possible even on here without being so, and it is probably less welcoming to all three than facebook.
    She would have been irritated by the photos and their prominence in the news because she thought they might increase public affection for the Royal Family for another generation.

    She would have assumed her social media account was a safe space to vent about it and assert what she would like to think are her progressive egalitarian and meritocratic credentials.
    I'm a republican for the same reasons I'm a Conservative (I believe in hard work and earning what you have) but I would never dream of insulting a baby/toddler for political reasons. That sort of hate is tragic.
    I kind of admire republicans for their tireless optimisim in the face of overwhelming futility and the rather adorable optimism in thinking adding a One More Politician layer up top could fix anything.

    Less enamoured about calling a three year old child a cnut, obvs.
    No need to add anything, the PM could double up as head of state. Or we could have an appointed President equivalent to how the Governor General in Australia acts in locum for the Queen.
  • Options
    grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    kle4 said:

    This is what the Head of Global Estates at the British Council had to say about Prince George:

    http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/26/british-council-worker-described-prince-george-as-a-fking-dkhead-6029047/

    She says she is sound in her socialist, atheist and republican opinions.

    Seriously though, even privately why be such a dick about a child, expressing socialist, atheist and republican opinions is possible even on here without being so, and it is probably less welcoming to all three than facebook.
    She would have been irritated by the photos and their prominence in the news because she thought they might increase public affection for the Royal Family for another generation.

    She would have assumed her social media account was a safe space to vent about it and assert what she would like to think are her progressive egalitarian and meritocratic credentials.
    I'm a republican for the same reasons I'm a Conservative (I believe in hard work and earning what you have) but I would never dream of insulting a baby/toddler for political reasons. That sort of hate is tragic.
    I kind of admire republicans for their tireless optimisim in the face of overwhelming futility and the rather adorable optimism in thinking adding a One More Politician layer up top could fix anything.

    Less enamoured about calling a three year old child a cnut, obvs.
    No need to add anything, the PM could double up as head of state. Or we could have an appointed President equivalent to how the Governor General in Australia acts in locum for the Queen.
    Do we need a head of state? Switzerland doesn't have a head of state and yet somehow manages to function.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    kle4 said:

    This is what the Head of Global Estates at the British Council had to say about Prince George:

    http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/26/british-council-worker-described-prince-george-as-a-fking-dkhead-6029047/

    She says she is sound in her socialist, atheist and republican opinions.

    Seriously though, even privately why be such a dick about a child, expressing socialist, atheist and republican opinions is possible even on here without being so, and it is probably less welcoming to all three than facebook.
    She would have been irritated by the photos and their prominence in the news because she thought they might increase public affection for the Royal Family for another generation.

    She would have assumed her social media account was a safe space to vent about it and assert what she would like to think are her progressive egalitarian and meritocratic credentials.
    I'm a republican for the same reasons I'm a Conservative (I believe in hard work and earning what you have) but I would never dream of insulting a baby/toddler for political reasons. That sort of hate is tragic.
    I kind of admire republicans for their tireless optimisim in the face of overwhelming futility and the rather adorable optimism in thinking adding a One More Politician layer up top could fix anything.

    Less enamoured about calling a three year old child a cnut, obvs.
    No need to add anything, the PM could double up as head of state. Or we could have an appointed President equivalent to how the Governor General in Australia acts in locum for the Queen.
    Do we need a head of state? Switzerland doesn't have a head of state and yet somehow manages to function.
    There's plenty of options out there that could all work.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    My God, is this place a hive of filthy republicans? Make yourself known, so I can add you to ze list.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,554
    John_M said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    It's more that areas of Wales have been in receipt of Objective-1 and successor funding programs for decades, and the Welsh economy is still a basket case. In this aspect, its similar to Scotland - Labour were in power since Adam was a lad and nothing changed.

    A lot of money has gone on structural things (e.g. dualling the HoTV road) but money doesn't solve the fundamental issues. It's a challenge for all governments - throwing money at a problem does not guarantee success.

    When you look at the job creation side of things, EU funding has been very poor value for money. The last figures I've seen were from 2014, and it was claimed (by a pro-EU source) that 29,800 jobs had been created, which is pitiful.
    What does change things? If you ranked the areas of the country from richest to poorest 40 years ago, would any have noticeably climbed or descended the rankings? How has that come about?
    Locally, Central Manchester has done well - but Greater Manchester has probably remained steadily in the bottom half. I'm looking for areas of county level and above that have improved.
    Its hard to find comparable figures that date back that far. Too many methodological changes.

    The best I can do for you is a comparison 1997-2014. Linkie here:

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_426841.pdf

    Check out figure 3 on page 10. Brief summary: with the exception of the SE, everywhere is going backwards compared to London. Wales is going backwards faster than most other regions.

    Thanks John_M - interesting. And a little depressing.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,718
    edited July 2016
    John_M said:

    My God, is this place a hive of filthy republicans? Make yourself known, so I can add you to ze list.

    PB Roundhead and proud*

    Divine rights of Kings? You're having a laugh

    *I would make the world's worst Puritan though
  • Options
    JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    What does it matter if the polls show Labour doing badly? Corbyn is not interested in polls, or anything whatsoever to do with electoral politics. His only interest is turning the Labour party into a pressure group, and he sees opposition as a better way to affect government policy than government itself. Surely we all know this by now?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,031
    Mr. M, genuine line from my WIP [won't be out for ages, incidentally]:
    "Republicanism is an infantile disease."
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,718
    Uh oh, Fireman Sam's about to get a Fatwa

    People Are Confused Why There Appears To Be A Hidden Page Of The Qur’an In “Fireman Sam”

    A few minutes into season 9, episode 7 (entitled “Troubled Waters”) of the children’s TV show, a fireman slips on a piece of paper next to a pile of paper that has recently fallen out of a cardboard box. As he falls to the floor, one of the pieces of paper is revealed to be a page of the Qur’an.....

    ....Four years ago, the creator of the show, Dave Jones, was detained at Gatwick airport after asking why a veiled Muslim woman was not being checked by airport security. He had apparently joked about wearing his scarf over his face, which he told the BBC was “an observation, nothing more”. However, he was told to apologise to a Muslim security guard who overheard the comment.
    Mattel, which produces the show, has been contacted for comment.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/people-are-confused-why-there-appears-to-be-a-hidden-page-of?utm_term=.qyjXZN3RyR#.qsVxJ59nan
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Mr. M, genuine line from my WIP [won't be out for ages, incidentally]:
    "Republicanism is an infantile disease."

    Good man ;).
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    May well be the case, but at least the EU gave a f***. There is no way these structural funds will come to Wales from Westminster. 'aint ever gonna happen.
    Genuine question. Do you live in Wales?
    The EU couldn't care less. It was just interested in buying support among the public sector fat cats: politicians, bureaucrats and academics.



  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388

    Uh oh, Fireman Sam's about to get a Fatwa

    People Are Confused Why There Appears To Be A Hidden Page Of The Qur’an In “Fireman Sam”

    A few minutes into season 9, episode 7 (entitled “Troubled Waters”) of the children’s TV show, a fireman slips on a piece of paper next to a pile of paper that has recently fallen out of a cardboard box. As he falls to the floor, one of the pieces of paper is revealed to be a page of the Qur’an.....

    ....Four years ago, the creator of the show, Dave Jones, was detained at Gatwick airport after asking why a veiled Muslim woman was not being checked by airport security. He had apparently joked about wearing his scarf over his face, which he told the BBC was “an observation, nothing more”. However, he was told to apologise to a Muslim security guard who overheard the comment.
    Mattel, which produces the show, has been contacted for comment.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/people-are-confused-why-there-appears-to-be-a-hidden-page-of?utm_term=.qyjXZN3RyR#.qsVxJ59nan

    Presumably a misguided attempt at diversity.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    This is a systemic failure now.

    Any apparent loss is blamed on some conspiracy. There is not point at which his proponents will accept defeat, not if they fall to fifty seats. Even Blair realised when his time was up. So did Cameron.

    https://twitter.com/thesteventhomas/status/756913698430656514
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    kle4 said:

    This is what the Head of Global Estates at the British Council had to say about Prince George:

    http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/26/british-council-worker-described-prince-george-as-a-fking-dkhead-6029047/

    She says she is sound in her socialist, atheist and republican opinions.

    Seriously though, even privately why be such a dick about a child, expressing socialist, atheist and republican opinions is possible even on here without being so, and it is probably less welcoming to all three than facebook.
    She would have been irritated by the photos and their prominence in the news because she thought they might increase public affection for the Royal Family for another generation.

    She would have assumed her social media account was a safe space to vent about it and assert what she would like to think are her progressive egalitarian and meritocratic credentials.
    I'm a republican for the same reasons I'm a Conservative (I believe in hard work and earning what you have) but I would never dream of insulting a baby/toddler for political reasons. That sort of hate is tragic.
    I kind of admire republicans for their tireless optimisim in the face of overwhelming futility and the rather adorable optimism in thinking adding a One More Politician layer up top could fix anything.

    Less enamoured about calling a three year old child a cnut, obvs.
    No need to add anything, the PM could double up as head of state. Or we could have an appointed President equivalent to how the Governor General in Australia acts in locum for the Queen.
    Do we need a head of state? Switzerland doesn't have a head of state and yet somehow manages to function.
    The trouble with 'heads of state' is that they have an unhealthy tendency to make the 4 years for which they are appointed become a lifetime.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,554

    John_M said:

    My God, is this place a hive of filthy republicans? Make yourself known, so I can add you to ze list.

    PB Roundhead and proud.

    Divine rights of Kings? You're having a laugh
    In principle, I'm a Tory roundhead too. But I would describe my republicanism as grumbly rather than furious. And I think the queen does a good job as head of state so in practice am in no mood to change anything at present. I'm of the opinion that we should be able to replace our monarch, but in practice, I don't want to do so.
    The next monarch may turn out to be equally effective. Or he may be terrible. If the latter, I will be of the opinion that he should be replaced.

    I think a significant chunk of the country's enthusiasm for the monarchy is for the monarch herself, personally, rather than the institution.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Scott_P said:

    This is a systemic failure now.

    Any apparent loss is blamed on some conspiracy. There is not point at which his proponents will accept defeat, not if they fall to fifty seats. Even Blair realised when his time was up. So did Cameron.

    https://twitter.com/thesteventhomas/status/756913698430656514
    Seems to fit Islam pretty well.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,031
    Mr. M, Sir Edric believes in sensible policies for a happier Awyndel. Zero tolerance on elves (excepting frisky lady elves), minimum taxation, and the extension of slavery to everyone who doesn't have a knighthood.

    Mr. Eagles, good old cultural sensitivities.
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    john_zims said:

    @taffys

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.'


    Is education as big a disaster as healthcare ?

    Education is primarily the responsibility of teachers not politicians.

    Health is primarily the responsibility of doctors not politicians.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,596
    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    May well be the case, but at least the EU gave a f***. There is no way these structural funds will come to Wales from Westminster. 'aint ever gonna happen.
    Genuine question. Do you live in Wales?
    No. So maybe it is about to be proved that I am talking nonsense :-)
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited July 2016
    Why did the police kill the Normandy killers? They do not appear to have been carrying guns and they were leaving the church, apparently without hostages. Why couldn't they do what the British police did in Woolwich and shoot non-lethally to protect themselves from the terrorists' knives?
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    Uh oh, Fireman Sam's about to get a Fatwa

    People Are Confused Why There Appears To Be A Hidden Page Of The Qur’an In “Fireman Sam”

    A few minutes into season 9, episode 7 (entitled “Troubled Waters”) of the children’s TV show, a fireman slips on a piece of paper next to a pile of paper that has recently fallen out of a cardboard box. As he falls to the floor, one of the pieces of paper is revealed to be a page of the Qur’an.....

    ....Four years ago, the creator of the show, Dave Jones, was detained at Gatwick airport after asking why a veiled Muslim woman was not being checked by airport security. He had apparently joked about wearing his scarf over his face, which he told the BBC was “an observation, nothing more”. However, he was told to apologise to a Muslim security guard who overheard the comment.
    Mattel, which produces the show, has been contacted for comment.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/people-are-confused-why-there-appears-to-be-a-hidden-page-of?utm_term=.qyjXZN3RyR#.qsVxJ59nan

    The Satanic Hoses?
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    kle4 said:

    This is what the Head of Global Estates at the British Council had to say about Prince George:

    http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/26/british-council-worker-described-prince-george-as-a-fking-dkhead-6029047/

    She says she is sound in her socialist, atheist and republican opinions.

    Seriously though, even privately why be such a dick about a child, expressing socialist, atheist and republican opinions is possible even on here without being so, and it is probably less welcoming to all three than facebook.
    She would have been irritated by the photos and their prominence in the news because she thought they might increase public affection for the Royal Family for another generation.

    She would have assumed her social media account was a safe space to vent about it and assert what she would like to think are her progressive egalitarian and meritocratic credentials.
    I'm a republican for the same reasons I'm a Conservative (I believe in hard work and earning what you have) but I would never dream of insulting a baby/toddler for political reasons. That sort of hate is tragic.
    I kind of admire republicans for their tireless optimisim in the face of overwhelming futility and the rather adorable optimism in thinking adding a One More Politician layer up top could fix anything.

    Less enamoured about calling a three year old child a cnut, obvs.
    No need to add anything, the PM could double up as head of state. Or we could have an appointed President equivalent to how the Governor General in Australia acts in locum for the Queen.
    Do we need a head of state? Switzerland doesn't have a head of state and yet somehow manages to function.
    There's plenty of options out there that could all work.
    Indeed, including doing away with parliamentary democracy based on the universal franchise. There are lots of models that could work (my own favourite being a return to a Monarchy as per Elizabeth I), but none that could be implemented short of a revolution, and we have just had one of those. I don't think we are due another one for a few hundred years.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,718

    Uh oh, Fireman Sam's about to get a Fatwa

    People Are Confused Why There Appears To Be A Hidden Page Of The Qur’an In “Fireman Sam”

    A few minutes into season 9, episode 7 (entitled “Troubled Waters”) of the children’s TV show, a fireman slips on a piece of paper next to a pile of paper that has recently fallen out of a cardboard box. As he falls to the floor, one of the pieces of paper is revealed to be a page of the Qur’an.....

    ....Four years ago, the creator of the show, Dave Jones, was detained at Gatwick airport after asking why a veiled Muslim woman was not being checked by airport security. He had apparently joked about wearing his scarf over his face, which he told the BBC was “an observation, nothing more”. However, he was told to apologise to a Muslim security guard who overheard the comment.
    Mattel, which produces the show, has been contacted for comment.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/people-are-confused-why-there-appears-to-be-a-hidden-page-of?utm_term=.qyjXZN3RyR#.qsVxJ59nan

    The Satanic Hoses?
    Heh
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited July 2016
    runnymede said:

    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    May well be the case, but at least the EU gave a f***. There is no way these structural funds will come to Wales from Westminster. 'aint ever gonna happen.
    Genuine question. Do you live in Wales?
    The EU couldn't care less. It was just interested in buying support among the public sector fat cats: politicians, bureaucrats and academics.
    The more the EU budget rises the lower the overall gdp of the EU grows.
  • Options
    Dromedary said:

    Why did the police kill the Normandy killers? They do not appear to have been carrying guns and they were leaving the church, apparently without hostages. Why couldn't they do what the British police did in Woolwich and shot non-lethally to protect themselves from the terrorists' knives?

    Could they have been concerned about explosives?
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    chestnut said:

    DaveDave said:

    There was some talk yesterday of whether Tory or Labour seats were more marginal.

    I took these lists: http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/labour and http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative, and for each rank pair (Con most marginal-Lab most marginal; Con 2nd most marginal-Lab 2nd most marginal; etc.) I calculated a "Labour safer by" figure as (Lab swing to lose - Con swing to lose) /Con swing to lose, which gives the following chart:

    image

    So at nearly all points the Labour seat is safer, often considerably so.

    Please point out all the obvious flaws in my argument!

    I agree. Labour have very safe seats. 20% lead required to really move things. That said,Tories win 165 seats at General even if Corbyn was Tory Leader!
    Labour's voter allocation is very inefficient. They've stockpiled voters in safe seats where they can do no good, and can't reach them in marginals where they actually matter.

    To be the largest party in (October? 2018? 2020?) general election they'll need to flip a lot of voters that voted Tory in 2015. 4 out of every 5 voters they'd need to reach a plurality in fact will be soft Tories in suburban English marginals.

    They are so fucked.
    It seems highly conceivable that their inefficient distribution will get even worse under Corbyn.

    Even more votes from the Village People in places like Walthamstow, Dulwich, Stoke Newington while the London fringes as well as Wales and the Midlands marginals become ever more hostile.
    I'm not expecting much or any change in the event of a GE from the last GE, that has been my forecast consistently since last summer.

    There is not much time for an early GE to be triggered under current mechanisms before winter comes and May's honeymoon ends.

    But my point is this, Labour only has around 20-25 seats in Rural areas, and the Tories around 65 seats in Urban areas.

    You can't depress Labour much further because voters in urban areas become left wing due to the social structure and population pressure in cities.

    The Tories as the party of rural communities and the rich can always rely on very wealthy parts of urban areas to side with them on top of their rural seats to form a majority.

    The Tories can at max peel off the last rural Labour seats which mostly are in Wales and the N.E., but Labour have so few rural seats for the Tories to win we are close to peak Tory in seat terms.

    The only area Labour can press the attack, unless there is a collapse in farmers fortunes, is London, and the occasional urban Tory seat where people are poorer than normal.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    ICM platinum double-diamond standard status confirmed :D

    Are we believing opinion polls again?
    We're still concerned that they may be understating the true scale of the Conservative lead.
    True. I would take 2% off the Labour number and add it to the Conservatives. 25% Lab and 45% Conservatives would be a reasonable expectation based on the state of all the parties.
    Not much sign of that in last week's local by elections.
    It is the false hope generated by a few local by elections which will hurt you. It is a disease that frequently affects Lib Dems, falsehopusbyelections.
    I belong to no political party and only voted Labour at one of the last five general elections.
    Noted. Local by elections are a very bad indicator of future election performance. Annual local elections are much more reliable.
    I agree with that but if there was a significant switch under way I would expect to see some sign of it in a batch of 10 -12 by elections.
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194

    Dromedary said:

    Why did the police kill the Normandy killers? They do not appear to have been carrying guns and they were leaving the church, apparently without hostages. Why couldn't they do what the British police did in Woolwich and shot non-lethally to protect themselves from the terrorists' knives?

    Could they have been concerned about explosives?
    They could have been. That's what was said in Gibraltar. More likely, they have a shoot to kill policy.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    nunu said:

    Scott_P said:

    @NCPoliticsUK: In Scotland, Sturgeon's ratings improve, Davidson's soar, May starts strongly, Labour's Caledonian calamity deepens https://t.co/I5e130BEmT

    If Scottish politics move towards a more unionist/nationalist split then Ruth Davidson is well placed to profit from that as a centrist Conservative.

    It's not inconceivable she could get to c.22% to 30% of Scottish votes, but probably not higher.

    Still, that could block a lot of what the SNP want to do.
    Interesting Ruth is doing well with all the parties, whereas Nicola is doing well with all except Scots Tories who seem to hate her. She needs to gain independence from the left only.
    Sturgeon is +57 with Remain voters, which is nice.
    The electoral future of scotland in 10 years probably, just replace red with SNP yellow:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland#/media/File:United_Kingdom_general_election_1979_in_Scotland.svg
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,255
    PlatoSaid said:

    I've seen a couple of intv on Sky with a French journalist - talking about anger in Paris and elsewhere that things have now gone too far/the people don't believe the politicians know what to do and incapable of protecting them.

    Have to say, I'm very glad I don't live there.

    We're deluding ourselves if we think the same things couldn't happen here.

    France may be the canary in the coalmine but at a time like this she needs our help and support, not just our prayers and sympathy.

    We are becoming so numb with atrocity after atrocity. But I have to say that beheading an elderly priest while he is celebrating Mass is yet another barbarous low.

    At the risk of enraging the cultural relativists (and frankly I don't care if I do) it exemplifies the different concepts of martyrdom. A Christian martyr dies for his/her faith. An "Islamic" one kills others for his.

    Subject, obviously, to the inevitable proviso that bastards such as these are probably no more true Muslims than I am.

  • Options
    grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    ICM platinum double-diamond standard status confirmed :D

    Are we believing opinion polls again?
    We're still concerned that they may be understating the true scale of the Conservative lead.
    True. I would take 2% off the Labour number and add it to the Conservatives. 25% Lab and 45% Conservatives would be a reasonable expectation based on the state of all the parties.
    Not much sign of that in last week's local by elections.
    It is the false hope generated by a few local by elections which will hurt you. It is a disease that frequently affects Lib Dems, falsehopusbyelections.
    I belong to no political party and only voted Labour at one of the last five general elections.
    Noted. Local by elections are a very bad indicator of future election performance. Annual local elections are much more reliable.
    I agree with that but if there was a significant switch under way I would expect to see some sign of it in a batch of 10 -12 by elections.
    You can expect what you like, don't make it so. A Ramsgate Parish Council by election tells us nothing about the future. Shut up Jeremy.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2016

    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    May well be the case, but at least the EU gave a f***. There is no way these structural funds will come to Wales from Westminster. 'aint ever gonna happen.
    Genuine question. Do you live in Wales?
    No. So maybe it is about to be proved that I am talking nonsense :-)
    Believe it or not, I don't generally try and score points off people. Just wondered really. However, as ever when you look at the realities of external funding, the money isn't 'sticky' - it's similar to International Aid.

    Returning to one of the big infrastructure projects as an example, the dualling of the A465 (~£250m) it's being carried out by Costain, so that money pretty much flows straight to them.

    Smaller projects (e.g. the new multi-storey car park in Merthyr) might use local firms, but the consultations and project support is being delivered by Capita.

    Ultimately, Wales doesn't _just_ need funding. It needs a better educated, more skilled, less sickly and more mobile workforce.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,543
    Scott_P said:
    Corbyn is -47 with Labour voters? Wow, that is really bad. Am I reading that right?
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,623

    Uh oh, Fireman Sam's about to get a Fatwa

    People Are Confused Why There Appears To Be A Hidden Page Of The Qur’an In “Fireman Sam”

    A few minutes into season 9, episode 7 (entitled “Troubled Waters”) of the children’s TV show, a fireman slips on a piece of paper next to a pile of paper that has recently fallen out of a cardboard box. As he falls to the floor, one of the pieces of paper is revealed to be a page of the Qur’an.....

    ....Four years ago, the creator of the show, Dave Jones, was detained at Gatwick airport after asking why a veiled Muslim woman was not being checked by airport security. He had apparently joked about wearing his scarf over his face, which he told the BBC was “an observation, nothing more”. However, he was told to apologise to a Muslim security guard who overheard the comment.
    Mattel, which produces the show, has been contacted for comment.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/people-are-confused-why-there-appears-to-be-a-hidden-page-of?utm_term=.qyjXZN3RyR#.qsVxJ59nan

    The Satanic Hoses?
    Heh
    If he were an undertaker, it would be The Satanic Hearses!

    (I'll get me coat...)
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    AndyJS said:

    Good evening from Bloomsbury.

    How is it? Nice and Remainy.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,596
    Philip Collins ‏@PCollinsTimes 32m32 minutes ago
    I should add I don't really believe the ICM poll. There is no way Labour will get as much as 27 per cent.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Philip Collins ‏@PCollinsTimes 32m32 minutes ago
    I should add I don't really believe the ICM poll. There is no way Labour will get as much as 27 per cent.

    Sounds like a joke, but it's not unusual for Labour to poll less in votes than they do in opinion polls ...
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,106
    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    My God, is this place a hive of filthy republicans? Make yourself known, so I can add you to ze list.

    PB Roundhead and proud.

    Divine rights of Kings? You're having a laugh
    In principle, I'm a Tory roundhead too. But I would describe my republicanism as grumbly rather than furious. And I think the queen does a good job as head of state so in practice am in no mood to change anything at present. I'm of the opinion that we should be able to replace our monarch, but in practice, I don't want to do so.
    The next monarch may turn out to be equally effective. Or he may be terrible. If the latter, I will be of the opinion that he should be replaced.

    I think a significant chunk of the country's enthusiasm for the monarchy is for the monarch herself, personally, rather than the institution.
    One day, alas, we shall find out if that is so. I'm monarchist as, frankly, I don't think our constitutional system, with its archaic, flamboyant edge, has worked too badly, and has charm, it's stable.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    Corbyn is -47 with Labour voters? Wow, that is really bad. Am I reading that right?
    2015 Labour voters ...
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,623

    Philip Collins ‏@PCollinsTimes 32m32 minutes ago
    I should add I don't really believe the ICM poll. There is no way Labour will get as much as 27 per cent.

    "Against all odds" - Phil Collins :)
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,106
    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    My God, is this place a hive of filthy republicans? Make yourself known, so I can add you to ze list.

    PB Roundhead and proud.

    Divine rights of Kings? You're having a laugh
    In principle, I'm a Tory roundhead too. But I would describe my republicanism as grumbly rather than furious. And I think the queen does a good job as head of state so in practice am in no mood to change anything at present. I'm of the opinion that we should be able to replace our monarch, but in practice, I don't want to do so.
    The next monarch may turn out to be equally effective. Or he may be terrible. If the latter, I will be of the opinion that he should be replaced.

    I think a significant chunk of the country's enthusiasm for the monarchy is for the monarch herself, personally, rather than the institution.
    Also interesting in that more and more monarchs, ones with real power and those without, are abdicating. Apparently even the Emperor of Japan is considering it. It seems Her Majesty and the King of Thailand (who is younger but has been on the throne even longer) are the only ones not considering it.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Dromedary said:

    Why did the police kill the Normandy killers? They do not appear to have been carrying guns and they were leaving the church, apparently without hostages. Why couldn't they do what the British police did in Woolwich and shoot non-lethally to protect themselves from the terrorists' knives?

    If anyone survives being shot by the Old Bill it is down to luck and/or poor marksmanship. The idea that one fires a gun "non-leathally" is a nonsense. If you need to fire then you aim at the central point of the torso (the biggest target), which is where the vital organs are with the intention of putting the bugger down so that he/she is no longer a threat. Whether the person lives or dies is not important only that they are neutralised.

    The one exception from that is the suicide bomber at close range when you go for a head shot because you want to take down the nervous system because even a wounded man can still press the button. And God help you trying to make that shot - the Cops that shot the Brazilian fellow on the Tube had their guns inches away from his head and still managed to miss (seven times from memory)

    The idea that in the heat of the moment, when peoples lives are really on the line it is possible to shoot accurately enough to hit an arm or a weapon from the target's hand is for Clint Eastwood and the movies.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Cyclefree said:



    At the risk of enraging the cultural relativists (and frankly I don't care if I do) it exemplifies the different concepts of martyrdom. A Christian martyr dies for his/her faith. An "Islamic" one kills others for his.

    Good point.

    "On that Sunday evening, Mass in the Syrian Catholic church of Our Lady of Salvation was cut short by Islamist gunmen who took the congregation hostage, screaming: “All of you are infidels… we will go to paradise if we kill you and you will go to hell.”

    ... Christianity in itself is among the most hated of all the targets of Islamic terrorist groups. For jihadis, the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus is an affront that justifies the brutality of the Dark Ages."

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/07/26/a-priest-is-slaughtered-at-mass-in-rural-france-this-is-what-life-is-like-for-christians-in-the-middle-east/

  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Just been YouGov'd, including questions about voting intention if there were an SDP2 split, and VI if Labour's left split off into a new party.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,543
    Dromedary said:

    Dromedary said:

    Why did the police kill the Normandy killers? They do not appear to have been carrying guns and they were leaving the church, apparently without hostages. Why couldn't they do what the British police did in Woolwich and shot non-lethally to protect themselves from the terrorists' knives?

    Could they have been concerned about explosives?
    They could have been. That's what was said in Gibraltar. More likely, they have a shoot to kill policy.
    Good.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    My God, is this place a hive of filthy republicans? Make yourself known, so I can add you to ze list.

    PB Roundhead and proud.

    Divine rights of Kings? You're having a laugh
    In principle, I'm a Tory roundhead too. But I would describe my republicanism as grumbly rather than furious. And I think the queen does a good job as head of state so in practice am in no mood to change anything at present. I'm of the opinion that we should be able to replace our monarch, but in practice, I don't want to do so.
    The next monarch may turn out to be equally effective. Or he may be terrible. If the latter, I will be of the opinion that he should be replaced.

    I think a significant chunk of the country's enthusiasm for the monarchy is for the monarch herself, personally, rather than the institution.
    One day, alas, we shall find out if that is so. I'm monarchist as, frankly, I don't think our constitutional system, with its archaic, flamboyant edge, has worked too badly, and has charm, it's stable.
    I would be a roundhead Tory were it not for the fact that I am unconvinced that a replacement system would work any better. So I remain marginally monarchist. The monarchy is a harmless anachronism. Should it cease to be harmless, I shall happily change my stance.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    It's more that areas of Wales have been in receipt of Objective-1 and successor funding programs for decades, and the Welsh economy is still a basket case. In this aspect, its similar to Scotland - Labour were in power since Adam was a lad and nothing changed.

    A lot of money has gone on structural things (e.g. dualling the HoTV road) but money doesn't solve the fundamental issues. It's a challenge for all governments - throwing money at a problem does not guarantee success.

    When you look at the job creation side of things, EU funding has been very poor value for money. The last figures I've seen were from 2014, and it was claimed (by a pro-EU source) that 29,800 jobs had been created, which is pitiful.
    What does change things? If you ranked the areas of the country from richest to poorest 40 years ago, would any have noticeably climbed or descended the rankings? How has that come about?
    Locally, Central Manchester has done well - but Greater Manchester has probably remained steadily in the bottom half. I'm looking for areas of county level and above that have improved.
    Its hard to find comparable figures that date back that far. Too many methodological changes.

    The best I can do for you is a comparison 1997-2014. Linkie here:

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_426841.pdf

    Check out figure 3 on page 10. Brief summary: with the exception of the SE, everywhere is going backwards compared to London. Wales is going backwards faster than most other regions.

    Thanks John_M - interesting. And a little depressing.
    There is also the usual problem when measuring per capita income.
    I don't think many people get 125K per year in Tower Hamlets.

    I prefer to use the medium average income, to see how many voters are actually rich or poor.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,543

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    Corbyn is -47 with Labour voters? Wow, that is really bad. Am I reading that right?
    2015 Labour voters ...
    That makes it better? Scottish Labour is a lot smaller than it was but that indicates to me that the membership are unlikely to be putting their cross in Corbyn's box up here.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Tim Stanley
    "They did a sort of sermon around the altar in Arabic. It's a horror." #Rouen https://t.co/oTq7K1n4ql
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DavidL said:

    Dromedary said:

    Dromedary said:

    Why did the police kill the Normandy killers? They do not appear to have been carrying guns and they were leaving the church, apparently without hostages. Why couldn't they do what the British police did in Woolwich and shot non-lethally to protect themselves from the terrorists' knives?

    Could they have been concerned about explosives?
    They could have been. That's what was said in Gibraltar. More likely, they have a shoot to kill policy.
    Good.
    Only reason they shouldn't is it costs the opportunity of interrogating them ...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,543
    MTimT said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    My God, is this place a hive of filthy republicans? Make yourself known, so I can add you to ze list.

    PB Roundhead and proud.

    Divine rights of Kings? You're having a laugh
    In principle, I'm a Tory roundhead too. But I would describe my republicanism as grumbly rather than furious. And I think the queen does a good job as head of state so in practice am in no mood to change anything at present. I'm of the opinion that we should be able to replace our monarch, but in practice, I don't want to do so.
    The next monarch may turn out to be equally effective. Or he may be terrible. If the latter, I will be of the opinion that he should be replaced.

    I think a significant chunk of the country's enthusiasm for the monarchy is for the monarch herself, personally, rather than the institution.
    One day, alas, we shall find out if that is so. I'm monarchist as, frankly, I don't think our constitutional system, with its archaic, flamboyant edge, has worked too badly, and has charm, it's stable.
    I would be a roundhead Tory were it not for the fact that I am unconvinced that a replacement system would work any better. So I remain marginally monarchist. The monarchy is a harmless anachronism. Should it cease to be harmless, I shall happily change my stance.
    I am an Elizabethan. Once she goes it just might be time for a rethink.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,106
    MTimT said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    My God, is this place a hive of filthy republicans? Make yourself known, so I can add you to ze list.

    PB Roundhead and proud.

    Divine rights of Kings? You're having a laugh
    In principle, I'm a Tory roundhead too. But I would describe my republicanism as grumbly rather than furious. And I think the queen does a good job as head of state so in practice am in no mood to change anything at present. I'm of the opinion that we should be able to replace our monarch, but in practice, I don't want to do so.
    The next monarch may turn out to be equally effective. Or he may be terrible. If the latter, I will be of the opinion that he should be replaced.

    I think a significant chunk of the country's enthusiasm for the monarchy is for the monarch herself, personally, rather than the institution.
    One day, alas, we shall find out if that is so. I'm monarchist as, frankly, I don't think our constitutional system, with its archaic, flamboyant edge, has worked too badly, and has charm, it's stable.
    I would be a roundhead Tory were it not for the fact that I am unconvinced that a replacement system would work any better. So I remain marginally monarchist. The monarchy is a harmless anachronism. Should it cease to be harmless, I shall happily change my stance.
    As would many. Some Republicans get very irate about the theoretical powers of the monarch, but since they remain theoretical most people do not care. If a monarch attempted to actually use them though, well, all bets are off.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    Corbyn is -47 with Labour voters? Wow, that is really bad. Am I reading that right?
    And doing twice as better with SNP voters, the problem is that SNP voters will not vote SLAB for a generation.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Speedy said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    It's more that areas of Wales have been in receipt of Objective-1 and successor funding programs for decades, and the Welsh economy is still a basket case. In this aspect, its similar to Scotland - Labour were in power since Adam was a lad and nothing changed.

    A lot of money has gone on structural things (e.g. dualling the HoTV road) but money doesn't solve the fundamental issues. It's a challenge for all governments - throwing money at a problem does not guarantee success.

    When you look at the job creation side of things, EU funding has been very poor value for money. The last figures I've seen were from 2014, and it was claimed (by a pro-EU source) that 29,800 jobs had been created, which is pitiful.
    improved.
    Its hard to find comparable figures that date back that far. Too many methodological changes.

    The best I can do for you is a comparison 1997-2014. Linkie here:

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_426841.pdf

    Check out figure 3 on page 10. Brief summary: with the exception of the SE, everywhere is going backwards compared to London. Wales is going backwards faster than most other regions.

    Thanks John_M - interesting. And a little depressing.
    There is also the usual problem when measuring per capita income.
    I don't think many people get 125K per year in Tower Hamlets.

    I prefer to use the medium average income, to see how many voters are actually rich or poor.
    My preference is median disposable income. My argument is that once we've paid our bills, whatever is left determines how prosperous we feel. I earn much less than I used to, but I'm more prosperous due to the absence of mortgage & school fees. The "poorest" I've ever been was when my income was at its highest.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    ICM platinum double-diamond standard status confirmed :D

    Are we believing opinion polls again?
    We're still concerned that they may be understating the true scale of the Conservative lead.
    True. I would take 2% off the Labour number and add it to the Conservatives. 25% Lab and 45% Conservatives would be a reasonable expectation based on the state of all the parties.
    Not much sign of that in last week's local by elections.
    It is the false hope generated by a few local by elections which will hurt you. It is a disease that frequently affects Lib Dems, falsehopusbyelections.
    I belong to no political party and only voted Labour at one of the last five general elections.
    Noted. Local by elections are a very bad indicator of future election performance. Annual local elections are much more reliable.
    I agree with that but if there was a significant switch under way I would expect to see some sign of it in a batch of 10 -12 by elections.
    You can expect what you like, don't make it so. A Ramsgate Parish Council by election tells us nothing about the future. Shut up Jeremy.
    I am referring to County/District council by elections covered here every week! Parish/Community Council elections are meaningless.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,543

    DavidL said:

    Dromedary said:

    Dromedary said:

    Why did the police kill the Normandy killers? They do not appear to have been carrying guns and they were leaving the church, apparently without hostages. Why couldn't they do what the British police did in Woolwich and shot non-lethally to protect themselves from the terrorists' knives?

    Could they have been concerned about explosives?
    They could have been. That's what was said in Gibraltar. More likely, they have a shoot to kill policy.
    Good.
    Only reason they shouldn't is it costs the opportunity of interrogating them ...
    OTOH we don't have to pay the scum's board and lodging for the next 40 years whilst they corrupt other poor souls in the prison system. Given what they can get from forensics and IT that looks a reasonable trade off to me.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,027
    weejonnie said:

    Scott_P said:

    This is a systemic failure now.

    Any apparent loss is blamed on some conspiracy. There is not point at which his proponents will accept defeat, not if they fall to fifty seats. Even Blair realised when his time was up. So did Cameron.

    https://twitter.com/thesteventhomas/status/756913698430656514
    Seems to fit Islam pretty well.
    I thought it was the PB Tory checklist :o
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,106
    edited July 2016
    Worth remembering when using the Roundhead and Cavalier analogy that the Parliamentary forces were not seeking to abolish the monarchy when they started - a small portion of it killed Charles I when his intransigence in not admitting defeat kept causing problems, and they essentially had no option other than to go Republican, and even then the victors proposed a restoration under a Cromwellian monarchy and then adopted a pseudo-monarchy, on the basis that it was the most suitable option available. Most of the parliamentary opposition were still monarchists.

    If Cromwell had lived 5-10 more years, with more time for the system to bed in and a successor to emerge who could appeal to the disparate forces in the realm the way Richard Cromwell could not (no base in the army), we might be Republican now (or Cromwell would have been well established enough to ensure his son could take over with fewer problems).
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,623
    DavidL said:

    MTimT said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    My God, is this place a hive of filthy republicans? Make yourself known, so I can add you to ze list.

    PB Roundhead and proud.

    Divine rights of Kings? You're having a laugh
    In principle, I'm a Tory roundhead too. But I would describe my republicanism as grumbly rather than furious. And I think the queen does a good job as head of state so in practice am in no mood to change anything at present. I'm of the opinion that we should be able to replace our monarch, but in practice, I don't want to do so.
    The next monarch may turn out to be equally effective. Or he may be terrible. If the latter, I will be of the opinion that he should be replaced.

    I think a significant chunk of the country's enthusiasm for the monarchy is for the monarch herself, personally, rather than the institution.
    One day, alas, we shall find out if that is so. I'm monarchist as, frankly, I don't think our constitutional system, with its archaic, flamboyant edge, has worked too badly, and has charm, it's stable.
    I would be a roundhead Tory were it not for the fact that I am unconvinced that a replacement system would work any better. So I remain marginally monarchist. The monarchy is a harmless anachronism. Should it cease to be harmless, I shall happily change my stance.
    I am an Elizabethan. Once she goes it just might be time for a rethink.
    Sunil addressing his loyal PB followers outside Tilbury Town railway station:

    "I know I have the body of a weak, feeble trainspotter; but I have the heart and stomach of a King!"

    :)
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,543

    DavidL said:

    MTimT said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    My God, is this place a hive of filthy republicans? Make yourself known, so I can add you to ze list.

    PB Roundhead and proud.

    Divine rights of Kings? You're having a laugh
    In principle, I'm a Tory roundhead too. But I would describe my republicanism as grumbly rather than furious. And I think the queen does a good job as head of state so in practice am in no mood to change anything at present. I'm of the opinion that we should be able to replace our monarch, but in practice, I don't want to do so.
    The next monarch may turn out to be equally effective. Or he may be terrible. If the latter, I will be of the opinion that he should be replaced.

    I think a significant chunk of the country's enthusiasm for the monarchy is for the monarch herself, personally, rather than the institution.
    One day, alas, we shall find out if that is so. I'm monarchist as, frankly, I don't think our constitutional system, with its archaic, flamboyant edge, has worked too badly, and has charm, it's stable.
    I would be a roundhead Tory were it not for the fact that I am unconvinced that a replacement system would work any better. So I remain marginally monarchist. The monarchy is a harmless anachronism. Should it cease to be harmless, I shall happily change my stance.
    I am an Elizabethan. Once she goes it just might be time for a rethink.
    Sunil addressing his loyal PB followers outside Tilbury Town railway station:

    "I know I have the body of a weak, feeble trainspotter; but I have the heart and stomach of a King!"

    :)
    My son studied that speech in history recently. It is a classic.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    runnymede said:

    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    May well be the case, but at least the EU gave a f***. There is no way these structural funds will come to Wales from Westminster. 'aint ever gonna happen.
    Genuine question. Do you live in Wales?
    The EU couldn't care less. It was just interested in buying support among the public sector fat cats: politicians, bureaucrats and academics.
    The more the EU budget rises the lower the overall gdp of the EU grows.
    Don't EU funds flow to regions based simply on a formula (per capita GDP of region relative to EU average, population)?
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    The BBC reports

    "Claims by Labour MP Seema Malhotra that her office was accessed without her permission do not amount to a possible breach of Commons rules, Speaker John Bercow has said.

    The ex-frontbencher had complained to Mr Bercow that aides to leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell gained "unauthorised entry".

    Mr Bercow said there was nothing to "justify regarding these events as a possible breach".

    Mr McDonnell has called for an apology."
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,342
    edited July 2016
    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.

    A lot of money has gone on structural things (e.g. dualling the HoTV road) but money doesn't solve the fundamental issues. It's a challenge for all governments - throwing money at a problem does not guarantee success.

    When you look at the job creation side of things, EU funding has been very poor value for money. The last figures I've seen were from 2014, and it was claimed (by a pro-EU source) that 29,800 jobs had been created, which is pitiful.
    What does change things? If you ranked the areas of the country from richest to poorest 40 years ago, would any have noticeably climbed or descended the rankings? How has that come about?
    Locally, Central Manchester has done well - but Greater Manchester has probably remained steadily in the bottom half. I'm looking for areas of county level and above that have improved.
    Its hard to find comparable figures that date back that far. Too many methodological changes.

    The best I can do for you is a comparison 1997-2014. Linkie here:

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_426841.pdf

    Check out figure 3 on page 10. Brief summary: with the exception of the SE, everywhere is going backwards compared to London. Wales is going backwards faster than most other regions.

    Thanks John_M - interesting. And a little depressing.
    There is also the usual problem when measuring per capita income.
    I don't think many people get 125K per year in Tower Hamlets.

    I prefer to use the medium average income, to see how many voters are actually rich or poor.
    Remember Canary Wharf is in Tower Hamlets, so that figure is far from impossible
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,543

    The BBC reports

    "Claims by Labour MP Seema Malhotra that her office was accessed without her permission do not amount to a possible breach of Commons rules, Speaker John Bercow has said.

    The ex-frontbencher had complained to Mr Bercow that aides to leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell gained "unauthorised entry".

    Mr Bercow said there was nothing to "justify regarding these events as a possible breach".

    Mr McDonnell has called for an apology."

    How stupid can you get? I mean, really? It's quite sad.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,027
    DavidL said:

    The BBC reports

    "Claims by Labour MP Seema Malhotra that her office was accessed without her permission do not amount to a possible breach of Commons rules, Speaker John Bercow has said.

    The ex-frontbencher had complained to Mr Bercow that aides to leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell gained "unauthorised entry".

    Mr Bercow said there was nothing to "justify regarding these events as a possible breach".

    Mr McDonnell has called for an apology."

    How stupid can you get? I mean, really? It's quite sad.
    Pretty disrespectful to go into someones office to snoop around without permission.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    MTimT said:

    runnymede said:

    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping in infrastructure funds. I seem to recall a vox on TV where someone in the Welsh valleys was interviewed outside a brand new apprenticeship training centre (all paid for by EU structural funds as the sign said), saying the EU had done nothing for Wales and they were voting Leave.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    May well be the case, but at least the EU gave a f***. There is no way these structural funds will come to Wales from Westminster. 'aint ever gonna happen.
    Genuine question. Do you live in Wales?
    The EU couldn't care less. It was just interested in buying support among the public sector fat cats: politicians, bureaucrats and academics.
    The more the EU budget rises the lower the overall gdp of the EU grows.
    Don't EU funds flow to regions based simply on a formula (per capita GDP of region relative to EU average, population)?
    Pretty much. Most of the UK used to be eligible for Objective-1 funding, but post-A8 accession, only Wales and Cornwall get the full-fat 'less developed' funding levels. Everywhere else moved to 'transitional' funding.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,543
    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    The BBC reports

    "Claims by Labour MP Seema Malhotra that her office was accessed without her permission do not amount to a possible breach of Commons rules, Speaker John Bercow has said.

    The ex-frontbencher had complained to Mr Bercow that aides to leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell gained "unauthorised entry".

    Mr Bercow said there was nothing to "justify regarding these events as a possible breach".

    Mr McDonnell has called for an apology."

    How stupid can you get? I mean, really? It's quite sad.
    Pretty disrespectful to go into someones office to snoop around without permission.
    Pretty disrespectful to try to hang on to an office you are not entitled to and leave your stuff there when it should have been moved out.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,027
    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    The BBC reports

    "Claims by Labour MP Seema Malhotra that her office was accessed without her permission do not amount to a possible breach of Commons rules, Speaker John Bercow has said.

    The ex-frontbencher had complained to Mr Bercow that aides to leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell gained "unauthorised entry".

    Mr Bercow said there was nothing to "justify regarding these events as a possible breach".

    Mr McDonnell has called for an apology."

    How stupid can you get? I mean, really? It's quite sad.
    Pretty disrespectful to go into someones office to snoop around without permission.
    Pretty disrespectful to try to hang on to an office you are not entitled to and leave your stuff there when it should have been moved out.
    Ah, I clearly didn't know the full story!
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    ICM platinum double-diamond standard status confirmed :D

    Are we believing opinion polls again?
    We're still concerned that they may be understating the true scale of the Conservative lead.
    True. I would take 2% off the Labour number and add it to the Conservatives. 25% Lab and 45% Conservatives would be a reasonable expectation based on the state of all the parties.
    Not much sign of that in last week's local by elections.
    It is the false hope generated by a few local by elections which will hurt you. It is a disease that frequently affects Lib Dems, falsehopusbyelections.
    I belong to no political party and only voted Labour at one of the last five general elections.
    Noted. Local by elections are a very bad indicator of future election performance. Annual local elections are much more reliable.
    I agree with that but if there was a significant switch under way I would expect to see some sign of it in a batch of 10 -12 by elections.
    You can expect what you like, don't make it so. A Ramsgate Parish Council by election tells us nothing about the future. Shut up Jeremy.
    I am referring to County/District council by elections covered here every week! Parish/Community Council elections are meaningless.
    So are County and District Council byelections - or at least there are too many complicating factors to draw sensible conclusions.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2016
    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    The BBC reports

    "Claims by Labour MP Seema Malhotra that her office was accessed without her permission do not amount to a possible breach of Commons rules, Speaker John Bercow has said.

    The ex-frontbencher had complained to Mr Bercow that aides to leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell gained "unauthorised entry".

    Mr Bercow said there was nothing to "justify regarding these events as a possible breach".

    Mr McDonnell has called for an apology."

    How stupid can you get? I mean, really? It's quite sad.
    Pretty disrespectful to go into someones office to snoop around without permission.
    Pretty disrespectful to try to hang on to an office you are not entitled to and leave your stuff there when it should have been moved out.
    It really is a Westminster bubble story. Does anyone actually care one way or the other? It's just Labour being that drunk woman at the party who's on a crying jag. There's too much emotion, she doesn't make any sense, and everyone's embarrassed.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,543
    John_M said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    The BBC reports

    "Claims by Labour MP Seema Malhotra that her office was accessed without her permission do not amount to a possible breach of Commons rules, Speaker John Bercow has said.

    The ex-frontbencher had complained to Mr Bercow that aides to leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell gained "unauthorised entry".

    Mr Bercow said there was nothing to "justify regarding these events as a possible breach".

    Mr McDonnell has called for an apology."

    How stupid can you get? I mean, really? It's quite sad.
    Pretty disrespectful to go into someones office to snoop around without permission.
    Pretty disrespectful to try to hang on to an office you are not entitled to and leave your stuff there when it should have been moved out.
    It really is a Westminster bubble story. Does anyone actually care one way or the other? It's just Labour being that drunk woman at the party who's on a crying jag. There's too much emotion, she doesn't make any sense, and everyone's embarrassed.
    You must go to more interesting parties than me!

    But anything that allows McDonnell to get on his moral high horse is irritating.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    Speedy said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    Cookie said:

    John_M said:

    taffys said:

    ''Wales is becoming a problem for Labour simply because it's done nothing to improve the Welsh economy. Pembrokeshire and the valleys are poorer than a lot of Eastern European countries.''

    Welsh education is also a disaster area.

    Which is why the EU was pumping ve.
    He obviously realised that we are a net contributor, and therefore "EU funds" are just UK taxpayers' money recycled through Brussels.
    It's more that areas of Wales
    A lot of money has gone on structural things (e.g. dualling the HoTV road) but money doesn't solve the fundamental issues. It's a challenge for all governments - throwing money at a problem does not guarantee success.

    When you look at the job creation side of things, EU funding has been very poor value for money. The last figures I've seen were from 2014, and it was claimed (by a pro-EU source) that 29,800 jobs had been created, which is pitiful.
    What does change things? If you ranked the areas of the country from richest to poorest 40 years ago, would any have noticeably as probably remained steadily in the bottom half. I'm looking for areas of county level and above that have improved.
    Its hard to find comparable figures that date back that far. Too many methodological changes.

    The best I can do for you is a comparison 1997-2014. Linkie here:

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_426841.pdf

    Check out figure 3 on page 10. Brief summary: with the exception of the SE, everywhere is going backwards compared to London. Wales is going backwards faster than most other regions.

    Thanks John_M - interesting. And a little depressing.
    There is also the usual problem when measuring per capita income.
    I don't think many people get 125K per year in Tower Hamlets.

    I prefer to use the medium average income, to see how many voters are actually rich or poor.
    Men working in Canary Wharf in Tower Hamlets maybe. However most of them live in Westminster or Kensington and Chelsea or Wandsworth, Islington and Camden
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,291
    Jeremy is a winner, why only last week he was celebrating a historic victory over the forces of reaction on a Kent parish council.
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    The BBC reports

    "Claims by Labour MP Seema Malhotra that her office was accessed without her permission do not amount to a possible breach of Commons rules, Speaker John Bercow has said.

    The ex-frontbencher had complained to Mr Bercow that aides to leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell gained "unauthorised entry".

    Mr Bercow said there was nothing to "justify regarding these events as a possible breach".

    Mr McDonnell has called for an apology."

    How stupid can you get? I mean, really? It's quite sad.
    Pretty disrespectful to go into someones office to snoop around without permission.
    Not according to Speaker Bercow, third in accession to be PM.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2016
    OK, the world has officially gone mad. The magic money tree is real.

    https://twitter.com/GeorgeTrefgarne/status/757964190300643328
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,106

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    The BBC reports

    "Claims by Labour MP Seema Malhotra that her office was accessed without her permission do not amount to a possible breach of Commons rules, Speaker John Bercow has said.

    The ex-frontbencher had complained to Mr Bercow that aides to leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell gained "unauthorised entry".

    Mr Bercow said there was nothing to "justify regarding these events as a possible breach".

    Mr McDonnell has called for an apology."

    How stupid can you get? I mean, really? It's quite sad.
    Pretty disrespectful to go into someones office to snoop around without permission.
    Not according to Speaker Bercow, third in accession to be PM.
    We don't have accession to be PM lists do we?

    That's actually a plot point that gets me about american shows, where someone 25th in line of succession must take over for some reason (there's a new show out next year on that very premise) and everyone is so insistent this person must do it, dem's der rules, no matter that in america they won't necessarily ever have been elected, prepared for responsibility and so on.
    John_M said:

    OK, the world has officially gone mad. The magic money tree is real.

    https://twitter.com/GeorgeTrefgarne/status/757964190300643328

    I did not understand a single word of that linked document. I don't suppose you could idiot proof summarise it.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667
    John_M said:

    OK, the world has officially gone mad. The magic money tree is real.

    https://twitter.com/GeorgeTrefgarne/status/757964190300643328

    At those rates we could sell £100bn worth of paper for £200bn. Mental.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,027
    MaxPB said:

    John_M said:

    OK, the world has officially gone mad. The magic money tree is real.

    https://twitter.com/GeorgeTrefgarne/status/757964190300643328

    At those rates we could sell £100bn worth of paper for £200bn. Mental.
    How about we just remortgage our entire national debt today? :p
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,106
    MontyHall said:
    Love it.

    Although 'the plotters are once shouting about about the ship sinking while they blow holes in the sides' could have been proof read.

    But is as many pointed out - poor polls will not damage Corbyn. Either they are to be ignored as wrong and rigged, or they are proof the plotters are causing a problem.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,027

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    The BBC reports

    "Claims by Labour MP Seema Malhotra that her office was accessed without her permission do not amount to a possible breach of Commons rules, Speaker John Bercow has said.

    The ex-frontbencher had complained to Mr Bercow that aides to leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell gained "unauthorised entry".

    Mr Bercow said there was nothing to "justify regarding these events as a possible breach".

    Mr McDonnell has called for an apology."

    How stupid can you get? I mean, really? It's quite sad.
    Pretty disrespectful to go into someones office to snoop around without permission.
    Not according to Speaker Bercow, third in accession to be PM.
    Yeah, I think I was missing key details about the story. Apparently she was being moved to another office anyway? Sorry about that!
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2016
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    The BBC reports

    "Claims by Labour MP Seema Malhotra that her office was accessed without her permission do not amount to a possible breach of Commons rules, Speaker John Bercow has said.

    The ex-frontbencher had complained to Mr Bercow that aides to leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell gained "unauthorised entry".

    Mr Bercow said there was nothing to "justify regarding these events as a possible breach".

    Mr McDonnell has called for an apology."

    How stupid can you get? I mean, really? It's quite sad.
    Pretty disrespectful to go into someones office to snoop around without permission.
    Not according to Speaker Bercow, third in accession to be PM.
    We don't have accession to be PM lists do we?

    That's actually a plot point that gets me about american shows, where someone 25th in line of succession must take over for some reason (there's a new show out next year on that very premise) and everyone is so insistent this person must do it, dem's der rules, no matter that in america they won't necessarily ever have been elected, prepared for responsibility and so on.
    John_M said:

    OK, the world has officially gone mad. The magic money tree is real.

    https://twitter.com/GeorgeTrefgarne/status/757964190300643328

    I did not understand a single word of that linked document. I don't suppose you could idiot proof summarise it.
    People are paying us to keep their money. We are making a nominal profit out of borrowing from other people. Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo. I am the Emperor Napoleon and I can fly. Does that help?
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    MontyHall said:

    twitter.com/jeremycorbyn4pm/status/757981095405191168


    "We were polling level with the Tories before the coup"


    i.e. when Cameron was still PM.

    Correlation <> Causation.

This discussion has been closed.