@GovGaryJohnson's on the cusp of 15% to get into debates, even after the conventions.
If he gets in the debates, all bets are off. It could easily be like lib dems surge of 2010. Not because he is a great candidate but he isn't hiliary or trump.
If he gets in they should open a market on the number of 'I agree with Gary's.
@GovGaryJohnson's on the cusp of 15% to get into debates, even after the conventions.
If he gets in the debates, all bets are off. It could easily be like lib dems surge of 2010. Not because he is a great candidate but he isn't hiliary or trump.
I agree, but the Libertarians have already had their convention, while the Green one starts tomorrow.
@PCollinsTimes: Labour is 14 points behind the Tories. The worst of it that the poll surely overstates Labour's support. They won't poll 28. Nowhere near.
Low 20s I suspect, bearing in mind that these are polls about a hypothetical vote tomorrow, rather than after a five week GE campaign in which Corbyn and the left fantasists, fellow travellers who have absolutely no policy ideas (see Danny Blanchflower in Guardian), have been hammered day in, day out.
I think that is right, and it matches my recollection from 1983. Labour had a predictably awful campaign and by the final week their support was clearly ebbing away. You could sense it on the doorstep, and the final set of polls showed the Alliance gaining on Labour. Another few days and I think Labour would have dropped to third place on vote share.
I wonder how long the honeymoon will last. And if this is a low ebb for Labour, there are worse floors of support.
Low ebb for Labour? They have remained static (and I still think they will get about 28% of the vote in 2020). This poll with Conservatives up 2 and UKIP down 1 is, I think, just noise. Most polls are/
That was my point - their low ebb seems to be static at around 27-29%, since despite all this that's about as low as it seems to go.
Which is more or less where Labour was in March this year. Amazing when you think of everything that has happened since.
It's as much down to a lack of alternatives as anything else. Under Brown, Labour polled in the low 20s for quite a while during and shortly after the expenses scandal. However, with UKIP, the Lib Dems and Greens making no great effort at the moment to eat into Labour's vote - or having strong structural reasons why it's hard for them to do so - Labour's currently bumping along the ceiling.
And for the same reasons could be said to be bumping along the floor. Barring any great events, I doubt Labour will lose much even in the heat of an election campaign. Of course. how vote share translates to seats is another matter. Suppose, Labour really did drop by maybe three points to 24/25% in the GE how many seats would they actually lose? 20? 30? Not really enough to matter in any practical sense.
I wonder how long the honeymoon will last. And if this is a low ebb for Labour, there are worse floors of support.
Low ebb for Labour? They have remained static (and I still think they will get about 28% of the vote in 2020). This poll with Conservatives up 2 and UKIP down 1 is, I think, just noise. Most polls are/
That was my point - their low ebb seems to be static at around 27-29%, since despite all this that's about as low as it seems to go.
snip
much doubt they will lose very many even after the new boundaries have been implemented.
Labour will push down into the early 20s with Corbyn in 2020 imho.
Golly, that seems very pessimistic, if I may say so, Mr. Borough. That sort of result would imply the collapse of the tribalist vote would it not? I see no evidence for that, at least as yet. Furthermore where else would core Labour voters go? Not bothering I suppose, which would seem to make no sense, at least to me.
I can see it collapsing to lower than 20% if UKIP is able to get its act together and go after the WC in Northern and Midlands traditional Labour constituencies. If UKIP are sensible, they'll target all the Labour seats that voted Leave. By then, UKIP being sensible seems as likely as Labour doing the same.
I think the tribalist vote has already started to collapse - look at the EU referendum.
However, my pessimistic low 20s prediction is based on the idea that current polls of 28% are not based on an actual 5 week campaign, in which Corbyn and McD would be decimated.
They have no idea what they are doing on two fundamental levels - one, policy (still none after 12 months, other than 1970s slogans), two, and even worse, they have never been involved or even remotely close, to a national, GE campaign and the reality of that. Can you imagine the f-up that these two would make of a five week campaign? Endless rallies in rock solid safe labour seats, press conferences they failed to turn up at, contradictory policy announcements by different shadow cabinet ministers, hugging sessions with the Cuban ambassador etc etc etc.
I wonder how long the honeymoon will last. And if this is a low ebb for Labour, there are worse floors of support.
Low ebb for Labour? They have remained static (and I still think they will get about 28% of the vote in 2020). This poll with Conservatives up 2 and UKIP down 1 is, I think, just noise. Most polls are/
That was my point - their low ebb seems to be static at around 27-29%, since despite all this that's about as low as it seems to go.
Sorry, Mr. Kle4, I misunderstood your post. You are I think correct. No matter who is in charge, what idiocies they come out with, labour never seems to go below the 27% share.. That seems to have been true since 1983, I don't see why it should change over the next four years.
Quite what that means in seat terms I don't know, but I very much doubt they will lose very many even after the new boundaries have been implemented.
Labour will push down into the early 20s with Corbyn in 2020 imho.
Golly, that seems very pessimistic, if I may say so, Mr. Borough. That sort of result would imply the collapse of the tribalist vote would it not? I see no evidence for that, at least as yet. Furthermore where else would core Labour voters go? Not bothering I suppose, which would seem to make no sense, at least to me.
The tribalist nature of Labour's vote can be overstated. Many of them have been on strike for interim elections, they've lost Scotland, they've lost Valleys seats to Plaid, they've lost places like Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle to the Lib Dems (pre-2010 but it proves it's possible), they've finished third in the Euro-elections with 16% - and the list goes on. A lot of Labour's vote is not tribal; it's tactical. Give the voters a credible alternative and a lot would switch were Labour not worth voting for on merit.
I wonder how long the honeymoon will last. And if this is a low ebb for Labour, there are worse floors of support.
Low ebb for Labour? They have remained static (and I still think they will get about 28% of the vote in 2020). This poll with Conservatives up 2 and UKIP down 1 is, I think, just noise. Most polls are/
That was my point - their low ebb seems to be static at around 27-29%, since despite all this that's about as low as it seems to go.
Which is more or less where Labour was in March this year. Amazing when you think of everything that has happened since.
It's as much down to a lack of alternatives as anything else. Under Brown, Labour polled in the low 20s for quite a while during and shortly after the expenses scandal. However, with UKIP, the Lib Dems and Greens making no great effort at the moment to eat into Labour's vote - or having strong structural reasons why it's hard for them to do so - Labour's currently bumping along the ceiling.
And for the same reasons could be said to be bumping along the floor. Barring any great events, I doubt Labour will lose much even in the heat of an election campaign. Of course. how vote share translates to seats is another matter. Suppose, Labour really did drop by maybe three points to 24/25% in the GE how many seats would they actually lose? 20? 30? Not really enough to matter in any practical sense.
Its a long way out and lots of things can happen.
You last point is true. A lot worse could happen to Labour. They have barely scratched the surface of Corbyn's inabilities I suspect.
@PCollinsTimes: Labour is 14 points behind the Tories. The worst of it that the poll surely overstates Labour's support. They won't poll 28. Nowhere near.
Low 20s I suspect, bearing in mind that these are polls about a hypothetical vote tomorrow, rather than after a five week GE campaign in which Corbyn and the left fantasists, fellow travellers who have absolutely no policy ideas (see Danny Blanchflower in Guardian), have been hammered day in, day out.
I think that is right, and it matches my recollection from 1983. Labour had a predictably awful campaign and by the final week their support was clearly ebbing away. You could sense it on the doorstep, and the final set of polls showed the Alliance gaining on Labour. Another few days and I think Labour would have dropped to third place on vote share.
Yeh, and Foot was a towering political figure of huge ability compared to Corbyn, who is the Chauncey Gardiner of 21st century Britain.
@PCollinsTimes: Labour is 14 points behind the Tories. The worst of it that the poll surely overstates Labour's support. They won't poll 28. Nowhere near.
Low 20s I suspect, bearing in mind that these are polls about a hypothetical vote tomorrow, rather than after a five week GE campaign in which Corbyn and the left fantasists, fellow travellers who have absolutely no policy ideas (see Danny Blanchflower in Guardian), have been hammered day in, day out.
I think that is right, and it matches my recollection from 1983. Labour had a predictably awful campaign and by the final week their support was clearly ebbing away. You could sense it on the doorstep, and the final set of polls showed the Alliance gaining on Labour. Another few days and I think Labour would have dropped to third place on vote share.
Yeh, and Foot was a towering political figure of huge ability compared to Corbyn, who is the Chauncey Gardiner of 21st century Britain.
Chauncey Gardiner had a frame of reference outside politics and a lack of preconceived ideas, so not much like Corbyn.
Gosh, when I, no friend of Labour by any standard, am getting thumped for being too optimistic for that party's chances at the next GE it is probably time to withdraw and have a think.
So off to beddy-byes, G;night all and thanks for the conversation.
I love the story of the origins of adidas and puma. So few folk seem to know it.
A crime, that.
Similar story as Aldi and Trader Joe's, no?
Erhh...yes and no...Aldi family having a fall out ain't got nothing on the Dassler brothers. Unless I missed one member of the Aldi family dobbing another in about being a member of the SS and then bonking their wife while they was banged up.
@PCollinsTimes: Labour is 14 points behind the Tories. The worst of it that the poll surely overstates Labour's support. They won't poll 28. Nowhere near.
Low 20s I suspect, bearing in mind that these are polls about a hypothetical vote tomorrow, rather than after a five week GE campaign in which Corbyn and the left fantasists, fellow travellers who have absolutely no policy ideas (see Danny Blanchflower in Guardian), have been hammered day in, day out.
I think that is right, and it matches my recollection from 1983. Labour had a predictably awful campaign and by the final week their support was clearly ebbing away. You could sense it on the doorstep, and the final set of polls showed the Alliance gaining on Labour. Another few days and I think Labour would have dropped to third place on vote share.
Yeh, and Foot was a towering political figure of huge ability compared to Corbyn, who is the Chauncey Gardiner of 21st century Britain.
Chauncey Gardiner had a frame of reference outside politics and a lack of preconceived ideas, so not much like Corbyn.
I dunno, Corbyn has his allotment (at least he has one redeeming quality).
Gosh, when I, no friend of Labour by any standard, am getting thumped for being too optimistic for that party's chances at the next GE it is probably time to withdraw and have a think.
So off to beddy-byes, G;night all and thanks for the conversation.
I love the story of the origins of adidas and puma. So few folk seem to know it.
A crime, that.
Similar story as Aldi and Trader Joe's, no?
Erhh...yes and no...Aldi family having a fall out ain't got nothing on the Dassler brothers. Unless I missed one member of the Aldi family dobbing another in about being a member of the SS and then bonking his wife while they was banged up.
Aah! I only knew that there was a falling out between the Dassler brothers, not all the additional details.
I wonder how long the honeymoon will last. And if this is a low ebb for Labour, there are worse floors of support.
Low ebb for Labour? They have remained static (and I still think they will get about 28% of the vote in 2020). This poll with Conservatives up 2 and UKIP down 1 is, I think, just noise. Most polls are/
That was my point - their low ebb seems to be static at around 27-29%, since despite all this that's about as low as it seems to go.
Which is more or less where Labour was in March this year. Amazing when you think of everything that has happened since.
It's as much down to a lack of alternatives as anything else. Under Brown, Labour polled in the low 20s for quite a while during and shortly after the expenses scandal. However, with UKIP, the Lib Dems and Greens making no great effort at the moment to eat into Labour's vote - or having strong structural reasons why it's hard for them to do so - Labour's currently bumping along the ceiling.
And for the same reasons could be said to be bumping along the floor. Barring any great events, I doubt Labour will lose much even in the heat of an election campaign. Of course. how vote share translates to seats is another matter. Suppose, Labour really did drop by maybe three points to 24/25% in the GE how many seats would they actually lose? 20? 30? Not really enough to matter in any practical sense.
Its a long way out and lots of things can happen.
Indeed. Theresa May's luck surely can't run that far. The Conservatives will suffer some bad weeks, months and maybe longer at some point. On the other hand, I really don't see how Labour get themselves out of their current hole in a hurry and that does open up opportunities for the lib dems and UKIP.
Cons winning seats they've never won, like Newcastle under Lyme, Walsall North, NE Derbyshire, or rarely won, like Bridgend, yet former strongholds like Leeds NE, or Brighton Pavilion, let alone Scotland, are out of reach.
The Tories won Walsall North at the November 1976 by election!
I think the tribalist vote has already started to collapse - look at the EU referendum.
However, my pessimistic low 20s prediction is based on the idea that current polls of 28% are not based on an actual 5 week campaign, in which Corbyn and McD would be decimated.
They have no idea what they are doing on two fundamental levels - one, policy (still none after 12 months, other than 1970s slogans), two, and even worse, they have never been involved or even remotely close, to a national, GE campaign and the reality of that. Can you imagine the f-up that these two would make of a five week campaign? Endless rallies in rock solid safe labour seats, press conferences they failed to turn up at, contradictory policy announcements by different shadow cabinet ministers, hugging sessions with the Cuban ambassador etc etc etc.
Don't forget the inevitable Tory billboards hinting at Corbyn & McDonnell's IRA/Hamas/Venezuela/etc. links, and asking if we would trust them to keep Britain safe. The fact of these connections is something that political wonks like us made a lot of in the 2015 Labour leadership contest, but hasn't really filtered through to the less politically engaged voting public yet. The impact could be enormous.
@PCollinsTimes: Labour is 14 points behind the Tories. The worst of it that the poll surely overstates Labour's support. They won't poll 28. Nowhere near.
Low 20s I suspect, bearing in mind that these are polls about a hypothetical vote tomorrow, rather than after a five week GE campaign in which Corbyn and the left fantasists, fellow travellers who have absolutely no policy ideas (see Danny Blanchflower in Guardian), have been hammered day in, day out.
I think that is right, and it matches my recollection from 1983. Labour had a predictably awful campaign and by the final week their support was clearly ebbing away. You could sense it on the doorstep, and the final set of polls showed the Alliance gaining on Labour. Another few days and I think Labour would have dropped to third place on vote share.
Not quite accurate. The weekend before Polling Day seemed to show the Alliance pretty well even with Labour , but Labour appeared to rally in the final 48 hours. 1983 was an election where the polls actually understated Labour and overstated the Tories. Whilst Thatcher won a landslide majority of 144 the polls had been predicting a majority of circa 250 and a popular vote lead of over 20% rather than the 15.2% outcome.
How might Cruz, Kasich, Ryan, Pence and Rubio be ranked in terms of how well they are recognised by the US population? Presumably the last two are at the bottom? But how does Ryan compare with Cruz and Kasich?
How might Cruz, Kasich, Ryan, Pence and Rubio be ranked in terms of how well they are recognised by the US population? Presumably the last two are at the bottom? But how does Ryan compare with Cruz and Kasich?
They all lose badly.
They are not Donald Trump, so they will get voters that Donald Trump will never get but also never get voters that Donald Trump has.
Basically they would have to replace the 45% of republican voters who are Trump fanatics, an impossible task given that only 25% of republicans are NeverTrump.
But to answer your question, Pence is the one least recognized and for that reason least rejected by the public.
Kasich is the only one who has positive numbers among democrats but republicans don't like him, even in Ohio he has a -9 favourable rating for him among republicans.
Cruz is even worse, last poll had him at -39 among republicans nationally, his own party really hates him.
How might Cruz, Kasich, Ryan, Pence and Rubio be ranked in terms of how well they are recognised by the US population? Presumably the last two are at the bottom? But how does Ryan compare with Cruz and Kasich?
They all lose badly.
They are not Donald Trump, so they will get voters that Donald Trump will never get but also never get voters that Donald Trump has.
Basically they would have to replace the 45% of republican voters who are Trump fanatics, an impossible task given that only 25% of republicans are NeverTrump.
But to answer your question, Pence is the one least recognized and for that reason least rejected by the public.
Kasich is the only one who has positive numbers among democrats but republicans don't like him, even in Ohio he has a -9 favourable rating for him among republicans.
Cruz is even worse, last poll had him at -39 among republicans nationally, his own party really hates him.
Many thanks for this. If Trump stands down, I have no idea really how the relative influences of the Republican elite and the party itself would play out in the choosing of the replacement. I'm guessing the RNC would opt to pick the lucky person (or people, if they replace Pence or give him the main task) without reconvening the convention, when goodness knows what trouble that 45% might cause.
Who would you choose to have the best chance of beating Clinton? Does Ryan even get a look-in?
How might Cruz, Kasich, Ryan, Pence and Rubio be ranked in terms of how well they are recognised by the US population? Presumably the last two are at the bottom? But how does Ryan compare with Cruz and Kasich?
They all lose badly.
They are not Donald Trump, so they will get voters that Donald Trump will never get but also never get voters that Donald Trump has.
Basically they would have to replace the 45% of republican voters who are Trump fanatics, an impossible task given that only 25% of republicans are NeverTrump.
But to answer your question, Pence is the one least recognized and for that reason least rejected by the public.
Kasich is the only one who has positive numbers among democrats but republicans don't like him, even in Ohio he has a -9 favourable rating for him among republicans.
Cruz is even worse, last poll had him at -39 among republicans nationally, his own party really hates him.
Many thanks for this. If Trump stands down, I have no idea really how the relative influences of the Republican elite and the party itself would play out in the choosing of the replacement. I'm guessing the RNC would opt to pick the lucky person (or people, if they replace Pence or give him the main task) without reconvening the convention, when goodness knows what trouble that 45% might cause.
Who would you choose to have the best chance of beating Clinton? Does Ryan even get a look-in?
The 45% of "Trump' fanatics includes a lot of people who are not Trump fanatics at all. Indeed, many of those who voted for him in the primaries are appalled at the events of this week.
My guess is that Trump has brought many non-voters to the Party. Some of them would not actually have voted in the GE, but many would. Perhaps most of the non-voters would be lost to the GOP, but some would not, particularly if Ryan were the candidate. What the GOP would gain would be fiscal conservative moderates and independents in their droves who hate Trump and don't trust Hillary.
It is impossible to say where the balance lies for the Presidential. But the party seems to have decided that Trump's negatives on the down ticket races (Senate and House) is so negative that all out war with him is worthwhile.
I think the tribalist vote has already started to collapse - look at the EU referendum.
However, my pessimistic low 20s prediction is based on the idea that current polls of 28% are not based on an actual 5 week campaign, in which Corbyn and McD would be decimated.
They have no idea what they are doing on two fundamental levels - one, policy (still none after 12 months, other than 1970s slogans), two, and even worse, they have never been involved or even remotely close, to a national, GE campaign and the reality of that. Can you imagine the f-up that these two would make of a five week campaign? Endless rallies in rock solid safe labour seats, press conferences they failed to turn up at, contradictory policy announcements by different shadow cabinet ministers, hugging sessions with the Cuban ambassador etc etc etc.
Don't forget the inevitable Tory billboards hinting at Corbyn & McDonnell's IRA/Hamas/Venezuela/etc. links, and asking if we would trust them to keep Britain safe. The fact of these connections is something that political wonks like us made a lot of in the 2015 Labour leadership contest, but hasn't really filtered through to the less politically engaged voting public yet. The impact could be enormous.
The impact could be zero. The Tories tried those tactics in London but Sadiq is now mayor.
I think the tribalist vote has already started to collapse - look at the EU referendum.
However, my pessimistic low 20s prediction is based on the idea that current polls of 28% are not based on an actual 5 week campaign, in which Corbyn and McD would be decimated.
They have no idea what they are doing on two fundamental levels - one, policy (still none after 12 months, other than 1970s slogans), two, and even worse, they have never been involved or even remotely close, to a national, GE campaign and the reality of that. Can you imagine the f-up that these two would make of a five week campaign? Endless rallies in rock solid safe labour seats, press conferences they failed to turn up at, contradictory policy announcements by different shadow cabinet ministers, hugging sessions with the Cuban ambassador etc etc etc.
Don't forget the inevitable Tory billboards hinting at Corbyn & McDonnell's IRA/Hamas/Venezuela/etc. links, and asking if we would trust them to keep Britain safe. The fact of these connections is something that political wonks like us made a lot of in the 2015 Labour leadership contest, but hasn't really filtered through to the less politically engaged voting public yet. The impact could be enormous.
Jim Waterson @jimwaterson 27m27 minutes ago Jim Waterson Retweeted Britain Elects Tories are on FORTY TWO PERCENT while in government and during a national political crisis their referendum created.
If Labour keep Corbyn it is conceivable Labour would get 25 and the Tories 45. Total Tory landslide, Labour near annihilation.
We will become Japan, China or Singapore, with permanent one party hegemony. There are worse fates.
I am consistently amazed at the first example. How on earth can the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (not to be confused with the Liberal Party or Democratic Party) have only been out of power for one 11 month period and one 3 year period in the last 60 years while, to my knowledge, being democratic? No one is that competent and popular, no one has that feeble an opposition, how is it possible even with the most sclerotic politics and electorate imaginable?
Bloke called Ichiro Ozawa, whenever the opposition gets in he smashes his own government up.
Also the voting system is mostly FPTP but with a little token proportional section, just big enough to keep lots of small opposition parties on life support.
Woman dead and up to six injured in knife incident in Russell Square, central London
Bloody hell
Fingers crossed for the six of them.
Mail calling it a terrorist attack. Official line is that is a possibility.
I see the BBC have now expanded the story to
"A woman has died and five others were injured in a knife attack in Russell Square, central London. Police and ambulance crews were called at 22:33 BST on Wednesday to reports of a man in possession of a knife and injuring people. Up to six injured people were found at the scene; one woman was pronounced dead a short time later.
The man was arrested at 22:39; a taser was discharged by one of the arresting officers. Terrorism is one possible motive being explored, the Metropolitan Police say."
Surprised the news only just broke - perhaps it'd been doing the rounds on social media earlier.
Woman dead and up to six injured in knife incident in Russell Square, central London
Bloody hell
Fingers crossed for the six of them.
Mail calling it a terrorist attack. Official line is that is a possibility.
I see the BBC have now expanded the story to
"A woman has died and five others were injured in a knife attack in Russell Square, central London. Police and ambulance crews were called at 22:33 BST on Wednesday to reports of a man in possession of a knife and injuring people. Up to six injured people were found at the scene; one woman was pronounced dead a short time later.
The man was arrested at 22:39; a taser was discharged by one of the arresting officers. Terrorism is one possible motive being explored, the Metropolitan Police say."
Surprised the news only just broke - perhaps it'd been doing the rounds on social media earlier.
When the nutter tried to behead the guy in the tube there was a fairly long delay before it was reported. Without too much tinfoil hatting, I suspect that perhaps the media have agreed with the plod to give them a few hours to secure the area etc in possible terrorist scenarios.
They definitely would have known within 4hrs, especially as it is in London.
Woman dead and up to six injured in knife incident in Russell Square, central London
Bloody hell
Fingers crossed for the six of them.
Mail calling it a terrorist attack. Official line is that is a possibility.
I see the BBC have now expanded the story to
"A woman has died and five others were injured in a knife attack in Russell Square, central London. Police and ambulance crews were called at 22:33 BST on Wednesday to reports of a man in possession of a knife and injuring people. Up to six injured people were found at the scene; one woman was pronounced dead a short time later.
The man was arrested at 22:39; a taser was discharged by one of the arresting officers. Terrorism is one possible motive being explored, the Metropolitan Police say."
Surprised the news only just broke - perhaps it'd been doing the rounds on social media earlier.
When the nutter tried to behead the guy in the tube there was a fairly long delay before it was reported. Without too much tinfoil hatting, I suspect that perhaps the media have agreed with the plod to give them a few hours to secure the area etc in possible terrorist scenarios.
They definitely would have known within 4hrs, especially as it is in London.
Quite - and a busy, central location at that. 10 pm is not really all that late either. Can't think it would have passed unnoticed.
I seem to recall that coverage of 7/7 was pretty rapid, and that was pre-Twitter. Perhaps memory is playing tricks on me, but I think there were (very sketchy) reports well within an hour.
Woman dead and up to six injured in knife incident in Russell Square, central London
Bloody hell
Fingers crossed for the six of them.
Mail calling it a terrorist attack. Official line is that is a possibility.
I see the BBC have now expanded the story to
"A woman has died and five others were injured in a knife attack in Russell Square, central London. Police and ambulance crews were called at 22:33 BST on Wednesday to reports of a man in possession of a knife and injuring people. Up to six injured people were found at the scene; one woman was pronounced dead a short time later.
The man was arrested at 22:39; a taser was discharged by one of the arresting officers. Terrorism is one possible motive being explored, the Metropolitan Police say."
Surprised the news only just broke - perhaps it'd been doing the rounds on social media earlier.
When the nutter tried to behead the guy in the tube there was a fairly long delay before it was reported. Without too much tinfoil hatting, I suspect that perhaps the media have agreed with the plod to give them a few hours to secure the area etc in possible terrorist scenarios.
They definitely would have known within 4hrs, especially as it is in London.
Quite - and a busy, central location at that. 10 pm is not really all that late either. Can't think it would have passed unnoticed.
I seem to recall that coverage of 7/7 was pretty rapid, and that was pre-Twitter. Perhaps memory is playing tricks on me, but I think there were (very sketchy) reports well within an hour.
If remember correctly with that, it was reported but as major electrical fault for quite a while.
I would also say I think the authorities are worried about a different threat now. A bomb goes off & there isn't much that will change. Now the concern is of roaming attackers, so the last thing they want is people coming to see what is going on or causing mass panic, when the only focus of the authorities is to neutralise the individuals asap.
CNN are claiming a source saying it was a terrorist-related incident.
Have to wait and see.
The fact the mail are running that as a headline suggests they have been briefed by somebody.
There are reports on telegraph & guardian website of a caller to LBC saying thought gang related, but admits he didn't actually see it & that was just what someone told him. Reports of the incident don't fit with a gang attack, more a nutter with a knife (but obviously with what motivate).
I am going to guess that they are briefing terrorist as had a good rant about syria or IS.
Woman dead and up to six injured in knife incident in Russell Square, central London
Bloody hell
Fingers crossed for the six of them.
Mail calling it a terrorist attack. Official line is that is a possibility.
I see the BBC have now expanded the story to
"A woman has died and five others were injured in a knife attack in Russell Square, central London. Police and ambulance crews were called at 22:33 BST on Wednesday to reports of a man in possession of a knife and injuring people. Up to six injured people were found at the scene; one woman was pronounced dead a short time later.
The man was arrested at 22:39; a taser was discharged by one of the arresting officers. Terrorism is one possible motive being explored, the Metropolitan Police say."
Surprised the news only just broke - perhaps it'd been doing the rounds on social media earlier.
When the nutter tried to behead the guy in the tube there was a fairly long delay before it was reported. Without too much tinfoil hatting, I suspect that perhaps the media have agreed with the plod to give them a few hours to secure the area etc in possible terrorist scenarios.
They definitely would have known within 4hrs, especially as it is in London.
Quite - and a busy, central location at that. 10 pm is not really all that late either. Can't think it would have passed unnoticed.
I seem to recall that coverage of 7/7 was pretty rapid, and that was pre-Twitter. Perhaps memory is playing tricks on me, but I think there were (very sketchy) reports well within an hour.
If remember correctly with that, it was reported but as major electrical fault for quite a while.
I would also say I think the authorities are worried about a different threat now. A bomb goes off & there isn't much that will change. Now the concern is of roaming attackers, so the last thing they want is people coming to see what is going on or causing mass panic, when the only focus of the authorities is to neutralise the individuals asap.
I think the "major electrical fault" line persisted until what had happened on the bus became clear, though again, memory fails me on the exact timeline.
CNN are claiming a source saying it was a terrorist-related incident.
Have to wait and see.
The fact the mail are running that as a headline suggests they have been briefed by somebody.
There are reports on telegraph & guardian website of a caller to LBC saying thought gang related, but admits he didn't actually see it & that was just what someone told him. Reports of the incident don't fit with a gang attack, more a nutter with a knife (but obviously with what motivate).
I am going to guess that they are briefing terrorist as had a good rant about syria or IS.
Woman dead and up to six injured in knife incident in Russell Square, central London
Bloody hell
Fingers crossed for the six of them.
Mail calling it a terrorist attack. Official line is that is a possibility.
I see the BBC have now expanded the story to
"A woman has died and five others were injured in a knife attack in Russell Square, central London. Police and ambulance crews were called at 22:33 BST on Wednesday to reports of a man in possession of a knife and injuring people. Up to six injured people were found at the scene; one woman was pronounced dead a short time later.
The man was arrested at 22:39; a taser was discharged by one of the arresting officers. Terrorism is one possible motive being explored, the Metropolitan Police say."
Surprised the news only just broke - perhaps it'd been doing the rounds on social media earlier.
When the nutter tried to behead the guy in the tube there was a fairly long delay before it was reported. Without too much tinfoil hatting, I suspect that perhaps the media have agreed with the plod to give them a few hours to secure the area etc in possible terrorist scenarios.
They definitely would have known within 4hrs, especially as it is in London.
Quite - and a busy, central location at that. 10 pm is not really all that late either. Can't think it would have passed unnoticed.
I seem to recall that coverage of 7/7 was pretty rapid, and that was pre-Twitter. Perhaps memory is playing tricks on me, but I think there were (very sketchy) reports well within an hour.
If remember correctly with that, it was reported but as major electrical fault for quite a while.
I would also say I think the authorities are worried about a different threat now. A bomb goes off & there isn't much that will change. Now the concern is of roaming attackers, so the last thing they want is people coming to see what is going on or causing mass panic, when the only focus of the authorities is to neutralise the individuals asap.
I think the "major electrical fault" line persisted until what had happened on the bus became clear, though again, memory fails me on the exact timeline.
Possibly. All I remember is a guy in the office had the stream up on his laptop & we called BS on electrical fault pretty much straight away. It was just obvious that it was much more than that.
Woman dead and up to six injured in knife incident in Russell Square, central London
Bloody hell
Fingers crossed for the six of them.
Mail calling it a terrorist attack. Official line is that is a possibility.
I see the BBC have now expanded the story to .
The man was arrested at 22:39; a taser was discharged by one of the arresting officers. Terrorism is one possible motive being explored, the Metropolitan Police say."
Surprised the news only just broke - perhaps it'd been doing the rounds on social media earlier.
When the nutter tried to behead the guy in the tube there was a fairly long delay before it was reported. Without too much tinfoil hatting, I suspect that perhaps the media have agreed with the plod to give them a few hours to secure the area etc in possible terrorist scenarios.
They definitely would have known within 4hrs, especially as it is in London.
Quite - and a busy, central location at that. 10 pm is not really all that late either. Can't think it would have passed unnoticed.
I seem to recall that coverage of 7/7 was pretty rapid, and that was pre-Twitter. Perhaps memory is playing tricks on me, but I think there were (very sketchy) reports well within an hour.
If remember correctly with that, it was reported but as major electrical fault for quite a while.
I would also say I think the authorities are worried about a different threat now. A bomb goes off & there isn't much that will change. Now the concern is of roaming attackers, so the last thing they want is people coming to see what is going on or causing mass panic, when the only focus of the authorities is to neutralise the individuals asap.
I think the "major electrical fault" line persisted until what had happened on the bus became clear, though again, memory fails me on the exact timeline.
Possibly. All I remember is a guy in the office had the stream up on his laptop & we called BS on electrical fault pretty much straight away. It was just obvious that it was much more than that.
I don't remember much of that day either - other than the BBC website going down because so many people were trying to get hold of up to date news. The sense of disbelief and horror was palpable - and made worse because of the amazing upbeat news of the previous day.
FWIW, there is a casino behind the Imperial Hotel and a Chinese gang presence in the area.
The timing doesnt really fit a gang attack. The police were alerted at 10.33 & they tasered somebody at 10.39 at the scene. A gang attack would more likely stab & flee .i e by the time they will have been alerted the individual(S) are not at the scene. It sounds much more like they arrived at the scene to be faced by a nutter waving a knife.
FWIW, there is a casino behind the Imperial Hotel and a Chinese gang presence in the area.
The timing doesnt really fit a gang attack. The police were alerted at 10.33 & they tasered somebody at 10.39 at the scene. A gang attack would more likely stab & flee. It sounds much more like they arrived at the scene to be faced by a nutter waving a knife.
Given how quickly this is being linked to terrorism, I fear that the nutter was calling out 'allahu akbar' or similar
FWIW, there is a casino behind the Imperial Hotel and a Chinese gang presence in the area.
The timing doesnt really fit a gang attack. The police were alerted at 10.33 & they tasered somebody at 10.39 at the scene. A gang attack would more likely stab & flee. It sounds much more like they arrived at the scene to be faced by a nutter waving a knife.
Given how quickly this is being linked to terrorism, I fear that the nutter was calling out 'allahu akbar' or similar
And the 4hr delay before it been reported simulatously by all media organisations with pretty much word for word the same story.
"Normal" news has more of a wave like spread across the media. One gets the early heads up & then the rest go to verify it & then repeat / add to the story.
CNN are claiming a source saying it was a terrorist-related incident.
Have to wait and see.
The fact the mail are running that as a headline suggests they have been briefed by somebody.
There are reports on telegraph & guardian website of a caller to LBC saying thought gang related, but admits he didn't actually see it & that was just what someone told him. Reports of the incident don't fit with a gang attack, more a nutter with a knife (but obviously with what motivate).
I am going to guess that they are briefing terrorist as had a good rant about syria or IS.
Actually, I've bothered to go look this up. The underground bombs went off at 8:49. The explosion on the bus was much later, at 9:47. Then Wikipedia gives:
The first indication of the attacks came at 9:15 a.m., when Sky News, during its Sunrise breakfast show, flashed a report of an explosion at Liverpool Street Station in the City of London. The main UK TV networks (BBC One and ITV) dropped programming and carried news solidly within 30 minutes of the first reports. Initially, the BBC's response was slow. At 9:20 a.m., a graphic appeared on BBC News 24 reporting an explosion in the City of London, only for it to be removed and go unmentioned by the channel's presenters for a further five minutes. Around this time, BBC One broke into programming with a short news report, and then returned to regular programming, only to have to return to the news studio several minutes later when the gravity of the incident became clearer. The major television channels' coverage continued throughout the day with simulcasts of the channels' respective rolling news services BBC News 24 and the ITV News Channel. The length of this media coverage in the UK was unprecedented: for example it was the single longest broadcast in ITN's history. There was total blanket coverage on all UK rolling news channels for several days.
So pretty much matches my memory - sketchy reports well within an hour (initially incorrectly referred to as power surges), and with some uncertainty about the number of explosions (due to passengers escaping from the mid-tunnel tube trains at stations either side), but things becoming clearer after the bus incident. I'd forgotten how much later the bus explosion actually was compared to the tubes, but because the media reports of the bus were fast compared to the tubes. there hadn't seemed such a big gap at the time.
If, as is being reported, the perpetrator has been arrested (following a nice jolt of electricity to take him down), then there is a fair chance of being able to question him and work out motivations/support networks etc.
If, as is being reported, the perpetrator has been arrested (following a nice jolt of electricity to take him down), then there is a fair chance of being able to question him and work out motivations/support networks etc.
The trouble is you don't need a support network for a knife attack -- just a kitchen.
If, as is being reported, the perpetrator has been arrested (following a nice jolt of electricity to take him down), then there is a fair chance of being able to question him and work out motivations/support networks etc.
The trouble is you don't need a support network for a knife attack -- just a kitchen.
Well yes - but there will be opportunities to find out how he got to this position. Which is always harder to do with a corpse.
Mental health might be a major factor - but terrorism not ruled out.
Given that you have to be pretty mentally ill to grab a knife and slash people in the street, I would say the two go hand in hand .
Belief in God is a mental illness.
Charming
That does remind me of one of R Dawkins's assertions that the contents of most religious belief would be sufficient, if held by only a tiny handful of individuals, to have them certified mentally ill, but survive because there is safety in numbers....
Quiet on PB tonight.. I suspect peter is waiting in the wings.....
We are relying on UKIP for another twist to relieve us of an otherwise uneventful Thursday. The Labour stuff is potentially dramatic but is being played out in agonisingly slow motion.
Mental health might be a major factor - but terrorism not ruled out.
Given that you have to be pretty mentally ill to grab a knife and slash people in the street, I would say the two go hand in hand .
Belief in God is a mental illness.
Charming
That does remind me of one of R Dawkins's assertions that the contents of most religious belief would be sufficient, if held by only a tiny handful of individuals, to have them certified mentally ill, but survive because there is safety in numbers....
Belief in God is not a mental illness. For an idea to be a delusional one it needs to be outside the societal context of the individual. It also needs to be associated with other symptoms and behaviours.
The first indication of the attacks came at 9:15 a.m., when Sky News, during its Sunrise breakfast show, flashed a report of an explosion at Liverpool Street Station in the City of London. The main UK TV networks (BBC One and ITV) dropped programming and carried news solidly within 30 minutes of the first reports. Initially, the BBC's response was slow. At 9:20 a.m., a graphic appeared on BBC News 24 reporting an explosion in the City of London, only for it to be removed and go unmentioned by the channel's presenters for a further five minutes. Around this time, BBC One broke into programming with a short news report, and then returned to regular programming, only to have to return to the news studio several minutes later when the gravity of the incident became clearer. The major television channels' coverage continued throughout the day with simulcasts of the channels' respective rolling news services BBC News 24 and the ITV News Channel. The length of this media coverage in the UK was unprecedented: for example it was the single longest broadcast in ITN's history. There was total blanket coverage on all UK rolling news channels for several days.
So pretty much matches my memory - sketchy reports well within an hour (initially incorrectly referred to as power surges), and with some uncertainty about the number of explosions (due to passengers escaping from the mid-tunnel tube trains at stations either side), but things becoming clearer after the bus incident. I'd forgotten how much later the bus explosion actually was compared to the tubes, but because the media reports of the bus were fast compared to the tubes. there hadn't seemed such a big gap at the time.
There may still be some sort of an agreement for major incidents, it is just that something big affecting travel in London cannot be hidden for an instant and something needs to be said right away.
I remember that morning quite well, as my daily commute was through Liverpool Street. On that day I was instead due to be driving out of London and when I heard the initial report of the explosion I was just relieved that I had avoided a particularly miserable day on the Central Line. Then more news started to come in of other incidents on underground lines; although reporting was confused it was clear something serious was up. It wasn't reported as a terrorist incident straight off, so people were wondering what would cause multiple explosions on the tube - in a way that wouldn't happen today, which shows how used to terrorism we have since become. When the news of the bus attacks came through it was clear we were facing a major attack and I ended up staying at home watching the news which, as often when there's a big story but relatively little footage, played the same few eye witness reports over and over.
Mental health might be a major factor - but terrorism not ruled out.
Given that you have to be pretty mentally ill to grab a knife and slash people in the street, I would say the two go hand in hand .
Belief in God is a mental illness.
Charming
That does remind me of one of R Dawkins's assertions that the contents of most religious belief would be sufficient, if held by only a tiny handful of individuals, to have them certified mentally ill, but survive because there is safety in numbers....
Belief in God is not a mental illness. For an idea to be a delusional one it needs to be outside the societal context of the individual. It also needs to be associated with other symptoms and behaviours.
The same goes with violent behaviour.
I am sure Dawkins would accept that. His point was more about the improbability of the content and the reaction you would get if you came up with something equivalent yourself that no-one else believed.
Morning. Terrible news from London, hope it doesn't turn out to be anything organised.
I think Islamic terrorism has changed. If you think of 9/11 as the apogee of the large organised group, you've seen intelligence services successful break-up or break-into cells. It's been much harder for large groups of people to plan and execute things.
Indeed, it's striking that other than the Bataclan attack, it's hard to think of any act of Islamic terrorism in the West in the last five years has involved more than a single actor.
This is not because - I'm sure - ISIS and Al Queada and the like don't want to do big things with many people, but because the likelihood of being detected in the planning stage increases exponentially with every person involves. (A sort of Metcalfe's Law for likelihood of being found out.)
As a result the new mode of ISIS is to try and 'groom' disaffected Muslims in the West. Partly this will be done through the Mosques and traditional channels. But increasingly, I suspect, it's through on-line groups. Likely actors will be identified and then repeatedly encouraged and prodded and helped to go do something terrible. I suspect that many of the techniques used by child molestors will be used here as well.
The good news is that - because this is largely technology driven - there is plenty for the intelligence services to do. I suspect lists of people regularly using Tor or (slightly) anonymous overseas VPNs will be a starting point. I also suspect there are probably teams of people pretending to be slightly radicalised Muslims on-line to try and find the sources of the poison.
There will, of course, still be people "inspired" by ISIS out there. But I suspect that - just as the intelligence services did such a good job on clamping down on terrorist networks post 9/11 - they will do a surprisingly good job now. It's just that going from one attack every month to one every three doesn't make great headlines.
Comments
Not really enough to matter in any practical sense.
Its a long way out and lots of things can happen.
However, my pessimistic low 20s prediction is based on the idea that current polls of 28% are not based on an actual 5 week campaign, in which Corbyn and McD would be decimated.
They have no idea what they are doing on two fundamental levels - one, policy (still none after 12 months, other than 1970s slogans), two, and even worse, they have never been involved or even remotely close, to a national, GE campaign and the reality of that. Can you imagine the f-up that these two would make of a five week campaign? Endless rallies in rock solid safe labour seats, press conferences they failed to turn up at, contradictory policy announcements by different shadow cabinet ministers, hugging sessions with the Cuban ambassador etc etc etc.
So off to beddy-byes, G;night all and thanks for the conversation.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=0
I just laid £400 of Paul Ryan @ 31/1
Someone is betting big
How might Cruz, Kasich, Ryan, Pence and Rubio be ranked in terms of how well they are recognised by the US population? Presumably the last two are at the bottom? But how does Ryan compare with Cruz and Kasich?
They are not Donald Trump, so they will get voters that Donald Trump will never get but also never get voters that Donald Trump has.
Basically they would have to replace the 45% of republican voters who are Trump fanatics, an impossible task given that only 25% of republicans are NeverTrump.
But to answer your question, Pence is the one least recognized and for that reason least rejected by the public.
Kasich is the only one who has positive numbers among democrats but republicans don't like him, even in Ohio he has a -9 favourable rating for him among republicans.
Cruz is even worse, last poll had him at -39 among republicans nationally, his own party really hates him.
Who would you choose to have the best chance of beating Clinton? Does Ryan even get a look-in?
My guess is that Trump has brought many non-voters to the Party. Some of them would not actually have voted in the GE, but many would. Perhaps most of the non-voters would be lost to the GOP, but some would not, particularly if Ryan were the candidate. What the GOP would gain would be fiscal conservative moderates and independents in their droves who hate Trump and don't trust Hillary.
It is impossible to say where the balance lies for the Presidential. But the party seems to have decided that Trump's negatives on the down ticket races (Senate and House) is so negative that all out war with him is worthwhile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-NKX-4IUjg
Woman dead and up to six injured in knife incident in Russell Square, central London
Bloody hell
Fingers crossed for the six of them.
Also the voting system is mostly FPTP but with a little token proportional section, just big enough to keep lots of small opposition parties on life support.
"A woman has died and five others were injured in a knife attack in Russell Square, central London. Police and ambulance crews were called at 22:33 BST on Wednesday to reports of a man in possession of a knife and injuring people. Up to six injured people were found at the scene; one woman was pronounced dead a short time later.
The man was arrested at 22:39; a taser was discharged by one of the arresting officers.
Terrorism is one possible motive being explored, the Metropolitan Police say."
Surprised the news only just broke - perhaps it'd been doing the rounds on social media earlier.
They definitely would have known within 4hrs, especially as it is in London.
I seem to recall that coverage of 7/7 was pretty rapid, and that was pre-Twitter. Perhaps memory is playing tricks on me, but I think there were (very sketchy) reports well within an hour.
I would also say I think the authorities are worried about a different threat now. A bomb goes off & there isn't much that will change. Now the concern is of roaming attackers, so the last thing they want is people coming to see what is going on or causing mass panic, when the only focus of the authorities is to neutralise the individuals asap.
Have to wait and see.
There are reports on telegraph & guardian website of a caller to LBC saying thought gang related, but admits he didn't actually see it & that was just what someone told him. Reports of the incident don't fit with a gang attack, more a nutter with a knife (but obviously with what motivate).
I am going to guess that they are briefing terrorist as had a good rant about syria or IS.
"Normal" news has more of a wave like spread across the media. One gets the early heads up & then the rest go to verify it & then repeat / add to the story.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/police-launch-murder-probe-after-man-is-stabbed-on-battersea-estate-a3311426.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2005_London_bombings#Media_response
The first indication of the attacks came at 9:15 a.m., when Sky News, during its Sunrise breakfast show, flashed a report of an explosion at Liverpool Street Station in the City of London. The main UK TV networks (BBC One and ITV) dropped programming and carried news solidly within 30 minutes of the first reports. Initially, the BBC's response was slow. At 9:20 a.m., a graphic appeared on BBC News 24 reporting an explosion in the City of London, only for it to be removed and go unmentioned by the channel's presenters for a further five minutes. Around this time, BBC One broke into programming with a short news report, and then returned to regular programming, only to have to return to the news studio several minutes later when the gravity of the incident became clearer. The major television channels' coverage continued throughout the day with simulcasts of the channels' respective rolling news services BBC News 24 and the ITV News Channel. The length of this media coverage in the UK was unprecedented: for example it was the single longest broadcast in ITN's history. There was total blanket coverage on all UK rolling news channels for several days.
So pretty much matches my memory - sketchy reports well within an hour (initially incorrectly referred to as power surges), and with some uncertainty about the number of explosions (due to passengers escaping from the mid-tunnel tube trains at stations either side), but things becoming clearer after the bus incident. I'd forgotten how much later the bus explosion actually was compared to the tubes, but because the media reports of the bus were fast compared to the tubes. there hadn't seemed such a big gap at the time.
Mental health might be a major factor - but terrorism not ruled out.
Given that you have to be pretty mentally ill to grab a knife and slash people in the street, I would say the two go hand in hand .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36972038
The same goes with violent behaviour.
I remember that morning quite well, as my daily commute was through Liverpool Street. On that day I was instead due to be driving out of London and when I heard the initial report of the explosion I was just relieved that I had avoided a particularly miserable day on the Central Line. Then more news started to come in of other incidents on underground lines; although reporting was confused it was clear something serious was up. It wasn't reported as a terrorist incident straight off, so people were wondering what would cause multiple explosions on the tube - in a way that wouldn't happen today, which shows how used to terrorism we have since become. When the news of the bus attacks came through it was clear we were facing a major attack and I ended up staying at home watching the news which, as often when there's a big story but relatively little footage, played the same few eye witness reports over and over.
Just heard on the radio of last night’s attack in London, hope it turns out to be a lone nutter, rather than someone known locally as Dave.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36964081
Indeed, it's striking that other than the Bataclan attack, it's hard to think of any act of Islamic terrorism in the West in the last five years has involved more than a single actor.
This is not because - I'm sure - ISIS and Al Queada and the like don't want to do big things with many people, but because the likelihood of being detected in the planning stage increases exponentially with every person involves. (A sort of Metcalfe's Law for likelihood of being found out.)
As a result the new mode of ISIS is to try and 'groom' disaffected Muslims in the West. Partly this will be done through the Mosques and traditional channels. But increasingly, I suspect, it's through on-line groups. Likely actors will be identified and then repeatedly encouraged and prodded and helped to go do something terrible. I suspect that many of the techniques used by child molestors will be used here as well.
The good news is that - because this is largely technology driven - there is plenty for the intelligence services to do. I suspect lists of people regularly using Tor or (slightly) anonymous overseas VPNs will be a starting point. I also suspect there are probably teams of people pretending to be slightly radicalised Muslims on-line to try and find the sources of the poison.
There will, of course, still be people "inspired" by ISIS out there. But I suspect that - just as the intelligence services did such a good job on clamping down on terrorist networks post 9/11 - they will do a surprisingly good job now. It's just that going from one attack every month to one every three doesn't make great headlines.
I wonder if they tailor the order of stories according to viewing habits/location of viewer?