Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s leadership weakness and another double digit Tory lea

SystemSystem Posts: 11,703
edited August 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s leadership weakness and another double digit Tory lead will increase the clamour for an early election

This is being driven by a honeymoon for the new PM plus of course the huge weakness that LAB is currently portraying following the colossal vote of no confidence in Corbyn by 81% of the party’s MPs. His position is simply untenable but he’s struggling on and is favourite to beat off the leadership challenge.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    First? :D
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    edited August 2016
    BTW- YouGov double diamond platinum status confirmed?

    and 2017 election?... nice!
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited August 2016
    Labour are still overstated.. Going the way things are 25% is most likely, or slightly less.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Labour are still overstated.. Going the way things are 25% is most likely, or slightly less.

    22% would be half of the Tory vote, particularly with the kippers self destructing.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,068
    FPT:
    Sandpit said:

    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.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Lab on 28% - am I right in thinking this figure, or there about, appears to be consistent with other polls? – Their base camp, with a mountain to climb.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Labour are still overstated.. Going the way things are 25% is most likely, or slightly less.

    I think that the way things are going there are a lot of Labour voters, knowing they are going to get stuffed, just wont vote.
  • Options
    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Lab on 28% - am I right in thinking this figure, or there about, appears to be consistent with other polls? – Their base camp, with a mountain to climb.

    They will do well to maintain 28% with Jezza in charge.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,424

    Labour are still overstated.. Going the way things are 25% is most likely, or slightly less.

    22% would be half of the Tory vote, particularly with the kippers self destructing.
    I tend to agree - but there is still probably more than half the population who won't vote Tory, and most of them want someone to vote for.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    edited August 2016
    I'm not sure there will be an early election. Any EU 'deal' put to Parliament should pass, if only because it not passing leads to us exiting the EU with no deal two years after A50 is triggered - probably just before the May 2019 EU elections.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,424

    Lab on 28% - am I right in thinking this figure, or there about, appears to be consistent with other polls? – Their base camp, with a mountain to climb.

    It's the low point of historical GE performance, and equivalent to where they were in March 2016 polling (which in itself is remarkable, if you think about it). But the 1983 experience suggests that if their campaign is anything like we might currently anticipate, some falling off is likely between the polls at election start, and polling day.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,456

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    Strange as it might seem the only topic of conversation in the Dog and Duck is the philosophical concept of a Prime Ministerial mandate in a Parliamentary system. Not.

    Election speculation is something that excites journalists and commentators but not the vast bulk of folk. Nobody is clamouring for an election.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    edited August 2016

    Lab on 28% - am I right in thinking this figure, or there about, appears to be consistent with other polls? – Their base camp, with a mountain to climb.

    They will do well to maintain 28% with Jezza in charge.
    Quite. They scored 30% with Miliband and 29% with Brown. Jeremy is probably below 25% after a campaign where he only targets his existing supporters and think the biggest issues facing Britain are refugees (why don't we let them all in?) and Palestine.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Corbynites, be of good Cheer!

    The leadership contest shows how Jeremy has already won the debate in the party and the country

    http://labourlist.org/2016/08/manuel-cortes/
  • Options

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    If Theresa May shouldn't be PM, could you please enlighten us as to who you think it should be?
  • Options
    FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    ToryJim said:

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    Strange as it might seem the only topic of conversation in the Dog and Duck is the philosophical concept of a Prime Ministerial mandate in a Parliamentary system. Not.
    There doesn't seem much appetite right now, but it's not that long ago people were saying the EU issue didn't really have traction either.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Ridiculous. Terror attacks in Europe are now almost daily occurrences. " From one attack every month to one every three....", deluded.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited August 2016

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    There is a difference between Brown becoming PM and May becoming PM.. Labour plotted to get rid of Blair and forced him out. No such thing happened with Dave because Dave resigned of his own volition and May took over. Constitutionally there is no reason to call a GE.. We elect MP's not Prime Ministers .. ask Jim Hacker...
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956
    Sad news this morning of events in London.

    I know one shouldn't feel events more deeply when they're closer - but my frame of reference for Russell square is strong. Having lived nearby I've had great fun with friends and family in the square itself, nearby Bloomsbury pubs, the Renoir etc. I also stay at the Russell at least once most months. In short, it is one of my favourite places in London. Always so safe, congenial, generally large numbers of students, but also a mixed demographic of local elderly, some decent social housing nearby too.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Arizona - OH Predictive Insights

    Clinton 45 .. Trump 42

    http://email.connectstrategic.com/t/j-34549BEAED04456D
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    There is a dirreence between Brown getting it and May becoming Pm.. Labour plotted to get rid of Blair and forced him out. No such thing happened and May took over. Constitutionally there is no reason to call a GE.. Ask Jim Hacker...
    It would have been nice, as a member, to have had a vote, but the system was seen to work well and we had the minimum period of uncertainly following the resignation of the PM.

    We are also in a Parliamentary democracy, rather than a Presidential one.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Ridiculous. Terror attacks in Europe are now almost daily occurrences. " From one attack every month to one every three....", deluded.
    I think rcs1000 means attacks by more than one person.

    I am encouraged by how quickly and effectively the armed police tasered and cordened off this guy before approaching him. They sound well rehearsed.
  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    Both parties are broad churches of course, but currently Labour's leadership and PLP are so divided I struggle to imagine them running a vaguely coherent GE campaign.

    If Corbyn came up with a hard left manifesto, would Blairite MPs go on TV to defend it? Would they promote it in literature to their constituents? I'm trying to imagine Chukka Umunna explaining to Andrew Neil the merits of renationalising the coal mines or something and I just can't.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,456
    Freggles said:

    ToryJim said:

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    Strange as it might seem the only topic of conversation in the Dog and Duck is the philosophical concept of a Prime Ministerial mandate in a Parliamentary system. Not.
    There doesn't seem much appetite right now, but it's not that long ago people were saying the EU issue didn't really have traction either.
    You have to remember that a goodly proportion of folk will just "roll with it" regardless of what the "it" is.

    I doubt very much if most people were that moved by the EU debate at all or the concept of a referendum. Once it was on I think people engaged with it to an extent. However I don't think there was a clamour for a referendum or that the EU issue had mass traction.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,534
    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,055
    Surely “the countruy” doesn’t want the upheaval of an election. And the example in front of May is that “asking the people” doesn’t always mean one gets the result the questioner wants!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Freggles said:

    ToryJim said:

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    Strange as it might seem the only topic of conversation in the Dog and Duck is the philosophical concept of a Prime Ministerial mandate in a Parliamentary system. Not.
    There doesn't seem much appetite right now, but it's not that long ago people were saying the EU issue didn't really have traction either.
    At the moment people have had enough of elections and politics, a snap autumn election would be too soon. May's problem is that she has an awkward squad that she knows will rebel, and some of these are in the cabinet.

    A spring election where each party can put its Brexit plans to the electorate would work well for her. If the economy does go belly up in the meantime or if Labour boots out Jezza things could be different. We should have some idea after conference season and Autumn Statement are out of the way.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956
    To look on the bright side for a minute, with the exchange rate changes I've never seen so many tourists down here in Sunny Dorset....
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618
    Whoever this arsehole is I hope they string him up from his balls.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Trump polling at 12.9% with hispanics in Florida - a historic low. Romney won 39% in 2012 making the state highly competitive :

    http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/exclusive-new-poll-shows-trump-has-a-big-hispanic-problem-in-florida
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Should have probably clarified - as an American/Westerner. I realise things are rougher in the Mid East, for example.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,456

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Ridiculous. Terror attacks in Europe are now almost daily occurrences. " From one attack every month to one every three....", deluded.
    The sea change in expectations re police incidents has been very striking.

    I recall a period when the IRA were pretty active and we jumped to conclusions that explosions were planned. Then it all went quiet - blasts went back to being gas leaks or fires effecting propane cylinders in restaurants et al. Now almost all major incidents/random attacks are assumed to be Islamists, rather than accidents or rogue nutters.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618
    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Also, pretty astonishing that 2001 doesn't even register on that graph...
  • Options
    JackW said:

    Trump polling at 12.9% with hispanics in Florida - a historic low. Romney won 39% in 2012 making the state highly competitive :

    http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/exclusive-new-poll-shows-trump-has-a-big-hispanic-problem-in-florida

    Romney never got to be President, did he.
  • Options
    GideonWiseGideonWise Posts: 1,123
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Agree mostly but I can think of many acts of Islamic terrorism in the last five that has involved more than one actor. Indeed, just last week?? Clearly there are countless examples unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by 'actor'.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,995
    Photoshop job of the main pres candidates (Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Sanders, Clinton) going round with beards.

    Rubio would have won.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,424
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    So becoming victim to a random shooting incident in the US would appear to be a bigger risk that either. Something for US tourists to consider; it's more dangerous staying home.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,456
    JackW said:

    Trump polling at 12.9% with hispanics in Florida - a historic low. Romney won 39% in 2012 making the state highly competitive :

    http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/exclusive-new-poll-shows-trump-has-a-big-hispanic-problem-in-florida

    The article mentions Texas as having a large Hispanic voter population. I suspect it will remain highly favourable to the GOP but is there an outside chance that if the Hispanic vote deserts Trump that Texas could be far more competitive than it ought to be?

  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,424
    edited August 2016

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Agree mostly but I can think of many acts of Islamic terrorism in the last five that has involved more than one actor. Indeed, just last week?? Clearly there are countless examples unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by 'actor'.
    Apparently six further people have been arrested "in connection with" the Nice incident, which at first glance appeared to involve one guy who had hired a lorry. I haven't seen it reported what role the six are alleged to have played.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Should have probably clarified - as an American/Westerner. I realise things are rougher in the Mid East, for example.
    If you're British, have a normal job with no dangerous travel and go on holiday with a British or major international airline, your chances of dying in either a commercial plane crash or a terrorist attack are statistically zero. Both are in the single figures per year over the last decade - yet we worry endlessly about both.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,456
    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
    Not certain of that, and I really dislike the human tendency to treat the absence of facts as an opportunity to embellish and peddle bullshit speculation in its stead.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,424
    ToryJim said:

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    Strange as it might seem the only topic of conversation in the Dog and Duck is the philosophical concept of a Prime Ministerial mandate in a Parliamentary system. Not.

    Election speculation is something that excites journalists and commentators but not the vast bulk of folk. Nobody is clamouring for an election.
    Because people expect the result to be the same as the last one, so why bother? As you say. The detail of majorities etc. doesn't concern people.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,604
    It's less hard or soft Brexit than a meaningful Brexit.

    If May can demonstrate or point to real sovereign wins (James Forsyth has suggested trade deals, UK law supremacy and border control - and she'd need a clear win on at least one) reinforced by a few symbols, perhaps by announcing the return of the blue passport by 2021, and legalisation of goods to be sold in pounds and ounces as well as metric, particularly for market traders and small businesses, then she'll be applauded.

    If we just technically quit the EU (I.e. we cease to be an official legal member, but virtually nothing else changes - and perhaps even a political mechanism is devised for us to continue to both be subject to and input into EU rules) then I think May would be entering troubled political waters.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,604
    Mortimer said:

    Sad news this morning of events in London.

    I know one shouldn't feel events more deeply when they're closer - but my frame of reference for Russell square is strong. Having lived nearby I've had great fun with friends and family in the square itself, nearby Bloomsbury pubs, the Renoir etc. I also stay at the Russell at least once most months. In short, it is one of my favourite places in London. Always so safe, congenial, generally large numbers of students, but also a mixed demographic of local elderly, some decent social housing nearby too.

    Russell Hotel is great, and it is a safe area.

    You can never account for one nutter not being anywhere.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    edited August 2016
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Also, pretty astonishing that 2001 doesn't even register on that graph...
    Didn't think of that. Turns out there were only 200 passengers combined on the four planes that fateful day. They were thankfully all pretty empty.
    http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/planes/

    In contrast, the plane that belly flopped at DXB yesterday had 300 on board. They all got out, although one firefighter was killed, not sure what happened yet.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,378
    Of course when Labour do get hammered under Corbyn it will not be his fault or of course the fault of his imbecilic policies but because he was betrayed by the rational wing of Labour and unable to put forward a united front. The lesson will be that internal opposition has to be stamped out.

    Labour are looking increasingly doomed. I am not one of those who believe that is a good thing.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Romney never got to be President, did he.

    You win a lollipop ....

    The substantive point being that losing hispanics by huge margins only ensures that Trump's path in the EC is vastly more difficult than it already was.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618
    ToryJim said:

    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
    Not certain of that, and I really dislike the human tendency to treat the absence of facts as an opportunity to embellish and peddle bullshit speculation in its stead.
    That's my point, if it was gang related, and by now they would know, then they would have said 1 woman and 5 injured in gang related violence. The woman who has been killed was 60 years old, its hard to imagine how she could get caught up in gang violence. The absence of an official statement relating it to gang violence by now means the chances are remote.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,604
    edited August 2016
    DavidL said:

    Of course when Labour do get hammered under Corbyn it will not be his fault or of course the fault of his imbecilic policies but because he was betrayed by the rational wing of Labour and unable to put forward a united front. The lesson will be that internal opposition has to be stamped out.

    Labour are looking increasingly doomed. I am not one of those who believe that is a good thing.

    Confirmation bias is not a good thing.

    An ineffective opposition reduces the quality of our governance, and undermines democracy. I have several left-wing friends who now feel there is no-one to vote for.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990

    It's less hard or soft Brexit than a meaningful Brexit.

    If May can demonstrate or point to real sovereign wins (James Forsyth has suggested trade deals, UK law supremacy and border control - and she'd need a clear win on at least one) reinforced by a few symbols, perhaps by announcing the return of the blue passport by 2021, and legalisation of goods to be sold in pounds and ounces as well as metric, particularly for market traders and small businesses, then she'll be applauded.

    If we just technically quit the EU (I.e. we cease to be an official legal member, but virtually nothing else changes - and perhaps even a political mechanism is devised for us to continue to both be subject to and input into EU rules) then I think May would be entering troubled political waters.

    Forgot about pounds and ounces.... that and the blue passport would be a sight to behold :D
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,357
    IanB2 said:

    ToryJim said:

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    Strange as it might seem the only topic of conversation in the Dog and Duck is the philosophical concept of a Prime Ministerial mandate in a Parliamentary system. Not.

    Election speculation is something that excites journalists and commentators but not the vast bulk of folk. Nobody is clamouring for an election.
    Because people expect the result to be the same as the last one, so why bother? As you say. The detail of majorities etc. doesn't concern people.
    I suspect a lot of people find elections a pain in the butt.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,604
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Should have probably clarified - as an American/Westerner. I realise things are rougher in the Mid East, for example.
    If you're British, have a normal job with no dangerous travel and go on holiday with a British or major international airline, your chances of dying in either a commercial plane crash or a terrorist attack are statistically zero. Both are in the single figures per year over the last decade - yet we worry endlessly about both.
    Irrational though it is, I crap myself on flights at the slightest whiff of turbulence. The 'BING' of the pilot putting on the 'fasten your seatbelt' sign, accompanied by the cabin illuminated light, doesn't help my nerves or the drama either. A lot of people tense up.

    It just feels like the plane is about to go down.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,089
    Pounds and ounces? What is this? the stone age? I'd prefer if the government didnt waste its time with nonsense such as that.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,456
    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
    Not certain of that, and I really dislike the human tendency to treat the absence of facts as an opportunity to embellish and peddle bullshit speculation in its stead.
    That's my point, if it was gang related, and by now they would know, then they would have said 1 woman and 5 injured in gang related violence. The woman who has been killed was 60 years old, its hard to imagine how she could get caught up in gang violence. The absence of an official statement relating it to gang violence by now means the chances are remote.
    Perhaps they are genuinely uncertain what the motivation was. I am willing to wait for an official statement rather than saying because they haven't said x it must be y.
  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    ToryJim said:

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    Strange as it might seem the only topic of conversation in the Dog and Duck is the philosophical concept of a Prime Ministerial mandate in a Parliamentary system. Not.

    Election speculation is something that excites journalists and commentators but not the vast bulk of folk. Nobody is clamouring for an election.
    Because people expect the result to be the same as the last one, so why bother? As you say. The detail of majorities etc. doesn't concern people.
    I suspect a lot of people find elections a pain in the butt.
    Unelected PMs like May and Brown, you bet.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,005
    Good morning, everyone.

    May's majority is small, but her adversaries are more split than one would expect. It depends how the Conservative MPs stack up, I think, as to whether trying to go early would make sense.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990

    Pounds and ounces? What is this? the stone age? I'd prefer if the government didnt waste its time with nonsense such as that.

    I think you'll find we didn't have any systems of measurement back in the stone age. The imperial and metric systems are both arbitrary, the latter simply caters for people who can't multiply by anything but 10.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    ToryJim said:

    JackW said:

    Trump polling at 12.9% with hispanics in Florida - a historic low. Romney won 39% in 2012 making the state highly competitive :

    http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/exclusive-new-poll-shows-trump-has-a-big-hispanic-problem-in-florida

    The article mentions Texas as having a large Hispanic voter population. I suspect it will remain highly favourable to the GOP but is there an outside chance that if the Hispanic vote deserts Trump that Texas could be far more competitive than it ought to be?

    Texas will not be in play this cycle or the next unless the Trump/GOP implosion is of epic proportions. More long term in 2024/28 then yes.

    However the hispanic demographic time-bomb continues to badly damage the GOP and has done so since Bush II left office. New Mexico is now a blue state and Nevada and Colorado are heading there too. Arizona is competitive this cycle and the diminishing Cuban influence in Florida is clear.

    Additionally even those states with smaller but growing hispanic populations in Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina may tip a tight race. Pissing off minority populations is a dumb arse strategy for the GOP, they knew it from 08/12 and have done nothing to address the problem, save make it worse.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Should have probably clarified - as an American/Westerner. I realise things are rougher in the Mid East, for example.
    If you're British, have a normal job with no dangerous travel and go on holiday with a British or major international airline, your chances of dying in either a commercial plane crash or a terrorist attack are statistically zero. Both are in the single figures per year over the last decade - yet we worry endlessly about both.
    Irrational though it is, I crap myself on flights at the slightest whiff of turbulence. The 'BING' of the pilot putting on the 'fasten your seatbelt' sign, accompanied by the cabin illuminated light, doesn't help my nerves or the drama either. A lot of people tense up.

    It just feels like the plane is about to go down.
    Planes don't drop out of the sky for no reason. A good friend of mine is a pilot, ex RAF now BA, he said that he had never experienced "severe" turbulence. I fly a lot, other than SeanT and Robert I probably fly the most on here and I have never experienced severe turbulence. I'm sure the other two will tell you the same. Flying is extremely safe, and if you stick to and airline with a solid safety and maintenance records then the chances of an engine or fuselage failure is close to nil.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,161
    Most Labour MPs will back May in a 'soft BREXIT' deal to spite Corbyn even if a number of Tory MPs oppose her and demand a 'hard BREXIT' so May should get a deal through the Commons without the need for an election to increase her majority. She should therefore be able to wait until 2020
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618
    ToryJim said:

    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
    Not certain of that, and I really dislike the human tendency to treat the absence of facts as an opportunity to embellish and peddle bullshit speculation in its stead.
    That's my point, if it was gang related, and by now they would know, then they would have said 1 woman and 5 injured in gang related violence. The woman who has been killed was 60 years old, its hard to imagine how she could get caught up in gang violence. The absence of an official statement relating it to gang violence by now means the chances are remote.
    Perhaps they are genuinely uncertain what the motivation was. I am willing to wait for an official statement rather than saying because they haven't said x it must be y.
    I'm not saying what it is, I could be any number of things. My bet is a crazy person. But it could also be a far right attack or a terrorist attack.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    edited August 2016
    RobD said:

    Pounds and ounces? What is this? the stone age? I'd prefer if the government didnt waste its time with nonsense such as that.

    I think you'll find we didn't have any systems of measurement back in the stone age. The imperial and metric systems are both arbitrary, the latter simply caters for people who can't multiply by anything but 10.
    And we already use a mix: distance and speed for cars, volume for milk and beer, and temperature off the top of my head are non-SI.

    [edited for typos]
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited August 2016
    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
    Quite. TBH, I'm getting rather sick of mental health being the knee-jerk reasoning. As if that's it somehow acceptable to cast aspersions on the ill, rather than OTT religious.

    Had a look through Twitter - reports of deceased lady in group with other Spaniards.

    Sky intvd a chappy with an incredibly strong Irish accent, I've heard it twice now and almost no idea what he was saying.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Should have probably clarified - as an American/Westerner. I realise things are rougher in the Mid East, for example.
    If you're British, have a normal job with no dangerous travel and go on holiday with a British or major international airline, your chances of dying in either a commercial plane crash or a terrorist attack are statistically zero. Both are in the single figures per year over the last decade - yet we worry endlessly about both.
    Irrational though it is, I crap myself on flights at the slightest whiff of turbulence. The 'BING' of the pilot putting on the 'fasten your seatbelt' sign, accompanied by the cabin illuminated light, doesn't help my nerves or the drama either. A lot of people tense up.

    It just feels like the plane is about to go down.
    Planes don't drop out of the sky for no reason. A good friend of mine is a pilot, ex RAF now BA, he said that he had never experienced "severe" turbulence. I fly a lot, other than SeanT and Robert I probably fly the most on here and I have never experienced severe turbulence. I'm sure the other two will tell you the same. Flying is extremely safe, and if you stick to and airline with a solid safety and maintenance records then the chances of an engine or fuselage failure is close to nil.
    Severe turbulence is when you better be sure you are wearing your seatbelt, otherwise you'll be flung right out of your seat!
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,456
    RobD said:

    It's less hard or soft Brexit than a meaningful Brexit.

    If May can demonstrate or point to real sovereign wins (James Forsyth has suggested trade deals, UK law supremacy and border control - and she'd need a clear win on at least one) reinforced by a few symbols, perhaps by announcing the return of the blue passport by 2021, and legalisation of goods to be sold in pounds and ounces as well as metric, particularly for market traders and small businesses, then she'll be applauded.

    If we just technically quit the EU (I.e. we cease to be an official legal member, but virtually nothing else changes - and perhaps even a political mechanism is devised for us to continue to both be subject to and input into EU rules) then I think May would be entering troubled political waters.

    Forgot about pounds and ounces.... that and the blue passport would be a sight to behold :D
    All a passport needs to be able to do is get you about the world free from undue impediment or harassment. What size or colour it is is frankly irrelevant!
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,005
    Well. Here's a mad thing. Apparently [that magic word...] a German chap is being prosecuted for defamation for insulting a murderer:
    https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/760900870351486977
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    ToryJim said:

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    Election speculation is something that excites journalists and commentators but not the vast bulk of folk. Nobody is clamouring for an election.
    Quite. We've only recently had an election and very recently had a referendum.

    Now will you just feck off and let us get on with our lives.

    Come back & ask us again in 3 or 4 years if there's something that needs our immediate attention.

    Otherwise do the jobs you're very handsomely paid to do.....
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    edited August 2016

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Should have probably clarified - as an American/Westerner. I realise things are rougher in the Mid East, for example.
    If you're British, have a normal job with no dangerous travel and go on holiday with a British or major international airline, your chances of dying in either a commercial plane crash or a terrorist attack are statistically zero. Both are in the single figures per year over the last decade - yet we worry endlessly about both.
    Irrational though it is, I crap myself on flights at the slightest whiff of turbulence. The 'BING' of the pilot putting on the 'fasten your seatbelt' sign, accompanied by the cabin illuminated light, doesn't help my nerves or the drama either. A lot of people tense up.

    It just feels like the plane is about to go down.
    In severe turbulence, as long as you've got your seat belt on you'll be okay. Most injuries are flight attendants who either bang their head on the ceiling or break their leg as they land, or passengers who decide to ignore the signs and go to the loo. The plane never drops more than 100 feet or so, still has 40,000 feet of air below it.

    Oh, and if it's bouncing around don't look at the wing tips, especially not on the new 787 or A350 - the wings bend much more than most people think they will!
    Video of them testing a 777 wing to destruction, look at the angle of it when it finally breaks, at over 150% of the design load.
    YouTube.com/Ai2HmvAXcU0

  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    JackW said:

    Trump polling at 12.9% with hispanics in Florida - a historic low. Romney won 39% in 2012 making the state highly competitive :

    http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/exclusive-new-poll-shows-trump-has-a-big-hispanic-problem-in-florida

    Who the hell are these 12.9%?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,161

    JackW said:

    Trump polling at 12.9% with hispanics in Florida - a historic low. Romney won 39% in 2012 making the state highly competitive :

    http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/exclusive-new-poll-shows-trump-has-a-big-hispanic-problem-in-florida

    Who the hell are these 12.9%?
    Cubans
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    PlatoSaid said:

    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
    Quite. TBH, I'm getting rather sick of mental health being the knee-jerk reasoning. As if that's it somehow acceptable to cast aspersions on the ill, rather than OTT religious.

    Had a look through Twitter - reports of deceased lady in group with other Spaniards.

    Sky intvd a chappy with an incredibly strong Irish accent, I've heard it twice now and almost no idea what he was saying.
    Would they have actually released his name so quickly? In any case, if not announcing his name is useful for intelligence purposes, so be it. You wouldn't want all his associates going to ground simply because the newspapers wanted to print a name!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,378

    DavidL said:

    Of course when Labour do get hammered under Corbyn it will not be his fault or of course the fault of his imbecilic policies but because he was betrayed by the rational wing of Labour and unable to put forward a united front. The lesson will be that internal opposition has to be stamped out.

    Labour are looking increasingly doomed. I am not one of those who believe that is a good thing.

    Confirmation bias is not a good thing.

    An ineffective opposition reduces the quality of our governance, and undermines democracy. I have several left-wing friends who now feel there is no-one to vote for.
    Likewise. And I fear that a government having to make the difficult decisions that this one will does not do better for having a large majority or no effective opposition. Indeed they are more likely to make mistakes.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618
    RobD said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
    Quite. TBH, I'm getting rather sick of mental health being the knee-jerk reasoning. As if that's it somehow acceptable to cast aspersions on the ill, rather than OTT religious.

    Had a look through Twitter - reports of deceased lady in group with other Spaniards.

    Sky intvd a chappy with an incredibly strong Irish accent, I've heard it twice now and almost no idea what he was saying.
    Would they have actually released his name so quickly? In any case, if not announcing his name is useful for intelligence purposes, so be it. You wouldn't want all his associates going to ground simply because the newspapers wanted to print a name!
    Yes, but that's an indication it might be a terror attack rather than a more mundane variety of gang violence that has blighted London for a long time.
  • Options
    PlatoSaid said:

    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
    Quite. TBH, I'm getting rather sick of mental health being the knee-jerk reasoning. As if that's it somehow acceptable to cast aspersions on the ill, rather than OTT religious.

    Had a look through Twitter - reports of deceased lady in group with other Spaniards.

    Sky intvd a chappy with an incredibly strong Irish accent, I've heard it twice now and almost no idea what he was saying.
    It's turning into The Following. I can't quite see Hogan-Howe as Ryan Hardy!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    edited August 2016
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Should have probably clarified - as an American/Westerner. I realise things are rougher in the Mid East, for example.
    If you're British, have a normal job with no dangerous travel and go on holiday with a British or major international airline, your chances of dying in either a commercial plane crash or a terrorist attack are statistically zero. Both are in the single figures per year over the last decade - yet we worry endlessly about both.
    Irrational though it is, I crap myself on flights at the slightest whiff of turbulence. The 'BING' of the pilot putting on the 'fasten your seatbelt' sign, accompanied by the cabin illuminated light, doesn't help my nerves or the drama either. A lot of people tense up.

    It just feels like the plane is about to go down.
    Planes don't drop out of the sky for no reason. A good friend of mine is a pilot, ex RAF now BA, he said that he had never experienced "severe" turbulence. I fly a lot, other than SeanT and Robert I probably fly the most on here and I have never experienced severe turbulence. I'm sure the other two will tell you the same. Flying is extremely safe, and if you stick to and airline with a solid safety and maintenance records then the chances of an engine or fuselage failure is close to nil.
    To add, most commercial planes are now so reliable that pilots go through their whole career without experiencing an engine shut down for real. They still practice in the sim every six months though, so they remember what to do if it does happen in the plane.

    http://avherald.com Is a constantly updated list of incidents and accidents worldwide. Lots of minor problems but very few major incidents which is testament to the industry focus on safety over the past few decades.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,161
    edited August 2016
    JackW said:

    ToryJim said:

    JackW said:

    Trump polling at 12.9% with hispanics in Florida - a historic low. Romney won 39% in 2012 making the state highly competitive :

    http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/exclusive-new-poll-shows-trump-has-a-big-hispanic-problem-in-florida

    The article mentions Texas as having a large Hispanic voter population. I suspect it will remain highly favourable to the GOP but is there an outside chance that if the Hispanic vote deserts Trump that Texas could be far more competitive than it ought to be?

    Texas will not be in play this cycle or the next unless the Trump/GOP implosion is of epic proportions. More long term in 2024/28 then yes.

    However the hispanic demographic time-bomb continues to badly damage the GOP and has done so since Bush II left office. New Mexico is now a blue state and Nevada and Colorado are heading there too. Arizona is competitive this cycle and the diminishing Cuban influence in Florida is clear.

    Additionally even those states with smaller but growing hispanic populations in Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina may tip a tight race. Pissing off minority populations is a dumb arse strategy for the GOP, they knew it from 08/12 and have done nothing to address the problem, save make it worse.
    Jeb Bush's half Hispanic son George P is now Texas Land Commissioner and may run for governor in 2018. He is a good bet to beat Kaine in 2024 and succeed Hillary and finally return a Republican to the White House
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
    Quite. TBH, I'm getting rather sick of mental health being the knee-jerk reasoning. As if that's it somehow acceptable to cast aspersions on the ill, rather than OTT religious.

    Had a look through Twitter - reports of deceased lady in group with other Spaniards.

    Sky intvd a chappy with an incredibly strong Irish accent, I've heard it twice now and almost no idea what he was saying.
    Would they have actually released his name so quickly? In any case, if not announcing his name is useful for intelligence purposes, so be it. You wouldn't want all his associates going to ground simply because the newspapers wanted to print a name!
    Yes, but that's an indication it might be a terror attack rather than a more mundane variety of gang violence that has blighted London for a long time.
    But that goes back to my first point: are names typically released 6 hours after similar incidents?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,581
    edited August 2016

    Well. Here's a mad thing. Apparently [that magic word...] a German chap is being prosecuted for defamation for insulting a murderer:
    twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/760900870351486977

    No he isn't.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,161
    edited August 2016

    DavidL said:

    Of course when Labour do get hammered under Corbyn it will not be his fault or of course the fault of his imbecilic policies but because he was betrayed by the rational wing of Labour and unable to put forward a united front. The lesson will be that internal opposition has to be stamped out.

    Labour are looking increasingly doomed. I am not one of those who believe that is a good thing.

    Confirmation bias is not a good thing.

    An ineffective opposition reduces the quality of our governance, and undermines democracy. I have several left-wing friends who now feel there is no-one to vote for.
    If your friends do not vote for Corbyn then Corbynistas would say they are not really leftwing but Tories
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,378

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Should have probably clarified - as an American/Westerner. I realise things are rougher in the Mid East, for example.
    If you're British, have a normal job with no dangerous travel and go on holiday with a British or major international airline, your chances of dying in either a commercial plane crash or a terrorist attack are statistically zero. Both are in the single figures per year over the last decade - yet we worry endlessly about both.
    Irrational though it is, I crap myself on flights at the slightest whiff of turbulence. The 'BING' of the pilot putting on the 'fasten your seatbelt' sign, accompanied by the cabin illuminated light, doesn't help my nerves or the drama either. A lot of people tense up.

    It just feels like the plane is about to go down.
    A few years ago now I had a flight back from Manchester to Edinburgh. Within a few minutes of taking off we were told that there was to be no cabin service and the crew were strapping themselves in. We then bounced and dropped the entire journey. When the pilot tried to land at Edinburgh the plane was swinging from side to side and at the very last second the pilot soared into the sky again saying he could not hold it and we had to come around again.

    Memories of that flight are right up there with airport security as reasons to fly only when it is absolutely necessary.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618
    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
    Quite. TBH, I'm getting rather sick of mental health being the knee-jerk reasoning. As if that's it somehow acceptable to cast aspersions on the ill, rather than OTT religious.

    Had a look through Twitter - reports of deceased lady in group with other Spaniards.

    Sky intvd a chappy with an incredibly strong Irish accent, I've heard it twice now and almost no idea what he was saying.
    Would they have actually released his name so quickly? In any case, if not announcing his name is useful for intelligence purposes, so be it. You wouldn't want all his associates going to ground simply because the newspapers wanted to print a name!
    Yes, but that's an indication it might be a terror attack rather than a more mundane variety of gang violence that has blighted London for a long time.
    But that goes back to my first point: are names typically released 6 hours after similar incidents?
    In gang related incidents they are normally pretty fast to get pictures and names up. Then again, the victim is normally a young black man who's name would also be out there by now with the parents urging any other perpetrators to come forwards. If this is a case of gang violence, so far it follows none of the established patterns.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,161
    edited August 2016

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Not that the U.S. is entirely safe either, see recent terror attacks in San Bernadino and Orlando not to mention 9/11
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited August 2016
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Also, pretty astonishing that 2001 doesn't even register on that graph...
    Didn't think of that. Turns out there were only 200 passengers combined on the four planes that fateful day. They were thankfully all pretty empty.
    http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/planes/

    In contrast, the plane that belly flopped at DXB yesterday had 300 on board. They all got out, although one firefighter was killed, not sure what happened yet.
    I watched a great Mythbusters on Travel channel yesterday re the relative safety of airline seats/brace positions/where's safest. The presenters are braver than me. After building a pretty sophisticated rig, dropping it from a crane with crash dummies to measure G-forces/injuries - they climbed on board...

    At just 5ft, they ended up thrown about/bashed knees and elbows/one on crutches. Broken legs seemed to be the most likely injury from the dummy tests. For anyone who loves this sort of practical Top Gear style show, it's a must watch. The seats were totally trashed taking the impact.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,604
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Should have probably clarified - as an American/Westerner. I realise things are rougher in the Mid East, for example.
    If you're British, have a normal job with no dangerous travel and go on holiday with a British or major international airline, your chances of dying in either a commercial plane crash or a terrorist attack are statistically zero. Both are in the single figures per year over the last decade - yet we worry endlessly about both.
    Irrational though it is, I crap myself on flights at the slightest whiff of turbulence. The 'BING' of the pilot putting on the 'fasten your seatbelt' sign, accompanied by the cabin illuminated light, doesn't help my nerves or the drama either. A lot of people tense up.

    It just feels like the plane is about to go down.
    Planes don't drop out of the sky for no reason. A good friend of mine is a pilot, ex RAF now BA, he said that he had never experienced "severe" turbulence. I fly a lot, other than SeanT and Robert I probably fly the most on here and I have never experienced severe turbulence. I'm sure the other two will tell you the same. Flying is extremely safe, and if you stick to and airline with a solid safety and maintenance records then the chances of an engine or fuselage failure is close to nil.
    I know. I am an engineer. I did say it was irrational.

    Sometimes you have to really fight for your neocortex to overcome your brainstem.
  • Options
    On topic, I think we'll get a Brexit, because Brexit means Brexit, but Brexit means different things to different people.

    However, Mrs May will be pragmatic, I think we'll get a restriction on freedom of movement, and those who want full fat Brexit will be disappointed, as we saw with Dave, the Hard Brexiteers can make a majority of 12 ungovernable.

    With Jez already demanding an early election, that should make meeting the provisions of the fixed term parliament act easy
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    HYUFD said:

    Jeb Bush's half Hispanic son George P is now Texas Land Commissioner and may run for governor in 2018. He is a good bet to beat Kaine in 2024 and succeed Hillary and finally return a Republican to the White House

    One hopes to be able to comment on the proceedings .... :smile:

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,161

    May has no popular mandate. The British don't like being bossed around by unelected busy bodies. May needs to call an election asap.

    Most voters do not want an early election, Macmillan and Major won after a few years in power and most voters are happy with May
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Fatalities in commercial aviation: a few hundred per year and rapidly declining. Includes Indonesia, Africa and Air France where safety records are crap.
    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/07/travel/aviation-data/

    'Terrorism' is more difficult to define, but in the Western world it's not several hundred per year, so probably more chance of dying in a plane crash. Sometimes of course, the two overlap (MH17, Lockerbie etc).
    Also, pretty astonishing that 2001 doesn't even register on that graph...
    Didn't think of that. Turns out there were only 200 passengers combined on the four planes that fateful day. They were thankfully all pretty empty.
    http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/planes/

    In contrast, the plane that belly flopped at DXB yesterday had 300 on board. They all got out, although one firefighter was killed, not sure what happened yet.
    I watched a great Mythbusters on Travel channel yesterday re the relative safety of airline seats/brace positions/where's safest. The presenters are braver than me. After building a pretty sophisticated rig, dropping it from a crane with crash dummies to measure G-forces/injuries - they climbed on board...

    At just 5ft, they ended up thrown about/bashed knees and elbows/one on crutches. Broken legs seemed to be the most likely injury from the dummy tests. For anyone who loves this sort of practical Top Gear style show, it's a must watch. The seats were totally trashed taking the impact.
    Love Mythbusters, great show and taught a whole generation of kids that science was cool.
    This will be your video:
    https://youtu.be/ClX2yldxZPw
  • Options

    On topic, I think we'll get a Brexit, because Brexit means Brexit, but Brexit means different things to different people.

    However, Mrs May will be pragmatic, I think we'll get a restriction on freedom of movement, and those who want full fat Brexit will be disappointed, as we saw with Dave, the Hard Brexiteers can make a majority of 12 ungovernable.

    With Jez already demanding an early election, that should make meeting the provisions of the fixed term parliament act easy

    I think Brexit will be neither as bad as many Remainers fear (or hope?), nor as dripping in gold as many Leavers dream. This country doesn't really do extremes. It'll be ok.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,357
    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeb Bush's half Hispanic son George P is now Texas Land Commissioner and may run for governor in 2018. He is a good bet to beat Kaine in 2024 and succeed Hillary and finally return a Republican to the White House

    One hopes to be able to comment on the proceedings .... :smile:

    :+1:
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,534
    RobD said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Isn't the chance of being involved in a terrorist incident less than dying in a plane crash?
    Logic doesn't come into it.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,161
    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeb Bush's half Hispanic son George P is now Texas Land Commissioner and may run for governor in 2018. He is a good bet to beat Kaine in 2024 and succeed Hillary and finally return a Republican to the White House

    One hopes to be able to comment on the proceedings .... :smile:

    Indeed, it will take a Trump loss this year and probably a Cruz loss in 2020 before the GOP even consider a more moderate and electable candidate like him. However I am sure you will still be going strong
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    PlatoSaid said:

    MaxPB said:

    ToryJim said:

    I'm already hearing of US tourists cancelling their trips to the UK because of fear of the attacks in Europe. This won't help one bit.

    Probably not but that will be because everyone will jump to the wrong conclusion and then when it is categorically shown to be a non-Terror related incident will scream 'conspiracy'.
    Well not releasing the perpetrator's name doesn't help. If it was gang related then they'd have done it by now and that would be that.
    Quite. TBH, I'm getting rather sick of mental health being the knee-jerk reasoning. As if that's it somehow acceptable to cast aspersions on the ill, rather than OTT religious.

    Had a look through Twitter - reports of deceased lady in group with other Spaniards.

    Sky intvd a chappy with an incredibly strong Irish accent, I've heard it twice now and almost no idea what he was saying.
    It's turning into The Following. I can't quite see Hogan-Howe as Ryan Hardy!
    The Following S1 was just great - really chilling and gruesome. Found the subsequent seasons a bit silly, but worth watching.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Good morning all.

    First started taking commercial flights in the 70s, in the DC-10 days. Became used to 'turbulence'.

    Then took a flight in a light aircraft from Miami to Sarasota. We encountered a storm system. That's when I discovered what real turbulence is. I have rarely been more frightened.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,161

    On topic, I think we'll get a Brexit, because Brexit means Brexit, but Brexit means different things to different people.

    However, Mrs May will be pragmatic, I think we'll get a restriction on freedom of movement, and those who want full fat Brexit will be disappointed, as we saw with Dave, the Hard Brexiteers can make a majority of 12 ungovernable.

    With Jez already demanding an early election, that should make meeting the provisions of the fixed term parliament act easy

    The way I see it May can get enough moderate Labour MPs who loathe Corbyn to back her in most votes to offset hard BREXIT rebels on her backbenches
This discussion has been closed.