It's fair to say that it hasn't been Theresa's best few days. Although trivial in itself, Chip-gate invited unflattering comparisons with Ed Miliband. Then, more seriously, we had the unexpected outburst of belligerence towards Mr Juncker and dark references to political sabotage. Theresa should be okay - Corbyn and Labour's general haplessness remain the perfect firewall - but all of a sudden she looks politically mortal.
Well, that's one reading of the runes. Polls and TV voxpops seem to suggest otherwise. Strong and stable, strong and stable, strong and stable, etc.
It's a pathetic example of our puerile press that they try to make something out of the PM eating chips!
Indeed. They'll be doing freeze frames of blokes eating bacon sandwiches next!
Speaking to friends voting in the West Midlands today, one has voted Tory for the first time. Another whose mum is a Labour member and has put in the miles on the campaign trail before might vote Andy Street too. With his business experience and Christianity he seems a decent sort, a gateway Tory if you will. I think his odds are great value and expect him to win. I also expect he'll have the ear of Theresa too for a bit of central government help, which will only enhance the West Midland's standing and is something neither Burnham or Rotherham cannot offer.
I'll also take a bit of pleasure in Sion Simon losing, after all his Web Cameron spoof all those years ago was a real nadir for political comedy. Given he's spent the last few years campaigning for this Mayoral role it would be amusing if it were snatched away from him at the last.
I was phoning for Andy Street last night, his business experience made the difference for waverers over Simon, I think he will just take it
I do hope so. He does appear the stronger candidate and I expect him to win. The timing of the general election and a backlash against Birmingham Council should work in his favour.
If Street wins mostly because of his business experience then presumably the Conservatives will not do as well in the GE when those are not present ?
Hmm I think the Tories will do relatively better in the West Mids in the GE. Working backwards it is one of the reasons I tipped Simon. The base ground is astronomically difficult for Street.
This is one market where the odds didn't make sense at all. There's no way Street should be such a short favourite when most of the West Mids area is solid red. Street is 1.3 on Betfair right now, in a very thin market.
But is the West Mids actually solid red? It certainly was solid red in 2015 but if we are lead to believe the national polls and indeed the subsamples it's probably true that 50% of the constituencies in Birmingham, Dudley, Wolverhampton, Sandwell, Coventry Solihull and Walsall will be blue in a few weeks time.
It was reasonably solid red in the 2016 locals.
Birmingham City Council election, Labour 113,018 Tories 50,828
Coventry was pretty red too as was Wolverhampton. I think Dudley was more or less a wash, but no areas except the population tiny Meriden were true blue in any sense of the word.
The key question for Brexit from this anecdote is whether Mrs May ends up doing the sensible thing after pretending to do the alternative. If so, that's sort of OK.
I don't know if the opportunity of a deal is open to her under the circumstances. I have just been thinking about some quite simple and profound messages that have been coming out from the two sides. Consider:
UK Government 1. May says, quite clearly, that we will make a success of Brexit 2. May also says, quite clearly, that we are leaving the EU, and its single market, and its customs union
European Commission & EU political leaders 1. Brexit will not and cannot possibly be a success 2. The UK cannot have a deal that is as good as EU membership
And the same messages keep coming out of Europe, regardless of how many times May repeats hers.
[...]
The two statements from the EU are statements of fact, as understood by them. Brexit is harmful to both sides. They are not primarily policy positions.
The first May statement is a platitude. The second one is a policy position, although I don't believe she is completely clear on the customs union. However you can't define your policy entirely on what you are NOT going to do. Which is where there is a scope for a deal.
On topic, you'd think that Abu was a nice innocent, caught in the crossfire.
Now, everyone is entitled to justice and due process. But governments are equally entitled to press, within the possibly undefined-at-the-time bounds of the law, for action to be taken against threats to society,
It's a slippery slope 'for action to be taken against threats to society'. Apparently what you seem to be suggesting happened during the 'troubles'. Surely the rule of law has to apply.
It did. That's what made it so difficult. Which is a good thing.
Meantime, looking back on the thread. An elected monarch is a brilliant idea. Never thought of that. Dave the postman - the man who could be king. Tracy in accounts, the girl who could be queen. It will sure beat the nauseating sycophantic obsession people have with hundreds of useless hangers-on and chinless welfare junkies that we have now. Bring it on. Long live the king.
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union? RIGHT: 46 (+3) WRONG: 43 (-2)
Why don't you write one and send it to OGH ?
Because Smithson won't publish it, it goes against his message.
Don't be silly. Mike has published plenty of articles he's disagreed with, including a few from me.
When he disagrees, you can expect a well-argued reply from him early in the thread.
I've never had a piece rejected and only once had a single change required - and that was for legal reasons over a comment I made about the phone hacking police investigation.
If you make a good, reasoned case, I have little doubt that it'd be published.
Hmm. Reports from several people suggest otherwise, with disfavoured views being not only not published but not even getting the courtesy of acknowledgement and rejection.
If you are unhappy with the way the site is run p**s off and post elsewhere .
Yeah, trying to shut down all criticism is also part of the problem.
It's a strong a stable site (barring the odd IT glitch). Don't be a remoaner.
I know its Wikipedia but I seem to be missing David Allen Green's stint as a government lawyer in the home office, or his extensive experience in deportation cases on either side, or his sources of this devastating piece of information.
Re: turnout. I voted this morning and there was one other couple there (taking it in turns to wait outside with the dog.) Then a woman came in with what looked like two proxy votes. During the past week, driving around the Havant/Chichester area I have spotted: five Conservative election posters (4 of those for local elections, 1 GE), one LibDem (local) and a "Stop Brexit" poster. I can't say the atmosphere is frenzied.
FPT For our PB "we are really sovereign" Remoaners.
Imagine you're sitting in a room, and you want to leave. The door is ajar. The 27 other guys in the room tell you that "you're free to leave at any time".
But then they add, "by the way, if you do try and leave, there is a ravenous Doberman right outside, who will probably bite off your penis. We've deliberately kept him hungry for a week, though we used your money to feed him in the past. And if you get beyond the dog, we've built a moat full of angry crocodiles. Good luck!"
Are you, in fact, "free to leave the room"? Legalistically, maybe yes, but in actuality, in the real world? No. Not at all.
If Brexit is as bad as Remoaners say, then we were and are no longer sovereign in the EU. And this implicit imprisonment was only going to get worse, given the plans to widen the moat and buy another Doberman.
We have to make a run for it.
You are sitting in a nice warm club with 27 other folk, having a great time.
Then a spiv in Union Flag shoes shows up and whispers in your ear, "This club sucks. And a swarthy looking gentleman of the WOG persuasion is about to come in, sit in your chair, steal your drink and rape your wife. Best get out of here. And I know there is a Doberman outside, but he won't bite you, because you are special"
AND YOU BELIEVED HIM!
ROFLMAO
In what way were we having a great time? We didn't want to partake in half of the games the club organised anyway, and the club committee was plotting to allow us even less say in future.
There was no spiv, it just occurred to us that we didn't have to stay a member. When we joined it was all very different.
You are sitting in a nice warm club and then all the club bores start flogging a bullshit analogy to death and you end up thinking sod this, the Doberman will be better company.
I know its Wikipedia but I seem to be missing David Allen Green's stint as a government lawyer in the home office, or his extensive experience in deportation cases on either side, or his sources of this devastating piece of information.
I have spoken to a number of labour voting friends who interlace the name Corbyn with masses of expletives, but then say I really can't ever vote Tory, I don't mind May, but I just can't do it....perhaps I will protest vote Green or something.
Yeah, I was thinking the Greens might do well on last-minute switches, assuming it's clear by polling day Labour are going to get a kicking regardless.
My ultra-basic model a few weeks back went for Tories by 18%, so 45-27 or 48-26 would fit with that.
FPT For our PB "we are really sovereign" Remoaners.
Imagine you're sitting in a room, and you want to leave. The door is ajar. The 27 other guys in the room tell you that "you're free to leave at any time".
But then they add, "by the way, if you do try and leave, there is a ravenous Doberman right outside, who will probably bite off your penis. We've deliberately kept him hungry for a week, though we used your money to feed him in the past. And if you get beyond the dog, we've built a moat full of angry crocodiles. Good luck!"
Are you, in fact, "free to leave the room"? Legalistically, maybe yes, but in actuality, in the real world? No. Not at all.
If Brexit is as bad as Remoaners say, then we were and are no longer sovereign in the EU. And this implicit imprisonment was only going to get worse, given the plans to widen the moat and buy another Doberman.
We have to make a run for it.
You are sitting in a nice warm club with 27 other folk, having a great time.
Then a spiv in Union Flag shoes shows up and whispers in your ear, "This club sucks. And a swarthy looking gentleman of the WOG persuasion is about to come in, sit in your chair, steal your drink and rape your wife. Best get out of here. And I know there is a Doberman outside, but he won't bite you, because you are special"
AND YOU BELIEVED HIM!
ROFLMAO
Trouble is, we really are gonna make a run for it, WE HAD A VOTE ON IT, and YOU LOST.
And worst of all, you poor saps are shackled to us, so you have to come with us even as we bolt, even as you scream NO NO NO THIS IS INSANE - and even better than that - the Doberman will probably bite off your penis, not mine, coz I'm a millionaire thriller writer in Primrose Hill, and I've got a private helicopter waiting in the yard, with room for one.
If the West Midlands goes blue, I doubt they'll be a million miles off in Greater Manchester to be perfectly honest.
Yeah there does seem to be this impression that Greater Manchester is far more solid Labour than it actually is. Parts are, but only parts. Combined with the fact it is supplementary vote so transfers will matter as long as Burnham doesn't get >50% , then it could potentially be closer than expected. It's no Liverpool.
FPT For our PB "we are really sovereign" Remoaners.
Imagine you're sitting in a room, and you want to leave. The door is ajar. The 27 other guys in the room tell you that "you're free to leave at any time".
But then they add, "by the way, if you do try and leave, there is a ravenous Doberman right outside, who will probably bite off your penis. We've deliberately kept him hungry for a week, though we used your money to feed him in the past. And if you get beyond the dog, we've built a moat full of angry crocodiles. Good luck!"
Are you, in fact, "free to leave the room"? Legalistically, maybe yes, but in actuality, in the real world? No. Not at all.
If Brexit is as bad as Remoaners say, then we were and are no longer sovereign in the EU. And this implicit imprisonment was only going to get worse, given the plans to widen the moat and buy another Doberman.
We have to make a run for it.
You are sitting in a nice warm club with 27 other folk, having a great time.
Then a spiv in Union Flag shoes shows up and whispers in your ear, "This club sucks. And a swarthy looking gentleman of the WOG persuasion is about to come in, sit in your chair, steal your drink and rape your wife. Best get out of here. And I know there is a Doberman outside, but he won't bite you, because you are special"
AND YOU BELIEVED HIM!
ROFLMAO
Trouble is, we really are gonna make a run for it, WE HAD A VOTE ON IT, and YOU LOST.
And worst of all, you poor saps are shackled to us, so you have to come with us even as we bolt, even as you scream NO NO NO THIS IS INSANE - and even better than that - the Doberman will probably bite off your penis, not mine, coz I'm a millionaire thriller writer in Primrose Hill, and I've got a private helicopter waiting in the yard, with room for one.
CHORTLE
So you're comparing Brexit to the Vietnam War?
The less technically advanced side won?
Scott_P in the aptly named movie aliens: Hey, maybe you haven’t been keeping up with current events, but we just got our asses kicked pal!
You are sitting in a nice warm club and then all the club bores start flogging a bullshit analogy to death and you end up thinking sod this, the Doberman will be better company.
Oh my word I am getting a lot of useful stuff done around the house this week with all this BrExit tedium. People might be forgiven for thinking there were local elections today, French election shortly, and a GE in a month, but no, BrExit, BrExit, BrExitzzz
Just a thought, but guesses on results might be interesting to see. I do recall two models yesterday, one suggesting Lib Dems would lose a few seats, the other that they'd gain them.
I'm not convinced the local results will be all that indicative of the forthcoming national ones.
You are sitting in a nice warm club and then all the club bores start flogging a bullshit analogy to death and you end up thinking sod this, the Doberman will be better company.
Sometimes PB's obsession with tortured analogies goes a bit far. Instead of clubhouses or people eating fish in offices or anything, can't we just talk about the EU? There is, thank goodness, nothing else quite like it.
I don't think this thread reflects poorly on Theresa May at all actually. I'd be interested to know if that was the impression it was intended to produce.
I know its Wikipedia but I seem to be missing David Allen Green's stint as a government lawyer in the home office, or his extensive experience in deportation cases on either side, or his sources of this devastating piece of information.
Mr Cox effectively accuses Mrs May of deliberately delaying the deportation of Abu Qatada so she could create a paper enemy in the form of judges and Europe. Which would make her rather more devious than I suspected she was, say, a month ago.
Not sure if that deviousness is good or bad for a politician in her position.
Just a thought, but guesses on results might be interesting to see. I do recall two models yesterday, one suggesting Lib Dems would lose a few seats, the other that they'd gain them.
I'm not convinced the local results will be all that indicative of the forthcoming national ones.
There have been recent threads on this topic so I'll try not to bore, and summarize:
1. Local elections aren't a reliable indicator of general election outcomes at all, although they might tell us something about where the parties are particularly strong or weak. 2. Insofar as I am aware, the general assumption is that the Lib Dems will make gains (but you may have seen evidence that I haven't, of course.) 3. The Conservatives will be hoping to win - just not too big, I would imagine. If Labour performs catastrophically badly then the "Corbyn can't possibly win, so it's safe to vote Labour even if you can't abide him" narrative could be strengthened. This would not be helpful to them.
I don't think this thread reflects poorly on Theresa May at all actually. I'd be interested to know if that was the impression it was intended to produce.
I agree. Politicians can't ignore public opinion completely. Theresa May was sensible in not running ahead of it too fast.
I think it has little to tell us about the current morass.
I know its Wikipedia but I seem to be missing David Allen Green's stint as a government lawyer in the home office, or his extensive experience in deportation cases on either side, or his sources of this devastating piece of information.
Mr Cox effectively accuses Mrs May of deliberately delaying the deportation of Abu Qatada so she could create a paper enemy in the form of judges and Europe. Which would make her rather more devious than I suspected she was, say, a month ago.
Not sure if that deviousness is good or bad for a politician in her position.
No, I'm not sure either.
She has to cope with a fractious Party, a Press with an agenda and without conscience, and a public that sups up their offerings because it tells them what they want to hear anyway. Meanwhile she has to made serious practical decisions in the real world.
If the anecdote is accurate, I'm not sure it reflects badly on her at all.
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union? RIGHT: 46 (+3) WRONG: 43 (-2)
Why don't you write one and send it to OGH ?
Because Smithson won't publish it, it goes against his message.
Doesn't OGH publish articles from supporters of different Parties?
He does. Pretty much at the weekends Mike cedes control of PB to two Tories, just not any Tories, one is a constituency Chairman, whilst the other is an activist.
I think David Herdson had said, his pieces are published as he's written them (bar one which needed a very minor edit/line added during the phone hacking trials to avoid legal problems for Mike.)
I've been writing articles for PB for over five years, I've only once asked Mike for permission to write a thread (it was a thread on a Paddy Power market on the size of Donald Trump's todger, and Mike's reply was let's hope PBers rise to occasion and don't find it hard to swallow)
All other threads are written without vetting or approval*.
He's published threads by Leavers such as Mortimer, Casino Royale, Wulfrun Phil and Richard Tyndall. to name but four.
Keiran Pedley was a Labour member during his first 18 months on PB, his pieces got published.
Cyclefree can attest all her pieces get published and unedited.
If you want to write a piece for PB, please let me know, I do my best to get pieces from PBers published, doesn't matter what your political allegiance is, if it it good, it should get published.
The only thing that usually prevents them being published is either events have moved on or someone else has written something similar.
*Only once has Mike pulled one of my threads before it was published (that was in 2012, when I had done a thread on the White House Race, written it in the evening, scheduled to publish overnight, Mike pulled it because by the time I had gone to bed, some new polling had come out which rendered my thread obsolete and Mike was awake at the time and wrote a thread on the new polls'
I can't remember if it is one or two threads I have had published on here. But what I do remember is how promptly TSE and Mike chose to publish them and that, apart from some formatting and some emphasis which actually helped the points I was making, they were published unchanged.
If you have something to say that is suitable as a thread header then you should do it. I might criticise both Mike and TSE on certain things but I certainly don't consider they or anyone else censors what is published here.
You are sitting in a nice warm club and then all the club bores start flogging a bullshit analogy to death and you end up thinking sod this, the Doberman will be better company.
You are sitting in a nice warm club and then all the club bores start flogging a bullshit analogy to death and you end up thinking sod this, the Doberman will be better company.
Sometimes PB's obsession with tortured analogies goes a bit far. Instead of clubhouses or people eating fish in offices or anything, can't we just talk about the EU? There is, thank goodness, nothing else quite like it.
Agreed.
Btw Essex, have you reached Edinburgh yet? People are getting worried.
I know its Wikipedia but I seem to be missing David Allen Green's stint as a government lawyer in the home office, or his extensive experience in deportation cases on either side, or his sources of this devastating piece of information. I thought the critique of Brexiteers was that they were not willing to listen to experts who know their stuff, and were too willing to listen to dilettantes. Law degrees cover rather a wide range of laws, that's why lawyers tend to specialise post degree. Without this specialisation can somebody please explain the difference between this bloke and the chaps currently sat outside my office drinking the Austrian equivalent of special brew and shouting "Nennen sie sich eine Taube" at the Birds.
He was Treasury Solicitor, I believe. So top employed lawyer I think?
You are sitting in a nice warm club and then all the club bores start flogging a bullshit analogy to death and you end up thinking sod this, the Doberman will be better company.
I can't remember if it is one or two threads I have had published on here. But what I do remember is how promptly TSE and Mike chose to publish them and that, apart from some formatting and some emphasis which actually helped the points I was making, they were published unchanged.
If you have something to say that is suitable as a thread header then you should do it. I might criticise both Mike and TSE on certain things but I certainly don't consider they or anyone else censors what is published here.
My experience too, on the one post I submitted and was published (on the 2010 US mid-terms)
The key passage here reads "She was not the first Home Secretary who had to deal with this request".
If it had been easy, Abu Quatada would have been long gone before she became Home Secretary.
Now you could read all this as meaning she made a meal of getting rid of Abu Quatada, or you could read it as meaning she wouldn't give up until she achieved her aim.
Indeed so. Another example was her success in negotiating with the French over migrants trying to get here.
Patient, plodding negotiation is undoubtedly one of Theresa May's strengths. Whether that will be enough in this case remains to be seen, but so far she's handled an extremely difficult situation very well. The ball is in the EU's court: do they want to cut a deal or not? If not, that's hardly her fault.
I can't remember if it is one or two threads I have had published on here. But what I do remember is how promptly TSE and Mike chose to publish them and that, apart from some formatting and some emphasis which actually helped the points I was making, they were published unchanged.
If you have something to say that is suitable as a thread header then you should do it. I might criticise both Mike and TSE on certain things but I certainly don't consider they or anyone else censors what is published here.
My experience too, on the one post I submitted and was published (on the 2010 US mid-terms)
Mike's an equal opportunities Editor. The only condition imposed is that the writing is of a reasonable standard.
This explains why we have never seen a thread piece from, say, SeanT or JackW. But subject to that stipulation it's open to everyone.
So that robotic message discipline does, in its own terms, “work”: people are recalling it, and therefore have a simple idea of the core Tory message at the election when they don’t have the same for Labour. Equally, it’s only 15% – just because those of us who closely follow politics are sick to the back teeth of hearing “strong and stable”, there are still lots and lots of people who don’t recall it at all.
I saw from J. Rentoul last year's PPC result from WM - apparently same boundaries and Labour won by 2;1. Can it really go blue today? Seems a bit far-fetched tbh.
It's fair to say that it hasn't been Theresa's best few days. Although trivial in itself, Chip-gate invited unflattering comparisons with Ed Miliband. Then, more seriously, we had the unexpected outburst of belligerence towards Mr Juncker and dark references to political sabotage. Theresa should be okay - Corbyn and Labour's general haplessness remain the perfect firewall - but all of a sudden she looks politically mortal.
Well, that's one reading of the runes. Polls and TV voxpops seem to suggest otherwise. Strong and stable, strong and stable, strong and stable, etc.
It's a pathetic example of our puerile press that they try to make something out of the PM eating chips!
Well, they are currently probing to find chinks in the May armour; fair enough that they try the "chips" thing, but that photo makes it look as if she is eating because she is hungry, and as if she has eaten chips at least once in the past - unlike Cameron with his guinness and ed with his sandwich.
I don't think this thread reflects poorly on Theresa May at all actually. I'd be interested to know if that was the impression it was intended to produce.
I agree. Politicians can't ignore public opinion completely. Theresa May was sensible in not running ahead of it too fast.
I think it has little to tell us about the current morass.
It points strongly towards the reality that she will do a deal. The EU knows this.
I saw from J. Rentoul last year's PPC result from WM - apparently same boundaries and Labour won by 2;1. Can it really go blue today? Seems a bit far-fetched tbh.
The Tories on twice the national poll rating of Labour (more or less) is already far fetched, though?
I saw from J. Rentoul last year's PPC result from WM - apparently same boundaries and Labour won by 2;1. Can it really go blue today? Seems a bit far-fetched tbh.
This is my main point. The Tories really could be at 46 versus 27 in the polls say and STILL not win it.
I can't remember if it is one or two threads I have had published on here. But what I do remember is how promptly TSE and Mike chose to publish them and that, apart from some formatting and some emphasis which actually helped the points I was making, they were published unchanged.
If you have something to say that is suitable as a thread header then you should do it. I might criticise both Mike and TSE on certain things but I certainly don't consider they or anyone else censors what is published here.
My experience too, on the one post I submitted and was published (on the 2010 US mid-terms)
Mike's an equal opportunities Editor. The only condition imposed is that the writing is of a reasonable standard.
This explains why we have never seen a thread piece from, say, SeanT or JackW. But subject to that stipulation it's open to everyone.
You are sitting in a nice warm club and then all the club bores start flogging a bullshit analogy to death and you end up thinking sod this, the Doberman will be better company.
Sometimes PB's obsession with tortured analogies goes a bit far. Instead of clubhouses or people eating fish in offices or anything, can't we just talk about the EU? There is, thank goodness, nothing else quite like it.
Agreed.
Btw Essex, have you reached Edinburgh yet? People are getting worried.
Ha - now on a train back from Edinburgh. I was only there for three nights.
Look at that video of Ed. He looks erm -- like a bloke eating a bacon sarnie. We would all look weird if we were subject to a tabloid art director choosing the least flattering image in a reel of 100 shots. The whole thing is puerile.
In the spirit of not always posting things that reinforce my assumptions, an interesting factoid re: the local elections from the New Statesman:
The local elections will be a good guide to the general election
When the academics give us the PNS from today’s contests – that’s the projected national share, how the country would have voted if there had been elections everywhere and not just in some parts of the country – I think we will know two things. The first will be what Labour’s ceiling is. They will not get a better result on 8 June than they do today. The second will be what the Tory floor is. They will not get a worse result on 8 June than they do today. That pattern has held for every local election contested in the same year but not the same month as the general election – in 1983, 1987 and 1992.
I wasn't aware of this. Granted, the data from previous years are at least a quarter of a century old, but the assumption sounds very plausible.
The rest of the piece is worth a read as well. I agree with the author re: the Lib Dems, there are a number of polls floating around now which show them down to around GE 2015 levels of support, but I reckon they're being under-counted.
I don't think this thread reflects poorly on Theresa May at all actually. I'd be interested to know if that was the impression it was intended to produce.
I agree. Politicians can't ignore public opinion completely. Theresa May was sensible in not running ahead of it too fast.
I think it has little to tell us about the current morass.
It points strongly towards the reality that she will do a deal. The EU knows this.
Everyone knows it, it's in everyones best interest. Just stupid 'air-war' getting in the way.
You are sitting in a nice warm club and then all the club bores start flogging a bullshit analogy to death and you end up thinking sod this, the Doberman will be better company.
Sometimes PB's obsession with tortured analogies goes a bit far. Instead of clubhouses or people eating fish in offices or anything, can't we just talk about the EU? There is, thank goodness, nothing else quite like it.
Agreed.
Btw Essex, have you reached Edinburgh yet? People are getting worried.
Ha - now on a train back from Edinburgh. I was only there for three nights.
I can't remember if it is one or two threads I have had published on here. But what I do remember is how promptly TSE and Mike chose to publish them and that, apart from some formatting and some emphasis which actually helped the points I was making, they were published unchanged.
If you have something to say that is suitable as a thread header then you should do it. I might criticise both Mike and TSE on certain things but I certainly don't consider they or anyone else censors what is published here.
My experience too, on the one post I submitted and was published (on the 2010 US mid-terms)
Mike's an equal opportunities Editor. The only condition imposed is that the writing is of a reasonable standard.
This explains why we have never seen a thread piece from, say, SeanT or JackW. But subject to that stipulation it's open to everyone.
I did feel some sympathy for Miliband not being photogenic (I'm not either, although my psychopathic staring is better than his incredible awkwardness).
Mr. Pulpstar, a deal, but not any deal.
Suppose, for argument's sake, she went along with £100bn as an exit bill. Even if the country agreed it was a good idea (they wouldn't), the PCP is the group that can take May down.
For all this May-centric campaigning, the Conservative MPs can end May. Any deal she strikes has to allow her own survival and be, if not welcomed, at least acceptable to a plurality/majority of the country.
Speaking to friends voting in the West Midlands today, one has voted Tory for the first time. Another whose mum is a Labour member and has put in the miles on the campaign trail before might vote Andy Street too. With his business experience and Christianity he seems a decent sort, a gateway Tory if you will. I think his odds are great value and expect him to win. I also expect he'll have the ear of Theresa too for a bit of central government help, which will only enhance the West Midland's standing and is something neither Burnham or Rotherham cannot offer.
I'll also take a bit of pleasure in Sion Simon losing, after all his Web Cameron spoof all those years ago was a real nadir for political comedy. Given he's spent the last few years campaigning for this Mayoral role it would be amusing if it were snatched away from him at the last.
Christianity and the Tory party hardly go hand in hand - so Andy Street sounds rather a hypocrite to put it mildly. He also clearly sees nothing wrong with seeking to buy an election with money and thereby registers his contempt for democracy.
It was obviously bonkers from the beginning, and no sane person could possibly have taken it seriously. Which is a useful filter for eliminating some further pundits and politicians from the ranks of the sane.
It was obviously bonkers from the beginning, and no sane person could possibly have taken it seriously. Which is a useful filter for eliminating some further pundits and politicians from the ranks of the sane.
Speaking to friends voting in the West Midlands today, one has voted Tory for the first time. Another whose mum is a Labour member and has put in the miles on the campaign trail before might vote Andy Street too. With his business experience and Christianity he seems a decent sort, a gateway Tory if you will. I think his odds are great value and expect him to win. I also expect he'll have the ear of Theresa too for a bit of central government help, which will only enhance the West Midland's standing and is something neither Burnham or Rotherham cannot offer.
I'll also take a bit of pleasure in Sion Simon losing, after all his Web Cameron spoof all those years ago was a real nadir for political comedy. Given he's spent the last few years campaigning for this Mayoral role it would be amusing if it were snatched away from him at the last.
Christianity and the Tory party hardly go hand in hand.
I can't remember if it is one or two threads I have had published on here. But what I do remember is how promptly TSE and Mike chose to publish them and that, apart from some formatting and some emphasis which actually helped the points I was making, they were published unchanged.
If you have something to say that is suitable as a thread header then you should do it. I might criticise both Mike and TSE on certain things but I certainly don't consider they or anyone else censors what is published here.
My experience too, on the one post I submitted and was published (on the 2010 US mid-terms)
Mike's an equal opportunities Editor. The only condition imposed is that the writing is of a reasonable standard.
This explains why we have never seen a thread piece from, say, SeanT or JackW. But subject to that stipulation it's open to everyone.
Mr. Bobajob, some time ago, but I forced myself to smile for a library ID card at university. The girl taking the picture (behind a computer) asked me to come over, and literally said I looked like a serial killer.
Mr. Bobajob, some time ago, but I forced myself to smile for a library ID card at university. The girl taking the picture (behind a computer) asked me to come over, and literally said I looked like a serial killer.
Speaking to friends voting in the West Midlands today, one has voted Tory for the first time. Another whose mum is a Labour member and has put in the miles on the campaign trail before might vote Andy Street too. With his business experience and Christianity he seems a decent sort, a gateway Tory if you will. I think his odds are great value and expect him to win. I also expect he'll have the ear of Theresa too for a bit of central government help, which will only enhance the West Midland's standing and is something neither Burnham or Rotherham cannot offer.
I'll also take a bit of pleasure in Sion Simon losing, after all his Web Cameron spoof all those years ago was a real nadir for political comedy. Given he's spent the last few years campaigning for this Mayoral role it would be amusing if it were snatched away from him at the last.
Christianity and the Tory party hardly go hand in hand.
It was obviously bonkers from the beginning, and no sane person could possibly have taken it seriously. Which is a useful filter for eliminating some further pundits and politicians from the ranks of the sane.
Well an SNP MP started it with a letter. Oh I get your point.
On topic, you'd think that Abu was a nice innocent, caught in the crossfire.
Now, everyone is entitled to justice and due process. But governments are equally entitled to press, within the possibly undefined-at-the-time bounds of the law, for action to be taken against threats to society,
It's a slippery slope 'for action to be taken against threats to society'. Apparently what you seem to be suggesting happened during the 'troubles'. Surely the rule of law has to apply.
Comments
Birmingham City Council election,
Labour 113,018
Tories 50,828
Coventry was pretty red too as was Wolverhampton. I think Dudley was more or less a wash, but no areas except the population tiny Meriden were true blue in any sense of the word.
The first May statement is a platitude. The second one is a policy position, although I don't believe she is completely clear on the customs union. However you can't define your policy entirely on what you are NOT going to do. Which is where there is a scope for a deal.
https://twitter.com/SimonFRCox/status/859799583249108992
During the past week, driving around the Havant/Chichester area I have spotted: five Conservative election posters (4 of those for local elections, 1 GE), one LibDem (local) and a "Stop Brexit" poster. I can't say the atmosphere is frenzied.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/pm-april-2017-tables.pdf
There was no spiv, it just occurred to us that we didn't have to stay a member. When we joined it was all very different.
My ultra-basic model a few weeks back went for Tories by 18%, so 45-27 or 48-26 would fit with that.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/04/19/vote-leave-sets-out-its-objective-tse-gives-his-robust-interpretation/
Partisan? Maybe
Accurate and prescient? Absolutely.
Is anyone fussed about how many QC's it took or how it was eventually achieved?
Just a thought, but guesses on results might be interesting to see. I do recall two models yesterday, one suggesting Lib Dems would lose a few seats, the other that they'd gain them.
I'm not convinced the local results will be all that indicative of the forthcoming national ones.
@Eagles: Every @NFL team can celebrate #StarWarsDay, but only the #Eagles made it into the actual movies.
Here's how:… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/860120152632852482
Not sure if that deviousness is good or bad for a politician in her position.
These are Labour strongholds that voted Leave overwhelmingly, will we see a Scotland post Indyref redux?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/may/04/is-this-the-weirdest-election-ever-video
1. Local elections aren't a reliable indicator of general election outcomes at all, although they might tell us something about where the parties are particularly strong or weak.
2. Insofar as I am aware, the general assumption is that the Lib Dems will make gains (but you may have seen evidence that I haven't, of course.)
3. The Conservatives will be hoping to win - just not too big, I would imagine. If Labour performs catastrophically badly then the "Corbyn can't possibly win, so it's safe to vote Labour even if you can't abide him" narrative could be strengthened. This would not be helpful to them.
I think it has little to tell us about the current morass.
One source, one target - no argument to the contrary and nothing about betting. It's a character assassination piece.
She has to cope with a fractious Party, a Press with an agenda and without conscience, and a public that sups up their offerings because it tells them what they want to hear anyway. Meanwhile she has to made serious practical decisions in the real world.
If the anecdote is accurate, I'm not sure it reflects badly on her at all.
If you have something to say that is suitable as a thread header then you should do it. I might criticise both Mike and TSE on certain things but I certainly don't consider they or anyone else censors what is published here.
http://www.dognotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/bigstock-Baby-And-Big-Black-Dog-5625181.jpg
Or perhaps the dog is just a Tory getting ready to do what Tories do ...
Btw Essex, have you reached Edinburgh yet? People are getting worried.
https://twitter.com/Psephography/status/842802716359380992
West Mids:
https://twitter.com/Psephography/status/842817820652158977/photo/1
They ain't ALL that different.
Patient, plodding negotiation is undoubtedly one of Theresa May's strengths. Whether that will be enough in this case remains to be seen, but so far she's handled an extremely difficult situation very well. The ball is in the EU's court: do they want to cut a deal or not? If not, that's hardly her fault.
This explains why we have never seen a thread piece from, say, SeanT or JackW. But subject to that stipulation it's open to everyone.
Look at that video of Ed. He looks erm -- like a bloke eating a bacon sarnie. We would all look weird if we were subject to a tabloid art director choosing the least flattering image in a reel of 100 shots. The whole thing is puerile.
The local elections will be a good guide to the general election
When the academics give us the PNS from today’s contests – that’s the projected national share, how the country would have voted if there had been elections everywhere and not just in some parts of the country – I think we will know two things. The first will be what Labour’s ceiling is. They will not get a better result on 8 June than they do today. The second will be what the Tory floor is. They will not get a worse result on 8 June than they do today. That pattern has held for every local election contested in the same year but not the same month as the general election – in 1983, 1987 and 1992.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/five-thoughts-about-general-election
I wasn't aware of this. Granted, the data from previous years are at least a quarter of a century old, but the assumption sounds very plausible.
The rest of the piece is worth a read as well. I agree with the author re: the Lib Dems, there are a number of polls floating around now which show them down to around GE 2015 levels of support, but I reckon they're being under-counted.
I did feel some sympathy for Miliband not being photogenic (I'm not either, although my psychopathic staring is better than his incredible awkwardness).
Mr. Pulpstar, a deal, but not any deal.
Suppose, for argument's sake, she went along with £100bn as an exit bill. Even if the country agreed it was a good idea (they wouldn't), the PCP is the group that can take May down.
For all this May-centric campaigning, the Conservative MPs can end May. Any deal she strikes has to allow her own survival and be, if not welcomed, at least acceptable to a plurality/majority of the country.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/how-politicians-and-journalists-pushed-a-dubious-conspiracy?utm_term=.byX9LE94B2#.yw0ZVKZWoG
You are probably being hard on yourself!
Re: May, if she wins a 100-seat majority (likely) the nutters in the PCP will be marginalised. I assume that that was the idea.
Freedom of movement, @Bobajob :>
Which is of course, nonsense.
Contracts only.
And there was I thinking that no one read them.