There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.
Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.
40 years of quotes says otherwise...now with a few weeks to a GE he has had a road to Damascus conversion...about as believable as him supporting Remain in the Brexit vote.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
That was a long long time ago for heaven's sake. When most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead, who cares? If someone tells me the Mail is a hotbed of extremist and offensive nonsense, that's relevant, but because is supported Osward Mosley? What does that have to do with anything today?
Surely they will ALL be dead. If we assume they must have been at least 25 to be making editorial decisions in the early 30s they would have to have been born before 1910 - round up all the 107 yr olds who once worked for the Daily Mail.
Why did you leave in 1996? For me an electable Social Democratic Reformist party (without the taint of left-wing lunacy) and a credible opposition to the Tories was very attractive.
I had already seen through Blair - and later came to despise him more than Thatcher. She was never a war criminal whatever other criticisms that might be made of her
Tell that to the poor souls on the General Belgrano /troll
In recent years, back into the enlightened days of the the last Labour government, there has been an attempt to get those who should not be registered as unfit for work back into the workforce; to unwind the inequities of the Thatcher years. This has, recently, been portrayed as the wicked Tories etc. etc. Boo, Hiss.
I think this is a bit of a misinterpretation of recent events.
There's no general objection from most opponents of the recent changes to the principle of people who are fit to work being deemed fit to work.
What appears to have happened is that contractors were brought in who were incentivised (or even required) to get a certain number off the list, and this was set up in a way that wholly outweighed the incentive to make the correct decision in the particular case.
Hence people who were properly eligible for sickness benefits; who were suffering and in many cases vulnerable, were cut from the list and sent all manner of threatening and worrying mail by - frankly - spivs who benefited directly from being as savage as possible whether justified or not. Any spurious excuse was used by too many assessors with little or no concern for the individual.
It is possible in politics to have the right policy objective but pursue it in an incompetent, cruel way.
Why did you leave in 1996? For me an electable Social Democratic Reformist party (without the taint of left-wing lunacy) and a credible opposition to the Tories was very attractive.
I had already seen through Blair - and later came to despise him more than Thatcher. She was never a war criminal whatever other criticisms that might be made of her
Tell that to the poor souls on the General Belgrano /troll
I'm wondering what May did to deserve a polonium pill, given the apparent high bar!
Given current events in the US, here's hoping that HMG finds ways of postponing/cancelling its state invite to Trump.
No !
I have backed this with Hills.
They best not.
I backed him to make his first state visit to canada. regretting it now tho. doesn't look like he wants to go anywhere.
Listening to my son's views here in Vancouver it is unlikely Trump will be welcomed having put tariffs on lumber and talks of retaliation from Canada in the start of a trade war
@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.
Its clear Corbyn ain't going nowhere....
Looks like the period following the election will be more interesting than the election itself.
The sensible wing of the Labour Party have to cut this cancer out or leave all the Moamentum nutters and form their new party. They can't have him carry on, it is not just a disaster for the Labour Party, it is very bad for the country.
Markets clearly think Mercedes are in the driving seat. I do wonder if it's an over-reaction. Be nice if it were, as there'd be tasty value elsewhere.
Also, check the forecast before betting on qualifying. Early forecast (just doing the first bit of the pre-qualifying article now) is that showers/storms are possible for qualifying.
Why did you leave in 1996? For me an electable Social Democratic Reformist party (without the taint of left-wing lunacy) and a credible opposition to the Tories was very attractive.
I had already seen through Blair - and later came to despise him more than Thatcher. She was never a war criminal whatever other criticisms that might be made of her
Tell that to the poor souls on the General Belgrano /troll
I'm wondering what May did to deserve a polonium pill, given the apparent high bar!
Was that before or after the complications from Type 1 diabetes? One loses track...
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Yeah, and we went over the million unemployed mark in the fag end of the Callaghan Government (remember the Lib-Lab pact) and I was out of work for a long time.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
Yep I remember those times well . Labout hit 1 million unemployed , Thatcher came in and before long it was 3 million and without her doctoring the figures it would have been 4 million .
Which was one of the reasons that I never voted Thatcher. In fact in those days I voted Liberal!
I hope you'll consider voting for the yellows in the forthcoming election, but I can well understand why many won't. Farron has massively underwhelmed this GE campaign I'm afraid.
I'll be voting with a clothes peg on my nose in this election - if I vote at all.
I am a "One Nation" type of person and I am not convinced by Mrs May at all. I don't beleive that she is really committed to the modernisation that the country needs (and TBH most so -called "developed" countries) I am very uneasy about her getting a landslide.
My ideal would be a Social Democratic "Centre-centre-Left" party. The title does not matter - Lib/Lab/New Party.
But the problem for me is Europe. (Which is a separate discussion of course, but I think that you might find my opinions on this are not quite the foaming-at-the-mouth and xenophobic ones that some leavers sadly adopt ).
Large scale cyberattack against several UK hospitals underway.
Very bad news
Its ok the supreme leader who is now not a pacifist will sort it out....he will start by asking GCHQ to find out who is responsible so he can invite them around for a cup of tea to ask them why they did it and could they not do it again please.
@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.
Any odds on SDP2 forming by the end of this year?
They've got one shot to get everyone behind a sensible but heavyweight challenger, from whoever is left after the election. If the membership persist in backing the guy who just got smashed at an election, then those who wish to form a future government will need to find a different vehicle to do it.
Given current events in the US, here's hoping that HMG finds ways of postponing/cancelling its state invite to Trump.
No !
I have backed this with Hills.
They best not.
I backed him to make his first state visit to canada. regretting it now tho. doesn't look like he wants to go anywhere.
Listening to my son's views here in Vancouver it is unlikely Trump will be welcomed having put tariffs on lumber and talks of retaliation from Canada in the start of a trade war
no he's isn't doing a great job of making friends anywhere it seems, even at home. I reckon Japan might be his first port of call now. he has at least stood by them on the North Korean business and I'm not sure they're the egg-throwing types he probably wants to avoid.
Markets clearly think Mercedes are in the driving seat. I do wonder if it's an over-reaction. Be nice if it were, as there'd be tasty value elsewhere.
Also, check the forecast before betting on qualifying. Early forecast (just doing the first bit of the pre-qualifying article now) is that showers/storms are possible for qualifying.
Yes, I just saw the weather forecast. Might hold off the Q bets until after P3, really no point betting on a lottery.
It'll be interesting to know if this is directly targeted, or whether the hackers just got in to a network and placed ransomware, unaware of the target.
It'll be interesting to know if this is directly targeted, or whether the hackers just got in to a network and placed ransomware, unaware of the target.
Having a quick google it seems this has been going on on a smaller scale over the past few months. One hospital here, another couple there.
@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.
Its clear Corbyn ain't going nowhere....
It's clear his spinners want to create that impression. However:
1. It'll look different on June 9. 2. If he tries to stay on, it'd be the best thing he could do for Labour. The legitimacy that would come from him being defeated openly would be useful, and his candidacy would ensure that the next leader would come from Labour's mainstream.
There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.
Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.
To be fair, he did cite Nazi Germany as a force which needed to be confronted militarily. There's also the not unreasonable point that neither Afghanistan or Iraq, full though they were with acts of individual and collective heroism and professionalism by out Armed Forces, were politically well-judged interventions.
On a personal level, I struggle with the notion of using nuclear weapons pre-emptively, as a first strike capability. As a tool for response and as a deterrent, yes. I've never drawn much comfort from the fact my incineration as a resident of London would be followed by the incineration of the people of Kharkov, Omsk or Irkutsk.
That's why the PLP deserves to be thrashed around the head and neck with a large haddock. Their damned incompetence has robbed the country of an opposition, and a viable alternative government.
If Corbyn can't be ousted post-election, they have a duty to split otherwise they're condemning the UK to five more years of the same.
Corbyn is not going to say he will resign, even if he is planning to or wants to. Same as Cameron in the run up to tge EU referendum. Fairly simple political logic, or seems like it to me. Thought I would log in to point this out.
It'll be interesting to know if this is directly targeted, or whether the hackers just got in to a network and placed ransomware, unaware of the target.
The same attack also hit some sites in Spain apparently
F1: especially galling Mercedes have taken a step forward, because Raikkonen's been faster than Vettel in both sessions and if the Ferrari had stayed level/just ahead of the Mercedes he could've been on for a win (or top 2, certainly).
It'll be interesting to know if this is directly targeted, or whether the hackers just got in to a network and placed ransomware, unaware of the target.
Looks like several sites hit by ransomware set to go off today, and loads more sites are shutting down critical systems as a precautionary measure. Pleased I'm not the NHS's IT guy today!
There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.
Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.
Apparently, Mr Corbyn himself believes that he is not a pacifist, Mr Root. We should send help immediately.
It does, in fairness, depend on how one defines pacifism.
On one perfectly fair definition, it's an opposition to any pursuit of war, even in self defence. My reading of Corbyn's position is that he's not a pacifist by that measure - he would mobilise the armed forces in the event of enemy ships shelling Budleigh Salterton... which must be a tremendous comfort to the people of that town.
But it's very easy to get tied up in the semantics. However one defines pacifism, the question is whether he'd do anything at all to defend people, or British interests, overseas. He doesn't seem to have come up with a single example where he would. In Kosovo? In Sierra Leone? Or in an attempt to stop flagrant and ongoing use of chemical weapons on civilian populations?
There are a few areas where I have some sympathy for Corbyn, but his approach on this is woeful. He's had 30 years plus to think about this, and the sum total of his philosophy is "war is a terrible thing". That's a slogan, not a policy, or a strategy, or even a complete argument (a premise without a conclusion).
Con + Unionist party listed twice - 622 + 7 = 629. Surely should be 631 (650-18-Speaker).
LDs - 620 - are they standing down in 12 seats?
Lab 580 + Co-Op 50 = 630.
The second "Conservative and Unionist Party" is in Northern Ireland.
AIUI the other one should end up on 631, so still nine seats to go. Outside NI they'll contest every seat except Buckingham - unless someone screwed up the paperwork.
Labour and Co-Op should be pretty much every seat outside NI too, I think the LDs have made a couple of tactical non-standing seats by arrangement with the Greens.
There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.
Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.
Apparently, Mr Corbyn himself believes that he is not a pacifist, Mr Root. We should send help immediately.
It does, in fairness, depend on how one defines pacifism.
On one perfectly fair definition, it's an opposition to any pursuit of war, even in self defence. My reading of Corbyn's position is that he's not a pacifist by that measure - he would mobilise the armed forces in the event of enemy ships shelling Budleigh Salterton... which must be a tremendous comfort to the people of that town.
But it's very easy to get tied up in the semantics. However one defines pacifism, the question is whether he'd do anything at all to defend people, or British interests, overseas. He doesn't seem to have come up with a single example where he would. In Kosovo? In Sierra Leone? Or in an attempt to stop flagrant and ongoing use of chemical weapons on civilian populations?
There are a few areas where I have some sympathy for Corbyn, but his approach on this is woeful. He's had 30 years plus to think about this, and the sum total of his philosophy is "war is a terrible thing". That's a slogan, not a policy, or a strategy, or even a complete argument (a premise without a conclusion).
Corbyn never thought war was a terrible thing when it was the IRA waging it.
On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399
The guy, and all LDs who backed him, should just join Labour - its odd that a LD of all people should be concerned with the idea of a vote for him being wasted, as if people who stand for the LDs usually think they are imminently to be in government or something. If defeating the Tories is the only thing that matters, you vote Labour or SNP if in Scotland.
Con + Unionist party listed twice - 622 + 7 = 629. Surely should be 631 (650-18-Speaker).
LDs - 620 - are they standing down in 12 seats?
Lab 580 + Co-Op 50 = 630.
The second "Conservative and Unionist Party" is in Northern Ireland.
AIUI the other one should end up on 631, so still nine seats to go. Outside NI they'll contest every seat except Buckingham - unless someone screwed up the paperwork.
Labour and Co-Op should be pretty much every seat outside NI too, I think the LDs have made a couple of tactical non-standing seats by arrangement with the Greens.
I mean it may not be true that he's secretly recorded conversations with Comey. But he certainly wants Comey to believe that Trump can and will respond in kind if Comey goes to the media about anything. It wasn't in any way a lighthearted or throwaway remark.
Farron has a reputation as a fine local political campaigner and his results in W&L are testament to that. But leading a national party is a different ball game and requires a different skill-set; one he doesn't have. To be an effective leader of the Lib Dems, you need to be seen by the public as at least a credible cabinet minister, not a politicised community activist.
Tim Farron is a hundred times more impressive than most of your Tory Cabinet, Mr Herdson. If they were not backed up by an army of civil servant experts (whom they despise), they would be sunk without trace. Mrs May would sink fastest.
There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.
Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.
Apparently, Mr Corbyn himself believes that he is not a pacifist, Mr Root. We should send help immediately.
It does, in fairness, depend on how one defines pacifism.
On one perfectly fair definition, it's an opposition to any pursuit of war, even in self defence. My reading of Corbyn's position is that he's not a pacifist by that measure - he would mobilise the armed forces in the event of enemy ships shelling Budleigh Salterton... which must be a tremendous comfort to the people of that town.
But it's very easy to get tied up in the semantics. However one defines pacifism, the question is whether he'd do anything at all to defend people, or British interests, overseas. He doesn't seem to have come up with a single example where he would. In Kosovo? In Sierra Leone? Or in an attempt to stop flagrant and ongoing use of chemical weapons on civilian populations?
There are a few areas where I have some sympathy for Corbyn, but his approach on this is woeful. He's had 30 years plus to think about this, and the sum total of his philosophy is "war is a terrible thing". That's a slogan, not a policy, or a strategy, or even a complete argument (a premise without a conclusion).
Corbyn never thought war was a terrible thing when it was the IRA waging it.
There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.
Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.
Apparently, Mr Corbyn himself believes that he is not a pacifist, Mr Root. We should send help immediately.
There are a few areas where I have some sympathy for Corbyn, but his approach on this is woeful. He's had 30 years plus to think about this, and the sum total of his philosophy is "war is a terrible thing". That's a slogan, not a policy, or a strategy, or even a complete argument (a premise without a conclusion).
That, I think, really does sum it up I think. That interview with a hypothetical droning of the ISIS leader was a case in point - he was making a whole lot of points many people would agree on about needing plans, and last resorts to intervention, and being sure action would help, but even after being presented with a scenario where we could kill the leader of ISIS (whom 'not being around anymore' was something he felt was a good thing for a peaceful settlement long term) he couldn't bring himself to say he'd do it, even in that 'no drawbacks' scenario (even acknowledging any real life choices would be tougher).
On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399
The guy, and all LDs who backed him, should just join Labour - its odd that a LD of all people should be concerned with the idea of a vote for him being wasted, as if people who stand for the LDs usually think they are imminently to be in government or something. If defeating the Tories is the only thing that matters, you vote Labour or SNP if in Scotland.
I commented on this elsewhere. He has a right to stand in the seat if he gets the nominations and if he then chooses to do nothing and lose his deposit, that's also his right.
It's also my right as a LD voter to either vote LD even if that vote is "wasted" apart from counting toward the Party's national tally or to vote tactically. The LD candidate shouldn't advise or condone tactical voting - if his inactivity is viewed as a signal for potential LD voters to vote tactically that's an interpretation.
There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.
Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.
Apparently, Mr Corbyn himself believes that he is not a pacifist, Mr Root. We should send help immediately.
It does, in fairness, depend on how one defines pacifism.
On one perfectly fair definition, it's an opposition to any pursuit of war, even in self defence. My reading of Corbyn's position is that he's not a pacifist by that measure - he would mobilise the armed forces in the event of enemy ships shelling Budleigh Salterton... which must be a tremendous comfort to the people of that town.
But it's very easy to get tied up in the semantics. However one defines pacifism, the question is whether he'd do anything at all to defend people, or British interests, overseas. He doesn't seem to have come up with a single example where he would. In Kosovo? In Sierra Leone? Or in an attempt to stop flagrant and ongoing use of chemical weapons on civilian populations?
There are a few areas where I have some sympathy for Corbyn, but his approach on this is woeful. He's had 30 years plus to think about this, and the sum total of his philosophy is "war is a terrible thing". That's a slogan, not a policy, or a strategy, or even a complete argument (a premise without a conclusion).
Corbyn never thought war was a terrible thing when it was the IRA waging it.
Meet the 'Men of Peace"
The cheek of the man! Accusing others of crimes against humanity whilst wearing THAT jacket and standing next to a chap with THAT tie. It's the sheer hypocrisy of it.
On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399
The guy, and all LDs who backed him, should just join Labour - its odd that a LD of all people should be concerned with the idea of a vote for him being wasted, as if people who stand for the LDs usually think they are imminently to be in government or something. If defeating the Tories is the only thing that matters, you vote Labour or SNP if in Scotland.
The LD candidate shouldn't advise or condone tactical voting - if his inactivity is viewed as a signal for potential LD voters to vote tactically that's an interpretation.
It's just so strange - if the party didn't want to bother in the seat, then he could have done nothing, he could have implied people should vote Labour, or the party could just not have stood. Standing and then directly telling people not to vote for him is just a waste of money. No it is not a huge amount of money, but it just feels like unless the party is supporting a progressive alliance in which they stand down in certain places, even paper candidates should be expected to be more circumspect. At least the Greens and UKIP are, they say, deliberately standing down to help others, not pretending they want to contest seats and then telling people not to vote for them.
He did say he would "gladly receive" the votes of "dyed-in-the-wool Liberal Democrats". Which is nice of him.
On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399
The guy, and all LDs who backed him, should just join Labour - its odd that a LD of all people should be concerned with the idea of a vote for him being wasted, as if people who stand for the LDs usually think they are imminently to be in government or something. If defeating the Tories is the only thing that matters, you vote Labour or SNP if in Scotland.
I commented on this elsewhere. He has a right to stand in the seat if he gets the nominations and if he then chooses to do nothing and lose his deposit, that's also his right.
It's also my right as a LD voter to either vote LD even if that vote is "wasted" apart from counting toward the Party's national tally or to vote tactically. The LD candidate shouldn't advise or condone tactical voting - if his inactivity is viewed as a signal for potential LD voters to vote tactically that's an interpretation.
Can't disagree with either of you there really. But I'd also argue that when you get LDs in unwinnable seats taking this stance, under present circumstances, it harms the prospects of LDs in winnable seats. I don't think, strategically, it's very bright.
With Jeremy Corbyn in power, the LDs had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become the main party of the left - a necessary first step to being the main party of government, which is presumably a long-term ambition. I don't think it's an opportunity their grasping very cleverly.
Mr. Prodicus, bethwhacking the contemptible with the enormo-haddock of truth is a critical aspect in the Way of the Morris Dancer.
Now I'm seeing white-clad Morris Men waving enormous fish aloft, as they leap about jingling their bells. Please stop. I live too near Thaxted for all this.
It'll be interesting to know if this is directly targeted, or whether the hackers just got in to a network and placed ransomware, unaware of the target.
Looks like several sites hit by ransomware set to go off today, and loads more sites are shutting down critical systems as a precautionary measure. Pleased I'm not the NHS's IT guy today!
On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399
The guy, and all LDs who backed him, should just join Labour - its odd that a LD of all people should be concerned with the idea of a vote for him being wasted, as if people who stand for the LDs usually think they are imminently to be in government or something. If defeating the Tories is the only thing that matters, you vote Labour or SNP if in Scotland.
I commented on this elsewhere. He has a right to stand in the seat if he gets the nominations and if he then chooses to do nothing and lose his deposit, that's also his right.
It's also my right as a LD voter to either vote LD even if that vote is "wasted" apart from counting toward the Party's national tally or to vote tactically. The LD candidate shouldn't advise or condone tactical voting - if his inactivity is viewed as a signal for potential LD voters to vote tactically that's an interpretation.
Can't disagree with either of you there really. But I'd also argue that when you get LDs in unwinnable seats taking this stance, under present circumstances, it harms the prospects of LDs in winnable seats. I don't think, strategically, it's very bright.
With Jeremy Corbyn in power, the LDs had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become the main party of the left - a necessary first step to being the main party of government, which is presumably a long-term ambition. I don't think it's an opportunity their grasping very cleverly.
Well I don't know how big an opportunity they had, really, but that it could harm LDs in winnable seats is I think the critical point. I want the LDs to recover and do well, I think more parties in parliament with significant numbers is important, but are they their own thing or not, is the people of Bury North suffering under a Tory a price worth paying for seeing if the LDs could improve there and one day challenge, even as a distant dream? The answer is apparently no. Which is problematic for areas where the LDs once won or came strong seconds but are currently well back. Look at the numbers and maybe people should assume a vote for them there is a wasted vote too.
Sky news just had a cyber security guy on who said some nhs trusts are spending as little as £20k a year on cyber security ie one poorly qualified IT person .
Sky news just had a cyber security guy on who said some nhs trusts are spending as little as £20k a year on cyber security ie one poorly qualified IT person .
That's not Evil Tory Cuts, that's gross mismanagement.
Well I don't know how big an opportunity they had, really, but that it could harm LDs in winnable seats is I think the critical point. I want the LDs to recover and do well, I think more parties in parliament with significant numbers is important, but are they their own thing or not, is the people of Bury North suffering under a Tory a price worth paying for seeing if the LDs could improve there and one day challenge, even as a distant dream? The answer is apparently no. Which is problematic for areas where the LDs once won or came strong seconds but are currently well back. Look at the numbers and maybe people should assume a vote for them there is a wasted vote too.
There's a significant chance he could have saved his deposit with a bit of light Facebook campaigning, and urging everyone to go out and vote Liberal Democrat. It's supposed to be the other parties that do the old squeeze message ffsake.
It'll be interesting to know if this is directly targeted, or whether the hackers just got in to a network and placed ransomware, unaware of the target.
Looks like several sites hit by ransomware set to go off today, and loads more sites are shutting down critical systems as a precautionary measure. Pleased I'm not the NHS's IT guy today!
On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399
The guy, and all LDs who backed him, should just join Labour - its odd that a LD of all people should be concerned with the idea of a vote for him being wasted, as if people who stand for the LDs usually think they are imminently to be in government or something. If defeating the Tories is the only thing that matters, you vote Labour or SNP if in Scotland.
I commented on this elsewhere. He has a right to stand in the seat if he gets the nominations and if he then chooses to do nothing and lose his deposit, that's also his right.
It's also my right as a LD voter to either vote LD even if that vote is "wasted" apart from counting toward the Party's national tally or to vote tactically. The LD candidate shouldn't advise or condone tactical voting - if his inactivity is viewed as a signal for potential LD voters to vote tactically that's an interpretation.
Can't disagree with either of you there really. But I'd also argue that when you get LDs in unwinnable seats taking this stance, under present circumstances, it harms the prospects of LDs in winnable seats. I don't think, strategically, it's very bright.
With Jeremy Corbyn in power, the LDs had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become the main party of the left - a necessary first step to being the main party of government, which is presumably a long-term ambition. I don't think it's an opportunity their grasping very cleverly.
Well I don't know how big an opportunity they had, really, but that it could harm LDs in winnable seats is I think the critical point. I want the LDs to recover and do well, I think more parties in parliament with significant numbers is important, but are they their own thing or not, is the people of Bury North suffering under a Tory a price worth paying for seeing if the LDs could improve there and one day challenge, even as a distant dream? The answer is apparently no. Which is problematic for areas where the LDs once won or came strong seconds but are currently well back. Look at the numbers and maybe people should assume a vote for them there is a wasted vote too.
Mr. Prodicus, bethwhacking the contemptible with the enormo-haddock of truth is a critical aspect in the Way of the Morris Dancer.
Now I'm seeing white-clad Morris Men waving enormous fish aloft, as they leap about jingling their bells. Please stop. I live too near Thaxted for all this.
reminding me of the Monty Python Fish Dancing Sketch by the canal. or maybe that was your inspiration.
Sky news just had a cyber security guy on who said some nhs trusts are spending as little as £20k a year on cyber security ie one poorly qualified IT person .
That's not Evil Tory Cuts, that's gross mismanagement.
I bet they have spent more on catering for the religous needs of jedi's.
There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.
Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.
Apparently, Mr Corbyn himself believes that he is not a pacifist, Mr Root. We should send help immediately.
There are a few areas where I have some sympathy for Corbyn, but his approach on this is woeful. He's had 30 years plus to think about this, and the sum total of his philosophy is "war is a terrible thing". That's a slogan, not a policy, or a strategy, or even a complete argument (a premise without a conclusion).
That, I think, really does sum it up I think. That interview with a hypothetical droning of the ISIS leader was a case in point - he was making a whole lot of points many people would agree on about needing plans, and last resorts to intervention, and being sure action would help, but even after being presented with a scenario where we could kill the leader of ISIS (whom 'not being around anymore' was something he felt was a good thing for a peaceful settlement long term) he couldn't bring himself to say he'd do it, even in that 'no drawbacks' scenario (even acknowledging any real life choices would be tougher).
Yes. I'd actually respect him a lot more - though not agree with him - if he said, "I don't believe in killing people, and I'm not a utilitarian. I wouldn't order the drone strike, just as I wouldn't pull the lever to send the train down a different track where it would kill one man rather than five... even if the one man was a well known a***hole. I know that's a moral philosophy that can have bad consequences, and you can throw extreme examples at me all day. But I think there are real merits in having a clear, inflexible moral code, that transcends the fact that it can be inconvenient and even have bad results."
It's the endless skirting around it that riles me. It's like the people in philosophy classes who try to add in facts that aren't there to justify a gut position... just confront the issue!
Just received this email alert from Lancashire Police. The Operation name chosen is a little unfortunate.
Lancashire Police and Trading Standards have joined forces this week to disrupt dishonest traders and scammers as part of a UK-wide crackdown, Operation Liberal.
It'll be interesting to know if this is directly targeted, or whether the hackers just got in to a network and placed ransomware, unaware of the target.
Looks like several sites hit by ransomware set to go off today, and loads more sites are shutting down critical systems as a precautionary measure. Pleased I'm not the NHS's IT guy today!
It'll be interesting to know if this is directly targeted, or whether the hackers just got in to a network and placed ransomware, unaware of the target.
Looks like several sites hit by ransomware set to go off today, and loads more sites are shutting down critical systems as a precautionary measure. Pleased I'm not the NHS's IT guy today!
On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399
The guy, and all LDs who backed him, should just join Labour - its odd that a LD of all people should be concerned with the idea of a vote for him being wasted, as if people who stand for the LDs usually think they are imminently to be in government or something. If defeating the Tories is the only thing that matters, you vote Labour or SNP if in Scotland.
I commented on this elsewhere. He has a right to stand in the seat if he gets the nominations and if he then chooses to do nothing and lose his deposit, that's also his right.
It's also my right as a LD voter to either vote LD even if that vote is "wasted" apart from counting toward the Party's national tally or to vote tactically. The LD candidate shouldn't advise or condone tactical voting - if his inactivity is viewed as a signal for potential LD voters to vote tactically that's an interpretation.
Can't.
Well I don't know how big an opportunity they had, really, but that it could harm LDs in winnable seats is I think the critical point. I want the LDs to recover and do well, I think more parties in parliament with significant numbers is important, but are they their own thing or not, is the people of Bury North suffering under a Tory a price worth paying for seeing if the LDs could improve there and one day challenge, even as a distant dream? The answer is apparently no. Which is problematic for areas where the LDs once won or came strong seconds but are currently well back. Look at the numbers and maybe people should assume a vote for them there is a wasted vote too.
Yes, my point exactly, only more eloquently put!
Eloquent is not usually my strong suit, so thanks!
Just received this email alert from Lancashire Police. The Operation name chosen is a little unfortunate.
Lancashire Police and Trading Standards have joined forces this week to disrupt dishonest traders and scammers as part of a UK-wide crackdown, Operation Liberal.
Comments
Red Bull are narrowing the gap too.
/troll
There's no general objection from most opponents of the recent changes to the principle of people who are fit to work being deemed fit to work.
What appears to have happened is that contractors were brought in who were incentivised (or even required) to get a certain number off the list, and this was set up in a way that wholly outweighed the incentive to make the correct decision in the particular case.
Hence people who were properly eligible for sickness benefits; who were suffering and in many cases vulnerable, were cut from the list and sent all manner of threatening and worrying mail by - frankly - spivs who benefited directly from being as savage as possible whether justified or not. Any spurious excuse was used by too many assessors with little or no concern for the individual.
It is possible in politics to have the right policy objective but pursue it in an incompetent, cruel way.
Ladywood in Birmingham would stay too !
Markets clearly think Mercedes are in the driving seat. I do wonder if it's an over-reaction. Be nice if it were, as there'd be tasty value elsewhere.
Also, check the forecast before betting on qualifying. Early forecast (just doing the first bit of the pre-qualifying article now) is that showers/storms are possible for qualifying.
I am a "One Nation" type of person and I am not convinced by Mrs May at all. I don't beleive that she is really committed to the modernisation that the country needs (and TBH most so -called "developed" countries)
I am very uneasy about her getting a landslide.
My ideal would be a Social Democratic "Centre-centre-Left" party. The title does not matter - Lib/Lab/New Party.
But the problem for me is Europe. (Which is a separate discussion of course, but I think that you might find my opinions on this are not quite the foaming-at-the-mouth and xenophobic ones that some leavers sadly adopt
Very bad news
They've got one shot to get everyone behind a sensible but heavyweight challenger, from whoever is left after the election. If the membership persist in backing the guy who just got smashed at an election, then those who wish to form a future government will need to find a different vehicle to do it.
Do any of the large PB Trumpton community still support this clown?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2017-39899651/guy-ritchie-confused-by-party-leaders
Sh*t.
It'll be interesting to know if this is directly targeted, or whether the hackers just got in to a network and placed ransomware, unaware of the target.
1. It'll look different on June 9.
2. If he tries to stay on, it'd be the best thing he could do for Labour. The legitimacy that would come from him being defeated openly would be useful, and his candidacy would ensure that the next leader would come from Labour's mainstream.
On a personal level, I struggle with the notion of using nuclear weapons pre-emptively, as a first strike capability. As a tool for response and as a deterrent, yes. I've never drawn much comfort from the fact my incineration as a resident of London would be followed by the incineration of the people of Kharkov, Omsk or Irkutsk.
https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/863037186568073217
That's why the PLP deserves to be thrashed around the head and neck with a large haddock. Their damned incompetence has robbed the country of an opposition, and a viable alternative government.
If Corbyn can't be ousted post-election, they have a duty to split otherwise they're condemning the UK to five more years of the same.
Same as Cameron in the run up to tge EU referendum.
Fairly simple political logic, or seems like it to me.
Thought I would log in to point this out.
you still dont get you are taking part in the biggest reality TV programme on the planet
LDs - 620 - are they standing down in 12 seats?
Lab 580 + Co-Op 50 = 630.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/12/nhs_hospital_shut_down_due_to_cyber_attack/
On one perfectly fair definition, it's an opposition to any pursuit of war, even in self defence. My reading of Corbyn's position is that he's not a pacifist by that measure - he would mobilise the armed forces in the event of enemy ships shelling Budleigh Salterton... which must be a tremendous comfort to the people of that town.
But it's very easy to get tied up in the semantics. However one defines pacifism, the question is whether he'd do anything at all to defend people, or British interests, overseas. He doesn't seem to have come up with a single example where he would. In Kosovo? In Sierra Leone? Or in an attempt to stop flagrant and ongoing use of chemical weapons on civilian populations?
There are a few areas where I have some sympathy for Corbyn, but his approach on this is woeful. He's had 30 years plus to think about this, and the sum total of his philosophy is "war is a terrible thing". That's a slogan, not a policy, or a strategy, or even a complete argument (a premise without a conclusion).
AIUI the other one should end up on 631, so still nine seats to go. Outside NI they'll contest every seat except Buckingham - unless someone screwed up the paperwork.
Labour and Co-Op should be pretty much every seat outside NI too, I think the LDs have made a couple of tactical non-standing seats by arrangement with the Greens.
I mean it may not be true that he's secretly recorded conversations with Comey. But he certainly wants Comey to believe that Trump can and will respond in kind if Comey goes to the media about anything. It wasn't in any way a lighthearted or throwaway remark.
It's also my right as a LD voter to either vote LD even if that vote is "wasted" apart from counting toward the Party's national tally or to vote tactically. The LD candidate shouldn't advise or condone tactical voting - if his inactivity is viewed as a signal for potential LD voters to vote tactically that's an interpretation.
Tomorrow Never DiesGoldeneye.https://cinetrains.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/my-name-is-bond-james-bond-british-rail-class-20-in-goldeneye/
He did say he would "gladly receive" the votes of "dyed-in-the-wool Liberal Democrats". Which is nice of him.
With Jeremy Corbyn in power, the LDs had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become the main party of the left - a necessary first step to being the main party of government, which is presumably a long-term ambition. I don't think it's an opportunity their grasping very cleverly.
'Tim Farron is a hundred times more impressive than most of your Tory Cabinet,'
In what way?
He comes across as a student union leader who has immatured with age.
Mr. Prodicus, too near Thaxted?
Is that some sort of euphemism of which I am blissfully unaware?
It's supposed to be the other parties that do the old squeeze message ffsake.
It's the endless skirting around it that riles me. It's like the people in philosophy classes who try to add in facts that aren't there to justify a gut position... just confront the issue!
Lancashire Police and Trading Standards have joined forces this week to disrupt dishonest traders and scammers as part of a UK-wide crackdown, Operation Liberal.
* or whatever they're called these days (GRU?)