Election signage update - I was in Swansea yesterday all Labour apart from Plaid local office, and a Welsh liberal democrats sign which if I hadn't looked closely I may have mistaken for a for sale board. That was In then Morriston and Brynhyfrd areas. Later in the day had to go into Caerphilly and only signage there was plaid.
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
One of the interesting things about this campaign is that Corbyn has been industriously ditching some of his principles. He has abandoned opposition to Trident, rowed back on his oft-repeated pacifism, and distanced himself from people he used to call friends. He has also consistently flip-flopped on Europe.
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.
The trident one is a shocking u turn and I suspect if closely questioned Corbyn will really struggle to say he wants to keep it/believes in it.
Your other points... Not sure if he has ever said he is a pacifist? Do you have a link? On Europe - definitely been a shift but he has moved from opposed to lukewarm support. Sort of the opposite of TM who moved from lukewarm support to opposed.
There is this rather strange video from 2 years ago where he says it's 'hard to say' if he's a 'total pacifist'. Although that's not clear cut it's very different from the message he's been giving off recently.
So in terms of repeatedly saying he is a pacifist - you've got nothing?
IMO it's clear that Corbyn is pretty anti war and sets a much higher threshold for using military force than most other politicians. Now he is leader and subject to a lot more scrutiny he is belatedly realising it's his responsibility to try and shape how the media sees him rather than just answer questions as he would in a pub with old friends.
That interview is a great example of some philosophical musing that is hard for papers to summarise and report. But he has since been very clear that he thinks war can be justifiable.
Perhaps, but other than in the intellectual abstract, are there examples, in his lifetime, of justifiable war which he has supported?
He is on record saying there hasn't been one since 1945. But that he did support certain interventions under the UN in that time period.
Personally I would disagree but I think that is certainly a reasonable position.
There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
I'm still inclined to think she will win by a landslide.
In a choice between not very good and utterly hopeless, not very good wins by a landslide.
People do appear to be confusing their own views with those of the voters:
It seems that that her closest triends haven't yet accepted that the manifesto screeching u turn has seriously damaged her image of having fixity of purpose.
There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
So your expectation of the GE result is .....?
Tory majority of 60-70, which will be comfortable enough. Labour around the 200 level so wounded, but far from terminally.
We're clearly not going to have a prize money competition this time. Nevertheless it would be good if OGH were able to organise a contest to enable a consensus PB.com view of the outcome to be arrived at.
Where are the 12 libdem seats going to come from?
A net gain of 3 seats, comprising 5 gains less 2 losses. The 5 gains, without being too specific are London+Suburbs 2, S.W. England 1, Scotland 1, Other 1. Hardly over-ambitious surely?
I just think tbat this wilk be (in England) a return to 2 party politics and the lds could get hurt even more than at present.
I live in Thornbury and Yate which is the top SW target. There were 5000 UKIP votes last time and no UKIP standing this time so I cannot see it going yellow to blue.
There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
I'm still inclined to think she will win by a landslide.
Matt Singh has an article in today's FT (haven't read it - paywall) suggesting the same it would appear - unless the 'Leadership rating model' is mistaken. I suspect a lot of Labour support is among historically non-voters while Conservative support is among pensioners. We know which are more likely to vote.
May has an approval rating of 48-55%. Corbyn has one of 25-31%.
Yes, but finally after all the other occasions when May's reputation would be trashed, this time it will be.....
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
I'm still inclined to think she will win by a landslide.
In a choice between not very good and utterly hopeless, not very good wins by a landslide.
People do appear to be confusing their own views with those of the voters:
It seems that that her closest triends haven't yet accepted that the manifesto screeching u turn has seriously damaged her image of having fixity of purpose.
Nah that's just politics everyone gets that (bar PB obvs).
There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
So your expectation of the GE result is .....?
Tory majority of 60-70, which will be comfortable enough. Labour around the 200 level so wounded, but far from terminally.
We're clearly not going to have a prize money competition this time. Nevertheless it would be good if OGH were able to organise a contest to enable a consensus PB.com view of the outcome to be arrived at.
Where are the 12 libdem seats going to come from?
A net gain of 3 seats, comprising 5 gains less 2 losses. The 5 gains, without being too specific are London+Suburbs 2, S.W. England 1, Scotland 1, Other 1. Hardly over-ambitious surely?
I just think tbat this wilk be (in England) a return to 2 party politics and the lds could get hurt even more than at present.
I live in Thornbury and Yate which is the top SW target. There were 5000 UKIP votes last time and no UKIP standing this time so I cannot see it going yellow to blue.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
They may be "questions" but they don't qualify as "interesting".
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
One of the interesting things about this campaign is that Corbyn has been industriously ditching some of his principles. He has abandoned opposition to Trident, rowed back on his oft-repeated pacifism, and distanced himself from people he used to call friends. He has also consistently flip-flopped on Europe.
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.
The trident one is a shocking u turn and I suspect if closely questioned Corbyn will really struggle to say he wants to keep it/believes in it.
Your other points... Not sure if he has ever said he is a pacifist? Do you have a link? On Europe - definitely been a shift but he has moved from opposed to lukewarm support. Sort of the opposite of TM who moved from lukewarm support to opposed.
There is this rather strange video from 2 years ago where he says it's 'hard to say' if he's a 'total pacifist'. Although that's not clear cut it's very different from the message he's been giving off recently.
So in terms of repeatedly saying he is a pacifist - you've got nothing?
IMO it's clear that Corbyn is pretty anti war and sets a much higher threshold for using military force than most other politicians. Now he is leader and subject to a lot more scrutiny he is belatedly realising it's his responsibility to try and shape how the media sees him rather than just answer questions as he would in a pub with old friends.
That interview is a great example of some philosophical musing that is hard for papers to summarise and report. But he has since been very clear that he thinks war can be justifiable.
A 'war' against Israel's legitimacy (via boycotts). Did you actually read even the title of that article from the execrable harry's place? Pathetic, even by your weaselly standards.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
I do wish posters who had these amazing flights of fancy occasionally posted a betting tip or two
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
Gaddafi sponsored Lockerbie and the IRA so hardly kept us safe either and Corbyn would be a recipe for lax border controls and an end to arstrikes on ISIS
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
"For crying out loud. I am on here dissing the boring, entitled, anti-meritocratic monarchy as "Britain's richest welfare recipients", from time to time. I guess you want to strap on the jack boots Rob and march me to the scaffold (at the Tower, naturally) ?
That's fine, but Abbott is in the record wishing for the defeat of the British, and victory for the IRA. FFS Does anyone take Abbott seriously? She's significantly out of her depth. Can't stand that woman!"
She is the official Opposition's candidate for Home Secretary, the person who would be in charge of those services charged with protecting us from events such as Manchester and Westminster and 7/7, agencies she has publicly sneered at.
I am not as sanguine as you are at that prospect, even if she is an idiot.
And it worries me that so many want to go soft on a party and its leader who think that this is at all acceptable. All this talk of good taste is cover for fear that the frankly childish and morally repulsive decisions made by the Labour party are going to have some light shed on them, not before time.
This isn't the the time for OTT attacks on the Labour front bench, who are unlikely to be elected to government. They are not evil people.
One thing to be noted about the perpetrator, like many terrorists in recent years - he was a cannabis user. The LD manifesto commitment to legalising marijuana is downright dangerous.
Are you being ironic? If only we had a Timothy Leary extolling the virtues of 'Tuning- in turning- on and dropping out' maybe we wouldn't have to endure the excrucating sight of Trump and Netanyahu in a bear hug of self glorification because they would never have been voted in. Instead we took a different path and look where we are.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
Gaddafi sponsored Lockerbie and the IRA so hardly kept us safe either and Corbyn would be a recipe for lax border controls and an end to arstrikes on ISIS
Have a look at twitter. Labour party members literally spinning rubbish about the whole thing being staged.
Under Corbyn, Labour deserve to be roundly thrashed.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
"JWisemann" - Rarely has posters name been less appropriate.
If Don Brand is cautiously optimistic that Labour will do better than expected, it's not clear why. The scenarios on offer are better-than-expected Vs not-better and keep-Corbyn Vs lose-Corbyn. I don't think Don wants to keep Corbyn. But it's hard to see how you get rid of Corbyn (or an annointed successor ) without doing very badly in the election.
Agreed on the last point. I have real worries about Corbyn as a leader, for labour and the country I think he needs replacing, but there's actually a possibility he dies well enough that he will be subject to stay on, well enough the the gutless moderates don't split.
There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, s
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
So your expectation of the GE result is .....?
Tory majority of 60-70, which will be comfortable enough. Labour around the 200 level so wounded, but far from terminally.
We're clearly not going to have a prize money competition this time. Nevertheless it would be good if OGH were able to organise a contest to enable a consensus PB.com view of the outcome to be arrived at.
Where are the 12 libdem seats going to come from?
A net gain of 3 seats, comprising 5 gains less 2 losses. The 5 gains, without being too specific are London+Suburbs 2, S.W. England 1, Scotland 1, Other 1. Hardly over-ambitious surely?
I just think tbat this wilk be (in England) a return to 2 party politics and the lds could get hurt even more than at present.
Could well be. Thanks to some decent chances in Scotland they could still get to double figures, but it'll be touch and go.
There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
Can't disagree with any of that except I think she will get her landslide. I think Corbyn is spooking more people than you are imagining.
What odd times when some on the right think the left is holding up reasonably and some on the left think it isn't.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
Gaddafi sponsored Lockerbie and the IRA so hardly kept us safe either and Corbyn would be a recipe for lax border controls and an end to arstrikes on ISIS
Have a look at twitter. Labour party members literally spinning rubbish about the whole thing being staged.
Under Corbyn, Labour deserve to be roundly thrashed.
When Labour lose, we will hear tales of pencil marks on ballot papers being erased etc etc.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
I've given up trying to work out the size of the majority - Have been basing my betting around:
1) The Tories will definitely win. 2) The Lib Dems are in for another hiding, particularly in the southwest of England.
Obviously those are both odds on, but I think they were less odds on than the odds suggested.
Although the LibDems have no seats in the south west to experience "another hiding".
Yes, but the betting markets expect alot of seats to be closish there. I don't.
The collapse and absence of UKIP Will hurt the libdems in West Country. They have benefited from immense tactical voting over the years, but that had also wound back at last election.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity
I'd bet good money you had that written before you read a word, or you'd know that the most disgusting comment came from Mark senor, who believes the pm's security detail is for some reason responsible for national intelligence gathering and security, and so the calling of the ge by parliament means she should resign as her travels for the campaign and their work protecting her directly contributed to the deaths of children.
Do people here go too far politically during tragic events? Of course they do. We're human, emotions flare. Should people refrain from considering discussing politics when tragedies occur, wary of drawing false equivalence? Reasonable people will differ on that, but I would argue while it goes too far, sometimes events are very politically relevant and distressing as it is there can be, not always is but can be, merit in confronting that, even when it is difficult. This despite accusations that raising it in anyway will be labelled as inappropriate even if it is not.
I've given up trying to work out the size of the majority - Have been basing my betting around:
1) The Tories will definitely win. 2) The Lib Dems are in for another hiding, particularly in the southwest of England.
Obviously those are both odds on, but I think they were less odds on than the odds suggested.
Although the LibDems have no seats in the south west to experience "another hiding".
Yes, but the betting markets expect alot of seats to be closish there. I don't.
The collapse and absence of UKIP Will hurt the libdems in West Country. They have benefited from immense tactical voting over the years, but that had also wound back at last election.
You would however expect a good proportion of Labour voters to be more willing to vote tactically that in 2015 when the LDs were coming out of coalition.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
Gaddafi sponsored Lockerbie and the IRA so hardly kept us safe either and Corbyn would be a recipe for lax border controls and an end to arstrikes on ISIS
Have a look at twitter. Labour party members literally spinning rubbish about the whole thing being staged.
Under Corbyn, Labour deserve to be roundly thrashed.
Labour members are a sea of conspiracy theorists, they spend more time on twitter than they do contacting voters in marginal seats
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
Makes a change from 'the Jews'......
The fact is that we really *are* running everything.
It's just that sometimes we get careless and people notice it.
Mr. Meeks, May's statements yesterday will stand her in good stead in that regard.
Don't worry - Mr Meeks no doubt confidently expects a collapse in her poll ratings come the next round.....the voters have to 'get it right' eventually
I've given up trying to work out the size of the majority - Have been basing my betting around:
1) The Tories will definitely win. 2) The Lib Dems are in for another hiding, particularly in the southwest of England.
Obviously those are both odds on, but I think they were less odds on than the odds suggested.
Although the LibDems have no seats in the south west to experience "another hiding".
Yes, but the betting markets expect alot of seats to be closish there. I don't.
The collapse and absence of UKIP Will hurt the libdems in West Country. They have benefited from immense tactical voting over the years, but that had also wound back at last election.
Before the campaign suspension i heard that the LDs were putting most if their efforts in SW london into Twickenham... One activist told me that the problem for them is that the youth vote is almost exclusively going labour whereas in the past the yellow team would hoover up that cohort
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
That is true to the extent that supporting Saudi Arabia the biggest exporter of terrorism and the most shocking exponent of misogyny is at least as morally suspect as Corbyn's support for dubious organisations and much more dangerous
I've given up trying to work out the size of the majority - Have been basing my betting around:
1) The Tories will definitely win. 2) The Lib Dems are in for another hiding, particularly in the southwest of England.
Obviously those are both odds on, but I think they were less odds on than the odds suggested.
Although the LibDems have no seats in the south west to experience "another hiding".
Yes, but the betting markets expect alot of seats to be closish there. I don't.
The collapse and absence of UKIP Will hurt the libdems in West Country. They have benefited from immense tactical voting over the years, but that had also wound back at last election.
You would however expect a good proportion of Labour voters to be more willing to vote tactically that in 2015 when the LDs were coming out of coalition.
The Labour vote in most southwest seats is below UKIP. Certainly most of the ones I've got money in.
I've given up trying to work out the size of the majority - Have been basing my betting around:
1) The Tories will definitely win. 2) The Lib Dems are in for another hiding, particularly in the southwest of England.
Obviously those are both odds on, but I think they were less odds on than the odds suggested.
Although the LibDems have no seats in the south west to experience "another hiding".
Yes, but the betting markets expect alot of seats to be closish there. I don't.
A feature of 2015 was the secondary, and larger, collapse in the LibDem vote in seats they had lost in 2010. Even when those seats were in areas of traditional LibDem strength - Rochdale, Richmond Park, Harrogate, Hereford, SE Cornwall for example.
With the loss of tactical, incumbency and relevancy (nobody expects a hung parliament) votes we could see a similar secondary collapse in the seats the LibDems lost in 2015.
One activist told me that the problem for them is that the youth vote is almost exclusively going labour whereas in the past the yellow team would hoover up that cohort
And this makes any gains against the red team tricky too.
The one bet I think might be a value loser for me is Labour to hold Cambridge. Hopefully Huppert can scupper my tuppence ha'penny on the reds there.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
Gaddafi sponsored Lockerbie and the IRA so hardly kept us safe either and Corbyn would be a recipe for lax border controls and an end to arstrikes on ISIS
The RAF has made almost zero impact on ISIS. The Russian Air Force, the Syrian Army, and the SDF in Syria, and the Iraqi popular militias and IAF in Iraq have done 95% of the work. Notably, the Russian Air Force and Syrian Army would have already wiped out ISIS if it weren't for the other Islamic fundamentalist jihadis in the country sponsored by our Tory government and their friends in Riyadh and Doha.
Gaddafi's involvement in Lockerbie is still controversial (more likely Iran IMO), but anyway, he had long been 'rehabilitated'. Who posed a bigger threat to the UK in 2011, Gaddafi, or the islamic extremists that our Tory government helped to destroy the country and turn it into the terrorist paradise we see today (they tried to help a bunch of genocidal jihadi nutters destroy Syria too, but thankfully it looks like they failed)?
Face it, Weak & Wobbly May and her buddies have been the extremists' best friends over the last 7 years.
I've given up trying to work out the size of the majority - Have been basing my betting around:
1) The Tories will definitely win. 2) The Lib Dems are in for another hiding, particularly in the southwest of England.
Obviously those are both odds on, but I think they were less odds on than the odds suggested.
Although the LibDems have no seats in the south west to experience "another hiding".
Yes, but the betting markets expect alot of seats to be closish there. I don't.
Quite so. Quite optimistic visions were of the LDs getting close to 20 seats and essentially becoming competitive or strong seconds again in places like the SW. That doesn't look like happening.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
That is true to the extent that supporting Saudi Arabia the biggest exporter of terrorism and the most shocking exponent of misogyny is at least as morally suspect as Corbyn's support for dubious organisations and much more dangerous
Evidently the suicide bomber was a very regular user of cannabis..: hows that policy commitment again Mr Farron?
How many users of cannabis (about a third of the population have used it at some point) become suicide bombers? PB Tories are amazing at the mo.
It can and does in some people cause psychosis though...
Which is why it needs to be regulated - and you may as well tax it at the same time... The current issue is that dealers are growing stronger and stronger breeds all the time and the number of psychosis cases are increasing because of that.
Criminalising it hasn't worked, legalising it seems to be working in the States, so its time to do the same here...
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well,some attempts are more revolting than others I guess, depending on if the poster likes the person doing it.
I wonder what qualities Mrs May has? She is difficult to pigeonhole, butd wasn't a great home secretary as far as I remember. But being bland on a grand scale is more than enough to beat Jezza. He has a few fanatical supporters and a great many who are horrified at the thought of him as PM.
Labour's only hope is that enough of their supporters vote Labour despite him. It only needs a rain shower or a good programme on TV for them to sit on their hands.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
That is true to the extent that supporting Saudi Arabia the biggest exporter of terrorism and the most shocking exponent of misogyny is at least as morally suspect as Corbyn's support for dubious organisations and much more dangerous
Saudi planes are now bombing ISIS
But the inspiration for terrorism worldwide continues to flow out of saudi arabia, in the form of billions upon billions dollars' worth of resources to build mosques, madrassas, and surrounding infrastracture for the most, highly, conservative forms of islam.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
That is true to the extent that supporting Saudi Arabia the biggest exporter of terrorism and the most shocking exponent of misogyny is at least as morally suspect as Corbyn's support for dubious organisations and much more dangerous
Saudi planes are now bombing ISIS
If you don't combat weeds early enough (or even accidently cultivate them) you end up with little choice in the end except carpet bombing the infestation...
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
Evidently the suicide bomber was a very regular user of cannabis..: hows that policy commitment again Mr Farron?
How many users of cannabis (about a third of the population have used it at some point) become suicide bombers? PB Tories are amazing at the mo.
It can and does in some people cause psychosis though...
Paranoid psychosis is quite a common feature of chronic cannabis use, and there is a pattern of petty criminality and drug use amongst many jihadis and would be jihadis. Whether legalisation would make this worse or better is unclear.
I note that the bomber was UK born of parents given asylum as anti Gaddaffi exiles under a Tory government. The enemy of my enemy is often no friend at all.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Evidently the suicide bomber was a very regular user of cannabis..: hows that policy commitment again Mr Farron?
How many users of cannabis (about a third of the population have used it at some point) become suicide bombers? PB Tories are amazing at the mo.
It can and does in some people cause psychosis though...
Which is why it needs to be regulated - and you may as well tax it at the same time... The current issue is that dealers are growing stronger and stronger breeds all the time and the number of psychosis cases are increasing because of that.
Criminalising it hasn't worked, legalising it seems to be working in the States, so its time to do the same here...
"legalising it seems to be working in the States"
That's a very sweeping statement. Do you have any evidence for that?
The anecdata seems to split both ways according to source, prejudice and motivation.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Yes, at a lowish level, primarily driven by the Israeli/Palestine situation. The Iraq invasion is what made it mainstream.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
That is true to the extent that supporting Saudi Arabia the biggest exporter of terrorism and the most shocking exponent of misogyny is at least as morally suspect as Corbyn's support for dubious organisations and much more dangerous
Saudi planes are now bombing ISIS
Aren't they mostly bombing the Shia Houthi in Yemen?
Mr. Meeks, May's statements yesterday will stand her in good stead in that regard.
When was the last time a leader failed to give a good statement in response to some disaster? Cameron managed it, so did Brown and Blair before him. Even Livingstone managed in after 7/7. I'm not convinced how relevant to good leadership being able to read out prepared speech is.
Evidently the suicide bomber was a very regular user of cannabis..: hows that policy commitment again Mr Farron?
How many users of cannabis (about a third of the population have used it at some point) become suicide bombers? PB Tories are amazing at the mo.
It can and does in some people cause psychosis though...
Paranoid psychosis is quite a common feature of chronic cannabis use, and there is a pattern of petty criminality and drug use amongst many jihadis and would be jihadis. Whether legalisation would make this worse or better is unclear.
I note that the bomber was UK born of parents given asylum as anti Gaddaffi exiles under a Tory government. The enemy of my enemy is often no friend at all.
Correction - paranoid psychosis is a common feature of criminally grown cannabis with high levels of THC, rather than Cannabidiol. The forms of cannabis with high levels of THC, like "Skunk", boosted up and promoted on the black market, are a direct consequence of criminalisation.
Eleven months ago we were being treated to endless tweets about stock market prices.
I have suggested that with the stock markets now at record highs that that is boosting Conservative support with the increasing number of people with defined contributions pensions.
There will have been many people who have discovered this year that they are many thousands of pounds wealthier than they had previously thought.
Mr. Meeks, May's statements yesterday will stand her in good stead in that regard.
When was the last time a leader failed to give a good statement in response to some disaster? Cameron managed it, so did Brown and Blair before him. Even Livingstone managed in after 7/7. I'm not convinced how relevant to good leadership being able to read out prepared speech is.
True. I suspect very little effect from tragedy generally. Unless this course of events escalates or continues for some long time, I'd say the same here.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Yes, at a lowish level, primarily driven by the Israeli/Palestine situation. The Iraq invasion is what made it mainstream.
Historically the PLO was a fairly secular nationalist movement, not primarily a religious one.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Yes, at a lowish level, primarily driven by the Israeli/Palestine situation. The Iraq invasion is what made it mainstream.
Evidently the suicide bomber was a very regular user of cannabis..: hows that policy commitment again Mr Farron?
How many users of cannabis (about a third of the population have used it at some point) become suicide bombers? PB Tories are amazing at the mo.
It can and does in some people cause psychosis though...
Paranoid psychosis is quite a common feature of chronic cannabis use, and there is a pattern of petty criminality and drug use amongst many jihadis and would be jihadis. Whether legalisation would make this worse or better is unclear.
I note that the bomber was UK born of parents given asylum as anti Gaddaffi exiles under a Tory government. The enemy of my enemy is often no friend at all.
My guess is the Lib Dems would leagalise the not so strong stuff. But I think the corollary of that would be to clamp down hard on the illegal stuff that would continue to be sold.
I live in Thornbury and Yate which is the top SW target. There were 5000 UKIP votes last time and no UKIP standing this time so I cannot see it going yellow to blue.
you mean blue to yellow?
Of course - brain fade.
My big thing in this election is that I cannot figure out where the Tories are coming from. They don't appear to be doing well in Wales or London. They cannot gain many seats across south or south west. The north West looks nailed on for Labour after mayorals. Scotland looks like increased vote share for little return. That leaves east and West Midlands and NE and Yorkshire. I cannot see where the big majority will come from in those areas.
Con ...... 351 Lab ....... 220 SNP ......... 49 LibDem ... 8 N.I. ......... 18 Plaid ......... 3
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
That is true to the extent that supporting Saudi Arabia the biggest exporter of terrorism and the most shocking exponent of misogyny is at least as morally suspect as Corbyn's support for dubious organisations and much more dangerous
Saudi planes are now bombing ISIS
Source? They may have bombed ISIS like once or something. Certainly an infinitesimal fraction of the damage they caused in their part in the organisation's rise in the first place. Their planes are more concerned with killing kids in Yemen, with the help of our Tory government (the Saudi intervention in Yemen has also allowed Islamic State and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to flourish, in some case in direct collaboration as de facto allies).
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel
Yes, appalling that the West supports the right of Israel to exist.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Yes, at a lowish level, primarily driven by the Israeli/Palestine situation. The Iraq invasion is what made it mainstream.
Errr...remind me.. 9/11?
Carried out by Saudis, from a base in Afghanistan. If only the US and UK administrations had restricted themselves to catching and dealing with the perpetrators rather than using it as an excuse to launch an unprovoked attack on an uninvolved country.
Evidently the suicide bomber was a very regular user of cannabis..: hows that policy commitment again Mr Farron?
Obviously the wrong sort of cannabis, the sort that the Lib Dem proposals are trying to stamp out.
How are the Tories doing in their war against drug-taking? I gather the situation just gets worse and worse. About time they adopted a proper policy, instead of just letting things drift.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Yes, at a lowish level, primarily driven by the Israeli/Palestine situation. The Iraq invasion is what made it mainstream.
Evidently the suicide bomber was a very regular user of cannabis..: hows that policy commitment again Mr Farron?
How many users of cannabis (about a third of the population have used it at some point) become suicide bombers? PB Tories are amazing at the mo.
It can and does in some people cause psychosis though...
Paranoid psychosis is quite a common feature of chronic cannabis use, and there is a pattern of petty criminality and drug use amongst many jihadis and would be jihadis. Whether legalisation would make this worse or better is unclear.
I note that the bomber was UK born of parents given asylum as anti Gaddaffi exiles under a Tory government. The enemy of my enemy is often no friend at all.
My guess is the Lib Dems would leagalise the not so strong stuff. But I think the corollary of that would be to clamp down hard on the illegal stuff that would continue to be sold.
Which would ultimately limit any effectiveness. The people on the 'harder stuff' are on it because it's harder, and they want to go full blotto rather than just get stoned.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Yes, at a lowish level, primarily driven by the Israeli/Palestine situation. The Iraq invasion is what made it mainstream.
I'm sure I remember some large scale demonstration of islamic extremism prior to Iraq. If only I could remember...
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Yes, at a lowish level, primarily driven by the Israeli/Palestine situation. The Iraq invasion is what made it mainstream.
Errr...remind me.. 9/11?
Carried out by Saudis, from a base in Afghanistan. If only the US and UK administrations had restricted themselves to catching and dealing with the perpetrators rather than using it as an excuse to launch an unprovoked attack on an uninvolved country.
Oh yes, becuase it's 'so' easy to catch people which have an entire country to freely roam in and launch strikes from without actually invading it and going after people. Both Al-Qaida and the Taliban needed taking out, at source. You cannot have an openly operating terrorist nation.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Yes, at a lowish level, primarily driven by the Israeli/Palestine situation. The Iraq invasion is what made it mainstream.
Errr...remind me.. 9/11?
Carried out by Saudis, from a base in Afghanistan. If only the US and UK administrations had restricted themselves to catching and dealing with the perpetrators rather than using it as an excuse to launch an unprovoked attack on an uninvolved country.
Oh yes, becuase it's 'so' easy to catch people which have an entire country to freely roam in and launch strikes from without actually invading it and going after people. Both Al-Qaida and the Taliban needed taking out, at source. You cannot have an openly operating terrorist nation.
So why have the Tory government been trying their best to create such things in Libya and Syria? (successfully in the former case, thankfully the latter looks increasingly unlikely now).
I live in Thornbury and Yate which is the top SW target. There were 5000 UKIP votes last time and no UKIP standing this time so I cannot see it going yellow to blue.
you mean blue to yellow?
Of course - brain fade.
My big thing in this election is that I cannot figure out where the Tories are coming from. They don't appear to be doing well in Wales or London. They cannot gain many seats across south or south west. The north West looks nailed on for Labour after mayorals. Scotland looks like increased vote share for little return. That leaves east and West Midlands and NE and Yorkshire. I cannot see where the big majority will come from in those areas.
Con ...... 351 Lab ....... 220 SNP ......... 49 LibDem ... 8 N.I. ......... 18 Plaid ......... 3
Total ..... 650
Con Maj ... 51
The Conservatives can gain quite a lot of seats in London and Wales on small swings.
And there's a lot more to North-West England than Liverpool and Manchester. Barrow, Blackpool S, Chester, Chorley, Copeland, Hyndburn and Workington for example. Plus various marginal within the two metropolitan counties.
Evidently the suicide bomber was a very regular user of cannabis..: hows that policy commitment again Mr Farron?
How many users of cannabis (about a third of the population have used it at some point) become suicide bombers? PB Tories are amazing at the mo.
It can and does in some people cause psychosis though...
Paranoid psychosis is quite a common feature of chronic cannabis use, and there is a pattern of petty criminality and drug use amongst many jihadis and would be jihadis. Whether legalisation would make this worse or better is unclear.
I note that the bomber was UK born of parents given asylum as anti Gaddaffi exiles under a Tory government. The enemy of my enemy is often no friend at all.
My guess is the Lib Dems would leagalise the not so strong stuff. But I think the corollary of that would be to clamp down hard on the illegal stuff that would continue to be sold.
Which would ultimately limit any effectiveness. The people on the 'harder stuff' are on it because it's harder, and they want to go full blotto rather than just get stoned.
Those will be a smaller proportion than those who would use it responsibly, were it legal, though, I suspect. I have known many cannabis users, and some would go down the route you suggest, but while therefore not being totally effective, I do think it would be much more effective generally than the present situation.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Yes, at a lowish level, primarily driven by the Israeli/Palestine situation. The Iraq invasion is what made it mainstream.
Errr...remind me.. 9/11?
Carried out by Saudis, from a base in Afghanistan. If only the US and UK administrations had restricted themselves to catching and dealing with the perpetrators rather than using it as an excuse to launch an unprovoked attack on an uninvolved country.
Oh yes, becuase it's 'so' easy to catch people which have an entire country to freely roam in and launch strikes from without actually invading it and going after people. Both Al-Qaida and the Taliban needed taking out, at source. You cannot have an openly operating terrorist nation.
Evidently the suicide bomber was a very regular user of cannabis..: hows that policy commitment again Mr Farron?
How many users of cannabis (about a third of the population have used it at some point) become suicide bombers? PB Tories are amazing at the mo.
It can and does in some people cause psychosis though...
Paranoid psychosis is quite a common feature of chronic cannabis use, and there is a pattern of petty criminality and drug use amongst many jihadis and would be jihadis. Whether legalisation would make this worse or better is unclear.
I note that the bomber was UK born of parents given asylum as anti Gaddaffi exiles under a Tory government. The enemy of my enemy is often no friend at all.
My guess is the Lib Dems would leagalise the not so strong stuff. But I think the corollary of that would be to clamp down hard on the illegal stuff that would continue to be sold.
Which would ultimately limit any effectiveness. The people on the 'harder stuff' are on it because it's harder, and they want to go full blotto rather than just get stoned.
The harder stuff has largely only come into being because of criminalisation ; the test would be of the how market for this would respond to legalisation. This appears to have worked in Portugal and Canada is trying some of the same direction.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Yes, at a lowish level, primarily driven by the Israeli/Palestine situation. The Iraq invasion is what made it mainstream.
Errr...remind me.. 9/11?
Carried out by Saudis, from a base in Afghanistan. If only the US and UK administrations had restricted themselves to catching and dealing with the perpetrators rather than using it as an excuse to launch an unprovoked attack on an uninvolved country.
Oh yes, becuase it's 'so' easy to catch people which have an entire country to freely roam in and launch strikes from without actually invading it and going after people. Both Al-Qaida and the Taliban needed taking out, at source. You cannot have an openly operating terrorist nation.
I live in Thornbury and Yate which is the top SW target. There were 5000 UKIP votes last time and no UKIP standing this time so I cannot see it going yellow to blue.
you mean blue to yellow?
Of course - brain fade.
My big thing in this election is that I cannot figure out where the Tories are coming from. They don't appear to be doing well in Wales or London. They cannot gain many seats across south or south west. The north West looks nailed on for Labour after mayorals. Scotland looks like increased vote share for little return. That leaves east and West Midlands and NE and Yorkshire. I cannot see where the big majority will come from in those areas.
Con ...... 351 Lab ....... 220 SNP ......... 49 LibDem ... 8 N.I. ......... 18 Plaid ......... 3
Total ..... 650
Con Maj ... 51
The Conservatives can gain quite a lot of seats in London and Wales on small swings.
And there's a lot more to North-West England than Liverpool and Manchester. Barrow, Blackpool S, Chester, Chorley, Copeland, Hyndburn and Workington for example. Plus various marginal within the two metropolitan counties.
The super pessimistic Uncut piece suggests via a crude model something like 90 losses, but frankly somewhere in the 170-200 total range looks more plausible than that, the upper end at the moment if the rise in polls is a, real, and b, not super badly distributed.
So, in amongst the typically revolting attempts by the PB Tories to politicise an atrocity, is it a good time to reflect that the Tory government's support of violent islamic extremist jihadis in Libya and Syria probably hasn't helped keep us safe? I wonder who voted against the actions that turned Libya into a failed state and a hotbed and safe space for extremists to spread their poison abroad? Who recently went on bended knee to the biggest sponsors of global islamic fundamentalist violence? Interesting questions.
So in and amongst the attempts to "politicise an atrocity" you're going to, erm, politicise an atrocity...
Well, the pathetic attempts to paint Corbyn as a danger to this country, when our Tory government is a serial supporter of Islamic extremism abroad, requires a sensible fact-based response. I would have avoided the issue otherwise, despite the Tories' glass jaw re: Syria, Libya and the source of 90% of global islamic fundamentalism, Wobbly May's masters in Riyadh.
If it were not for the West's one-sided support of Israel and Bush and Blair's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (with the enthusiastic support of the Tories), the world would almost certainly be a much safer place today. Grievance is the fuel of extremism.
I'm far from a rightwinger, but radical islamism predates Bush and Blair.
Yes, at a lowish level, primarily driven by the Israeli/Palestine situation. The Iraq invasion is what made it mainstream.
Errr...remind me.. 9/11?
Carried out by Saudis, from a base in Afghanistan. If only the US and UK administrations had restricted themselves to catching and dealing with the perpetrators rather than using it as an excuse to launch an unprovoked attack on an uninvolved country.
Oh yes, becuase it's 'so' easy to catch people which have an entire country to freely roam in and launch strikes from without actually invading it and going after people. Both Al-Qaida and the Taliban needed taking out, at source. You cannot have an openly operating terrorist nation.
Al-Qaida and the Taliban were operating in Iraq?
Did I mention Iraq?
Iraq is the uninvolved country that I was referring to.
I wonder what qualities Mrs May has? She is difficult to pigeonhole, butd wasn't a great home secretary as far as I remember. But being bland on a grand scale is more than enough to beat Jezza. He has a few fanatical supporters and a great many who are horrified at the thought of him as PM.
Labour's only hope is that enough of their supporters vote Labour despite him. It only needs a rain shower or a good programme on TV for them to sit on their hands.
I think the key question about this election is will Corbyn disliking labour supporters hold their nose and vote for him, sit on their hands and stay away, or vote for the enemy to get rid of him. I would love to see some specific polling on this.
Comments
Personally I would disagree but I think that is certainly a reasonable position.
I am about 300 yards down the road from it though.
The Maltsters will be my venue of choice.
1) The Tories will definitely win.
2) The Lib Dems are in for another hiding, particularly in the southwest of England.
Obviously those are both odds on, but I think they were less odds on than the odds suggested.
There is simply not the belief that the Reds can do likewise.
In the actual world this shit just got real.
But I find it hard to believe that Corbyn has ever or would ever support a war against Israel.
I took a day out of arguing about polls and bets yesterday. Didn't seem appropriate, as Mr Meeks pointed out. Better to reflect on life and loss.
But, eventually we go on. We must.
Under Corbyn, Labour deserve to be roundly thrashed.
I think David l has called the result correctly.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/86189/excl-labour-tells-branches-election-campaign
Do people here go too far politically during tragic events? Of course they do. We're human, emotions flare. Should people refrain from considering discussing politics when tragedies occur, wary of drawing false equivalence? Reasonable people will differ on that, but I would argue while it goes too far, sometimes events are very politically relevant and distressing as it is there can be, not always is but can be, merit in confronting that, even when it is difficult. This despite accusations that raising it in anyway will be labelled as inappropriate even if it is not.
It's just that sometimes we get careless and people notice it.
There. Is. No. Jewish. Conspiracy.
One activist told me that the problem for them is that the youth vote is almost exclusively going labour whereas in the past the yellow team would hoover up that cohort
And I'm a supporter of the LD cannabis policy.
With the loss of tactical, incumbency and relevancy (nobody expects a hung parliament) votes we could see a similar secondary collapse in the seats the LibDems lost in 2015.
The one bet I think might be a value loser for me is Labour to hold Cambridge. Hopefully Huppert can scupper my tuppence ha'penny on the reds there.
Gaddafi's involvement in Lockerbie is still controversial (more likely Iran IMO), but anyway, he had long been 'rehabilitated'. Who posed a bigger threat to the UK in 2011, Gaddafi, or the islamic extremists that our Tory government helped to destroy the country and turn it into the terrorist paradise we see today (they tried to help a bunch of genocidal jihadi nutters destroy Syria too, but thankfully it looks like they failed)?
Face it, Weak & Wobbly May and her buddies have been the extremists' best friends over the last 7 years.
Criminalising it hasn't worked, legalising it seems to be working in the States, so its time to do the same here...
Labour's only hope is that enough of their supporters vote Labour despite him. It only needs a rain shower or a good programme on TV for them to sit on their hands.
But the inspiration for terrorism worldwide continues to flow out of saudi arabia, in the form of billions upon billions dollars' worth of resources to build mosques, madrassas, and surrounding infrastracture for the most, highly, conservative forms of islam.
I note that the bomber was UK born of parents given asylum as anti Gaddaffi exiles under a Tory government. The enemy of my enemy is often no friend at all.
That's a very sweeping statement. Do you have any evidence for that?
The anecdata seems to split both ways according to source, prejudice and motivation.
I have suggested that with the stock markets now at record highs that that is boosting Conservative support with the increasing number of people with defined contributions pensions.
There will have been many people who have discovered this year that they are many thousands of pounds wealthier than they had previously thought.
That was a very safe seat (61% R last time).
If that's in play then where else is?
you mean blue to yellow?
Of course - brain fade.
My big thing in this election is that I cannot figure out where the Tories are coming from. They don't appear to be doing well in Wales or London. They cannot gain many seats across south or south west. The north West looks nailed on for Labour after mayorals. Scotland looks like increased vote share for little return. That leaves east and West Midlands and NE and Yorkshire. I cannot see where the big majority will come from in those areas.
Con ...... 351
Lab ....... 220
SNP ......... 49
LibDem ... 8
N.I. ......... 18
Plaid ......... 3
Total ..... 650
Con Maj ... 51
Mr. Enjineeya, Islamic terrorism predated the invasion of Iraq. If someone's hungry enough for a grievance, they'll find or invent one.
How are the Tories doing in their war against drug-taking? I gather the situation just gets worse and worse. About time they adopted a proper policy, instead of just letting things drift.
Who was Home Secretary for the last six years?
Churchill and Callaghan survived their tenure but the rest can boast of very little thereafter.
And there's a lot more to North-West England than Liverpool and Manchester. Barrow, Blackpool S, Chester, Chorley, Copeland, Hyndburn and Workington for example. Plus various marginal within the two metropolitan counties.