Honest to good f**k, those looking for any party political partisan angle on Manchester, wise up. Political facts in a situation are not the same as seeing everything through your party colours.
Police resources: In NI, where active human and technical watch activity was less than 150 targets at most, there were around 8,500 regular police officers and about 4500-5000 reservists many of whom were full time. You 10's of thousands of UK military at peak, you had 6000 UDR. You had MI5 and to a smaller extent had MI6.
You had a quite widespread informant network that took about 10 years to build and grew into a monster.
Even with extensive resources and sources like that, far in excess of anything the UK government has to hand in proportion today, they had to rely heavily on informants as well as routine policing activities because they just didn't have enough to keep watch on all critical people in the way some people think you can.
You can't, get over it.
There are several hundred Abedis alone, travellers who raise suspicion. are seen in the wrong places, but don't have any firm action behind them on domestic soil. On top you have former fighters, proper grenade throwing, trigger pulling types, you have logistics support, facilitators, encouragers many of which might just decide to go to Allah even after you weed out those who won't do the pointy stick bit yet still may be of high interest. Several thousand then.
So the numbers argue that Britain should negotiate with Daesh.
Although the IRA was never apocalypticist. But the guys at the top of Daesh probably aren't either.
"The sister of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi believes her brother carried out the attack because he wanted revenge for US air strikes on Syria.
Jomana Abedi said in an interview her brother was kind and loving and that she was surprised by what he did on Monday.
At least 22 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when 22-year-old Abedi detonated a device as fans left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Ms Abedi said she thought he was driven by America's military attacks in the Middle East.
“I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge," she told the Wall Street Journal."
What a load of crap. You can't be both surprised and know his motives. If he disclosed his motives then you wouldn't be surprised it happened and if he never discussed it then you're just saying what you think not what he was thinking.
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?
Sounds almost like a sales pitch - someone please commission a poll, please someone.....
He's already got two public clients, and did you know political polling constitutes less 1% of the polling industry's revenue.
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.
Given that it's a tiny part of their business, doesn't really make them any money from it, and the majority of the feedback in recent years has been negative, one wonders why they bother with political opinion polling at all?
It gets them name recognition and visibility for other clients.
Right. So they cannot complain when people focus on it and its failures and successes, disproportionately.
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?
Sounds almost like a sales pitch - someone please commission a poll, please someone.....
He's already got two public clients, and did you know political polling constitutes less 1% of the polling industry's revenue.
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.
Given that it's a tiny part of their business, doesn't really make them any money from it, and the majority of the feedback in recent years has been negative, one wonders why they bother with political opinion polling at all?
It gets them name recognition and visibility for other clients.
Right. So they cannot complain when people focus on it and its failures and successes, disproportionately.
The focus is not disproportionately on its failures and successes. We go over those - but for most people the focus is them being parroted almost as if they're the gospel truth. And even we who worry about their accuracy still spend most of our time lapping them up.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
Was it John Major who started the recent trend for immediate post-election resignations?
Kinnock in 1992, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after 6 months), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and before them Foot in 1983, Callaghan in 1979, Home in 1964 all resigned following election defeat it was not just Major, Heath was eventually toppled by Thatcher in 1975 a year after losing in October 1974
Heath was toppled by Thatcher in February 1975 - just four months after the October 1974 election. Callaghan remained Labour leader for 18 months after losing in May 1979.
So Callaghan went as leader of his own accord well before the next general election while Heath had to be toppled, thanks for confirming
Honest to good f**k, those looking for any party political partisan angle on Manchester, wise up. Political facts in a situation are not the same as seeing everything through your party colours.
Police resources: In NI, where active human and technical watch activity was less than 150 targets at most, there were around 8,500 regular police officers and about 4500-5000 reservists many of whom were full time. You 10's of thousands of UK military at peak, you had 6000 UDR. You had MI5 and to a smaller extent had MI6.
You had a quite widespread informant network that took about 10 years to build and grew into a monster.
Even with extensive resources and sources like that, far in excess of anything the UK government has to hand in proportion today, they had to rely heavily on informants as well as routine policing activities because they just didn't have enough to keep watch on all critical people in the way some people think you can.
You can't, get over it.
There are several hundred Abedis alone, travellers who raise suspicion. are seen in the wrong places, but don't have any firm action behind them on domestic soil. On top you have former fighters, proper grenade throwing, trigger pulling types, you have logistics support, facilitators, encouragers many of which might just decide to go to Allah even after you weed out those who won't do the pointy stick bit yet still may be of high interest. Several thousand then.
So the numbers argue that Britain should negotiate with Daesh.
Although the IRA was never apocalypticist. But the guys at the top of Daesh probably aren't either.
If there is one thing that history should teach us about extremist cults, be they political or religious, it's that the guys at the top are always among the most extreme. Analysts in the 1930s and 1940s consistently believed that Hitler and Stalin were essentially pragmatic centrists within their movements (albeit that those movements were inherently extreme), acting under pressure from their extreme wings. Those at the top of Daesh are very likely little different.
Honest to good f**k, those looking for any party political partisan angle on Manchester, wise up. Political facts in a situation are not the same as seeing everything through your party colours.
Police resources: In NI, where active human and technical watch activity was less than 150 targets at most, there were around 8,500 regular police officers and about 4500-5000 reservists many of whom were full time. You 10's of thousands of UK military at peak, you had 6000 UDR. You had MI5 and to a smaller extent had MI6.
You had a quite widespread informant network that took about 10 years to build and grew into a monster.
Even with extensive resources and sources like that, far in excess of anything the UK government has to hand in proportion today, they had to rely heavily on informants as well as routine policing activities because they just didn't have enough to keep watch on all critical people in the way some people think you can.
You can't, get over it.
There are several hundred Abedis alone, travellers who raise suspicion. are seen in the wrong places, but don't have any firm action behind them on domestic soil. On top you have former fighters, proper grenade throwing, trigger pulling types, you have logistics support, facilitators, encouragers many of which might just decide to go to Allah even after you weed out those who won't do the pointy stick bit yet still may be of high interest. Several thousand then.
So the numbers argue that Britain should negotiate with Daesh.
Although the IRA was never apocalypticist. But the guys at the top of Daesh probably aren't either.
Not sure about that. It wasn't what Frank Gardner was saying this morning, and I tend to trust Frank on these things.
His view was that you couldn't negotiate with Daesh or its like, partly because there is no one authority to negotiate with, but more because their aims were unnegotiable.
For the last time: I said he had a valid hypothesis - (my precise line was "that's actually a perfectly valid argument"). Because there is, all-too-often, a provable link between drug use and later radicalisation. Cannabis is particularly implicated.
The proposed solution: Prohibition, is certainly one possible approach. It is arguable. So the Daily Mail article was not bat-shit crazy as was being implied. Which, again, was the point I was making.
However, I think there are some other, possibly better solutions we should also consider. There. That's MY thesis. Now go and argue with some other shadow on the wall. I'm off for a long country walk. In the glorious sun.
Prohibition is the existing state of affairs and it is not proposed as a solution to a problem that it has clearly not solved.
As someone who values clear thought not just in myself but in others, I would like to see a much tougher clampdown on recreational drugs. That might be a solution.
Including alcohol ?
. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
They moved onto gambling - which is prohibited in many US states IIRC.
Most, in fact. The exceptions I know of are Nevada and New Jersey (recently liberated!)
Nevada, Nevada... if only there was somewhere to gamble there?
I think PtP's information is out of date. (I wonder how old he is if he thinks of 1977 - the year NJ allowed gambling - as recently ).
Betting on horses and the professional sports is also widespread.
The legal situation with online betting is, as I understand it, not clear as the courts have not yet decided if the 1961 Wire Act applies to the Internet.
For the exit poll, they'll have to think carefully about where they focus their resources. Presumably not Nuneaton.
On the contrary, I think they keep the polling stations they use the same each year. They are aiming for stations that exemplify different parts of Britain's electoral geography, rather than just marginals.
I'm sure someone better informed can correct me...
It the same ones because exit polls focus on changes in the vote (they are like economists in this regard).
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. So the old adage of believing the exit poll - even if it looks wrong - should be adhered to.
"The sister of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi believes her brother carried out the attack because he wanted revenge for US air strikes on Syria.
Jomana Abedi said in an interview her brother was kind and loving and that she was surprised by what he did on Monday.
At least 22 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when 22-year-old Abedi detonated a device as fans left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Ms Abedi said she thought he was driven by America's military attacks in the Middle East.
“I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge," she told the Wall Street Journal."
What a load of crap. You can't be both surprised and know his motives. If he disclosed his motives then you wouldn't be surprised it happened and if he never discussed it then you're just saying what you think not what he was thinking.
Well, being generous perhaps she is merely speculating as to his motives, but it's still a load of crap.
Honest to good f**k, those looking for any party political partisan angle on Manchester, wise up. Political facts in a situation are not the same as seeing everything through your party colours.
Police resources: In NI, where active human and technical watch activity was less than 150 targets at most, there were around 8,500 regular police officers and about 4500-5000 reservists many of whom were full time. You 10's of thousands of UK military at peak, you had 6000 UDR. You had MI5 and to a smaller extent had MI6.
You had a quite widespread informant network that took about 10 years to build and grew into a monster.
Even with extensive resources and sources like that, far in excess of anything the UK government has to hand in proportion today, they had to rely heavily on informants as well as routine policing activities because they just didn't have enough to keep watch on all critical people in the way some people think you can.
You can't, get over it.
There are several hundred Abedis alone, travellers who raise suspicion. are seen in the wrong places, but don't have any firm action behind them on domestic soil. On top you have former fighters, proper grenade throwing, trigger pulling types, you have logistics support, facilitators, encouragers many of which might just decide to go to Allah even after you weed out those who won't do the pointy stick bit yet still may be of high interest. Several thousand then.
So the numbers argue that Britain should negotiate with Daesh.
Although the IRA was never apocalypticist. But the guys at the top of Daesh probably aren't either.
O_o
Against some competition, that may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on PB.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
I think the last time a leader of the opposition stayed put after a government increased its majority in a general election was Gaitskell in 1959. When was the last time they did that and stayed leader until the following election? Before WW2 I think.
Heath in 1966 too.
Heath in October 1974 as well - though both of those followed very short parliaments.
Though Thatcher toppled Heath the following year
Yes, but that was because she and Tory MPs forced it, not because Heath stood down.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
Was it John Major who started the recent trend for immediate post-election resignations?
Kinnock in 1992, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after 6 months), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and before them Foot in 1983, Callaghan in 1979, Home in 1964 all resigned following election defeats, Heath was eventually toppled by Thatcher in 1975 a year after losing in October 1974
Callaghan and Home both waited before resigning: neither were immediate (as per Brown, Miliband, Major, Hague etc), nor announced but deferred (as with Howard).
Both were gone by the end of the following year though and it was their decision to go
True, but JohnL's point was about "immediate post-election resignations".
Mr. kle4, invasion (Iraq) is wrong, intervention short of that (Libya) is wrong, not intervening at all (Syria) is wrong.
If people know the answer before they have to think about it, they're beyond persuasion because they're drunk on victimhood. And they think a god is on their side.
And they're aided by useful idiots in the media and politics.
I can only presume their beards have passed the 5 inch threshold.
Ridiculous as it sounds, unexpected beard growth (common cure: a shaver) is a warning sign of radicalisation. Probably not sufficient for detention on its own though
Lock up the hipsters
That's a policy we can all get behind.
A hipster with you behind him might be a nervous hipster....
Looks like Andrew Neil's interview with Nicola Sturgeon is going ahead as palnned tonight as BBC Wales has a double bill of interviews before an audience with Leanne Wood and Neill Hamilton from 9pm
Been a while since I was called a racist for voting leave. sheesh
Pointless re-re-re-running this argument surely?
I voted to leave an undemocratic, unaccountable more-than-embryonic political union. I did this in the full knowledge that it would involve short term economic pain (although not nearly as much as the ridiculously hyperbolic Remain campaign claimed, and in the long run economic gain is very much in our own hands)
I did not do it because I hate foreigners.
Love Europe, not the EU. No a hard concept. imagine a football fan who may - shock, horror, despite their love of the beautiful game, not have a high opinion of FIFA. It was a bit like that.
Nothing that has happened since has made me regret my decision, even though I admit my pencil did hover uncertainly for a second over the box in the voting booth. I knew it was a big decision.
Get over yourselves Remainers! Sanctimonious, superior and bitter is not a good look.
I'm a remainer who thinks the referendum should be blindly ignored because chavs, etc. and yet I'm a racist. It's hard work.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
Was it John Major who started the recent trend for immediate post-election resignations?
Kinnock in 1992, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after 6 months), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and before them Foot in 1983, Callaghan in 1979, Home in 1964 all resigned following election defeats, Heath was eventually toppled by Thatcher in 1975 a year after losing in October 1974
Callaghan and Home both waited before resigning: neither were immediate (as per Brown, Miliband, Major, Hague etc), nor announced but deferred (as with Howard).
Both were gone by the end of the following year though and it was their decision to go
True, but JohnL's point was about "immediate post-election resignations".
Whether you resign the day after or a year after it does not make any difference to the fact you have decided not to lead your party into the next general election while following a defeat. I expect Corbyn will let the members decide and force a challenge to his leadership unless May gets an absolutely crushing win
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.
IRA ... What do you want? A united Ireland What will you accept? A power-sharing agreement.
Daesh ... What do you want? To bring everyone under the IS banner and to accept our 'true' version of Islam under pain of death. What will you accept? See previous answer.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
I think the last time a leader of the opposition stayed put after a government increased its majority in a general election was Gaitskell in 1959. When was the last time they did that and stayed leader until the following election? Before WW2 I think.
Heath in 1966 too.
Heath in October 1974 as well - though both of those followed very short parliaments.
Though Thatcher toppled Heath the following year
Yes, but that was because she and Tory MPs forced it, not because Heath stood down.
Indeed, he was the only post war opposition leader who had to be forced out following a defeat and a failure to make any real progress and Corbyn is just as stubborn as Heath, indeed he may see 2017 as his 1966 and 2022 as his 1970
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.
I think the PM can close down this debate about police numbers before Labour really get going, by just saying there is going to be a "review" after the election.
I am not sure the PM should close it down.
It looks like a huge mistake by Labour to me, tantamount to trying to “blame” Theresa for the attack.
Labour need to get the focus off police & security asap, and onto anything else.
Disagree. I'm with Karl Rove (G W Bush's election guru) on this one. Labour needs to attack Tories' and specifically Theresa May's perceived strengths, and particularly here as May's roles as Prime Minister and Home Secretary are directly relevant. This means the cuts to police numbers, the failure to stop Abedi after multiple warnings from different sources, failure to monitor travel to and return from terrorist hotspots, threats to stop sharing intelligence as part of Brexit, and yes, failure to control non-EU immigration.
In short, Labour needs to attack and destroy any impression that Theresa May and a Conservative government make Britain safe.
Failure to control immigration...... - what's Labours plan - oh
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.
And yet something about it rings true to me - I wonder what the male/female breakdown of Thatcher's election victories was.
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.
And this from someone who was always happy to ignore the 'posh boy' theory of Cameron and Osborne. I am a supporter of Cameron BTW, although sadly Osborne is making a prat of himself.
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.
Perhaps it was true, but she was significantly better than May so overcame it?
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.
Thatcher was a different woman in a different era.
Forget the words/policy positions for a moment, just go on the vibe;
May isn't warm and relatable, in same the way as - say - leadsom or lucas is.
I think - for many men, that's irrelevant, or positive in a female PM.
For many women, it's a negative.
Kinda works the other way around with men / male politicians (eg, the usual *is he gay* shite wheeled out against any man who isn't alpha).
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.
Perhaps it was true, but she was significantly better than May so overcame it?
May is doing better than Thatcher with men but worse with women, until 1997 women were always more Tory than men especially when unions were stronger and more men had blue collar jobs
I had a road trip today from Aber to Lampeter via Aberaeron so decided to count number of signs on sideo of road and peoples gardens for eachcandidate - from Aber to Aberaeron (16miles) there were 14 Plaid and 14 Lib Dems 0 for any other candidate BUT in the last 13 miles Aberaeron to Lampeter the total was 27 Plaid 14 Lib Dems and 0 other candidates - not very scientific but Ceredigion could be tight
Mr. Llama, I saw a good video of that nature. The Big Yin did a sketch as a Jihadist instructor on suicide bombing.
"Right, lads, I'll only show you this once."
Self-promotion: episode 2 of Wandering Phoenix and Roaming Tiger came out today. Fast-paced fantasy, juicy plot twists and cunning characters abound (it's actually rather good, especially the ending): https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B072335K32/
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"
I think the PM can close down this debate about police numbers before Labour really get going, by just saying there is going to be a "review" after the election.
I am not sure the PM should close it down.
It looks like a huge mistake by Labour to me, tantamount to trying to “blame” Theresa for the attack.
Labour need to get the focus off police & security asap, and onto anything else.
Disagree. I'm with Karl Rove (G W Bush's election guru) on this one. Labour needs to attack Tories' and specifically Theresa May's perceived strengths, and particularly here as May's roles as Prime Minister and Home Secretary are directly relevant. This means the cuts to police numbers, the failure to stop Abedi after multiple warnings from different sources, failure to monitor travel to and return from terrorist hotspots, threats to stop sharing intelligence as part of Brexit, and yes, failure to control non-EU immigration.
In short, Labour needs to attack and destroy any impression that Theresa May and a Conservative government make Britain safe.
Failure to control immigration...... - what's Labours plan - oh
Open door
Exactly. I WISH Labour were stupid enough to fight the rest of the campaign on security. There would be three results:
1. The public would think 'Yeah, May and the Tories can be criticized for a few things, so let's look at what Labour is offering on the subject ... Diane Abbott? Corbyn? OH HELL NO!'
2. The Tories could take the gloves off completely in rebutting Labour's attacks with an expose of the Labour leadership's history on the subject.
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"
To be fair to May she lost both her parents by 30 and has no siblings so has had to be very self reliant from an early stage, she was also sadly unable to have children. The fact she still did the u turn and agreed to a care costs cap also showed she can listen
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever
While the rest of the post was very good just to nitpick this is nearly but not quite true.
It is remarkable actually that almost every known human culture ever has indeed developed alcohol. There are only to my knowledge two exceptions - one of them being the Australian Aborigines who never discovered alcohol on their own and only had it introduced to them when English settlers arrived in Australia. Nowadays the Australian Aborigine community has a massive alcohol problem as they were not used to it and took to alcohol in a really very bad way.
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"
Pretty sure wanting the moon on a stick for free from the government isn't limited to the childless.
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.
Beer is food.
Correct. Pedantically, ethyl alcohol is a carbohydrate and "The USDA uses a figure of 6.93 kilocalories (29.0 kJ) per gram of alcohol (5.47 kcal (22.9 kJ) per ml) for calculating food energy" (wiki "alcoholic drink"). I cannot believe that anyone is charging money as a "nutritionist" for peddling gibberish of this kind, and making people think that wine won't give them cirrhosis and even if it did, it's reversible by stopping drinking. Truly outrageous.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever
While the rest of the post was very good just to nitpick this is nearly but not quite true.
It is remarkable actually that almost every known human culture ever has indeed developed alcohol. There are only to my knowledge two exceptions - one of them being the Australian Aborigines who never discovered alcohol on their own and only had it introduced to them when English settlers arrived in Australia. Nowadays the Australian Aborigine community has a massive alcohol problem as they were not used to it and took to alcohol in a really very bad way.
Out of interest, what's the other exception? I can't think of another one offhand.
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"
She'd be better advised to understand the existing rules first, before cod psychoanalysis.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever
While the rest of the post was very good just to nitpick this is nearly but not quite true.
It is remarkable actually that almost every known human culture ever has indeed developed alcohol. There are only to my knowledge two exceptions - one of them being the Australian Aborigines who never discovered alcohol on their own and only had it introduced to them when English settlers arrived in Australia. Nowadays the Australian Aborigine community has a massive alcohol problem as they were not used to it and took to alcohol in a really very bad way.
You discover it by accident when your fruit goes off. That explains wine - it is much less obvious that you can get beer from barley.
What a fraud you are, SO. You get a fit of the vapours when the gruesome reality upsets your agenda but fall over yourself to publicize atrocity hoaxes that you wish were true.
Its still a very demeaning splash from The Mail of something that should be a private family matter. I imagine quite hurtful to the parents.
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.
And this from someone who was always happy to ignore the 'posh boy' theory of Cameron and Osborne. I am a supporter of Cameron BTW, although sadly Osborne is making a prat of himself.
If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
I doubt any PBers are THAT sheltered
Miss Cyclefree is, she had no idea what change at Baker Street meant.
When I meet her for lunch in the next few weeks, I shall have to be on my bestest behaviour.
Changing at Baker Street is a tad more obscure than Nosh imo
I'd never heard it before TSE used it, but I worked it out straight away (though only due to my experiences literally changing at the real Baker Street)...
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.
Beer is food.
My (surgeon) father told me, when I was 15 and worried about drinking beer on an empty stomach, 'there's a pork pie in every pint'!
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.
Beer is food.
Correct. Pedantically, ethyl alcohol is a carbohydrate and "The USDA uses a figure of 6.93 kilocalories (29.0 kJ) per gram of alcohol (5.47 kcal (22.9 kJ) per ml) for calculating food energy" (wiki "alcoholic drink"). I cannot believe that anyone is charging money as a "nutritionist" for peddling gibberish of this kind, and making people think that wine won't give them cirrhosis and even if it did, it's reversible by stopping drinking. Truly outrageous.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever
While the rest of the post was very good just to nitpick this is nearly but not quite true.
It is remarkable actually that almost every known human culture ever has indeed developed alcohol. There are only to my knowledge two exceptions - one of them being the Australian Aborigines who never discovered alcohol on their own and only had it introduced to them when English settlers arrived in Australia. Nowadays the Australian Aborigine community has a massive alcohol problem as they were not used to it and took to alcohol in a really very bad way.
Out of interest, what's the other exception? I can't think of another one offhand.
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.
Beer is food.
My (surgeon) father told me, when I was 15 and worried about drinking beer on an empty stomach, 'there's a pork pie in every pint'!
I knew a chap who had to go home half way through his first year at Uni with what turned out to be scurvy. He'd literally been living on nothing but pork pies and pints of beer for months.
F1: early days, but Ferrari looking tasty. Mercedes haven't shown their speed yet. I suspect the Prancing Horse will be faster (I toyed with backing Vettel for pole at 2.87 but the chances of something going wrong are too high).
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
I think the last time a leader of the opposition stayed put after a government increased its majority in a general election was Gaitskell in 1959. When was the last time they did that and stayed leader until the following election? Before WW2 I think.
Heath in 1966 too.
Heath in October 1974 as well - though both of those followed very short parliaments.
Though Thatcher toppled Heath the following year
Yes, but that was because she and Tory MPs forced it, not because Heath stood down.
Indeed, he was the only post war opposition leader who had to be forced out following a defeat and a failure to make any real progress and Corbyn is just as stubborn as Heath, indeed he may see 2017 as his 1966 and 2022 as his 1970
He was the only leader who *was* forced out following a defeat and a failure to make any real progress. Two others faced elections but came through. Gaitskell was challenged in both 1960 and 1961, after Labour went backwards in the previous year's election but held on. Kinnock was also challenged by Benn in 1988 but saw him off easily (though Kinnock did make a small amount of progress).
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.
Thatcher was a different woman in a different era.
Forget the words/policy positions for a moment, just go on the vibe;
May isn't warm and relatable, in same the way as - say - leadsom or lucas is.
I think - for many men, that's irrelevant, or positive in a female PM.
For many women, it's a negative.
Kinda works the other way around with men / male politicians (eg, the usual *is he gay* shite wheeled out against any man who isn't alpha).
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever
While the rest of the post was very good just to nitpick this is nearly but not quite true.
It is remarkable actually that almost every known human culture ever has indeed developed alcohol. There are only to my knowledge two exceptions - one of them being the Australian Aborigines who never discovered alcohol on their own and only had it introduced to them when English settlers arrived in Australia. Nowadays the Australian Aborigine community has a massive alcohol problem as they were not used to it and took to alcohol in a really very bad way.
You discover it by accident when your fruit goes off. That explains wine - it is much less obvious that you can get beer from barley.
The discovery that has always fascinated me is that of "finings", the stuff that makes beer clear, rather than its natural cloudy state. Finings are added to the barrel at the conclusion of the brewing process and were originally made of dried fish guts. Now, how on earth did that discovery come about?
"I am fed up with this cloudy beer, Harry, what say you we throw a handful of dried fish guts into the barrel? See if that solves it"
"The sister of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi believes her brother carried out the attack because he wanted revenge for US air strikes on Syria.
Jomana Abedi said in an interview her brother was kind and loving and that she was surprised by what he did on Monday.
At least 22 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when 22-year-old Abedi detonated a device as fans left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Ms Abedi said she thought he was driven by America's military attacks in the Middle East.
“I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge," she told the Wall Street Journal."
Did Stop The War write that for her? It is the sort of nonsense they come out with.
It was interesting that Sky doorstepped the father of the man who is credited with recruiting all the lads around Manchester and he just laughed and said no no no that can't be true when the reporter said did you know this was the fact.
The reporter then shows him all the ISIS files and he leaves. There is no way that when his son was killed that the authorities won't have told him this was the case, but he clearly won't accept the fact.
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.
Thatcher was a different woman in a different era.
Forget the words/policy positions for a moment, just go on the vibe;
May isn't warm and relatable, in same the way as - say - leadsom or lucas is.
I think - for many men, that's irrelevant, or positive in a female PM.
For many women, it's a negative.
Kinda works the other way around with men / male politicians (eg, the usual *is he gay* shite wheeled out against any man who isn't alpha).
Shoe envy. Only possible explanation.
There would have been a lot of shoe envy at the PB meet tomorrow had I been there.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats W2 I think.
Heath in 1966 too.
Heath in October 1974 as well - though both of those followed very short parliaments.
Though Thatcher toppled Heath the following year
Yes, but that was because she and Tory MPs forced it, not because Heath stood down.
Indeed, he was the only post war opposition leader who had to be forced out following a defeat and a failure to make any real progress and Corbyn is just as stubborn as Heath, indeed he may see 2017 as his 1966 and 2022 as his 1970
He was the only leader who *was* forced out following a defeat and a failure to make any real progress. Two others faced elections but came through. Gaitskell was challenged in both 1960 and 1961, after Labour went backwards in the previous year's election but held on. Kinnock was also challenged by Benn in 1988 but saw him off easily (though Kinnock did make a small amount of progress).
Heath also survived in 1966 but won in 1970. Gaitskill did survive but his death meant Wilson was leader of Labour in 1964. Kinnock increased both Labour's voteshare and seat total in 1987 and saw off the SDP/Alliance so had more of a case to stay on
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"
My (surgeon) father told me, when I was 15 and worried about drinking beer on an empty stomach, 'there's a pork pie in every pint'!
I knew a chap who had to go home half way through his first year at Uni with what turned out to be scurvy. He'd literally been living on nothing but pork pies and pints of beer for months.
Should have had the occasional G&T. The lemon would have prevented the scurvy without the risk of accidentally taking in any other essential nutrients.
It would be re-assuring to believe that when the Tories publish their re-hashed proposals setting out the capped limit for social care, those of us living in England & Wales will be treated entirely fairly by comparison with those living in Scotland, where the contributions from the recipients of such care is ABSOLUTELY ZERO.
If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
I doubt any PBers are THAT sheltered
A blow job? I did google it - never heard of it. I suppose it suits some depraved people to pretend that everyone else is depraved so that they don't feel the need to have any qualms about their depravity...
I've been predicting for some time that immigration would fall by using the simple method of being so unpleasant to foreigners that they would get the message. Clearly that's working.
Yup. People like foreign care workers have thought *screw it* why should I deal with this unpleasantness. I'll go *home* or to X country, earn a little less, pay a lot less for my housing and make a life for myself there.
Our elderly must now pay much higher wages to (often) lower quality *British* careworkers - which will involve liquidating their housing assets en masse.
I've been predicting for some time that immigration would fall by using the simple method of being so unpleasant to foreigners that they would get the message. Clearly that's working.
It lacks the elegance of your method of ensuring Brexit by telling most Brits they're racist scum.
I'm sorry that it upsets you so much to be reminded that Brexit was secured through xenophobic lies, but it's the essential reason why Brexit is the enduring disaster of the age for the country.
People whose lives were ruined by mass immigration don't need politicians to lie for them to vote against it
How have the lives of pensioners living in low areas of immigration been ruined by mass immigration?
A man who planned to target a railway line with a homemade bomb of fairy lights and a pressure cooker has been found guilty of preparing for an act of terrorism.
My (surgeon) father told me, when I was 15 and worried about drinking beer on an empty stomach, 'there's a pork pie in every pint'!
In days of yore it was possible to get Guinness on prescription.
When in the late seventies my grandmother fell and broke her hip all her grandchildren turned up at Putney Hospital with bottles, even cases, of Guinness for her and the staff raised no objection. The lady in the next bed preferred Sherry and her grandchildren duly obliged, again with no objection from the staff. Personally, I think the nurses just found it easier if a ward full of cantankerous old ladies were three parts-pissed most of the time.
If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
I doubt any PBers are THAT sheltered
A blow job? I did google it - never heard of it. I suppose it suits some depraved people to pretend that everyone else is depraved so that they don't feel the need to have any qualms about their depravity...
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.
Thatcher was a different woman in a different era.
Forget the words/policy positions for a moment, just go on the vibe;
May isn't warm and relatable, in same the way as - say - leadsom or lucas is.
I think - for many men, that's irrelevant, or positive in a female PM.
For many women, it's a negative.
Kinda works the other way around with men / male politicians (eg, the usual *is he gay* shite wheeled out against any man who isn't alpha).
My theory, as a woman, is that you are talking bollocks.
I've been predicting for some time that immigration would fall by using the simple method of being so unpleasant to foreigners that they would get the message. Clearly that's working.
Yup. People like foreign care workers have thought *screw it* why should I deal with this unpleasantness. I'll go *home* or to X country, earn a little less, pay a lot less for my housing and make a life for myself there. Our elderly must now pay much higher wages to (often) lower quality *British* careworkers - which will involve liquidating their housing assets en masse. That's what they voted for.
Absolute bollocks from start to finish
Can you explain your reasoning, please,Mr Floater? So far, you do not convince me.
Comments
Although the IRA was never apocalypticist. But the guys at the top of Daesh probably aren't either.
(old maids look away now)
'Who’s the real c*nt?
Andrew O’Hagan'
http://tinyurl.com/m74krjs
Apart from Angus Reid.
We should resolve this problem the way Alexander resolved the rebellion in Bactria and Sogdiana.
His view was that you couldn't negotiate with Daesh or its like, partly because there is no one authority to negotiate with, but more because their aims were unnegotiable.
Against some competition, that may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on PB.
If people know the answer before they have to think about it, they're beyond persuasion because they're drunk on victimhood. And they think a god is on their side.
And they're aided by useful idiots in the media and politics.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
IRA ... What do you want? A united Ireland What will you accept? A power-sharing agreement.
Daesh ... What do you want? To bring everyone under the IS banner and to accept our 'true' version of Islam under pain of death. What will you accept? See previous answer.
OK, negotiate away.
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
Open door
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/867697175307923456
Hillary Clinton was also known for being cold and 53% of white women actually preferred Trump.
I am a supporter of Cameron BTW, although sadly Osborne is making a prat of himself.
There's a chocolate bar called a Nosh.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/867720385655189504
Forget the words/policy positions for a moment, just go on the vibe;
May isn't warm and relatable, in same the way as - say - leadsom or lucas is.
I think - for many men, that's irrelevant, or positive in a female PM.
For many women, it's a negative.
Kinda works the other way around with men / male politicians (eg, the usual *is he gay* shite wheeled out against any man who isn't alpha).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/terrorists-bitter-pathetic-young-men-resent-women-islamism-offers/
I think Billy Connolly said it better in a video on YouTube some years ago but that has now been censored.
When I meet her for lunch in the next few weeks, I shall have to be on my bestest behaviour.
"Right, lads, I'll only show you this once."
Self-promotion: episode 2 of Wandering Phoenix and Roaming Tiger came out today. Fast-paced fantasy, juicy plot twists and cunning characters abound (it's actually rather good, especially the ending):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B072335K32/
1. The public would think 'Yeah, May and the Tories can be criticized for a few things, so let's look at what Labour is offering on the subject ... Diane Abbott? Corbyn? OH HELL NO!'
2. The Tories could take the gloves off completely in rebutting Labour's attacks with an expose of the Labour leadership's history on the subject.
3. Tory landslide.
Here's hoping!
Thank god for the Urban Dictionary!
It is remarkable actually that almost every known human culture ever has indeed developed alcohol. There are only to my knowledge two exceptions - one of them being the Australian Aborigines who never discovered alcohol on their own and only had it introduced to them when English settlers arrived in Australia. Nowadays the Australian Aborigine community has a massive alcohol problem as they were not used to it and took to alcohol in a really very bad way.
Does she post on PB, what's her screen name?
I guess we need to get back to the cut and thrust of politics - when are the next set of polls due?
F1: early days, but Ferrari looking tasty. Mercedes haven't shown their speed yet. I suspect the Prancing Horse will be faster (I toyed with backing Vettel for pole at 2.87 but the chances of something going wrong are too high).
"I am fed up with this cloudy beer, Harry, what say you we throw a handful of dried fish guts into the barrel? See if that solves it"
It was interesting that Sky doorstepped the father of the man who is credited with recruiting all the lads around Manchester and he just laughed and said no no no that can't be true when the reporter said did you know this was the fact.
The reporter then shows him all the ISIS files and he leaves. There is no way that when his son was killed that the authorities won't have told him this was the case, but he clearly won't accept the fact.
I wanted to debut a new pair of shoes.
TSE "I think you're mistaking me for SeanT ...."
https://order-order.com/2017/05/25/canarys-conspiracy-theory-suns-terror-front-page-batsht/
"China Warned U.S. Warship Challenging Its South China Sea Claims".
A man who planned to target a railway line with a homemade bomb of fairy lights and a pressure cooker has been found guilty of preparing for an act of terrorism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40046773
When in the late seventies my grandmother fell and broke her hip all her grandchildren turned up at Putney Hospital with bottles, even cases, of Guinness for her and the staff raised no objection. The lady in the next bed preferred Sherry and her grandchildren duly obliged, again with no objection from the staff. Personally, I think the nurses just found it easier if a ward full of cantankerous old ladies were three parts-pissed most of the time.
Times change, medical fashions alter.
Tsk ....