Are we really saying this doesn't help radicalise some people in part:
twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/868116290539540481
Missing the point, I'm afraid. Read what Daesh write: they don't hate us because of what we do, they hate us because of what we are (kaffir) - and we could stop fighting them and they would still fight us and try to kill us.
You're also missing the point that western advernturism has hugely magnified the threat we face, from home-grown radicals in particular. Prior to Iraq and Afghanistan we didn't have British nationals trying to knife, run down or blow up fellow Brits every two or three weeks.
You are however right that we have probably passed the point at which pulling out would be able to turn back the clock. This doesn't however make those who opposed Iraq any less entitled to argue that the government was told, and failed to take heed.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
Yes but how many voters know about Corbyn's views on immigration, Syria, ISIS, tax etc etc?
They will from Monday once Crosby moves up the gears
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
I'll rephrase it then: of the policies that the public most recall about the two parties, Labour's are far more popular
It's why the Tories could well be toast. Not only are their policies less well-known, and less popular, but their most well-known is the "Dementia Tax". This, combined with the u-turn damaging perceptions of May as a strong leader, has surely reversed may of the gains that looked conceivable that mad polling weekend when the Tories were 25% up and surging in Scotland. The Tories will win, but with not much of a larger majority than they already possessed. Then May will have to suffer the public wrath / media onslaught that not only did she call a - in their mind - unnecessary election but called it to no discernible advantage either to her or the country. So she will start the new Parliament far weeaker than she ended the old one, just as she is entering Brexit negotiations.
If you're going to call a snap election, how about making sure your party is ready to campaign and you have a thoroughly-prepared manifesto ready to go? It seems the party was no more prepared than the others for an election. And the Tory campaign is almost invisible. All one sees and hears is Corbyn this and Corbyn that; he is driving the agenda.
I agree, the evidence is for all to see, the Conservatives were as wrongfooted as anyone else by Theresa's snap election.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
Yes but how many voters know about Corbyn's views on immigration, Syria, ISIS, tax etc etc?
Voters are, by and large, thick as shit...little point in detailed policies - they go with gut feeling. How else can you explain the Brexit vote - taking back control was the gut instinct of the 52% even though that actually means f##k all..
The evidence suggests that TM was utterly useless in her previous role - couldn't do the one thing she promised to and cut the police force. A non-entity in the referendum backing the wrong horse and yet look at her now (or more precisely look at her a few weeks ago)
Voters go with a FEELING about politicians and that Trumps all (no pun intended)
You're also missing the point that western advernturism has hugely magnified the threat we face, from home-grown radicals in particular. Prior to Iraq and Afghanistan we didn't have British nationals trying to knife, run down or blow up fellow Brits every two or three weeks.
Not Muslims, but in the 70s and 80s attacks in Northern Ireland were far more frequent than that. Of course we know the Corbyn "solution" to that conflict.
Mr. Owls, I prefer my theory that May is simply incompetent at campaigning.
Just think, Boris could probably have beaten her. Maybe Leadsom too.
I'm reminded that Brown manoeuvred himself into Number Ten without a leadership election too and that didn't turn out all that well. Still, how did the Tories manage to end up with a final two of May and Leadsom?
I have an acquaintance who is so disgusted by Leadsom, (who is his MP) that he has joined the LD's and is out leafleting. Around 50. Never given a whatsit about politics before
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
Yes but how many voters know about Corbyn's views on immigration, Syria, ISIS, tax etc etc?
They will from Monday once Crosby moves up the gears
You're also missing the point that western advernturism has hugely magnified the threat we face, from home-grown radicals in particular. Prior to Iraq and Afghanistan we didn't have British nationals trying to knife, run down or blow up fellow Brits every two or three weeks.
Not Muslims, but in the 70s and 80s attacks in Northern Ireland were far more frequent than that. Of course we know the Corbyn "solution" to that conflict.
And how many such attacks were there in N Ireland in the last 12 months?
Given the media seem to be reporting Labour's manifesto as wonderful, and never questioning the practicalities of it, I am surprised that Labour are as far behind as they are. I guess Corbyn must be the negative effect on their ratings.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
I'll rephrase it then: of the policies that the public most recall about the two parties, Labour's are far more popular
It's why the Tories could well be toast. Not only are their policies less well-known, and less popular, but their most well-known is the "Dementia Tax". This, combined with the u-turn damaging perceptions of May as a strong leader, has surely reversed may of the gains that looked conceivable that mad polling weekend when the Tories were 25% up and surging in Scotland. The Tories will win, but with not much of a larger majority than they already possessed. Then May will have to suffer the public wrath / media onslaught that not only did she call a - in their mind - unnecessary election but called it to no discernible advantage either to her or the country. So she will start the new Parliament far weeaker than she ended the old one, just as she is entering Brexit negotiations.
If you're going to call a snap election, how about making sure your party is ready to campaign and you have a thoroughly-prepared manifesto ready to go? It seems the party was no more prepared than the others for an election. And the Tory campaign is almost invisible. All one sees and hears is Corbyn this and Corbyn that; he is driving the agenda.
If May wins a majority she has a mandate for Brexit on her terms, that is an asset whatever the size of her majority
If turnout next month matches that of the last general election, there is currently a 23 per cent chance of the Tories winning a majority between 140 and 159, a 36 per cent chance of a majority between 160 and 179, and a 19 per cent chance of a majority of 180 to 199.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
I'll rephrase it then: of the policies that the public most recall about the two parties, Labour's are far more popular
It's why the Tories could well be toast. Not only are their policies less well-known, and less popular, but their most well-known is the "Dementia Tax". This, combined with the u-turn damaging perceptions of May as a strong leader, has surely reversed may of the gains that looked conceivable that mad polling weekend when the Tories were 25% up and surging in Scotland. The Tories will win, but with not much of a larger majority than they already possessed. Then May will have to suffer the public wrath / media onslaught that not only did she call a - in their mind - unnecessary election but called it to no discernible advantage either to her or the country. So she will start the new Parliament far weeaker than she ended the old one, just as she is entering Brexit negotiations.
If you're going to call a snap election, how about making sure your party is ready to campaign and you have a thoroughly-prepared manifesto ready to go? It seems the party was no more prepared than the others for an election. And the Tory campaign is almost invisible. All one sees and hears is Corbyn this and Corbyn that; he is driving the agenda.
If May wins a majority she has a mandate for Brexit on her terms, that is an asset whatever the size of her majority
Depends on how many Clarkes and Soubrys there are?
You're also missing the point that western advernturism has hugely magnified the threat we face, from home-grown radicals in particular. Prior to Iraq and Afghanistan we didn't have British nationals trying to knife, run down or blow up fellow Brits every two or three weeks.
Not Muslims, but in the 70s and 80s attacks in Northern Ireland were far more frequent than that. Of course we know the Corbyn "solution" to that conflict.
And how many such attacks were there in N Ireland in the last 12 months?
Are we really saying this doesn't help radicalise some people in part:
twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/868116290539540481
Missing the point, I'm afraid. Read what Daesh write: they don't hate us because of what we do, they hate us because of what we are (kaffir) - and we could stop fighting them and they would still fight us and try to kill us.
I'm not missing the point. It is much easier for isis to gain willing recruits if your family has just been bombed to bits by "the liberators", that is patently true. Not to say isis/ al-qaeda etc would not still exist at some level ofcourse.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
I'll rephrase it then: of the policies that the public most recall about the two parties, Labour's are far more popular
It's why the Tories could well be toast. Not only are their policies less well-known, and less popular, but their most well-known is the "Dementia Tax". This, combined with the u-turn damaging perceptions of May as a strong leader, has surely reversed may of the gains that looked conceivable that mad polling weekend when the Tories were 25% up and surging in Scotland. The Tories will win, but with not much of a larger majority than they already possessed. Then May will have to suffer the public wrath / media onslaught that not only did she call a - in their mind - unnecessary election but called it to no discernible advantage either to her or the country. So she will start the new Parliament far weeaker than she ended the old one, just as she is entering Brexit negotiations.
If you're going to call a snap election, how about making sure your party is ready to campaign and you have a thoroughly-prepared manifesto ready to go? It seems the party was no more prepared than the others for an election. And the Tory campaign is almost invisible. All one sees and hears is Corbyn this and Corbyn that; he is driving the agenda.
If May wins a majority she has a mandate for Brexit on her terms, that is an asset whatever the size of her majority
If turnout next month matches that of the last general election, there is currently a 23 per cent chance of the Tories winning a majority between 140 and 159, a 36 per cent chance of a majority between 160 and 179, and a 19 per cent chance of a majority of 180 to 199.
"in part" everything is "in part" responsible for something else, is that what Jeremy said?
Yes, that's what he said. It was a cleverly constructed speech. The Tories are attacking what they think Corbyn said, not what he actually said.
If they wanted to create a narrative he is a crayzy terrorist lover they shoulld have started months ago not now.
Eh, they've been creating that narrative for two years. Unfortunately it doesn't really resonate that much beyond part of the core vote. What's more, people now under the age of 35 increasingly have little real memory of the Troubles.
Despicable. And of course no-one will bat an eyelid here! F*cking western hypocrisy!
Most of them ISIS human shields, unfortunately you will not free Mosul without civiliancasualties
Under Corbyn Labour's policy would be to simply leave those places under IS control, with all the horrors that implies.
Exactly
Keep burning women alive in cages because they won't accept being raped, keep throwing homosexuals off of buildings, keep cutting hands off for tiny religious infractions. But at least we'd have the moral high ground.
Mr. Owls, I prefer my theory that May is simply incompetent at campaigning.
Just think, Boris could probably have beaten her. Maybe Leadsom too.
I'm reminded that Brown manoeuvred himself into Number Ten without a leadership election too and that didn't turn out all that well. Still, how did the Tories manage to end up with a final two of May and Leadsom?
I have an acquaintance who is so disgusted by Leadsom, (who is his MP) that he has joined the LD's and is out leafleting. Around 50. Never given a whatsit about politics before
If turnout next month matches that of the last general election, there is currently a 23 per cent chance of the Tories winning a majority between 140 and 159, a 36 per cent chance of a majority between 160 and 179, and a 19 per cent chance of a majority of 180 to 199.
So why are the PB Tories wobbling like the wobbliest jelly in zero gravity? What a curious, weird species you lot are - need to send David Attenborough in and study you guys.
Even Rentoul is saying Corbyn did well. I haven't seen the interview.
He didn't do well; he on the one hand lied like a cheap NAAFI watch, and on the other showed his true colours and his views which, frankly, are amazing for a modern politician to hold.
If turnout next month matches that of the last general election, there is currently a 23 per cent chance of the Tories winning a majority between 140 and 159, a 36 per cent chance of a majority between 160 and 179, and a 19 per cent chance of a majority of 180 to 199.
Mr. Owls, I prefer my theory that May is simply incompetent at campaigning.
Just think, Boris could probably have beaten her. Maybe Leadsom too.
I'm reminded that Brown manoeuvred himself into Number Ten without a leadership election too and that didn't turn out all that well. Still, how did the Tories manage to end up with a final two of May and Leadsom?
I have an acquaintance who is so disgusted by Leadsom, (who is his MP) that he has joined the LD's and is out leafleting. Around 50. Never given a whatsit about politics before
Leadsom is awful, May shone in comparison.
My mother was going to vote Leadsom in the party vote.
Are we really saying this doesn't help radicalise some people in part:
twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/868116290539540481
Missing the point, I'm afraid. Read what Daesh write: they don't hate us because of what we do, they hate us because of what we are (kaffir) - and we could stop fighting them and they would still fight us and try to kill us.
I'm not missing the point. It is much easier for isis to gain willing recruits if your family has just been bombed to bits by "the liberators", that is patently true. Not to say isis/ al-qaeda etc would not still exist at some level ofcourse.
They would still exist and they would still find some excuse to try to blow us up.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
Yes but how many voters know about Corbyn's views on immigration, Syria, ISIS, tax etc etc?
Voters are, by and large, thick as shit...little point in detailed policies - they go with gut feeling. How else can you explain the Brexit vote - taking back control was the gut instinct of the 52% even though that actually means f##k all..
The evidence suggests that TM was utterly useless in her previous role - couldn't do the one thing she promised to and cut the police force. A non-entity in the referendum backing the wrong horse and yet look at her now (or more precisely look at her a few weeks ago)
Voters go with a FEELING about politicians and that Trumps all (no pun intended)
Yes that is true but policies ("build a wall" etc) are the heart of that feeling. The conservatives have allowed the narrative to be completely dominated by their opponents.
Even Rentoul is saying Corbyn did well. I haven't seen the interview.
He didn't do well; he on the one hand lied like a cheap NAAFI watch, and on the other showed his true colours and the views he holds which, frankly, are amazing for a modern politician to hold.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
Are you going to give her and the security services any credit for the many more plots that have been defeated?
If turnout next month matches that of the last general election, there is currently a 23 per cent chance of the Tories winning a majority between 140 and 159, a 36 per cent chance of a majority between 160 and 179, and a 19 per cent chance of a majority of 180 to 199.
So why are the PB Tories wobbling like the wobbliest jelly in zero gravity? What a curious, weird species you lot are - need to send David Attenborough in and study you guys.
What is Ashcroft's record on predictions though?
Well, actually, they're not actually predictions apparently:
As I explained when I launched the Ashcroft Model two weeks ago, we are dealing with probabilities, not predictions
Are we really saying this doesn't help radicalise some people in part:
twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/868116290539540481
Missing the point, I'm afraid. Read what Daesh write: they don't hate us because of what we do, they hate us because of what we are (kaffir) - and we could stop fighting them and they would still fight us and try to kill us.
That last bit is NOT what they say. Jimmy Rushmore quoted out of context in his tweet. (He fooled me for a while into thinking the Daesh propaganda line had changed more than it has.) You can download issue 15 of Dabiq and read the article "Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You" for yourself. What they actually say is this:
Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.
Even Rentoul is saying Corbyn did well. I haven't seen the interview.
He didn't do well; he on the one hand lied like a cheap NAAFI watch, and on the other showed his true colours and the views he holds which, frankly, are amazing for a modern politician to hold.
He did ok - he met expectations.
Yes he did that. If you are a fan he remains a hero.
Given that I live in the UK with all my family and am a co-owner of a company with its HQ here you can safely assume that I want Britain to succeed. That's why I wish Theresa May and her dreadful government were not going to be our Brexit delivery team.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
So you wanted them to raid the homes of all the random family, friends and acquaintances of every one of the 3000 people they currently have on their lists? Assuming they only raid the homes of 12 people associated with each person that is still 36,000 raids. On people against whom they have no evidence apart from the fact they happen to know someone who has appeared on the Security Service's radar.
Hell, with the 5 degrees of separation rule they will probably be knocking on your door in that case.
If turnout next month matches that of the last general election, there is currently a 23 per cent chance of the Tories winning a majority between 140 and 159, a 36 per cent chance of a majority between 160 and 179, and a 19 per cent chance of a majority of 180 to 199.
The difference in his model's predictions between the low and high turnout scenarios is exactly why ID checks for voting is in the Conservative manifesto.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
Yes but how many voters know about Corbyn's views on immigration, Syria, ISIS, tax etc etc?
Voters are, by and large, thick as shit...little point in detailed policies - they go with gut feeling. How else can you explain the Brexit vote - taking back control was the gut instinct of the 52% even though that actually means f##k all..
The evidence suggests that TM was utterly useless in her previous role - couldn't do the one thing she promised to and cut the police force. A non-entity in the referendum backing the wrong horse and yet look at her now (or more precisely look at her a few weeks ago)
Voters go with a FEELING about politicians and that Trumps all (no pun intended)
Yes that is true but policies ("build a wall" etc) are the heart of that feeling. The conservatives have allowed the narrative to be completely dominated by their opponents.
I agree - not sure any party has grabbed that feeling just yet
Journalists should do this more often. It's pathetic the extent to which politicians get away with this level of bare-faced hypocrisy and inconsistency. They'll keep doing it as long as it's in their favour, so we need the media to train them to know that it'll lead to headline-grabbing humiliation.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
Yes but how many voters know about Corbyn's views on immigration, Syria, ISIS, tax etc etc?
Voters are, by and large, thick as shit...little point in detailed policies - they go with gut feeling. How else can you explain the Brexit vote - taking back control was the gut instinct of the 52% even though that actually means f##k all..
The evidence suggests that TM was utterly useless in her previous role - couldn't do the one thing she promised to and cut the police force. A non-entity in the referendum backing the wrong horse and yet look at her now (or more precisely look at her a few weeks ago)
Voters go with a FEELING about politicians and that Trumps all (no pun intended)
Yes that is true but policies ("build a wall" etc) are the heart of that feeling. The conservatives have allowed the narrative to be completely dominated by their opponents.
Not true Strong and Stable , coalition of chaos , was tested on here everyone thought it was great .
If turnout next month matches that of the last general election, there is currently a 23 per cent chance of the Tories winning a majority between 140 and 159, a 36 per cent chance of a majority between 160 and 179, and a 19 per cent chance of a majority of 180 to 199.
The most interesting bit is the model where a referendum like turnout occurs, Tories would still win, and in all likelihood with a good majority,
If we base the model on all those who say they voted in the EU referendum – which includes greater numbers of demographic types who incline more towards Labour – the biggest probability (34 per cent) is of a majority between 80 and 99.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
If turnout next month matches that of the last general election, there is currently a 23 per cent chance of the Tories winning a majority between 140 and 159, a 36 per cent chance of a majority between 160 and 179, and a 19 per cent chance of a majority of 180 to 199.
Ashcroft will get a crate of eggs on his face after the election. This is preposterous.
When a model is wrong - and models are always wrong, to one extent or another - you can learn a huge amount from working out which assumption you made when constructing your model that was incorrect.
Mr. Owls, I prefer my theory that May is simply incompetent at campaigning.
Just think, Boris could probably have beaten her. Maybe Leadsom too.
I'm reminded that Brown manoeuvred himself into Number Ten without a leadership election too and that didn't turn out all that well. Still, how did the Tories manage to end up with a final two of May and Leadsom?
I have an acquaintance who is so disgusted by Leadsom, (who is his MP) that he has joined the LD's and is out leafleting. Around 50. Never given a whatsit about politics before
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
And almost none have the tacit support of the would-be Prime Minister.
Despicable. And of course no-one will bat an eyelid here! F*cking western hypocrisy!
Most of them ISIS human shields, unfortunately you will not free Mosul without civiliancasualties
Under Corbyn Labour's policy would be to simply leave those places under IS control, with all the horrors that implies.
Exactly
Keep burning women alive in cages because they won't accept being raped, keep throwing homosexuals off of buildings, keep cutting hands off for tiny religious infractions. But at least we'd have the moral high ground.
Corbyn would be a pariah on the world stage even more than Trump, Macron and Merkel would be annoyed by his damaging economics and his continued backing for Brexit and his pacifism as would most other G7 leaders, Trump and Netanyahu would treat him with contempt. The only ones who might be amicable would be Tsipras, Raul Castro, Nicholas Maduro and Putin, though Putin would basically use Milne to make him his puppet
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
Yes but how many voters know about Corbyn's views on immigration, Syria, ISIS, tax etc etc?
Voters are, by and large, thick as shit...little point in detailed policies - they go with gut feeling. How else can you explain the Brexit vote - taking back control was the gut instinct of the 52% even though that actually means f##k all..
The evidence suggests that TM was utterly useless in her previous role - couldn't do the one thing she promised to and cut the police force. A non-entity in the referendum backing the wrong horse and yet look at her now (or more precisely look at her a few weeks ago)
Voters go with a FEELING about politicians and that Trumps all (no pun intended)
Yes that is true but policies ("build a wall" etc) are the heart of that feeling. The conservatives have allowed the narrative to be completely dominated by their opponents.
Not true Strong and Stable , coalition of chaos , was tested on here everyone thought it was great .
I think the important part of your line is "tested on here". You could have replaced "Strong and Stable" with "Piss Poor and Nobbly" and the Tory zombies on here would sing its praises
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
I'll rephrase it then: of the policies that the public most recall about the two parties, Labour's are far more popular
It's why the Tories could well be toast. Not only are their policies less well-known, and less popular, but their most well-known is the "Dementia Tax". This, combined with the u-turn damaging perceptions of May as a strong leader, has surely reversed may of the gains that looked conceivable that mad polling weekend when the Tories were 25% up and surging in Scotland. The Tories will win, but with not much of a larger majority than they already possessed. Then May will have to suffer the public wrath / media onslaught that not only did she call a - in their mind - unnecessary election but called it to no discernible advantage either to her or the country. So she will start the new Parliament far weeaker than she ended the old one, just as she is entering Brexit negotiations.
If you're going to call a snap election, how about making sure your party is ready to campaign and you have a thoroughly-prepared manifesto ready to go? It seems the party was no more prepared than the others for an election. And the Tory campaign is almost invisible. All one sees and hears is Corbyn this and Corbyn that; he is driving the agenda.
If May wins a majority she has a mandate for Brexit on her terms, that is an asset whatever the size of her majority
Depends on how many Clarkes and Soubrys there are?
Not enough if she gets a majority over 50, even if less than 50 the DUP and Joey and Field will back her
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
Then why accuse the next government if it happens under every government. The failure regarding Manchester is incredible if so many cells can now be found. This government was weak on terrorism.
Journalists should do this more often. It's pathetic the extent to which politicians get away with this level of bare-faced hypocrisy and inconsistency. They'll keep doing it as long as it's in their favour, so we need the media to train them to know that it'll lead to headline-grabbing humiliation.
I'm obviously stupid but how do I see what response I have to my posts? If I go to vanilla and click on them it doesn't bring them up
I think the only way to do it is by reading through the comments I'm afraid.
Load up the page, click "end" to jump to the bottom, click "more comments" and repeat until you have the whole thread loaded. Then search the whole thing for your username, which will jump you to all the posts you have made and any others that have quoted and then replied to you. All you'll miss are those from a handful of posters such as our Morris that don't use the quote button to reply.
Journalists should do this more often. It's pathetic the extent to which politicians get away with this level of bare-faced hypocrisy and inconsistency. They'll keep doing it as long as it's in their favour, so we need the media to train them to know that it'll lead to headline-grabbing humiliation.
Brilliant ! First he was Assad's friend and no he is so stupid.
It's why the Tories could well be toast. Not only are their policies less well-known, and less popular, but their most well-known is the "Dementia Tax". This, combined with the u-turn damaging perceptions of May as a strong leader, has surely reversed may of the gains that looked conceivable that mad polling weekend when the Tories were 25% up and surging in Scotland. The Tories will win, but with not much of a larger majority than they already possessed. Then May will have to suffer the public wrath / media onslaught that not only did she call a - in their mind - unnecessary election but called it to no discernible advantage either to her or the country. So she will start the new Parliament far weeaker than she ended the old one, just as she is entering Brexit negotiations.
If you're going to call a snap election, how about making sure your party is ready to campaign and you have a thoroughly-prepared manifesto ready to go? It seems the party was no more prepared than the others for an election. And the Tory campaign is almost invisible. All one sees and hears is Corbyn this and Corbyn that; he is driving the agenda.
The Conservative election is premised on May being self evidently a better leader than Corbyn. That's why they keep going on about him. A no-brainer you would have thought. Thing is, Corbyn is better at the politics than expected. The Labour manifesto is uncosted and probably unaffordable, but it is a solidly social democratic and focus grouped prospectus. Corbyn has managed to keep most of his many skeletons covered so far. He is also able to project an upbeat and appealing message.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
Then why accuse the next government if it happens under every government. The failure regarding Manchester is incredible if so many cells can now be found. This government was weak on terrorism.
11 people now arrested. What a failure.
You do realise you are insulting the police, intelligence agencies, military, and civil servants who work night and day to keep you safe? People who do not do it or for the money, but because they care about you? People who bust a gut to disrupt terror plots all the time and sacrifice time with their families to do so? I can't use the words I'd like to use to describe you.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
Then why accuse the next government if it happens under every government. The failure regarding Manchester is incredible if so many cells can now be found. This government was weak on terrorism.
11 people now arrested. What a failure.
You do realise you are insulting the police, intelligence agencies, military, and civil servants who work night and day to keep you safe? People who do not do it or for the money, but because they care about you? People who bust a gut to disrupt terror plots all the time and sacrifice time with their families to do so? I can't use the words I'd like to use to describe you.
No. I am accusing Theresa May who cut their funding.
I'm obviously stupid but how do I see what response I have to my posts? If I go to vanilla and click on them it doesn't bring them up
I think the only way to do it is by reading through the comments I'm afraid.
Load up the page, click "end" to jump to the bottom, click "more comments" and repeat until you have the whole thread loaded. Then search the whole thing for your username, which will jump you to all the posts you have made and any others that have quoted and then replied to you. All you'll miss are those from a handful of posters such as our Morris that don't use the quote button to reply.
If someone does mention you specifically with the @ tag, you should get a notification on your vanilla profile though.
Are we really saying this doesn't help radicalise some people in part:
twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/868116290539540481
Missing the point, I'm afraid. Read what Daesh write: they don't hate us because of what we do, they hate us because of what we are (kaffir) - and we could stop fighting them and they would still fight us and try to kill us.
I'm not missing the point. It is much easier for isis to gain willing recruits if your family has just been bombed to bits by "the liberators", that is patently true. Not to say isis/ al-qaeda etc would not still exist at some level ofcourse.
So - lets do nothing whilst they continue their jihad
Load up the page, click "end" to jump to the bottom, click "more comments" and repeat until you have the whole thread loaded. Then search the whole thing for your username, which will jump you to all the posts you have made and any others that have quoted and then replied to you. All you'll miss are those from a handful of posters such as our Morris that don't use the quote button to reply.
I'm obviously stupid but how do I see what response I have to my posts? If I go to vanilla and click on them it doesn't bring them up
I think the only way to do it is by reading through the comments I'm afraid.
Load up the page, click "end" to jump to the bottom, click "more comments" and repeat until you have the whole thread loaded. Then search the whole thing for your username, which will jump you to all the posts you have made and any others that have quoted and then replied to you. All you'll miss are those from a handful of posters such as our Morris that don't use the quote button to reply.
If someone does mention you specifically with the @ tag, you should get a notification on your vanilla profile though.
I'll take your word for it. Vanilla is boring. And using the @tag is pretty rare ISTM.
If the person types your full username after the @, my search method works nevertheless.
Journalists should do this more often. It's pathetic the extent to which politicians get away with this level of bare-faced hypocrisy and inconsistency. They'll keep doing it as long as it's in their favour, so we need the media to train them to know that it'll lead to headline-grabbing humiliation.
Brilliant ! First he was Assad's friend and no he is so stupid.
Fallon is supposed to be one of the Tories' better performers. That's how poor they are.
Journalists should do this more often. It's pathetic the extent to which politicians get away with this level of bare-faced hypocrisy and inconsistency. They'll keep doing it as long as it's in their favour, so we need the media to train them to know that it'll lead to headline-grabbing humiliation.
Brilliant ! First he was Assad's friend and no he is so stupid.
Fallon is supposed to be one of the Tories' better performers. That's how poor they are.
Fallon regularly sharpens his political streetfighting skills in the cut and thrust of campaigning whilst struggling to defend his marginal Sevenoaks constituency...
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
Then why accuse the next government if it happens under every government. The failure regarding Manchester is incredible if so many cells can now be found. This government was weak on terrorism.
11 people now arrested. What a failure.
No government, Labour or Conservative, has ever been led by someone with such an ......equivocal record on terrorism as Corbyn. Labour politicians like Roy Jenkins, Merlin Rees, or Roy Mason did not demonstrate when members of the IRA went on trial, or vote against every piece of anti-terrorist legislation. They didn't call for MI5 to be disbanded, or welcome the defeat of the British State.
11 people arrested sounds like a considerable success.
Journalists should do this more often. It's pathetic the extent to which politicians get away with this level of bare-faced hypocrisy and inconsistency. They'll keep doing it as long as it's in their favour, so we need the media to train them to know that it'll lead to headline-grabbing humiliation.
Brilliant ! First he was Assad's friend and no he is so stupid.
Fallon is supposed to be one of the Tories' better performers. That's how poor they are.
He is their main attack dog , looked a bit ring rusty against Emily Thornberry on Marr.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
Then why accuse the next government if it happens under every government. The failure regarding Manchester is incredible if so many cells can now be found. This government was weak on terrorism.
11 people now arrested. What a failure.
You do realise you are insulting the police, intelligence agencies, military, and civil servants who work night and day to keep you safe? People who do not do it or for the money, but because they care about you? People who bust a gut to disrupt terror plots all the time and sacrifice time with their families to do so? I can't use the words I'd like to use to describe you.
No. I am accusing Theresa May who cut their funding.
You understand nothing. CT capabilities have stayed about the same or improved, and no Government really influenced these things (though Corbyn might). I have little time for the PM, and I am no Tory, but by using the word failure you are insulting those work every day for your benefit.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
So you wanted them to raid the homes of all the random family, friends and acquaintances of every one of the 3000 people they currently have on their lists? Assuming they only raid the homes of 12 people associated with each person that is still 36,000 raids. On people against whom they have no evidence apart from the fact they happen to know someone who has appeared on the Security Service's radar.
Hell, with the 5 degrees of separation rule they will probably be knocking on your door in that case.
Of course MI5 won't stop every intending terrorist before he starts carrying a bomb. There needs to be tighter physical security at crowded events and locations. Unfortunately my point that Britain could learn from Israel in that department got swamped because I noted my opposition to the existence of that regime. But that is neither here nor there. At the very least, security staff at sports stadiums, railway stations and shopping centres need to be talked to by the army and meet soldiers regularly. Security when there hasn't been an attack for a while can be disgracefully lax. Often those who work in security are knuckleheads with a bad attitude towards "the public" generally (there should be more education of the population too - there is a role for almost everyone who goes out of the house), and many security teams are gangster-linked and sometimes they are interested most of all in selling drugs, stopping anyone else selling drugs, and ensuring that the only people with shooters in their belts are in their own gang. (FFS, Manchester!) The country could be better equipped against the threat of these attacks, without MI5 busting down the doors of everyone 3 degrees of separation away from a known jihad fan, without the state interning thousands of people, etc. (which wouldn't work anyway).
It's good that some newspapers have noticed by now that security at the Manchester Arena was crap. (FT, Metro, etc.)
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
Then why accuse the next government if it happens under every government. The failure regarding Manchester is incredible if so many cells can now be found. This government was weak on terrorism.
11 people now arrested. What a failure.
You do realise you are insulting the police, intelligence agencies, military, and civil servants who work night and day to keep you safe? People who do not do it or for the money, but because they care about you? People who bust a gut to disrupt terror plots all the time and sacrifice time with their families to do so? I can't use the words I'd like to use to describe you.
No. I am accusing Theresa May who cut their funding.
The intelligence services have had very big increases in funding.
Comments
You are however right that we have probably passed the point at which pulling out would be able to turn back the clock. This doesn't however make those who opposed Iraq any less entitled to argue that the government was told, and failed to take heed.
Jezza's eyes during the IRA bit are flitting around like a ping pong ball. He is a lying c*nt.
The evidence suggests that TM was utterly useless in her previous role - couldn't do the one thing she promised to and cut the police force. A non-entity in the referendum backing the wrong horse and yet look at her now (or more precisely look at her a few weeks ago)
Voters go with a FEELING about politicians and that Trumps all (no pun intended)
Around 50. Never given a whatsit about politics before
Given the media seem to be reporting Labour's manifesto as wonderful, and never questioning the practicalities of it, I am surprised that Labour are as far behind as they are. I guess Corbyn must be the negative effect on their ratings.
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
If turnout next month matches that of the last general election, there is currently a 23 per cent chance of the Tories winning a majority between 140 and 159, a 36 per cent chance of a majority between 160 and 179, and a 19 per cent chance of a majority of 180 to 199.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/05/lord-ashcroft-my-election-models-probabilities-currently-suggest-a-potential-conservative-majority-of-142.html
https://twitter.com/hichamyezza/status/868182862415228929
Well, actually, they're not actually predictions apparently:
As I explained when I launched the Ashcroft Model two weeks ago, we are dealing with probabilities, not predictions
Come fast 8th June, please...
Hell, with the 5 degrees of separation rule they will probably be knocking on your door in that case.
If we base the model on all those who say they voted in the EU referendum – which includes greater numbers of demographic types who incline more towards Labour – the biggest probability (34 per cent) is of a majority between 80 and 99.
Love it - he was skewered!
Tories = barefaced liars and hypocrites (as ever!).
11 people now arrested. What a failure.
And if I click the 'mobile friendly' option when opening the page in my phone browser, only the article loads up, not the comments.
If the person types your full username after the @, my search method works nevertheless.
JC is crap - you guys will win!
So 11 isn't even a month's quota if you want to look at it like that.
Not that you are interested in such stuff, as is abundantly clear from your increasingly stupid posts.
11 people arrested sounds like a considerable success.
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/865577289865723905
It's good that some newspapers have noticed by now that security at the Manchester Arena was crap. (FT, Metro, etc.)