Not long to go now. Will we have the inept, or the dangerous in charge? What a choice.
Indeed.
When TSE takes charge of PB editing will we have the inept historical references or the dangerous AV thread teasers?
A shocking prospect ....
One of the sad aspects of the reurn of two party politics is that AV becomes obselete.
Radical AV preachers like TSE will always find a way to spread their perversion of the true faith ....
Enough is enough. There is far too much tolerance of radical AV preaching on this forum. Vanillaforums must do more.
He has been reported several times by the "pbCommunity" but the moderators say they have no records of any complaints....
I think we need to deal with the roots of the AV scourge - the unfair and illegal imposition of imperialist FPTP on an innocent population. People can only take so much.
Mr. P, as Dunt implied, if the PM had to resign every time there were a terrorist attack, then the following PMs would have resigned: Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May.
everytime you post just remember you care more about your party than you do your country.
everything you write has an agenda party first country second.
I have only heard one politician publicly place the party above the Country, one Andy Burnham. I'm not sure how long he has been in the Tory party.
I have heard multiple accusations of politicians and supporters of a political party 'hating their Country' Those accused are most often SNP. PC and Labour members. Often the accusations are spurious, sometimes justified on a narrow definition or topic.
On this occasion your accusations are based on a monotonous repetition of a point that fails in its entirety to back up the accusation. Apart from that, it is all great.
How many more terrorist attacks do we need to have before you start to think..ok we need more police officers on the streets.
3 attacks under mays watch.
You do know that labour's plan for 10,000 new police officers will only become a reality towards the end of this Parliament as admitted by Diane Abbott. And by the way where is she - she is the shadow home sec
if diane abbott oversaw 3 terrorist attacks in 3 months you would be shouting at the rooftops but because you have tory goggles on you refuse to debate the issue and hold people to account
I have just told you under labour the 10,000 police will not be on the streets for the next 3 years and Dianne Abbott has gone AWOL. She could be home sec on friday so why is she not on the media
Good question. Even scarier is that Theresa May could be Prime Minister on Friday so why is she not on telly?
Where have you been. Full statement from no 10 yesterday and further statement after Cobra today
Why do you care more about your political party than your country?
What has your country done to you that makes the tory party more important?
I care about my Country to the point I do not want a trio of communists trashing our economy, putting the unions in charge, attacking aspiration and destroying business that creates the weatlh to pay for the public sector
No you care more about the tory party police cuts.
if a labour prime minister or diane abbott was home secretary under these circumstances; your response to all of this would be TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND MINE WOULD BE THE SAME
Because i put my country above party and you dont.
Out of curiosity how much more tax are you willing to pay to provide more funding for police pay ?
cut the foreign aid budget to pay for the police.
the police and the military get paid terribly.
The average police officer gets paid over £30k and the average salary is £27k, army officers get on average more than £40k, squaddies have always been underpaid but they joined the armed forces because they love it not for the pay which in any case is about the same as they would get in Tescos
"You don't see the difference between being prejudiced against those that stab others in the neck and being prejudiced against those that are appalled by that kind of violence but happen to be Muslim? "
I'm sure he does, but you confirm his point. Sticks and stones are nothing compared to a misplaced word or two. When did that happen?
I blame all politicians for debasing the language (although the left seem to take it further). No one ever makes slight mistakes, they are always huge blunders, there is no longer confusion, it is always chaos. You can no longer give 100%, it has to be 1000%.. You no longer disagree, you are being oppressed.
Where has understatement gone?
Hence the Prevent Strategy is a vile, vicious and inhuman attack on Islam. Has anyone said that yet? They soon will.
The start of the service i.e the khutba (the sermon) can be in whatever language the mosque wants. The mosques in say London will normally give the sermon mainly in English and partly in another language because the believers will be from so many different countries.
Just seen selective quoting from Peston, which reminded me of his spot on ITV News last night (I'd forgotten about that because it was a busy night). He put words into May's mouth, claiming something like she was facing two ways, being inclusive one moment and having a go at Muslims the next.
The start of the service i.e the khutba (the sermon) can be in whatever language the mosque wants. The mosques in say London will normally give the sermon mainly in English and partly in another language because the believers will be from so many different countries.
It is unfortunate that the political consensus in this country appears to be that racism or prejudice towards Muslim fundamentalists and their enablers is a worse crime than stabbing people in the neck. Politicians are very happy to talk tough but very very reluctant to actually do anything. It is annoying. Maybe we should start by ruthlessly and indiscriminately enforcing the laws we already have. And chnging the law on speech from the current state of proscribed speech back to completely free speech.
You don't see the difference between being prejudiced against those that stab others in the neck and being prejudiced against those that are appalled by that kind of violence but happen to be Muslim?
I'm sure he does. However there is a definite problem where fear of being accused of the latter can lead people to not be firm enough on the former, in rhetoric at the very least. As I like to put it, we're so afraid of overreacting, that we under react.
I think that risk is real. Therefore you need to be very clear about whom you are taking on. Which are those that perpetrate, support or tolerate violence. There are many fundamentalist Muslims who are aghast at that sort of violence. We need them on our side.
Personally I have a problem with fundamentalism of all stripes and think we should strive to be an open and tolerant society. The problem we are addressing now is terrorism and keeping our streets safe. It's a different problem.
There's an element of fighting the last war here. Ploughing a van into an ordinary bus queue would kill more. The sad fact is that mass murder is easy when you intend to die yourself.
I think the issue is rather that it is talking to Iran. None of the states are exactly clean handed when it comes to islamic extremism.
Qatar have never been shy of having a quixotic foreign policy. Most of the gulf states have business dealings with Israel but Qatar aren't shy about it and don't bother to hide it.
Qatar won't follow the Saudi line about Iran, Muslim Brotherhood etc. They are independent.
I also think this an effort by Saudi to deflect attention from Saudi's own support for extreme Islamic ideology.
I think the issue is rather that it is talking to Iran. None of the states are exactly clean handed when it comes to islamic extremism.
Qatar have never been shy of having a quixotic foreign policy. Most of the gulf states have business dealings with Israel but Qatar aren't shy about it and don't bother to hide it.
Qatar won't follow the Saudi line about Iran, Muslim Brotherhood etc. They are independent.
I also think this an effort by Saudi to deflect attention from Saudi's own support for extreme Islamic ideology.
Also the House of Saud really, really hates Al Jazeera.
It is unfortunate that the political consensus in this country appears to be that racism or prejudice towards Muslim fundamentalists and their enablers is a worse crime than stabbing people in the neck. Politicians are very happy to talk tough but very very reluctant to actually do anything. It is annoying. Maybe we should start by ruthlessly and indiscriminately enforcing the laws we already have. And chnging the law on speech from the current state of proscribed speech back to completely free speech.
You don't see the difference between being prejudiced against those that stab others in the neck and being prejudiced against those that are appalled by that kind of violence but happen to be Muslim?
I'm sure he does. However there is a definite problem where fear of being accused of the latter can lead people to not be firm enough on the former, in rhetoric at the very least. As I like to put it, we're so afraid of overreacting, that we under react.
I think that risk is real. Therefore you need to be very clear about whom you are taking on. Which are those that perpetrate, support or tolerate violence. There are many fundamentalist Muslims who are aghast at that sort of violence. We need them on our side.
Personally I have a problem with fundamentalism of all stripes and think we should strive to be an open and tolerant society. The problem we are addressing now is terrorism and keeping our streets safe. It's a different problem.
What I have not seen after any of the last 3 terrorist attacks is any sign of a muslim cleric or "community leader"condemning this sort of nonsense, nor a muslim cleric being interviewed by a reporter trying to extract a condemnation from him (or indeed being interviewed at all). Why is this? It really doesn't make them look good.
Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
It is unfortunate that the political consensus in this country appears to be that racism or prejudice towards Muslim fundamentalists and their enablers is a worse crime than stabbing people in the neck. Politicians are very happy to talk tough but very very reluctant to actually do anything. It is annoying. Maybe we should start by ruthlessly and indiscriminately enforcing the laws we already have. And chnging the law on speech from the current state of proscribed speech back to completely free speech.
You don't see the difference between being prejudiced against those that stab others in the neck and being prejudiced against those that are appalled by that kind of violence but happen to be Muslim?
I'm sure he does. However there is a definite problem where fear of being accused of the latter can lead people to not be firm enough on the former, in rhetoric at the very least. As I like to put it, we're so afraid of overreacting, that we under react.
I think that risk is real. Therefore you need to be very clear about whom you are taking on. Which are those that perpetrate, support or tolerate violence. There are many fundamentalist Muslims who are aghast at that sort of violence. We need them on our side.
Personally I have a problem with fundamentalism of all stripes and think we should strive to be an open and tolerant society. The problem we are addressing now is terrorism and keeping our streets safe. It's a different problem.
What I have not seen after any of the last 3 terrorist attacks is any sign of a muslim cleric or "community leader"condemning this sort of nonsense, nor a muslim cleric being interviewed by a reporter trying to extract a condemnation from him (or indeed being interviewed at all). Why is this? It really doesn't make them look good.
Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
Most polls have SCons on 25 to 30% and SLAB on 20 to 25% though Comres has SLab lower and Survation higher
It is unfortunate that the political consensus in this country appears to be that racism or prejudice towards Muslim fundamentalists and their enablers is a worse crime than stabbing people in the neck. Politicians are very happy to talk tough but very very reluctant to actually do anything. It is annoying. Maybe we should start by ruthlessly and indiscriminately enforcing the laws we already have. And chnging the law on speech from the current state of proscribed speech back to completely free speech.
You don't see the difference between being prejudiced against those that stab others in the neck and being prejudiced against those that are appalled by that kind of violence but happen to be Muslim?
I'm sure he does. However there is a definite problem where fear of being accused of the latter can lead people to not be firm enough on the former, in rhetoric at the very least. As I like to put it, we're so afraid of overreacting, that we under react.
I think that risk is real. Therefore you need to be very clear about whom you are taking on. Which are those that perpetrate, support or tolerate violence. There are many fundamentalist Muslims who are aghast at that sort of violence. We need them on our side.
Personally I have a problem with fundamentalism of all stripes and think we should strive to be an open and tolerant society. The problem we are addressing now is terrorism and keeping our streets safe. It's a different problem.
What I have not seen after any of the last 3 terrorist attacks is any sign of a muslim cleric or "community leader"condemning this sort of nonsense, nor a muslim cleric being interviewed by a reporter trying to extract a condemnation from him (or indeed being interviewed at all). Why is this? It really doesn't make them look good.
It is unfortunate that the political consensus in this country appears to be that racism or prejudice towards Muslim fundamentalists and their enablers is a worse crime than stabbing people in the neck. Politicians are very happy to talk tough but very very reluctant to actually do anything. It is annoying. Maybe we should start by ruthlessly and indiscriminately enforcing the laws we already have. And chnging the law on speech from the current state of proscribed speech back to completely free speech.
You don't see the difference between being prejudiced against those that stab others in the neck and being prejudiced against those that are appalled by that kind of violence but happen to be Muslim?
I'm sure he does. However there is a definite problem where fear of being accused of the latter can lead people to not be firm enough on the former, in rhetoric at the very least. As I like to put it, we're so afraid of overreacting, that we under react.
I think that risk is real. Therefore you need to be very clear about whom you are taking on. Which are those that perpetrate, support or tolerate violence. There are many fundamentalist Muslims who are aghast at that sort of violence. We need them on our side.
Personally I have a problem with fundamentalism of all stripes and think we should strive to be an open and tolerant society. The problem we are addressing now is terrorism and keeping our streets safe. It's a different problem.
What I have not seen after any of the last 3 terrorist attacks is any sign of a muslim cleric or "community leader"condemning this sort of nonsense, nor a muslim cleric being interviewed by a reporter trying to extract a condemnation from him (or indeed being interviewed at all). Why is this? It really doesn't make them look good.
I have seen plenty of it. Straight after Manchester and again after London.
Ilford Recorder had a similar Labour wrap round last week with Mike Gapes.
I think Labour might win Bristol North East even if Tory gains in the North and Scotland give them a majority over 50, they will hold Bristol East and Bristol West
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
It is unfortunate that the political consensus in this country appears to be that racism or prejudice towards Muslim fundamentalists and their enablers is a worse crime than stabbing people in the neck. Politicians are very happy to talk tough but very very reluctant to actually do anything. It is annoying. Maybe we should start by ruthlessly and indiscriminately enforcing the laws we already have. And chnging the law on speech from the current state of proscribed speech back to completely free speech.
You don't see the difference between being prejudiced against those that stab others in the neck and being prejudiced against those that are appalled by that kind of violence but happen to be Muslim?
I'm sure he does. However there is a definite problem where fear of being accused of the latter can lead people to not be firm enough on the former, in rhetoric at the very least. As I like to put it, we're so afraid of overreacting, that we under react.
I think that risk is real. Therefore you need to be very clear about whom you are taking on. Which are those that perpetrate, support or tolerate violence. There are many fundamentalist Muslims who are aghast at that sort of violence. We need them on our side.
Personally I have a problem with fundamentalism of all stripes and think we should strive to be an open and tolerant society. The problem we are addressing now is terrorism and keeping our streets safe. It's a different problem.
What I have not seen after any of the last 3 terrorist attacks is any sign of a muslim cleric or "community leader"condemning this sort of nonsense, nor a muslim cleric being interviewed by a reporter trying to extract a condemnation from him (or indeed being interviewed at all). Why is this? It really doesn't make them look good.
You are clearly posting that because you *want* it to be true rather than making any effort to go and find out first.
It is unfortunate that the political consensus in this country appears to be that racism or prejudice towards Muslim fundamentalists and their enablers is a worse crime than stabbing people in the neck. Politicians are very happy to talk tough but very very reluctant to actually do anything. It is annoying. Maybe we should start by ruthlessly and indiscriminately enforcing the laws we already have. And chnging the law on speech from the current state of proscribed speech back to completely free speech.
You don't see the difference between being prejudiced against those that stab others in the neck and being prejudiced against those that are appalled by that kind of violence but happen to be Muslim?
I'm sure he does. However there is a definite problem where fear of being accused of the latter can lead people to not be firm enough on the former, in rhetoric at the very least. As I like to put it, we're so afraid of overreacting, that we under react.
I think that risk is real. Therefore you need to be very clear about whom you are taking on. Which are those that perpetrate, support or tolerate violence. There are many fundamentalist Muslims who are aghast at that sort of violence. We need them on our side.
Personally I have a problem with fundamentalism of all stripes and think we should strive to be an open and tolerant society. The problem we are addressing now is terrorism and keeping our streets safe. It's a different problem.
What I have not seen after any of the last 3 terrorist attacks is any sign of a muslim cleric or "community leader"condemning this sort of nonsense, nor a muslim cleric being interviewed by a reporter trying to extract a condemnation from him (or indeed being interviewed at all). Why is this? It really doesn't make them look good.
If the clerics are serious about stamping this out, they would be robbing these killers of any religious justification. There needs to be an absolute decree that anybody engaged in acts of terror is outside of Islam, is rejected by Islam - and rather than a selection of virgins to use and abuse, all they can look forward to is an eternity in Hell
It is unfortunate that the political consensus in this country appears to be that racism or prejudice towards Muslim fundamentalists and their enablers is a worse crime than stabbing people in the neck. Politicians are very happy to talk tough but very very reluctant to actually do anything. It is annoying. Maybe we should start by ruthlessly and indiscriminately enforcing the laws we already have. And chnging the law on speech from the current state of proscribed speech back to completely free speech.
You don't see the difference between being prejudiced against those that stab others in the neck and being prejudiced against those that are appalled by that kind of violence but happen to be Muslim?
I'm sure he does. However there is a definite problem where fear of being accused of the latter can lead people to not be firm enough on the former, in rhetoric at the very least. As I like to put it, we're so afraid of overreacting, that we under react.
I think that risk is real. Therefore you need to be very clear about whom you are taking on. Which are those that perpetrate, support or tolerate violence. There are many fundamentalist Muslims who are aghast at that sort of violence. We need them on our side.
Personally I have a problem with fundamentalism of all stripes and think we should strive to be an open and tolerant society. The problem we are addressing now is terrorism and keeping our streets safe. It's a different problem.
What I have not seen after any of the last 3 terrorist attacks is any sign of a muslim cleric or "community leader"condemning this sort of nonsense, nor a muslim cleric being interviewed by a reporter trying to extract a condemnation from him (or indeed being interviewed at all). Why is this? It really doesn't make them look good.
Perhaps, like the authorities supposed to be taking account of Muslims reporting dangerous extremists, you weren't really listening?
"THE Imam of York Mosque has condemned the Manchester bombing as 'an act of evil.'"
"Manchester Arena terror attack: Hull mosque leader condemns Islamic State atrocity"
"Liverpool's Muslim leader condemns Manchester Arena bombing"
"Manchester Islamic Centre and mosque attended by Salman Abedi call bombing ‘act of cowardice’ and urge anyone with information to contact police"
'About 200 imams had joined (Mansour) at Manchester Central Mosque on Tuesday, which produced a statement condemning the attack. “Even though the perpetrators claim to be Muslim, but have nothing to do with our religion . . . we have to oppose it and condemn it, simply because we do not want anybody to do these things in the name of our religion,” he said.'
Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
Most polls have SCons on 25 to 30% and SLAB on 20 to 25% though Comres has SLab lower and Survation higher
So it's not clear that 'only' the Scottish Conservatives can stop the SNP. Thanks for clearing that up.
Morning everyone. Not been on since the grim events of Saturday night, but been reading here and watching the coverage of course. Whilst it's fairly unseemly in some ways to speculate on the possibility electoral impacts of terrorism, it's a thing so we must. My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad. Set that against Corbyn's ludicrous volte face on shoot to kill. It's clearly nonsense but It presses a button (deliberate choice of words) that he is prepared to say he will change his stance in the public interest. Whether he will or not is irrelevant. My read on how the public will reach overall is this......... For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
In the unlikely event Corbyn wins Priti Patel is more likely to be leader of the opposition than Hammond given the views of Tory members I spoke to at the weekend, Davidson would also have a chance but she is sticking to Holyrood
I imagine the security services assumption up until now has been that anyone this publicity hungry was not some terrorist supermind and really just a bit of a crank.
The problem seems to be that these people can easily tip from harmless eccentricity to murderous psychopathy. I can't see that extra funding to the security services would make any difference to stopping this sort of behaviour short of Stasi-like surveillance that would detect the exact moment they flipped. Cultural change needed.
It is unfortunate that the political consensus in this country appears to be that racism or prejudice towards Muslim fundamentalists and their enablers is a worse crime than stabbing people in the neck. Politicians are very happy to talk tough but very very reluctant to actually do anything. It is annoying. Maybe we should start by ruthlessly and indiscriminately enforcing the laws we already have. And chnging the law on speech from the current state of proscribed speech back to completely free speech.
You don't see the difference between being prejudiced against those that stab others in the neck and being prejudiced against those that are appalled by that kind of violence but happen to be Muslim?
I'm sure he does. However there is a definite problem where fear of being accused of the latter can lead people to not be firm enough on the former, in rhetoric at the very least. As I like to put it, we're so afraid of overreacting, that we under react.
I think that risk is real. Therefore you need to be very clear about whom you are taking on. Which are those that perpetrate, support or tolerate violence. There are many fundamentalist Muslims who are aghast at that sort of violence. We need them on our side.
Personally I have a problem with fundamentalism of all stripes and think we should strive to be an open and tolerant society. The problem we are addressing now is terrorism and keeping our streets safe. It's a different problem.
What I have not seen after any of the last 3 terrorist attacks is any sign of a muslim cleric or "community leader"condemning this sort of nonsense, nor a muslim cleric being interviewed by a reporter trying to extract a condemnation from him (or indeed being interviewed at all). Why is this? It really doesn't make them look good.
If the clerics are serious about stamping this out, they would be robbing these killers of any religious justification. There needs to be an absolute decree that anybody engaged in acts of terror is outside of Islam, is rejected by Islam - and rather than a selection of virgins to use and abuse, all they can look forward to is an eternity in Hell
The problem with that is they is plenty of justification both within the Koran and within the acts of Mohammed for these acts. They are Islamic.
Good on him. We need to be speaking more to the likes of Maajid Nawaz and Trevor Philips here too. Good to see article posted just above from other moderate Muslims and imams, we need to engage with them, put more resources into the Prevent strategy and encourage Muslim communities to continue to report the black sheep in their own families.
Allowed the possibility of worthwhile leader debates?
No - the circumstances that allow for a game theory solution to permit debates almost require a third candidate. You need both Big Two party leaders to agree to the debates. Whoever is winning has nothing to gain and everything to lose and will almost invariably reject them - and, historically, has done so.
In 2010, however, both Cameron and Brown had something to gain: Brown needed a gamechanger or he was going to lose - so he was amenable despite being poor at debates. Cameron would struggle to get a majority without a gamechanger and considered himself good at debates.
If the hung parliament zone hadn't been so wide due to a third party having 60+ seats at dissolution, it would have been far easier for the Tories to win a majority, so the driver diminishes.
However, if there is a third party sufficiently strong to make things murky enough that both of the Big Two could do with a gamechanger and would thus both agree to debates, it's very hard to justify excluding them.
In short - with no strong third party, it's far harder to get mutual agreement for debates. With a strong third party, excluding them from such debates is very hard. And given the experience of 2010 and how strong third parties can benefit from them, it's very hard to see the Big Two both agreeing to them even under such circumstances.
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Laurence J. Peter and published in 1969. It states that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence".
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
In the unlikely event Corbyn wins Priti Patel is more likely to be leader of the opposition than Hammond given the views of Tory members I spoke to at the weekend, Davidson would also have a chance but she is sticking to Holyrood
Priti Patel gives me the same vacuous vibes that May gave off when she was Home Secretary. Some of her interviews are very May-like in their inanity.
Ilford Recorder had a similar Labour wrap round last week with Mike Gapes.
I think Labour might win Bristol North East even if Tory gains in the North and Scotland give them a majority over 50, they will hold Bristol East and Bristol West
I assume you mean Bristol North West. Just as a caution the large halls for Bristol Uni will be empty.
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
Ultimately, though, Tim Farron is a social conservative with left wing economic views.
If you are a social conservative, then your are already well served by the Conservatives. If you have left wing economic views, there is the Labour Party.
There is a niche for the Liberal Democrats. Under Tim Farron, who seems to have found it all a bit too much, they are not filling it.
This is a fascinating analysis. I would apply the Corbyn filter though and say for the 2 Plymouth seats that Corbyn may restrict voters identifying with the military and defence industries. Also the student population which should help him will not be at Uni compared to 2015.
Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
Most polls have SCons on 25 to 30% and SLAB on 20 to 25% though Comres has SLab lower and Survation higher
I think SCON will come 3rd as SLAB "surges" back to c.25% - Will be interesting to watch SCON & their MSM fanboys spinning 3rd as a win !
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
Ultimately, though, Tim Farron is a social conservative with left wing economic views.
If you are a social conservative, then your are already well served by the Conservatives. If you have left wing economic views, there is the Labour Party.
There is a niche for the Liberal Democrats. Under Tim Farron, who seems to have found it all a bit too much, they are not filling it.
One thing is that the Lib Dem vote comes out for every parish, town hall and all other local elections. Alot of support for the big two only bothers for a GE.
The problem seems to be that these people can easily tip from harmless eccentricity to murderous psychopathy. I can't see that extra funding to the security services would make any difference to stopping this sort of behaviour short of Stasi-like surveillance that would detect the exact moment they flipped. Cultural change needed.
I think that is broadly correct. If someone becomes radicalised and wants to become a sucide bomber they either need to research and make a bomb, or get in touch with someone who can. In theory we can detect such activity through communication intercepts, and financial transactions, plus encouraging certain businesses to scrutinise their customers. It also takes quite a while to do. How do you detect someone flipping when the weapon is a vehicle they might already own or have access to? They can go from thought to deed in minutes. It is a fundamentally different problem for the security services.
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
In the unlikely event Corbyn wins Priti Patel is more likely to be leader of the opposition than Hammond given the views of Tory members I spoke to at the weekend, Davidson would also have a chance but she is sticking to Holyrood
Tory members are speculating about who would replace their unpopular leader? The Conservatives seem to be picking up more from Labour than just policies.
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
In the unlikely event Corbyn wins Priti Patel is more likely to be leader of the opposition than Hammond given the views of Tory members I spoke to at the weekend, Davidson would also have a chance but she is sticking to Holyrood
Tory members are speculating about who would replace their unpopular leader? The Conservatives seem to be picking up more from Labour than just policies.
No most expected a majority of 50 to 100 and on the doorsteps May is still generally preferred to Corbyn but of course anything could happen
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
Ultimately, though, Tim Farron is a social conservative with left wing economic views.
If you are a social conservative, then your are already well served by the Conservatives. If you have left wing economic views, there is the Labour Party.
There is a niche for the Liberal Democrats. Under Tim Farron, who seems to have found it all a bit too much, they are not filling it.
His interview with Andrew Neil was him vacating the field of battle mid-interview. Had no answers on the second referendum, so just went "la-la-la I'm talking so I can't hear you...." Bizarre.
And while we're on bizarre, Farron's entire career in politics will be remembered for just three words: Smell My Spaniel.....
Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
Most polls have SCons on 25 to 30% and SLAB on 20 to 25% though Comres has SLab lower and Survation higher
I think SCON will come 3rd as SLAB "surges" back to c.25% - Will be interesting to watch SCON & their MSM fanboys spinning 3rd as a win !
What do you think the respective seat count will be?
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
In the unlikely event Corbyn wins Priti Patel is more likely to be leader of the opposition than Hammond given the views of Tory members I spoke to at the weekend, Davidson would also have a chance but she is sticking to Holyrood
Priti Patel gives me the same vacuous vibes that May gave off when she was Home Secretary. Some of her interviews are very May-like in their inanity.
Patel's hang 'em & flog 'em guff was her USP, now ambition is causing her to moderate, what's she got? Still, it'd be grimly entertaining to see Pritti as leader; IDS in a skirt.
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
Ultimately, though, Tim Farron is a social conservative with left wing economic views.
If you are a social conservative, then your are already well served by the Conservatives. If you have left wing economic views, there is the Labour Party.
There is a niche for the Liberal Democrats. Under Tim Farron, who seems to have found it all a bit too much, they are not filling it.
It's a fairly big niche representing perhaps 30% of the population currently. Which is open society, pro-globalisation, business-friendly, moderate on social welfare. It is a niche that is open to the Lib Dems given both the Conservatives and Labour have hitched themselves to the closed society, anti-globalisation mast. Basically a return to the Liberals' 19thC roots.
It needs someone who can articulate a new direction for the Lib Dems. It also means losing some current support before building new support. To be fair to Tim Farron, during an election is not the time to reinvent yourself, when you are trying to shore up your current support. The timing of this election was dreadful for the Lib Dems
Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
Most polls have SCons on 25 to 30% and SLAB on 20 to 25% though Comres has SLab lower and Survation higher
I think SCON will come 3rd as SLAB "surges" back to c.25% - Will be interesting to watch SCON & their MSM fanboys spinning 3rd as a win !
I wouldn't be surprised to see SCON, SLAB and the Nationalists all score in the 30s.
Derby North (Youngish electorate), target #1 Gower (Welsh polling) Croydon Central (London effect) Hallam (Tactical Tories returning to the blues allowing a squeeze through the middle) Leeds NW (Young voter reg surge vs yellows (Reds have gone relatively forwards)) East Renfrew (Easiest seat in Scotland in theory, but possible Tory squeeze) East Lothian (Holyrood results suggest) Arfon (Plaid collapse) Thanet South (Local factors)
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
In the unlikely event Corbyn wins Priti Patel is more likely to be leader of the opposition than Hammond given the views of Tory members I spoke to at the weekend, Davidson would also have a chance but she is sticking to Holyrood
Priti Patel gives me the same vacuous vibes that May gave off when she was Home Secretary. Some of her interviews are very May-like in their inanity.
She is very right-wing on law and order and the EU and immigration though which chimes with where the public are most right-wing at the moment and certainly the Tory membership
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
Ultimately, though, Tim Farron is a social conservative with left wing economic views.
If you are a social conservative, then your are already well served by the Conservatives. If you have left wing economic views, there is the Labour Party.
There is a niche for the Liberal Democrats. Under Tim Farron, who seems to have found it all a bit too much, they are not filling it.
His interview with Andrew Neil was him vacating the field of battle mid-interview. Had no answers on the second referendum, so just went "la-la-la I'm talking so I can't hear you...." Bizarre.
And while we're on bizarre, Farron's entire career in politics will be remembered for just three words: Smell My Spaniel.....
Don't you have a job to do knocking on strangers doors, talking to people you don't know about the IRA despite not requesting it?
Derby North (Youngish electorate) Gower (Welsh polling) Croydon Central (London effect) Hallam (Tactical Tories returning to the blues allowing a squeeze through the middle) Leeds NW (Young voters) East Renfrew (Easiest seat in Scotland in theory, but possible Tory squeeze) Edi North & Leith East Lothian (Holyrood results suggest)
Leeds NW, but I wouldn't be surprised if they get Brighton Pavilion.
Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
Most polls have SCons on 25 to 30% and SLAB on 20 to 25% though Comres has SLab lower and Survation higher
I think SCON will come 3rd as SLAB "surges" back to c.25% - Will be interesting to watch SCON & their MSM fanboys spinning 3rd as a win !
I wouldn't be surprised to see SCON, SLAB and the Nationalists all score in the 30s.
The LibDems may get <5% but still get more seats than SLAB !
Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
Most polls have SCons on 25 to 30% and SLAB on 20 to 25% though Comres has SLab lower and Survation higher
I think SCON will come 3rd as SLAB "surges" back to c.25% - Will be interesting to watch SCON & their MSM fanboys spinning 3rd as a win !
Dream on, in any case with the SNP down to around 40% now most of the swing is now SNP to Tory with only a minority Labour to Tory
Morning everyone. Not been on since the grim events of Saturday night, but been reading here and watching the coverage of course. Whilst it's fairly unseemly in some ways to speculate on the possibility electoral impacts of terrorism, it's a thing so we must. My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad. Set that against Corbyn's ludicrous volte face on shoot to kill. It's clearly nonsense but It presses a button (deliberate choice of words) that he is prepared to say he will change his stance in the public interest. Whether he will or not is irrelevant. My read on how the public will reach overall is this......... For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........
The problem for the conservatives is that no counter factual exists. If it does then they think need to find it I.e. Did France increase police numbers and still not prevent terrorist attacks. Secondly it's all very well talking about reduction in police numbers but the numbers were artificially high caused by Brown's end of tenure splurge. The numbers have reduced to levels from the early 2000s - it's not like it is the Wild West. Do we really think labour would not have reduced police numbers when faced with similar cost constraints? Again If I were the Tories I would be looking at their 2010 proposals. Is there such thing as the Conservative Research Department still?
Derby North (Youngish electorate), target #1 Gower (Welsh polling) Croydon Central (London effect) Hallam (Tactical Tories returning to the blues allowing a squeeze through the middle) Leeds NW (Young voter reg surge vs yellows (Reds have gone relatively forwards)) East Renfrew (Easiest seat in Scotland in theory, but possible Tory squeeze) East Lothian (Holyrood results suggest) Arfon (Plaid collapse) Thanet South (Local factors)
Morning everyone. Not been on since the grim events of Saturday night, but been reading here and watching the coverage of course. Whilst it's fairly unseemly in some ways to speculate on the possibility electoral impacts of terrorism, it's a thing so we must. My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad. Set that against Corbyn's ludicrous volte face on shoot to kill. It's clearly nonsense but It presses a button (deliberate choice of words) that he is prepared to say he will change his stance in the public interest. Whether he will or not is irrelevant. My read on how the public will reach overall is this......... For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........
The problem for the conservatives is that no counter factual exists. If it does then they think need to find it I.e. Did France increase police numbers and still not prevent terrorist attacks. Secondly it's all very well talking about reduction in police numbers but the numbers were artificially high caused by Brown's end of tenure splurge. The numbers have reduced to levels from the early 2000s - it's not like it is the Wild West. Do we really think labour would not have reduced police numbers when faced with similar cost constraints? Again If I were the Tories I would be looking at their 2010 proposals. Is there such thing as the Conservative Research Department still?
I don't disagree with any of that. The problem is time. Coming up with a convincing argument and strategy in 3 days is impossible. However, perhaps the fact that we are in the position of 3 days to save the UK (being hyperbolic deliberately) speaks volumes about the disengagement of the political class from the reality on the ground.
I've a grand on at 1.25 already, can't see the Tories going backwards knowing what we do about vote distribution and UKIP transfers in the Midlands. Labour are piling up votes in Islington and Maidenhead, which are no use to them at all.
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
In the unlikely event Corbyn wins Priti Patel is more likely to be leader of the opposition than Hammond given the views of Tory members I spoke to at the weekend, Davidson would also have a chance but she is sticking to Holyrood
Priti Patel gives me the same vacuous vibes that May gave off when she was Home Secretary. Some of her interviews are very May-like in their inanity.
She is very right-wing on law and order and the EU and immigration though which chimes with where the public are most right-wing at the moment and certainly the Tory membership
Yes, she has her views but the hype around her never matches her actual performance in any interviews I have seen. As I said, I am reminder of May when I've seen her interviewed.
This is really really bizarre reasoning from Woodcock - if Corbyn wins then there is no way on God's green earth Woodcock (Who will probably still be an MP if Corby does win) will be able to demand that of him.
Morning everyone. Not been on since the grim events of Saturday night, but been reading here and watching the coverage of course. Whilst it's fairly unseemly in some ways to speculate on the possibility electoral impacts of terrorism, it's a thing so we must. My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad. Set that against Corbyn's ludicrous volte face on shoot to kill. It's clearly nonsense but It presses a button (deliberate choice of words) that he is prepared to say he will change his stance in the public interest. Whether he will or not is irrelevant. My read on how the public will reach overall is this......... For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........
In Oct 1974 the IRA bombed two pubs in Guildford five days before the election.
Morning everyone. Not been on since the grim events of Saturday night, but been reading here and watching the coverage of course. Whilst it's fairly unseemly in some ways to speculate on the possibility electoral impacts of terrorism, it's a thing so we must. My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad. Set that against Corbyn's ludicrous volte face on shoot to kill. It's clearly nonsense but It presses a button (deliberate choice of words) that he is prepared to say he will change his stance in the public interest. Whether he will or not is irrelevant. My read on how the public will reach overall is this......... For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........
The problem for the conservatives is that no counter factual exists. If it does then they think need to find it I.e. Did France increase police numbers and still not prevent terrorist attacks. Secondly it's all very well talking about reduction in police numbers but the numbers were artificially high caused by Brown's end of tenure splurge. The numbers have reduced to levels from the early 2000s - it's not like it is the Wild West. Do we really think labour would not have reduced police numbers when faced with similar cost constraints? Again If I were the Tories I would be looking at their 2010 proposals. Is there such thing as the Conservative Research Department still?
I don't disagree with any of that. The problem is time. Coming up with a convincing argument and strategy in 3 days is impossible. However, perhaps the fact that we are in the position of 3 days to save the UK (being hyperbolic deliberately) speaks volumes about the disengagement of the political class from the reality on the ground.
The answer is fairly simple. The attackers were dead within 8 minutes despite there being 3 of them in a chaotic urban area. That indicates the force levels of the police were exactly right.
Those complaining need to indicate in what way the police were stretched on Saturday night.
Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
Most polls have SCons on 25 to 30% and SLAB on 20 to 25% though Comres has SLab lower and Survation higher
I think SCON will come 3rd as SLAB "surges" back to c.25% - Will be interesting to watch SCON & their MSM fanboys spinning 3rd as a win !
Dream on, in any case with the SNP down to around 40% now most of the swing is now SNP to Tory with only a minority Labour to Tory
FWIW SCON & the MSM have been overplaying SCONs hand, with SCON's support levels peaking too early. I think the SNP will surprise to the upside in the national vote at c.45% with SLAB & SCON fighting it out in the 20-25% range !
Morning everyone. Not been on since the grim events of Saturday night, but been reading here and watching the coverage of course. Whilst it's fairly unseemly in some ways to speculate on the possibility electoral impacts of terrorism, it's a thing so we must. My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad. Set that against Corbyn's ludicrous volte face on shoot to kill. It's clearly nonsense but It presses a button (deliberate choice of words) that he is prepared to say he will change his stance in the public interest. Whether he will or not is irrelevant. My read on how the public will reach overall is this......... For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........
In Oct 1974 the IRA bombed two pubs in Guildford five days before the election.
Yes, but the dynamic is different this time. Islamist terrorism comes with very different baggage socially to the IRA campaign which was very much a single issue republican campaign. It was fought in a very different time with very different political and social sttitudes.
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
In the unlikely event Corbyn wins Priti Patel is more likely to be leader of the opposition than Hammond given the views of Tory members I spoke to at the weekend, Davidson would also have a chance but she is sticking to Holyrood
Priti Patel gives me the same vacuous vibes that May gave off when she was Home Secretary. Some of her interviews are very May-like in their inanity.
She is very right-wing on law and order and the EU and immigration though which chimes with where the public are most right-wing at the moment and certainly the Tory membership
Yes, she has her views but the hype around her never matches her actual performance in any interviews I have seen. As I said, I am reminder of May when I've seen her interviewed.
She is pro hanging unlike May, as the public is now for terrorists and child killers, if Corbyn won she would attack him from the law and order, tough on immigration, populist right if she became opposition leader
Morning everyone. Not been on since the grim events of Saturday night, but been reading here and watching the coverage of course. Whilst it's fairly unseemly in some ways to speculate on the possibility electoral impacts of terrorism, it's a thing so we must. My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad. Set that against Corbyn's ludicrous volte face on shoot to kill. It's clearly nonsense but It presses a button (deliberate choice of words) that he is prepared to say he will change his stance in the public interest. Whether he will or not is irrelevant. My read on how the public will reach overall is this......... For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........
The problem for the conservatives is that no counter factual exists. If it does then they think need to find it I.e. Did France increase police numbers and still not prevent terrorist attacks. Secondly it's all very well talking about reduction in police numbers but the numbers were artificially high caused by Brown's end of tenure splurge. The numbers have reduced to levels from the early 2000s - it's not like it is the Wild West. Do we really think labour would not have reduced police numbers when faced with similar cost constraints? Again If I were the Tories I would be looking at their 2010 proposals. Is there such thing as the Conservative Research Department still?
I don't disagree with any of that. The problem is time. Coming up with a convincing argument and strategy in 3 days is impossible. However, perhaps the fact that we are in the position of 3 days to save the UK (being hyperbolic deliberately) speaks volumes about the disengagement of the political class from the reality on the ground.
The answer is fairly simple. The attackers were dead within 8 minutes despite there being 3 of them in a chaotic urban area. That indicates the force levels of the police were exactly right.
Those complaining need to indicate in what way the police were stretched on Saturday night.
And in what way having a few more unarmed police on the beat would have prevented/mitigated the attack. It wouldn't.
Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
Most polls have SCons on 25 to 30% and SLAB on 20 to 25% though Comres has SLab lower and Survation higher
I think SCON will come 3rd as SLAB "surges" back to c.25% - Will be interesting to watch SCON & their MSM fanboys spinning 3rd as a win !
Dream on, in any case with the SNP down to around 40% now most of the swing is now SNP to Tory with only a minority Labour to Tory
FWIW SCON & the MSM have been overplaying SCONs hand, with SCON's support levels peaking too early. I think the SNP will surprise to the upside in the national vote at c.45% with SLAB & SCON fighting it out in the 20-25% range !
Always hard to be the frontrunner, especially coming off the 50% the SNP got last time - but I think Nicola has run a decent enough campaign.
Comments
Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May.
I'm not sure how long he has been in the Tory party.
I have heard multiple accusations of politicians and supporters of a political party 'hating their Country' Those accused are most often SNP. PC and Labour members. Often the accusations are spurious, sometimes justified on a narrow definition or topic.
On this occasion your accusations are based on a monotonous repetition of a point that fails in its entirety to back up the accusation. Apart from that, it is all great.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/security-barriers-installed-on-london-bridges-after-terror-attacks-kill-seven-a3556801.html?amp
Keep shoot-to-kill.
Keep the monarchy.
Keep the snoopers' charter.
Keep the benefits cap.
I want my £25 back.
"You don't see the difference between being prejudiced against those that stab others in the neck and being prejudiced against those that are appalled by that kind of violence but happen to be Muslim? "
I'm sure he does, but you confirm his point. Sticks and stones are nothing compared to a misplaced word or two. When did that happen?
I blame all politicians for debasing the language (although the left seem to take it further). No one ever makes slight mistakes, they are always huge blunders, there is no longer confusion, it is always chaos. You can no longer give 100%, it has to be 1000%.. You no longer disagree, you are being oppressed.
Where has understatement gone?
Hence the Prevent Strategy is a vile, vicious and inhuman attack on Islam. Has anyone said that yet? They soon will.
The start of the service i.e the khutba (the sermon) can be in whatever language the mosque wants. The mosques in say London will normally give the sermon mainly in English and partly in another language because the believers will be from so many different countries.
The actual prayer is always in Arabic.
It accused Qatar of supporting “Iranian-backed terrorist groups” operating in the kingdom’s eastern province as well as Bahrain.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2017-06-05/gulf-crisis-escalates-as-saudi-led-alliance-cuts-diplomatic-ties-with-qatar?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
The selective quoting is here: https://twitter.com/Peston/status/871626914871599104
I wasn't impressed when he 'interviewed' Corbyn and asked about his allotment rather than anything remotely serious.
Personally I have a problem with fundamentalism of all stripes and think we should strive to be an open and tolerant society. The problem we are addressing now is terrorism and keeping our streets safe. It's a different problem.
https://marriott-stats.com/nigels-blog/uk-general-election-2017-forecast-5-5-steps-to-making-sense-of-the-latest-polls/
I also think this an effort by Saudi to deflect attention from Saudi's own support for extreme Islamic ideology.
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/yougov-contradicts-survation-by.html
http://www.mcb.org.uk/london-bridge-attack-muslim-council-of-britain/
https://twitter.com/louisjemanuel/status/871638804360200193/photo/1
Ilford Recorder had a similar Labour wrap round last week with Mike Gapes.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/muslim-leaders-unite-with-other-faiths-to-condemn-appalling-westminster-attack-a3498836.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-39392442
Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
"THE Imam of York Mosque has condemned the Manchester bombing as 'an act of evil.'"
"Manchester Arena terror attack: Hull mosque leader condemns Islamic State atrocity"
"Liverpool's Muslim leader condemns Manchester Arena bombing"
"Manchester Islamic Centre and mosque attended by Salman Abedi call bombing ‘act of cowardice’ and urge anyone with information to contact police"
'About 200 imams had joined (Mansour) at Manchester Central Mosque on Tuesday, which produced a statement condemning the attack. “Even though the perpetrators claim to be Muslim, but have nothing to do with our religion . . . we have to oppose it and condemn it, simply because we do not want anybody to do these things in the name of our religion,” he said.'
My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad.
Set that against Corbyn's ludicrous volte face on shoot to kill. It's clearly nonsense but It presses a button (deliberate choice of words) that he is prepared to say he will change his stance in the public interest. Whether he will or not is irrelevant.
My read on how the public will reach overall is this.........
For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........
The problem seems to be that these people can easily tip from harmless eccentricity to murderous psychopathy. I can't see that extra funding to the security services would make any difference to stopping this sort of behaviour short of Stasi-like surveillance that would detect the exact moment they flipped. Cultural change needed.
Good to see article posted just above from other moderate Muslims and imams, we need to engage with them, put more resources into the Prevent strategy and encourage Muslim communities to continue to report the black sheep in their own families.
You need both Big Two party leaders to agree to the debates. Whoever is winning has nothing to gain and everything to lose and will almost invariably reject them - and, historically, has done so.
In 2010, however, both Cameron and Brown had something to gain: Brown needed a gamechanger or he was going to lose - so he was amenable despite being poor at debates. Cameron would struggle to get a majority without a gamechanger and considered himself good at debates.
If the hung parliament zone hadn't been so wide due to a third party having 60+ seats at dissolution, it would have been far easier for the Tories to win a majority, so the driver diminishes.
However, if there is a third party sufficiently strong to make things murky enough that both of the Big Two could do with a gamechanger and would thus both agree to debates, it's very hard to justify excluding them.
In short - with no strong third party, it's far harder to get mutual agreement for debates. With a strong third party, excluding them from such debates is very hard. And given the experience of 2010 and how strong third parties can benefit from them, it's very hard to see the Big Two both agreeing to them even under such circumstances.
The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Laurence J. Peter and published in 1969. It states that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence".
https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/the-final-straight-5336d7e03406
If you are a social conservative, then your are already well served by the Conservatives.
If you have left wing economic views, there is the Labour Party.
There is a niche for the Liberal Democrats. Under Tim Farron, who seems to have found it all a bit too much, they are not filling it.
And while we're on bizarre, Farron's entire career in politics will be remembered for just three words: Smell My Spaniel.....
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.119040708
It needs someone who can articulate a new direction for the Lib Dems. It also means losing some current support before building new support. To be fair to Tim Farron, during an election is not the time to reinvent yourself, when you are trying to shore up your current support. The timing of this election was dreadful for the Lib Dems
What is Labour's best chance of a gain ?
Derby North (Youngish electorate), target #1
Gower (Welsh polling)
Croydon Central (London effect)
Hallam (Tactical Tories returning to the blues allowing a squeeze through the middle)
Leeds NW (Young voter reg surge vs yellows (Reds have gone relatively forwards))
East Renfrew (Easiest seat in Scotland in theory, but possible Tory squeeze)
East Lothian (Holyrood results suggest)
Arfon (Plaid collapse)
Thanet South (Local factors)
Party before country should be your motto.
I believe it's been said that the Qataris own more property in London that the Queen.
https://twitter.com/BBC_Cumbria/status/871641385639837696
May has been exposed as a cardboard cut-out with a feeble and accident prone crew behind her and Labour don't resemble a government in waiting.
With those elephants in the room all scrutiny of manifestos counts for nothing.
Those complaining need to indicate in what way the police were stretched on Saturday night.