@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
Good luck with flogging that dead horse. Yes, we know what your (and the Guardian's) motive is, but it's not going anywhere: this is not in the faintest degree comparable to the institutional anti-semitism in Corbyn's Labour Party.
I see you are ignoring the institutional Islamophobia like your party.
Come come BJ. The Tory Party is no more institutionally islamophobic than the Labour Party is institutionally anti-semitic. This is just the equivalent of two competing groups of chimps throwing faeces at one another. Rise above it.
But that's the point: you're wrong. There is lots of evidence that Labour has problems with anti-Semitism, right to the very top of the party.
And whilst I agree that the Conservative Party has some problems, they're nowhere near as deep, nor reach all the way to the top of the party. But I will make one prediction: unless the Conservatives act on it, within ten years they'll be in a similar position to Labour is now: just with Islamaphobia rather than anti-Semitism.
Watching Channel 4 News, Alistair Burt looks pretty young for someone who was first elected to Parliament in 1983.
He does. He might be the youngest such MP, as all those who have continuously served since 1983 are older (as are all but one of the MPs who have served continuously since 1987). So it depends if any other youngsters were elected back then who have since re-entered.
Interestingly, there are more MPs elected first in 1983 who are still around than those first elected in 1987.
Watching Channel 4 News, Alistair Burt looks pretty young for someone who was first elected to Parliament in 1983.
He does. He might be the youngest such MP, as all those who have continuously served since 1983 are older (as are all but one of the MPs who have served continuously since 1987). So it depends if any other youngsters were elected back then who have since re-entered.
Interestingly, there are more MPs elected first in 1983 who are still around than those first elected in 1987.
I imagine that was true in 1989 too. I believe more were first elected in 1983 than 1987 full stop.
Do we actually know that where the location tracking system logs them is actually the constituency where they vote? I assume it is based on IP address, so if they do it at work then that would be the location and if by mobile then the tower where the data is being sent/received.
Watching Channel 4 News, Alistair Burt looks pretty young for someone who was first elected to Parliament in 1983.
He does. He might be the youngest such MP, as all those who have continuously served since 1983 are older (as are all but one of the MPs who have served continuously since 1987). So it depends if any other youngsters were elected back then who have since re-entered.
Interestingly, there are more MPs elected first in 1983 who are still around than those first elected in 1987.
Interesting. Alistair Burt was responsible for removing Labour MP Frank White from the Commons in Bury North in 1938. White had performed a miracle in 1979 by holding the Bury & Radcliffe seat by 38 votes when defending a majority from 1974 of just 442.
The investigation was going on long before Mueller was officially commissioned The link between firing Comey (because he let Hillary off Scott free from her server/email ptoblem) and Russia works both ways - why was Coney investigating Trump in the first place? Irrespective of order, there is no evidence of collusion so why was he being investigated? Who started it off? (Its the crank Steele Dossier)
1. The FBI was investigating the Trump campaign because foreign intelligence services (British, Dutch, German, and Australian have all been named IIRC) were picking up signs of communication between known and suspected Russian agents (people almost certainly routinely monitored) and members of the Trump campaign team. I believe that the FBI claims that they already had started an investigation, before foreign partners started pouring in with warnings, based upon their own sources, which to the best of my knowledge have not being disclosed because as a rule US intelligence services are super wary of collecting intelligence on US citizens.
2. Most of the stuff in the Steele dossier has stood up to scrutiny, the errors being relatively trivial. Calling Steele a crank is absurd, he was for a while MI6's Russia expert, he's not some Walter Mitty type, he's a person with the experience and contacts to back up his claims. Certainly the FBI took him seriously, as did several prominent Republican politicians. Steele was plainly correct in his allegations about the Russian government interfering in the election.
A hell of lot of crooks surround Trump, and many of them had been speaking to people they shouldn't have been. They may not have conspired, but their actions certainly warranted investigation. On top of the counterintelligence investigation a whole load of other crime has been found, and about a dozen current investigations have been spun off from the Special Counsel's work.
Well, until we see where it all goes I'm on to a loser. I maintain trump has less to worry about than many many other senior figures of the last administration
Well, until we see where it all goes I'm on to a loser. I maintain trump has less to worry about than many many other senior figures of the last administration
FWIW I'm no Clinton fan, she got off extremely lightly for what she was doing with her communications, which came to light because she wasn't complying with the Federal Records Act and a complaint was lodged which led to the discovery of Clinton's private email server.
If a junior member of a government department was, 1. not maintaing records, 2. conducting work through a private server, and 3. discussing classified matters on that service, they would almost certainly get the book thrown at them. People like Clinton, Trump, and many before them don't seem to have to follow the same rules that they expect the mere mortals working in government to follow.
Boris is doing a 'Boris live' event at Westminster central hall tonight - Charles Moore is interviewing him. It started an hour ago - tickets cost £75 for non Telegraph subscribers.
Do we actually know that where the location tracking system logs them is actually the constituency where they vote? I assume it is based on IP address, so if they do it at work then that would be the location and if by mobile then the tower where the data is being sent/received.
Isn't it based on the constituency they [claim they] are from?
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
He has done as little as possible, seeking to avoid annoying the smaller amount of Labour leave supporters, allowing Starmer and co to be as remainery as possible, while not annoying his remain heavy MPs and supporters too much by not being super keen on a new referendum. He's not done much at all, but so long as he keeps it together he will be PM soon.
So let's imagine that he did something other than what he did, either coming out openly in favour of Leave, or alternatively swinging the Labour leadership fully behind those seeking to alter the verdict of the referendum.
In either case, we would probably be where we are now in terms of the political process, with May still flogging her dead horse of a non-Deal to a parliament of Remainers willing to have none of it as the Conservative Party falls apart. So if that were to lead to a GE it is hardly the case that he has played a blinder, because to do so he would have to lay claim to having influenced that outcome.
Also, if we are to end up with a GE, Labour seems to be doing everything in its power to give the Conservatives a chance of still prevailing. Labour is still behind in nearly all polls at a time when the PM's plummeting favourability ratings look good only by being outstripped by those of Corbyn.
On February's polls Electoralcalculus predicts a Tory majority of 8. Even using the March polls, he'd struggle to get anything more decisive than a C&S deal with the SNP and L.Dems. If they have any bottle, they'll force PR on him.
I don't think anyone need fear anything. But SWP/Militant/CPGB(ML) may be gutted when the people don't vote en masse for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The petition's still getting 100-150 signatures per minute = ~150,000/day so it may reach 6-6.5 million = 10% of the population (15% of voters?) Not bad, given that no-one gets a polling card telling them to go and vote.
@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
Good luck with flogging that dead horse. Yes, we know what your (and the Guardian's) motive is, but it's not going anywhere: this is not in the faintest degree comparable to the institutional anti-semitism in Corbyn's Labour Party.
I see you are ignoring the institutional Islamophobia like your party.
Come come BJ. The Tory Party is no more institutionally islamophobic than the Labour Party is institutionally anti-semitic. This is just the equivalent of two competing groups of chimps throwing faeces at one another. Rise above it.
But that's the point: you're wrong. There is lots of evidence that Labour has problems with anti-Semitism, right to the very top of the party.
And whilst I agree that the Conservative Party has some problems, they're nowhere near as deep, nor reach all the way to the top of the party. But I will make one prediction: unless the Conservatives act on it, within ten years they'll be in a similar position to Labour is now: just with Islamaphobia rather than anti-Semitism.
Do we actually know that where the location tracking system logs them is actually the constituency where they vote? I assume it is based on IP address, so if they do it at work then that would be the location and if by mobile then the tower where the data is being sent/received.
Isn't it based on the constituency they [claim they] are from?
You can tell I have not put my name to it if that is the case.
The investigation was going on long before Mueller was officially commissioned The link between firing Comey (because he let Hillary off Scott free from her server/email ptoblem) and Russia works both ways - why was Coney investigating Trump in the first place? Irrespective of order, there is no evidence of collusion so why was he being investigated? Who started it off? (Its the crank Steele Dossier)
1. The FBI was investigating the Trump campaign because foreign intelligence services (British, Dutch, German, and Australian have all been named IIRC) were picking up signs of communication between known and suspected Russian agents (people almost certainly routinely monitored) and members of the Trump campaign team. I believe that the FBI claims that they already had started an investigation, before foreign partners started pouring in with warnings, based upon their own sources, which to the best of my knowledge have not being disclosed because as a rule US intelligence services are super wary of collecting intelligence on US citizens.
2. Most of the stuff in the Steele dossier has stood up to scrutiny, the errors being relatively trivial. Calling Steele a crank is absurd, he was for a while MI6's Russia expert, he's not some Walter Mitty type, he's a person with the experience and contacts to back up his claims. Certainly the FBI took him seriously, as did several prominent Republican politicians. Steele was plainly correct in his allegations about the Russian government interfering in the election.
A hell of lot of crooks surround Trump, and many of them had been speaking to people they shouldn't have been. They may not have conspired, but their actions certainly warranted investigation. On top of the counterintelligence investigation a whole load of other crime has been found, and about a dozen current investigations have been spun off from the Special Counsel's work.
Well, until we see where it all goes I'm on to a loser. I maintain trump has less to worry about than many many other senior figures of the last administration
So, we're on to "whataboutery" now?
Where the hell do you get that from? I'm just saying who i think is more likely to be in hot water. I'm out though, I can't 'win' the argument unless and until the situation changes.
Well, until we see where it all goes I'm on to a loser. I maintain trump has less to worry about than many many other senior figures of the last administration
FWIW I'm no Clinton fan, she got off extremely lightly for what she was doing with her communications, which came to light because she wasn't complying with the Federal Records Act and a complaint was lodged which led to the discovery of Clinton's private email server.
If a junior member of a government department was, 1. not maintaing records, 2. conducting work through a private server, and 3. discussing classified matters on that service, they would almost certainly get the book thrown at them. People like Clinton, Trump, and many before them don't seem to have to follow the same rules that they expect the mere mortals working in government to follow.
She was lucky to have Comey as FBI director at the time for sure
@AaronBastani 44m44 minutes ago More Am told @tom_watson walked out of Shadow Cabinet today after several colleagues said he misrepresented Labour position when he was booed at #PeoplesVoteMarch
Apparently left the room without saying a word.
Suspect it wasn’t malicious, just that he doesn’t grasp detail well.
Which Labour position was he misrepresenting? A book on Labour's varying positions on Brexit would be akin to the Kama Sutra, without the sexiness but with the beards (as long as they're not Jewish beards)
I was there for Watson's speech. He said "I would vote for Mrs May's deal", -pause-, -boos-, "if there was a people's vote to confirm it" -loud cheers. He wasn't booed personally - it was Mrs May's deal that was booed.
Do we actually know that where the location tracking system logs them is actually the constituency where they vote? I assume it is based on IP address, so if they do it at work then that would be the location and if by mobile then the tower where the data is being sent/received.
You have to enter your postcode when signing the petition.
(a) for accurately reflecting a discussion in the minutes?
(b) because he doesn’t tell cabinet ministers what to do
I think Adonis likes the idea of unelected people telling politicians what to do
The Cabinet Secretary should not have been present at a Conservative Party meeting. He should have made his excuses and left when a Cabinet meeting turned into a Party discussion.
@rcs1000 - Have you seen my comments last night about why a technical border solution will not happen? Do you disagree?
Yes, of course I disagree.
But there's no point in debating this with you because you've decided that checks away from the border are somehow impossible, and the EU knows this, and is deliberately pretending that they're possible because... because... it somehow suits your narrative that we're about to vote 90-10 to stay in the EU.
Checks away from the border are already in the backstop proposal, but not in the way you think.
Your journey from I-know-best insouciance to fanatical believer in unicorns since the referendum has been quite something to behold.
You’re in absolutely no position whatsoever to dish out lectures on fanaticism.
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Even assuming
1) All signatures are unique 2) All signatures are eligible voters 3) All signatures are really in this constituency 4) All signatures would vote based on this
The number signing is still fewer than the number of Lib Dem votes in 2017, or by definition the number of Goldsmith votes in 2017
I assume that none of those points are entirely true, nor do I assume that everyone who supports or opposes something will sign an online petition about it. I'm taking the view that assuming a reasonably large number of the signatures can be taken as genuine it is still a very large chunk of voters in his constituency, and the number of people who back something will likely be higher than the number who state it publicly.
So your premise that the number of petition signatures is less than the number of votes he got, in counter to the idea it is significant, is fatuous and irrelevant because who would expect it to be? The question is whether there is enough of an indication from it as a demonstration of strength of feeling on this issue to think he is in trouble. There might be disagreement on that, but he has a very small majority, and whatever the actual numbers signing it is clearly a large number.
Sure, but Goldsmith made no secret of his pro-Brexit views in 2017, and still won back a constituency that voted 70% Remain.
FPT. In the Richmond Park by election in 2016, 1515 people voted Labour and Sarah Olney, the LD candidate overturned a 23,000 Tory majority and won by 1872 votes, thanks in part to the tactical voting by Labour supporters.
In 2017, 5773 people voted Labour! Up from 1515. Either they were enthused by Corbyn or didn't get the message but the effect was that Sarah Olney lost by 45 votes. I don't think Labour voters will make the same mistake next time and let a Tory win.
The major difference was the big jump in turnout - far fewer people voted at the by-election!
Comments
Interestingly, there are more MPs elected first in 1983 who are still around than those first elected in 1987.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x3eiUQFPhSbuCZEBgS_jec4d-M5xcPd48e44rs707fQ/edit#gid=0
If a junior member of a government department was, 1. not maintaing records, 2. conducting work through a private server, and 3. discussing classified matters on that service, they would almost certainly get the book thrown at them. People like Clinton, Trump, and many before them don't seem to have to follow the same rules that they expect the mere mortals working in government to follow.
I don't think anyone need fear anything. But SWP/Militant/CPGB(ML) may be gutted when the people don't vote en masse for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The petition's still getting 100-150 signatures per minute = ~150,000/day so it may reach 6-6.5 million = 10% of the population (15% of voters?) Not bad, given that no-one gets a polling card telling them to go and vote.
NEW THREAD