But that's a loaded question, which reminds people. Without looking at the figures, and I may be wrong, I would assume that those following it are anti-Labour. If you asked what were the most important political events of the last two weeks, how many do you reckon will say Falkirk, if they mentioned anything at all?
Almost none I would imagine. That doesn't mean that Tories are wrong to pursue it. Given Labour seem to want to cover it up the Tories will naturally assume that there is more to come on this. They'd be crazy to stop pressing Labour on this till the full facts are known.
I am not saying they wont pursue it, in fact as a Labour supporter I hope they continue to do so, because whilst there is growing anger about things such as energy bills, they see during a three minute slot on PMQ's the PM not talking about them but repeatedly talking about "Falkirk". My original post was saying in the vast majority of peoples minds outside the anoraks it is a "non-story" and no matter how many times it is posted on here sarcastically as a "non-story", will not make it a story......ah fergerrit....carry on, it's the be all and end all.....go for it.
I mean, how much more horrifying can it get when the Director of Legal, Membership and Affiliated Services of Britian's largest union refers to his own department as Legal's?
Carola - Totally agree. But whilst there are many many people out there struggling to pay bills, they turn on the TV and politicians are going on about some seat many will have never even heard about, is it any wonder. Do people campaigning on the doorsteps say "I'm campaigning for the Conservative Party and I am here to highlight the scandal of Falkirk....sorry did you just ask me to cough?"
It is a fair point. All that Falkirk does is show that Labour are in the pockets of the unions, and do nothing for people who are not members of unions.
When will the people on here realise that this crap about Falkirk being a big story,is that, crap. Apart from on here and the politicos in the media, I have heard nobody and I mean nobody even mention it. However, I do hear people complaining about their cost of the gas and electricity on a regular occasion, and the fact that they are struggling to pay their bills.
Unless you are either in the Westminster bubble or you live a sheltered life in which politics is all consuming. Can you really say that people are either interested or have heard of "Falkirk".
Cue "oh yes, I was in the pub last night and it was all people was talking about"....or maybe not.
Another lefty who's only interested if it changes the current polls or not - no interest in the sleazy antics and the Labour leaders flawed judgement in chaining himself to this corruption.
No just highlighting the fact people on here keep saying "non-story" with sarcasm which in fact according to the public it is. TGOHF apart from people repeating it on here, Cameron repeating it at QT who else is mentioning it.
Can you imagine anyone outside the anoraks even at all interested. Christ, people who funded the Tory Party ended up running hospitals. If this doesn't cut across to the publics interest, how the hell is the process of Labour picking is prospective MP's?
According to the poll this morning, around a quarter of the electorate are following the story closely. That's quite a lot of people to be fair.
I would assume that those following it are anti-Labour
Carola - Totally agree. But whilst there are many many people out there struggling to pay bills, they turn on the TV and politicians are going on about some seat many will have never even heard about, is it any wonder. Do people campaigning on the doorsteps say "I'm campaigning for the Conservative Party and I am here to highlight the scandal of Falkirk....sorry did you just ask me to cough?"
It is a fair point. All that Falkirk does is show that Labour are in the pockets of the unions, and do nothing for people who are not members of unions.
In other news, Bears defacate in woods.
And the Tories are in the pockets of those who fund them and offer them hospitals and tax cuts in return. The anoraks on both sides have a bit of meat on their stereotype and the vast majority of the population bored by it all just turn off.........and snooze.
The amount of Tories in Falkirk is actually negative - even less than the zero present elsewhere in Scotland.
Yes that is exactly what the story about - which party will win the seat at the GE....
Ed won the leadership election by 0.65% of the vote in the run off.
Sunday Times claims that Unite leadership ballot papers were sent out to 160,000 people who were not members.
Ed won the Labour leadership election by 3895 union members.
3895 is 2.4% of 160,000.........
And heroic leap of logic of the evening goes to...
...Jerry Hicks? Wouldn't it be fun for a Trot to lead the UK's largest union. Oh me, oh my. Go Jerry, Go.
Jerry may even become an ex-Trot as a result of all this!
It's nostalgic to have a good barney over a GS election though.
But what is depressing - from a moderate's vantage - is the complete collapse of any centrist alternative. The once dominant right-wing block in Amicus was in disarray after Derek Simpson's surprise win over Ken Jackson, while of course, it has been pretty well non-exisent in the T&G since Frank Cousins won in 1956: ironically, the closest the centre-right ever got in that union was Mr Harriet Harman as an Assistant General Secretary.
Perhaps the only way foward is a de-merger? How can we contrive it to happen? Maybe tim could join the pbTories in that noble endeavour!
When will the people on here realise that this crap about Falkirk being a big story,is that, crap. Apart from on here and the politicos in the media, I have heard nobody and I mean nobody even mention it. However, I do hear people complaining about their cost of the gas and electricity on a regular occasion, and the fact that they are struggling to pay their bills.
Unless you are either in the Westminster bubble or you live a sheltered life in which politics is all consuming. Can you really say that people are either interested or have heard of "Falkirk".
Cue "oh yes, I was in the pub last night and it was all people was talking about"....or maybe not.
Another lefty who's only interested if it changes the current polls or not - no interest in the sleazy antics and the Labour leaders flawed judgement in chaining himself to this corruption.
No just highlighting the fact people on here keep saying "non-story" with sarcasm which in fact according to the public it is. TGOHF apart from people repeating it on here, Cameron repeating it at QT who else is mentioning it.
Can you imagine anyone outside the anoraks even at all interested. Christ, people who funded the Tory Party ended up running hospitals. If this doesn't cut across to the publics interest, how the hell is the process of Labour picking is prospective MP's?
According to the poll this morning, around a quarter of the electorate are following the story closely. That's quite a lot of people to be fair.
I would assume that those following it are anti-Labour
Labour VI (OA) Aware of story: 75 (74)
Following story : 57 (53)
And as I said earlier, I believe questions like that are loaded and leading. Maybe I live in a different circle of people to all the anoraks on here but I have yet to hear anyone at all even mention it.
Carola - Totally agree. But whilst there are many many people out there struggling to pay bills, they turn on the TV and politicians are going on about some seat many will have never even heard about, is it any wonder. Do people campaigning on the doorsteps say "I'm campaigning for the Conservative Party and I am here to highlight the scandal of Falkirk....sorry did you just ask me to cough?"
It is a fair point. All that Falkirk does is show that Labour are in the pockets of the unions, and do nothing for people who are not members of unions.
In other news, Bears defacate in woods.
And the Tories are in the pockets of those who fund them and offer them hospitals and tax cuts in return. The anoraks on both sides have a bit of meat on their stereotype and the vast majority of the population bored by it all just turn off.........and snooze.
And if you believe in that argument, then surely Labour are also in the pockets of those who fund them?
When will the people on here realise that this crap about Falkirk being a big story,is that, crap. Apart from on here and the politicos in the media, I have heard nobody and I mean nobody even mention it. However, I do hear people complaining about their cost of the gas and electricity on a regular occasion, and the fact that they are struggling to pay their bills.
Unless you are either in the Westminster bubble or you live a sheltered life in which politics is all consuming. Can you really say that people are either interested or have heard of "Falkirk".
Cue "oh yes, I was in the pub last night and it was all people was talking about"....or maybe not.
Another lefty who's only interested if it changes the current polls or not - no interest in the sleazy antics and the Labour leaders flawed judgement in chaining himself to this corruption.
No just highlighting the fact people on here keep saying "non-story" with sarcasm which in fact according to the public it is. TGOHF apart from people repeating it on here, Cameron repeating it at QT who else is mentioning it.
Can you imagine anyone outside the anoraks even at all interested. Christ, people who funded the Tory Party ended up running hospitals. If this doesn't cut across to the publics interest, how the hell is the process of Labour picking is prospective MP's?
According to the poll this morning, around a quarter of the electorate are following the story closely. That's quite a lot of people to be fair.
I would assume that those following it are anti-Labour
Labour VI (OA) Aware of story: 75 (74)
Following story : 57 (53)
Do you have polling figures on peoples view on PM's drinking Guinness - which if memory recalls has been an ongoing saga here on PB for a couple of years and involved more post on PB than falkirk - so far at least.
Has there ever been a greater disconnect between politicians and people than the Niqab/Burqa?
63% of the people want it banned. Just BANNED.
Not a single mainstream party - not even UKIP - now advocates this policy.
Thus the gulf widens. Very very dangerously.
I don't think it's all that dangerous to be honest. I doubt most people care a great deal one way or the other. In large swathes of the country it just isn't even relevant, for instance I have never seen a niqab or burqa in Scotland, ever. I spend 2-3 days a week in London and I accept the situation is different there but it's still hardly common place. Fair enough banning it in a court of law but I don't see the need for a wider ban.
And as I said earlier, I believe questions like that are loaded and leading. Maybe I live in a different circle of people to all the anoraks on here but I have yet to hear anyone at all even mention it.
I haven't heard anyone mention it either. Doesn't mean it isn't significant.
Anyway, if it is worrying the 'party of the working people', why doesn't EdM release the report and kill the story.
Perhaps he daren't. Perhaps violence and threats against people is the best solution.
When I was young I told people that I voted Labour. You had to do in Burnley, otherwise you got a kick in the head. I'm older now, and not prepared to put up with those attitudes any longer.
Carola - Totally agree. But whilst there are many many people out there struggling to pay bills, they turn on the TV and politicians are going on about some seat many will have never even heard about, is it any wonder. Do people campaigning on the doorsteps say "I'm campaigning for the Conservative Party and I am here to highlight the scandal of Falkirk....sorry did you just ask me to cough?"
It is a fair point. All that Falkirk does is show that Labour are in the pockets of the unions, and do nothing for people who are not members of unions.
In other news, Bears defacate in woods.
And the Tories are in the pockets of those who fund them and offer them hospitals and tax cuts in return. The anoraks on both sides have a bit of meat on their stereotype and the vast majority of the population bored by it all just turn off.........and snooze.
And if you believe in that argument, then surely Labour are also in the pockets of those who fund them?
Has there ever been a greater disconnect between politicians and people than the Niqab/Burqa?
63% of the people want it banned. Just BANNED.
Not a single mainstream party - not even UKIP - now advocates this policy.
Thus the gulf widens. Very very dangerously.
Not really. There has been a similar disconnect between politicians and the public over capital punishment for certain crimes for decades. It has not led to any great problem and as I am on the side of the politicians on both issues I am rather glad of that.
Beware of anecdotes etc., but my impression from the last two weekends' doorsteps in my marginal is that voting intention is hardening on all sides, except the LibDems. Lots of really keen Labour, Tory and UKIP voters, fewer doubtfuls than normal this far out from a GE. LibDems who've switched to Labour are more solid than anyone, but lots of other 2010 LibDems are just unsure - which fits with the polls. UKIP voters are particularly definite.
i think we're starting to see a small but detectable Tory->Lab movement for the first time as well, though that might be just random noise.
When will the people on here realise that this crap about Falkirk being a big story,is that, crap. Apart from on here and the politicos in the media, I have heard nobody and I mean nobody even mention it. However, I do hear people complaining about their cost of the gas and electricity on a regular occasion, and the fact that they are struggling to pay their bills.
Unless you are either in the Westminster bubble or you live a sheltered life in which politics is all consuming. Can you really say that people are either interested or have heard of "Falkirk".
Cue "oh yes, I was in the pub last night and it was all people was talking about"....or maybe not.
Another lefty who's only interested if it changes the current polls or not - no interest in the sleazy antics and the Labour leaders flawed judgement in chaining himself to this corruption.
No just highlighting the fact people on here keep saying "non-story" with sarcasm which in fact according to the public it is. TGOHF apart from people repeating it on here, Cameron repeating it at QT who else is mentioning it.
Can you imagine anyone outside the anoraks even at all interested. Christ, people who funded the Tory Party ended up running hospitals. If this doesn't cut across to the publics interest, how the hell is the process of Labour picking is prospective MP's?
According to the poll this morning, around a quarter of the electorate are following the story closely. That's quite a lot of people to be fair.
I would assume that those following it are anti-Labour
Labour VI (OA) Aware of story: 75 (74)
Following story : 57 (53)
Do you have polling figures on peoples view on PM's drinking Guinness - which if memory recalls has been an ongoing saga here on PB for a couple of years and involved more post on PB than falkirk - so far at least.
Goodness, you mean that outstripped the disgusting, repellent, voter repellent, scandal of David Cameron doing some shopping in Waitrose.
Beware of anecdotes etc., but my impression from the last two weekends' doorsteps in my marginal is that voting intention is hardening on all sides, except the LibDems. Lots of really keen Labour, Tory and UKIP voters, fewer doubtfuls than normal this far out from a GE. LibDems who've switched to Labour are more solid than anyone, but lots of other 2010 LibDems are just unsure - which fits with the polls. UKIP voters are particularly definite.
i think we're starting to see a small but detectable Tory->Lab movement for the first time as well, though that might be just random noise.
I dont think anyone doubts that Bernie got immediate payback from his contribution. A finer example of why we need reform of the rules on donations it would be hard to find.
In even more important news, I have bought an iPad Air (128GB, wifi and cell).
Software wise there is little difference twixt the Air and the iPad 4, ditto hardware. What astonishes is the weight. It is like handling an iPad on the moon. It almost floats off your hand - indeed it maybe TOO light - something so expensive should have a heft, so you notice when you drop it.
But it's also cheering: a combination of western capitalism, British designer, American know-how and say-so, and Chinese manufacturing, has given the world a stunning and marvellous object, something inconceivable 20 years ago - a magic near-weightless crystal psalter made of nothingness, which evinces everythingness.
Of all our modern consumer gizmos, the iPad Air is the object which would have most appeared magical to 16th century humans: discuss.
Star Trek predicted it with their PADDs in TNG, about twenty years ago
I also very much doubt there was EVER a 63/24 public split in favour/against capital punishment (since it was abolished) as there is now in favour/against banning the burqa.
Errrr
Support for the death penalty has fallen over the decades – it used to be over 70%, these days roughly half of the population support the death penalty for “standard” murder – indeed there was a YouGov poll in 2006 that showed marginally less than half of people in support of it, the first time it had occured
More recently, a YouGov poll in September 2010 found 51% supported the death penalty for murder, 37% opposed. A MORI poll in July 2010 found 51% supported the death penalty for adult murder. An Angus Reid poll in 2008 found people supported the death penalty for murder by 50% to 40%.
Support for the death penalty is higher for specific crimes, such as murder of a police officer, murder of a child or multiple murders. The MORI poll in July 2010 asked people which of a list of crimes they thought should have the death penalty – 62% supported it for child murder (and 70% supported in at least some circumstances). A YouGov poll in November 2010 found 74% of people supported the death penalty for murder in some circumstances, though only 16% supported it for all murders.
If we go all the way back to 2003, a YouGov poll asked people if they supported the death penalty in various circumstances of murder. 57% supported it for murder , 62% for murder of a police officer, 67% for the murder of a child, 69% for a serial killer (note that the figures may be slightly higher than more recent polling because of the timing of the poll, conducted just after the Soham murder trial – 63% would have hanged Huntley).
Beware of anecdotes etc., but my impression from the last two weekends' doorsteps in my marginal is that voting intention is hardening on all sides, except the LibDems. Lots of really keen Labour, Tory and UKIP voters, fewer doubtfuls than normal this far out from a GE. LibDems who've switched to Labour are more solid than anyone, but lots of other 2010 LibDems are just unsure - which fits with the polls. UKIP voters are particularly definite.
i think we're starting to see a small but detectable Tory->Lab movement for the first time as well, though that might be just random noise.
Do you ask people their voting intentions when calling? And use previous canvassing records of their past allegiances? Or is it just random cold calling?
But, to be fair, you're a self-confessed halfwit from all-white Scotland: talk to someone in Luton, Leicester or Leytonstone.
On the other hand you are someone who once advocated internment without trial for people simply because they were muslim. Maybe us halfwits are more likely to have a reasonable view on issues like this?
Carola - Totally agree. But whilst there are many many people out there struggling to pay bills, they turn on the TV and politicians are going on about some seat many will have never even heard about, is it any wonder. Do people campaigning on the doorsteps say "I'm campaigning for the Conservative Party and I am here to highlight the scandal of Falkirk....sorry did you just ask me to cough?"
It is a fair point. All that Falkirk does is show that Labour are in the pockets of the unions, and do nothing for people who are not members of unions.
In other news, Bears defacate in woods.
And the Tories are in the pockets of those who fund them and offer them hospitals and tax cuts in return. The anoraks on both sides have a bit of meat on their stereotype and the vast majority of the population bored by it all just turn off.........and snooze.
And if you believe in that argument, then surely Labour are also in the pockets of those who fund them?
Josias - The point I was making has obviously flown right over your head.
Ahem. Yep, it did. Sorry.
Blame a late night followed by an early start to take Mrs J to yet another run. Still, at least it was sunny by the Grand Union Canal. If very, very muddy.
I can't even blame alcohol. I haven't had a drink all day. Or perhaps that's the problem... :-)
Has there ever been a greater disconnect between politicians and people than the Niqab/Burqa?
63% of the people want it banned. Just BANNED.
Not a single mainstream party - not even UKIP - now advocates this policy.
Thus the gulf widens. Very very dangerously.
I have never seen a niqab or burqa in Scotland, ever.
You've obviously never been to Falkirk then, seeing Unite members all going about their lawful transparent business.
Ha! I've been to Falkirk, it's quite nice, there is also a surprisingly Tory part of it. It also has two fantastic pieces of public art, the Falkirk Wheel and as of April 2014 (at the moment I've only seen it part built) the Kelpies.
Fox, your bang on the money with that view IMHO, and it would be wrong to dismiss the serious damage this increasingly toxic slow burning political scandal could yet do to Unite and the Labour party in the run up to the next GE.
That Ed Miliband's election as Labour Leader was so reliant on the backing of the Unite Union, and that the subsequent biggest donor of the Labour party at the next GE is also going to be the Unite Union is what makes Ed Miliband's refusal to publish or re-open the Falkirk Inquiry such a real political gamble for him personally, and also for his party in Scotland and the wider UK in the longer term. That Ed Miliband is usually so fond of demanding a full and open public inquiry into any other area of public life, his sudden refusal to even countenance one over this issue in light of recent revelations stinks of a desperate attempt at a cover up.
It is not the crime that causes the political problems, it is the cover up. This is why plebgate is still running, why the unmentionable trial keeps running and why Falkirk will keep running. These things are slow burners.
If Ed wanted to kill the story he should publish the investigation, punish the guilty (if any) and the story would naturally die. The fact that he doesnt probably means that the guilty are too big to punish. So the stench of Falkirk continues to emanate from Labour.
As Stalin supposedly said "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything"
When will the people on here realise that this crap about Falkirk being a big story,is that, crap. Apart from on here and the politicos in the media, I have heard nobody and I mean nobody even mention it. However, I do hear people complaining about their cost of the gas and electricity on a regular occasion, and the fact that they are struggling to pay their bills.
Unless you are either in the Westminster bubble or you live a sheltered life in which politics is all consuming. Can you really say that people are either interested or have heard of "Falkirk".
Cue "oh yes, I was in the pub last night and it was all people was talking about"....or maybe not.
Interesting Sunday Times fact (read on my iPad air): modern Brits are twice as well off as Brits 30 years ago. And five times better off than Brits pre-1939.
That is to say, average personal wealth has DOUBLED in the UK in my adult life.
I can believe this. A walk around London today (I was shopping for things to go with my new iPad) just convinced me of the immense wealth sloshing around. London looked incomparably prosperous, and crowded, and buzzing - certainly much richer than it was pre-crash.
I wouldn't be surprised if London's "GDP" is growing at 5% a year, maybe even 10% per year.
Cue anotherrichard to lecture me from the impoverished estaminets of West Bromwich.
The iPad Air is the dog's dangly bits.
It makes my iPad 4 look as advanced as the Nokia I had in 1997
The Niqab in Leicester is quite curious, though not that unusual. I have seen families where the mother is in Niqab and the daughter in western dress, and vice versa. There is a lot of identity politics to it within the muslim community. Tje weirdest one that I saw recently was two ethnic Somali girls wearing headscarves and hotpants. Now that really is identity politics that makes my head spin.
Has there ever been a greater disconnect between politicians and people than the Niqab/Burqa?
63% of the people want it banned. Just BANNED.
Not a single mainstream party - not even UKIP - now advocates this policy.
Thus the gulf widens. Very very dangerously.
I don't think it's all that dangerous to be honest. I doubt most people care a great deal one way or the other. In large swathes of the country it just isn't even relevant, for instance I have never seen a niqab or burqa in Scotland, ever. I spend 2-3 days a week in London and I accept the situation is different there but it's still hardly common place. Fair enough banning it in a court of law but I don't see the need for a wider ban.
But, to be fair, you're a self-confessed halfwit from all-white Scotland: talk to someone in Luton, Leicester or Leytonstone.
The debate on pre-enlightenment Muslim values is going to grow evermore dangerous, and pivotal, as the percentage Muslim population grows in the UK. I do not believe there is a single country in the world with a Muslim population over 15-20% which does not suffer serious sectarian strife.
Has there ever been a greater disconnect between politicians and people than the Niqab/Burqa?
63% of the people want it banned. Just BANNED.
Not a single mainstream party - not even UKIP - now advocates this policy.
Thus the gulf widens. Very very dangerously.
I don't think it's all that dangerous to be honest. I doubt most people care a great deal one way or the other. In large swathes of the country it just isn't even relevant, for instance I have never seen a niqab or burqa in Scotland, ever. I spend 2-3 days a week in London and I accept the situation is different there but it's still hardly common place. Fair enough banning it in a court of law but I don't see the need for a wider ban.
But, to be fair, you're a self-confessed halfwit from all-white Scotland: talk to someone in Luton, Leicester or Leytonstone.
The debate on pre-enlightenment Muslim values is going to grow evermore dangerous, and pivotal, as the percentage Muslim population grows in the UK. I do not believe there is a single country in the world with a Muslim population over 15-20% which does not suffer serious sectarian strife.
But that's kind of the point I was making. Luton, Leicester and Leytonstone are not typical of the country as a whole anymore than Edinburgh or the Borders are. To an awful lot of people in this country this is a complete non-issue whether you like it or not. Which is why even UKIP don't go on about it, there are no votes in it.
Has there ever been a greater disconnect between politicians and people than the Niqab/Burqa?
63% of the people want it banned. Just BANNED.
Not a single mainstream party - not even UKIP - now advocates this policy.
Thus the gulf widens. Very very dangerously.
Not really. There has been a similar disconnect between politicians and the public over capital punishment for certain crimes for decades. It has not led to any great problem and as I am on the side of the politicians on both issues I am rather glad of that.
Total, total bollocks. Capital punishment is not related to a whole host of crucial and venomous arguments about immigration, culture, identity, terrorism, feminism, misogyny, and craven appeasement of barbaric non-British values - all of which are embodied in the niqab debate.
I also very much doubt there was EVER a 63/24 public split in favour/against capital punishment (since it was abolished) as there is now in favour/against banning the burqa.
And your party has just dropped this most popular policy. Bunch of clowns.
I suspect you will find that capital punishment for murder of children (for example) has always had public support close to our exceeding the numbers you are quoting for banning the burka.
Actually I see TSE has already pointed out that very fact so you are in fact the one talking utter bollocks.
There are also plenty of arguments - which I happen to disagree with - that abolishing capital punishment has had a huge impact on a whole range of societal issues similar or in some cases identical to the ones you mention.
So again you are talking out of your arse to try and defend a position (that this was a unique issue of the divide between politicians and public) which you adopted without even trying to find any evidence for or against it.
I also very much doubt there was EVER a 63/24 public split in favour/against capital punishment (since it was abolished) as there is now in favour/against banning the burqa.
Errrr
Support for the death penalty has fallen over the decades – it used to be over 70%, these days roughly half of the population support the death penalty for “standard” murder – indeed there was a YouGov poll in 2006 that showed marginally less than half of people in support of it, the first time it had occured
More recently, a YouGov poll in September 2010 found 51% supported the death penalty for murder, 37% opposed. A MORI poll in July 2010 found 51% supported the death penalty for adult murder. An Angus Reid poll in 2008 found people supported the death penalty for murder by 50% to 40%.
Support for the death penalty is higher for specific crimes, such as murder of a police officer, murder of a child or multiple murders. The MORI poll in July 2010 asked people which of a list of crimes they thought should have the death penalty – 62% supported it for child murder (and 70% supported in at least some circumstances). A YouGov poll in November 2010 found 74% of people supported the death penalty for murder in some circumstances, though only 16% supported it for all murders.
If we go all the way back to 2003, a YouGov poll asked people if they supported the death penalty in various circumstances of murder. 57% supported it for murder , 62% for murder of a police officer, 67% for the murder of a child, 69% for a serial killer (note that the figures may be slightly higher than more recent polling because of the timing of the poll, conducted just after the Soham murder trial – 63% would have hanged Huntley).
Errrrr..... I asked for a poll, following the abolition of the death penalty, which broke 63/24 in favour of the death penalty - i.e. with a 39 point lead for the "hang the bastards" brigade. For all yr statistical flustering, you have failed to find one.
Of course there may well be one, but your failure so far (after much Googling, it seems) is telling.
Errr did you miss the bit about 70% being in favour of the death penalty?
But, to be fair, you're a self-confessed halfwit from all-white Scotland: talk to someone in Luton, Leicester or Leytonstone.
On the other hand you are someone who once advocated internment without trial for people simply because they were muslim. Maybe us halfwits are more likely to have a reasonable view on issues like this?
You're a green voting atheist homosexual Irishman. You are lucky to be alive, on so many levels, you should simply desist from further commentary and give thanks for your existence - and leave the big stuff to me. Deal?
If you get to decide on the big stuff I'll be lucky not to be interned without trial so you can see why I'm grateful you dont.
The amount of Tories in Falkirk is actually negative - even less than the zero present elsewhere in Scotland.
Yes that is exactly what the story about - which party will win the seat at the GE.... Ed won the leadership election by 0.65% of the vote in the run off. Sunday Times claims that Unite leadership ballot papers were sent out to 160,000 people who were not members. Ed won the Labour leadership election by 3895 union members. 3895 is 2.4% of 160,000.........
Some other facts about the impact that UNITE members votes played in the election of Ed Milliband. 1. The Unite turnout was 10.5%, significantly ahead of the average for all other Unions which was 8.04%. The biggest union achieved the highest turnout, quite remarkable. 2. The first ballot majority was a 2.18 multiple of Unite members votes for Ed over David. A total lead of 25,661. 3. Amongst the biggest four Unions, Unite had by far the highest turnout with 10.5%. GMB was 7.80%, Unison was 6.70% and USDAW 4.30%.
But, to be fair, you're a self-confessed halfwit from all-white Scotland: talk to someone in Luton, Leicester or Leytonstone.
On the other hand you are someone who once advocated internment without trial for people simply because they were muslim. Maybe us halfwits are more likely to have a reasonable view on issues like this?
You're a green voting atheist homosexual Irishman. You are lucky to be alive, on so many levels, you should simply desist from further commentary and give thanks for your existence - and leave the big stuff to me. Deal?
If you get to decide on the big stuff I'll be lucky not to be interned without trial so you can see why I'm grateful you dont.
I forgot to add "practically illiterate" to my list of your virtues. Sorry.
Well done for livening things up this evening, SeanT. But are you happy?
As I recall the pork barrel aspects of helicopter construction threatened the Thatcher administration.
Westland wasn't about pork barrel politics, it was about whether they should merge with the US Sikorsky (as they wanted), or go into partnership with European firms. You'll note which view prevailed, and for how much longer the Thatcher admin continued.
I said "capital punishment" - not "the death penalty for the murder of children"
You are sad, waddling old clown, and I'm glad you've found a party that mirrors you so well.
Clearly in spite of being a supposed writer you have absolutely no grasp of the English language since you fail to realise that capital punishment means the f***ing death penalty. And unless you are claiming it should be for all crimes then the fact that 70% have said they want it for child murder proves my point absolutely.
I am just trying to work out now whether it is the history of drug abuse or the belief in a Middle Eastern Sky Fairy that makes you incapable of following basic logic.
By the way as I remember it the last time this came up you yourself swore blind you were not in favour of a ban. Had the drugs/religious nut issue meant you forgot that as well?
I also very much doubt there was EVER a 63/24 public split in favour/against capital punishment (since it was abolished) as there is now in favour/against banning the burqa.
Errrr
Support for the death penalty has fallen over the decades – it used to be over 70%, these days roughly half of the population support the death penalty for “standard” murder – indeed there was a YouGov poll in 2006 that showed marginally less than half of people in support of it, the first time it had occured
Errrrr..... I asked for a poll, following the abolition of the death penalty, which broke 63/24 in favour of the death penalty - i.e. with a 39 point lead for the "hang the bastards" brigade. For all yr statistical flustering, you have failed to find one.
Of course there may well be one, but your failure so far (after much Googling, it seems) is telling.
Errr did you miss the bit about 70% being in favour of the death penalty?
Link? I said there may well be one, but you hadn't advanced it. Link me, and I will debate your point. Also it has to break more than 39 points in favour to check my relentless triumph in this debate.
Will 37% do?
A survey by pollsters Angus Reid, following this month’s outbreak of rioting across Britain, found 65 per cent of adults quizzed were in favour of capital punishment while only 28 per cent were opposed
It is not the crime that causes the political problems, it is the cover up. This is why plebgate is still running, why the unmentionable trial keeps running and why Falkirk will keep running. These things are slow burners.
If Ed wanted to kill the story he should publish the investigation, punish the guilty (if any) and the story would naturally die. The fact that he doesnt probably means that the guilty are too big to punish. So the stench of Falkirk continues to emanate from Labour.
As Stalin supposedly said "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything"
When will the people on here realise that this crap about Falkirk being a big story,is that, crap. Apart from on here and the politicos in the media, I have heard nobody and I mean nobody even mention it. However, I do hear people complaining about their cost of the gas and electricity on a regular occasion, and the fact that they are struggling to pay their bills.
Unless you are either in the Westminster bubble or you live a sheltered life in which politics is all consuming. Can you really say that people are either interested or have heard of "Falkirk".
Cue "oh yes, I was in the pub last night and it was all people was talking about"....or maybe not.
It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.
A good friend of mine had that quote on the front of the manifestos when he ran a student election.
So we have Falkirk and we have the General Secretary election both being called into question. If I get your drift, you are suggesting that an authentication of which of the Unite Labour party voters voted in the Leadership election of Ed Miliband would show similar procedural highjinks.
Now that would be a reason to keep quiet. It is almost like the Birthers, only perhaps with more validity. If Eds election was not legitimate there would be a very large tomcat out of the bag and amongst the pigeons!
Sean, you sound angry and frustrated this evening, have you run out of viagra?
Utterly the opposite. I am in a BEAMINGLY good mood (for reasons I won't adduce lest it upsets Woger). However pb has been f*cking dull of late (I've looked in a few times and just given up in tedium, without even commenting) so I'm trying to pep you all up.
Everything I am saying is true, and I believe every word.... however, I might be adding some rhetorical mustard to get people animated. Sue me.
Perhaps you should do a telegraph blog on the burqa?
What's the worst that could happen?
I mean, has an English author ever enraged the Muslims so much, that they issued a fatwa for his death?
Has there ever been a greater disconnect between politicians and people than the Niqab/Burqa?
63% of the people want it banned. Just BANNED.
Not a single mainstream party - not even UKIP - now advocates this policy.
Thus the gulf widens. Very very dangerously.
I have never seen a niqab or burqa in Scotland, ever.
You've obviously never been to Falkirk then, seeing Unite members all going about their lawful transparent business.
I saw a woman wearing a niqab in Glasgow last week. She had just come out of the Radisson Blu hotel and was carrying a Ted Baker shopping bag.
I would guess she nay have been from the Arab world. When I worked in Qatar you would see loads of women wearing abayas, a few had niqabs. They would also have the most outrageously expensive shoes and handbags. There was an intern at my work who had a different handbag for every day of the week. One of my female colleagues reckoned the cheapest one would cost about £5,000!
If I get your drift, you are suggesting that an authentication of which of the Unite Labour party voters voted in the Leadership election of Ed Miliband would show similar procedural highjinks.
I'm sure that nobody is making any such point on OGH's blog.
If I get your drift, you are suggesting that an authentication of which of the Unite Labour party voters voted in the Leadership election of Ed Miliband would show similar procedural highjinks.
I'm sure that nobody is making any such point on OGH's blog.
Isn't it the case, that Len McCluskey was elected as Unite General Secretary after Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader?
Edit: The computer says yes, November 2010, Ed was elected in September 2010
My favourite capital punishment quote was from sometimes Tory sometimes Lib Dem PPC in the Highlands Robbie Rowantree, "I would be glad to wield the headman’s axe".
If I get your drift, you are suggesting that an authentication of which of the Unite Labour party voters voted in the Leadership election of Ed Miliband would show similar procedural highjinks.
I'm sure that nobody is making any such point on OGH's blog.
Isn't it the case, that Len McCluskey was elected as Unite General Secretary after Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader?
Edit: The computer says yes, November 2010, Ed was elected in September 2010
I cant remember the dates exactly, certainly the Labour leadership result was announced first but the elections could have overlapped. But people are focusing on Len too much. Ed had the support of the Executive. GSs are not dictators.
This is the majority for Ed on the first Unons ballot over David = 29,396. This is the majority for Ed on the first Unite members vote over David = 25,661.
I cant remember the dates exactly, certainly the Labour leadership result was announced first but the elections could have overlapped. But people are focusing on Len too much. Ed had the support of the Executive. GSs are not dictators.
If I get your drift, you are suggesting that an authentication of which of the Unite Labour party voters voted in the Leadership election of Ed Miliband would show similar procedural highjinks.
I'm sure that nobody is making any such point on OGH's blog.
Isn't it the case, that Len McCluskey was elected as Unite General Secretary after Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader?
Edit: The computer says yes, November 2010, Ed was elected in September 2010
Perhaps the Brothers accidentally contaminated their database with an extra 160 000 members in the mean time.
The 160,000 number comes from the second GS election that Len surprisingly called this year rather than the 2010 contest. The statistical chances of this having influenced that election are about zero. But who knows what the certification officer will decide. Recently enough UCATT had to re-run their GS election but the circumstances there were far dodgier.
It is well known that many TU membership databases are, to be polite, poor. Look at the BA strike ballots that were overturned (and now we have a trot trying to same trick!). The idea that this means that GS elections have been rigged is far-fetched. The idea that the Labour leadership election was rigged (as some posters are none-too-subtly trying to suggest) is bonkers.
I cant remember the dates exactly, certainly the Labour leadership result was announced first but the elections could have overlapped. But people are focusing on Len too much. Ed had the support of the Executive. GSs are not dictators.
Perhaps the Brothers accidentally contaminated their database with an extra 160 000 members in the mean time.
The 160,000 number comes from the second GS election that Len surprisingly called this year rather than the 2010 contest. The statistical chances of this having influenced that election are about zero. But who knows what the certification officer will decide. Recently enough UCATT had to re-run their GS election but the circumstances there were far dodgier.
It is well known that many TU membership databases are, to be polite, poor. Look at the BA strike ballots that were overturned (and now we have a trot trying to same trick!). The idea that this means that GS elections have been rigged is far-fetched. The idea that the Labour leadership election was rigged (as some posters are none-too-subtly trying to suggest) is bonkers.
The Tory database isn't much cop either.
As I've lived in 4 different addresses in the last four years, they still think I'm a different member at each address, despite me telling them otherwise.
I may represent nearly 33% of the vote in the next Tory leadership election if the membership numbers continue to decline.
The amount of Tories in Falkirk is actually negative - even less than the zero present elsewhere in Scotland.
Yes that is exactly what the story about - which party will win the seat at the GE....
Ed won the leadership election by 0.65% of the vote in the run off.
Sunday Times claims that Unite leadership ballot papers were sent out to 160,000 people who were not members.
Ed won the Labour leadership election by 3895 union members.
3895 is 2.4% of 160,000.........
Now wouldn't it be fun if David Miliband demanded a full inquiry into vote rigging in the Labour leadership election, talk about a dish served cold........
Do you ask people their voting intentions when calling? And use previous canvassing records of their past allegiances? Or is it just random cold calling?
Yes, yes and no. I never draw any conclusions at all, even anecdotal, if we don't have previous records. But Broxtowe has been so heavily canvassed over the years that we have previous stated voting intention for most people except new arrivals: in some roads we have a 90% contact rate. No doubt the Tories do too. That was why I was able to predict the close outcome last time here fairly accurately.
The weirdest one that I saw recently was two ethnic Somali girls wearing headscarves and hotpants. Now that really is identity politics that makes my head spin.
Head covering and tight jeans are quite common in my area in London. When I was at school we had a group of Mormons - really nice kids. They carefully followed all the specific instructions - do not drink Coca-Cola, for instance - but were otherwise as wild as everyone else. Kids will be kids in every culture and they work round the rules.
It is not the crime that causes the political problems, it is the cover up. This is why plebgate is still running, why the unmentionable trial keeps running and why Falkirk will keep running. These things are slow burners.
If Ed wanted to kill the story he should publish the investigation, punish the guilty (if any) and the story would naturally die. The fact that he doesnt probably means that the guilty are too big to punish. So the stench of Falkirk continues to emanate from Labour.
As Stalin supposedly said "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything"
When will the people on here realise that this crap about Falkirk being a big story,is that, crap. Apart from on here and the politicos in the media, I have heard nobody and I mean nobody even mention it. However, I do hear people complaining about their cost of the gas and electricity on a regular occasion, and the fact that they are struggling to pay their bills.
Unless you are either in the Westminster bubble or you live a sheltered life in which politics is all consuming. Can you really say that people are either interested or have heard of "Falkirk".
Cue "oh yes, I was in the pub last night and it was all people was talking about"....or maybe not.
It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.
A good friend of mine had that quote on the front of the manifestos when he ran a student election.
I cant remember the dates exactly, certainly the Labour leadership result was announced first but the elections could have overlapped. But people are focusing on Len too much. Ed had the support of the Executive. GSs are not dictators.
"Kids will be kids in every culture and they work round the rules."
I have to admit, that's so true.
The latest fad amongst Muslims who like to drink is that the Quran says it is unIslamic to be intoxicated, so the trick is to drink, but not too much so you don't get drunk.
I cant remember the dates exactly, certainly the Labour leadership result was announced first but the elections could have overlapped. But people are focusing on Len too much. Ed had the support of the Executive. GSs are not dictators.
Or the Lib Dems. They have my name wrong. Perhaps the best reason for government funding of parties would be to sort out who is eligible to vote on party matters.
Perhaps the Brothers accidentally contaminated their database with an extra 160 000 members in the mean time.
The 160,000 number comes from the second GS election that Len surprisingly called this year rather than the 2010 contest. The statistical chances of this having influenced that election are about zero. But who knows what the certification officer will decide. Recently enough UCATT had to re-run their GS election but the circumstances there were far dodgier.
It is well known that many TU membership databases are, to be polite, poor. Look at the BA strike ballots that were overturned (and now we have a trot trying to same trick!). The idea that this means that GS elections have been rigged is far-fetched. The idea that the Labour leadership election was rigged (as some posters are none-too-subtly trying to suggest) is bonkers.
The Tory database isn't much cop either.
As I've lived in 4 different addresses in the last four years, they still think I'm a different member at each address, despite me telling them otherwise.
I may represent nearly 33% of the vote in the next Tory leadership election if the membership numbers continue to decline.
I cant remember the dates exactly, certainly the Labour leadership result was announced first but the elections could have overlapped. But people are focusing on Len too much. Ed had the support of the Executive. GSs are not dictators.
Indeed, Trade Union General Secretaries aren't Dictators, they are Stalinists? Right?
Far fewer Stalinist GSs these days.
And even fewer self-declared moderate GSs among the larger unions. Indeed are they any?
Is USDAW large enough? ATL? Tbh I wouldnt have Prentis as *that* much of a leftwinger either. He has certainly had cause to clash with other GSs who certainly are.
I cant remember the dates exactly, certainly the Labour leadership result was announced first but the elections could have overlapped. But people are focusing on Len too much. Ed had the support of the Executive. GSs are not dictators.
Indeed, Trade Union General Secretaries aren't Dictators, they are Stalinists? Right?
Far fewer Stalinist GSs these days.
And even fewer self-declared moderate GSs among the larger unions. Indeed are they any?
Is USDAW large enough? ATL? Tbh I wouldnt have Prentis as *that* much of a leftwinger either. He has certainly had cause to clash with other GSs who certainly are.
I just dont think people care about the politics of GS candidates any more. Indeed it doesnt usually matter. Except in unusual cases like a micro-sect taking over PCS. Mind you Jerry winning a Unite GS election could just change that!
And there lies the point. Imagine campaigning for whichever party and you ask a voter what issues are they interested in, they would possibly reel off energy prices, price of petrol, cost of living, immigration, Europe, being skint despite being in work, the NHS, not liking politicians and then they turn around and they say what does your party or do you think is important....err Falkirk.
Non-Story except in the heads of political anoraks and Westminster bubble roamers. It's lucky they have sites like this to obsess over it with like minded people. It's what sites like this excel in.
I just dont think people care about the politics of GS candidates any more. Indeed it doesnt usually matter. Except in unusual cases like a micro-sect taking over PCS. Mind you Jerry winning a Unite GS election could just change that!
Oh yes, you're absolutely right about that. We can thank Mrs T for that!!
And there lies the point. Imagine campaigning for whichever party and you ask a voter what issues are they interested in, they would possibly reel off energy prices, price of petrol, cost of living, immigration, Europe, being skint despite being in work, thee NHS, not liking politicians and then they turn around and they say what does your party or do you think is important....err Falkirk.
Non-Story except in the heads of political anoraks and Westminster bubble roamers. It's lucky they have sites like this to obsess over it with like minded people. It's what sites like this excel in.
And there lies the point. Imagine campaigning for whichever party and you ask a voter what issues are the interested in, they would possibly reel off energy prices, price of petrol, cost of living, immigration, Europe, being skint despite being in work, not liking politicians and then they turn around and they say what does your party or do you think is important....err Falkirk.
Non-Story except in the heads of political anoraks and Westminster bubble roamers. It's lucky they have sites like this to obsess over it with like minded people. It's what sites like these excel in.
That's exactly why Ed should get it over with now rather than let it fester until the murky details become public knowledge. If he comes clean then as you say no-one will be too bothered, and even if they are it will soon be forgotten.
But if he continues to cover it up and somehow the details are released close to the election then it will not be good for him. A matter of judgement for him and he needs to get it right.
And there lies the point. Imagine campaigning for whichever party and you ask a voter what issues are they interested in, they would possibly reel off energy prices, price of petrol, cost of living, immigration, Europe, being skint despite being in work, thee NHS, not liking politicians and then they turn around and they say what does your party or do you think is important....err Falkirk.
Non-Story except in the heads of political anoraks and Westminster bubble roamers. It's lucky they have sites like this to obsess over it with like minded people. It's what sites like this excel in.
Now Falkirk is as big an issue as Sarajevo.....thanks for proving my point regards hubble, political bubbles and parties toil and trouble.
Nigel - "If he comes clean then as you say no-one will be too bothered" but the vast majority of people are not bothered apart from people who come out with the Sarajevo bollocks above. Many more people are worried about if they will freeze their nuts off this year because the prices they are paying for gas and electricity.
By the way I am not trying to shut down the debate on Falkirk or not saying it is not important, but it only really interests people on places like here. I revert back what I posted originally. People posting that it is a"non-story" sarcastically on here don't seem to realise, that it actually is....to the vast majority of people.
Sean, you sound angry and frustrated this evening, have you run out of viagra?
Utterly the opposite. I am in a BEAMINGLY good mood (for reasons I won't adduce lest it upsets Woger). However pb has been f*cking dull of late (I've looked in a few times and just given up in tedium, without even commenting) so I'm trying to pep you all up.
Everything I am saying is true, and I believe every word.... however, I might be adding some rhetorical mustard to get people animated. Sue me.
Perhaps you should do a telegraph blog on the burqa?
What's the worst that could happen?
I mean, has an English author ever enraged the Muslims so much, that they issued a fatwa for his death?
I'd love to. I am fairly fearless about jihadists (hey, I was once kidnapped by Hezbollah, and held at gunpoint, and thought I was gonna die, so it's nothing new to me). However the tedious thing about the Telegraph is that they generally censor any blogs about immigration/Islam (etc etc) by disallowing comments, which removes all the fun.
They do this because they usually get swamped by thousands of mad foaming Islamophobes who end up espousing the extermination of anyone who can say Quran correctly, so the moderators lose control. Many of these people are UKIPers (sorry Richard)
So it's not really worth it.
However what this has taught me is that there is a groundswell of public opinion out there which is vehemently and violently opposed to Islam and Muslim immigration, in a way we have never before experienced in the UK, vis a vis immigrants.
We are a generally tolerant country - given the fact that humans are innately racist - we have accepted and housed and befriended almost all immigrants in the past.
But Islam is different. It does not assimilate or knuckle under or even accommodate. It is a triumphalist religion with a very powerful message. It is proud and persuasive - and therefore I see big trouble ahead. And the Brits subconsciously sense this. Hence their unusually illiberal feelings about the niqab. IMHO.
"Human beings are innately racist." A comment designed to get a response - tell that to my four year old who mixes freely and is essentially colour-blind. But you are a dad, so you knew that too.
Walked past the Cenotaph this afternoon and the National Front and BNP were holding a rally with flags lowered and a minute's silence and drummer, clearly sensible to keep them separate from the main event earlier in the day. (Then walked past Frank Skinner on the way back to the tube).
In case you have not done the quick test, How Northern are you - apparently I am on 12% Northern and belong in Bournemouth http://toys.usvsth3m.com/north-o-meter/
Has there ever been a greater disconnect between politicians and people than the Niqab/Burqa?
63% of the people want it banned. Just BANNED.
Not a single mainstream party - not even UKIP - now advocates this policy.
Thus the gulf widens. Very very dangerously.
Not really. There has been a similar disconnect between politicians and the public over capital punishment for certain crimes for decades. It has not led to any great problem and as I am on the side of the politicians on both issues I am rather glad of that.
I think, if put to a referendum (not that it will be, but this is PB!) capital punishment would not return. There are enough of those that have no principled objection to State-licensed retributional killing who would flinch when reminded of the innocent people we would have killed, and would end up voting no through pragmatism.
And there lies the point. Imagine campaigning for whichever party and you ask a voter what issues are they interested in, they would possibly reel off energy prices, price of petrol, cost of living, immigration, Europe, being skint despite being in work, thee NHS, not liking politicians and then they turn around and they say what does your party or do you think is important....err Falkirk.
Non-Story except in the heads of political anoraks and Westminster bubble roamers. It's lucky they have sites like this to obsess over it with like minded people. It's what sites like this excel in.
Now Falkirk is as big an issue as Sarajevo.....thanks for proving my point regards hubble, political bubbles and parties toil and trouble.
Nigel - "If he comes clean then as you say no-one will be too bothered" but the vast majority of people are not bothered apart from people who come out with the Sarajevo bollocks above. Many more people are worried about if they will freeze their nuts off this year because the prices they are paying for gas and electricity.
By the way I am not trying to shut down the debate on Falkirk or not saying it is not important, but it only really interests people on places like here. I revert back what I posted originally. People posting that it is a"non-story" sarcastically on here don't seem to realise, that it actually is....to the vast majority of people.
Out of interest what do you think Milliband is so desperate to hide? Why won't he stand up to Unite? And as for a non-story, a quarter of the electorate are closely following. Very complacent to be so dismissive of so many people.
Bobajob - "Human beings are innately racist." A comment designed to get a response - tell that to my four year old who mixes freely and is essentially colour-blind. But you are a dad, so you knew that too. Your line about your child reminds me of a letter in one of the papers under the headline "My utter shame" The letter told of a mother who was watching her son draw a picture of his three friends, two of which were Asian. When she pointed out that two of them were not white, her son looked at her and then coloured their faces in brown crayons." Innocents of youth.
Falkirk is a small town far away, but so was Sarajevo.. Being cavilier, or worse, with electoral procedures is
Nigel - "If he comes clean then as you say no-one will be too bothered" but the vast majority of people are not bothered apart from people who come out with the Sarajevo bollocks above. Many more people are worried about if they will freeze their nuts off this year because the prices they are paying for gas and electricity.
By the way I am not trying to shut down the debate on Falkirk or not saying it is not important, but it only really interests people on places like here. I revert back what I posted originally. People posting that it is a"non-story" sarcastically on here don't seem to realise, that it actually is....to the vast majority of people.
Exactly my point! The vast majority of people are not bothered so deal with it now on your own terms rather than let the cover up get you. If not it may continue to grow and at some point near the election you don't want 'Ed linked to Union cover up over election rigging' plastered over the front pages.
Watson is despised by the press due to his Hacked Off crusade, the press would love to get him. He didn't resign due to some 'more time to be with the family' moment, he is linked to this somehow and his enemies will find out.
Deal with it now, if not he will live to regret it.
And there lies the point. Imagine campaigning for whichever party and you ask a voter what issues are they interested in, they would possibly reel off energy prices, price of petrol, cost of living, immigration, Europe, being skint despite being in work, thee NHS, not liking politicians and then they turn around and they say what does your party or do you think is important....err Falkirk.
Non-Story except in the heads of political anoraks and Westminster bubble roamers. It's lucky they have sites like this to obsess over it with like minded people. It's what sites like this excel in.
Now Falkirk is as big an issue as Sarajevo.....thanks for proving my point regards hubble, political bubbles and parties toil and trouble.
By the way I am not trying to shut down the debate on Falkirk or not saying it is not important, but it only really interests people on places like here. I revert back what I posted originally. People posting that it is a"non-story" sarcastically on here don't seem to realise, that it actually is....to the vast majority of people.
Out of interest what do you think Milliband is so desperate to hide? Why won't he stand up to Unite? And as for a non-story, a quarter of the electorate are closely following. Very complacent to be so dismissive of so many people.
A quarter of people who were given a question reminding them of it said they were following it. I haven't got a clue if Miliband is hiding anything or not. However, neither does anyone on here, but it doesn't stop the posters on this site obsessing about it.
Question for you.....how many people do you know, who are not on here or is not politically orientated has mentioned Falkirk to you?
I see some of our more Labour-obsessed Falkirk wallahs are trying to imply that Ed was wrongly elected leader, due to some bizarre link with Grangemouth/Unite/Eric Joyce/Carlotta Vance/TGOHF/Porridge/Falkirk/Whatever
No wonder Sean T has gone all Falling Down on us again - the site has been in a Falkirkian quagmire for weeks. Even when Mike did a thread showing how no-one cared, still they ranted on.
And there lies the point. Imagine campaigning for whichever party and you ask a voter what issues are they interested in, they would possibly reel off energy prices, price of petrol, cost of living, immigration, Europe, being skint despite being in work, thee NHS, not liking politicians and then they turn around and they say what does your party or do you think is important....err Falkirk.
Non-Story except in the heads of political anoraks and Westminster bubble roamers. It's lucky they have sites like this to obsess over it with like minded people. It's what sites like this excel in.
Now Falkirk is as big an issue as Sarajevo.....thanks for proving my point regards hubble, political bubbles and parties toil and trouble.
By the way I am not trying to shut down the debate on Falkirk or not saying it is not important, but it only really interests people on places like here. I revert back what I posted originally. People posting that it is a"non-story" sarcastically on here don't seem to realise, that it actually is....to the vast majority of people.
Out of interest what do you think Milliband is so desperate to hide? Why won't he stand up to Unite? And as for a non-story, a quarter of the electorate are closely following. Very complacent to be so dismissive of so many people.
A quarter of people who were given a question reminding them of it said they were following it. I haven't got a clue if Miliband is hiding anything or not. However, neither does anyone on here, but it doesn't stop the posters on this site obsessing about it.
Question for you.....how many people do you know, who are not on here or is not politically orientated has mentioned Falkirk to you?
What the polls don't notice, Labour gets away with?
And there lies the point. Imagine campaigning for whichever party and you ask a voter what issues are they in, they would possibly reel off energy prices, price of petrol, cost of living, immigration, Europe, being skint despite being in work, thee NHS, not liking politicians and then they turn around and they say what does your party or do you think is important....err Falkirk.
Non-Story except in the heads of political anoraks and Westminster bubble roamers. It's lucky they have sites like this to obsess over it with like minded people. It's what sites like this excel in.
Now Falkirk is as big an issue as Sarajevo.....thanks for proving my point regards hubble, political bubbles and parties toil and trouble.
By the way I am not trying to shut down the debate on Falkirk or not saying it is not important, but it only really interests people on places like here. I revert back what I posted originally. People posting that it is a"non-story" sarcastically on here don't seem to realise, that it actually is....to the vast majority of people.
Out of interest what do you think Milliband is so desperate to hide? Why won't he stand up to Unite? And as for a non-story, a quarter of the electorate are closely following. Very complacent to be so dismissive of so many people.
A quarter of people who were given a question reminding them of it said they were following it. I haven't got a clue if Miliband is hiding anything or not. However, neither does anyone on here, but it doesn't stop the posters on this site obsessing about it.
Question for you.....how many people do you know, who are not on here or is not politically orientated has mentioned Falkirk to you?
I cannot remember which one, but isn't there a polling company that asks something like what political stories have you followed this week. Would be interesting to see what comes out in that.
And there lies the point. Imagine campaigning for whichever party and you ask a voter what issues are they interested in, they would possibly reel off energy prices, price of petrol, cost of living, immigration, Europe, being skint despite being in work, thee NHS, not liking politicians and then they turn around and they say what does your party or do you think is important....err Falkirk.
Non-Story except in the heads of political anoraks and Westminster bubble roamers. It's lucky they have sites like this to obsess over it with like minded people. It's what sites like this excel in.
Now Falkirk is as big an issue as Sarajevo.....thanks for proving my point regards hubble, political bubbles and parties toil and trouble.
By the way I am not trying to shut down the debate on Falkirk or not saying it is not important, but it only really interests people on places like here. I revert back what I posted originally. People posting that it is a"non-story" sarcastically on here don't seem to realise, that it actually is....to the vast majority of people.
Out of interest what do you think Milliband is so desperate to hide? Why won't he stand up to Unite? And as for a non-story, a quarter of the electorate are closely following. Very complacent to be so dismissive of so many people.
I haven't got a clue if Miliband is hiding anything or not. However, neither does anyone on here, but it doesn't stop the posters on this site obsessing about it.
Question for you.....how many people do you know, who are not on here or is not politically orientated has mentioned Falkirk to you?
What the polls don't notice, Labour gets away with?
Sadly, you probably do see the world like that.
Very true, I don't live in a political anorak/conspiracy theorists world.
Comments
Well done, that man. He won't be cowed, he won't be intimidated.
I am not saying they wont pursue it, in fact as a Labour supporter I hope they continue to do so, because whilst there is growing anger about things such as energy bills, they see during a three minute slot on PMQ's the PM not talking about them but repeatedly talking about "Falkirk". My original post was saying in the vast majority of peoples minds outside the anoraks it is a "non-story" and no matter how many times it is posted on here sarcastically as a "non-story", will not make it a story......ah fergerrit....carry on, it's the be all and end all.....go for it.
twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/399572713490354176/photo/1
I mean, how much more horrifying can it get when the Director of Legal, Membership and Affiliated Services of Britian's largest union refers to his own department as Legal's?
In other news, Bears defacate in woods.
It's nostalgic to have a good barney over a GS election though.
Aware of story: 75 (74)
Following story : 57 (53)
Perhaps the only way foward is a de-merger? How can we contrive it to happen? Maybe tim could join the pbTories in that noble endeavour!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/3179722/The-Ecclestone-Affair-Labours-first-funding-scandal.html
Anyway, if it is worrying the 'party of the working people', why doesn't EdM release the report and kill the story.
Perhaps he daren't. Perhaps violence and threats against people is the best solution.
When I was young I told people that I voted Labour. You had to do in Burnley, otherwise you got a kick in the head. I'm older now, and not prepared to put up with those attitudes any longer.
i think we're starting to see a small but detectable Tory->Lab movement for the first time as well, though that might be just random noise.
Words fail me (and that's a rare occurance).
I dont think anyone doubts that Bernie got immediate payback from his contribution. A finer example of why we need reform of the rules on donations it would be hard to find.
It's seems unfair to be picking on tim when he cant respond. Oh well.
I also very much doubt there was EVER a 63/24 public split in favour/against capital punishment (since it was abolished) as there is now in favour/against banning the burqa.
Errrr
Support for the death penalty has fallen over the decades – it used to be over 70%, these days roughly half of the population support the death penalty for “standard” murder – indeed there was a YouGov poll in 2006 that showed marginally less than half of people in support of it, the first time it had occured
More recently, a YouGov poll in September 2010 found 51% supported the death penalty for murder, 37% opposed. A MORI poll in July 2010 found 51% supported the death penalty for adult murder. An Angus Reid poll in 2008 found people supported the death penalty for murder by 50% to 40%.
Support for the death penalty is higher for specific crimes, such as murder of a police officer, murder of a child or multiple murders. The MORI poll in July 2010 asked people which of a list of crimes they thought should have the death penalty – 62% supported it for child murder (and 70% supported in at least some circumstances). A YouGov poll in November 2010 found 74% of people supported the death penalty for murder in some circumstances, though only 16% supported it for all murders.
If we go all the way back to 2003, a YouGov poll asked people if they supported the death penalty in various circumstances of murder. 57% supported it for murder , 62% for murder of a police officer, 67% for the murder of a child, 69% for a serial killer (note that the figures may be slightly higher than more recent polling because of the timing of the poll, conducted just after the Soham murder trial – 63% would have hanged Huntley).
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3802
Blame a late night followed by an early start to take Mrs J to yet another run. Still, at least it was sunny by the Grand Union Canal. If very, very muddy.
I can't even blame alcohol. I haven't had a drink all day. Or perhaps that's the problem... :-)
What next, will Jeremy Vine wear a cowboy outfit on a BBC show or whether Andrew Neil will wear, I don't know, red shoes on This Week?
That Ed Miliband's election as Labour Leader was so reliant on the backing of the Unite Union, and that the subsequent biggest donor of the Labour party at the next GE is also going to be the Unite Union is what makes Ed Miliband's refusal to publish or re-open the Falkirk Inquiry such a real political gamble for him personally, and also for his party in Scotland and the wider UK in the longer term. That Ed Miliband is usually so fond of demanding a full and open public inquiry into any other area of public life, his sudden refusal to even countenance one over this issue in light of recent revelations stinks of a desperate attempt at a cover up.
It makes my iPad 4 look as advanced as the Nokia I had in 1997
::Innocent Face::
The Iranian Deputy Minister of Industries has been shot dead in Tehran, according to state news agency IRNA Reuters report
Actually I see TSE has already pointed out that very fact so you are in fact the one talking utter bollocks.
There are also plenty of arguments - which I happen to disagree with - that abolishing capital punishment has had a huge impact on a whole range of societal issues similar or in some cases identical to the ones you mention.
So again you are talking out of your arse to try and defend a position (that this was a unique issue of the divide between politicians and public) which you adopted without even trying to find any evidence for or against it.
1. The Unite turnout was 10.5%, significantly ahead of the average for all other Unions which was 8.04%. The biggest union achieved the highest turnout, quite remarkable.
2. The first ballot majority was a 2.18 multiple of Unite members votes for Ed over David. A total lead of 25,661.
3. Amongst the biggest four Unions, Unite had by far the highest turnout with 10.5%. GMB was 7.80%, Unison was 6.70% and USDAW 4.30%.
I am just trying to work out now whether it is the history of drug abuse or the belief in a Middle Eastern Sky Fairy that makes you incapable of following basic logic.
By the way as I remember it the last time this came up you yourself swore blind you were not in favour of a ban. Had the drugs/religious nut issue meant you forgot that as well?
A survey by pollsters Angus Reid, following this month’s outbreak of rioting across Britain, found 65 per cent of adults quizzed were in favour of capital punishment while only 28 per cent were opposed
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/266843/65-say-Bring-back-hanging
A good friend of mine had that quote on the front of the manifestos when he ran a student election.
Now that would be a reason to keep quiet. It is almost like the Birthers, only perhaps with more validity. If Eds election was not legitimate there would be a very large tomcat out of the bag and amongst the pigeons!
What's the worst that could happen?
I mean, has an English author ever enraged the Muslims so much, that they issued a fatwa for his death?
http://www.france24.com/en/20131109-french-riot-police-use-tear-gas-anti-tax-protesters
Edit: The computer says yes, November 2010, Ed was elected in September 2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11805884
At least you knew where he stood on the issue!
Perhaps the Brothers accidentally contaminated their database with an extra 160 000 members in the mean time.
Yep. It really is a non story. Lets go back to pointing at squid. At least The fishmarket doesnt smell as much.
I cant remember the dates exactly, certainly the Labour leadership result was announced first but the elections could have overlapped. But people are focusing on Len too much. Ed had the support of the Executive. GSs are not dictators.
@SeanT
Glad to hear things are going well.
This is the majority for Ed on the first Unite members vote over David = 25,661.
We need a decent Lib Dem Sex Scandal.
Can Simon Hughes start ringing up some more gay chat lines and finds out he's been talking to....
It is well known that many TU membership databases are, to be polite, poor. Look at the BA strike ballots that were overturned (and now we have a trot trying to same trick!). The idea that this means that GS elections have been rigged is far-fetched. The idea that the Labour leadership election was rigged (as some posters are none-too-subtly trying to suggest) is bonkers.
As I've lived in 4 different addresses in the last four years, they still think I'm a different member at each address, despite me telling them otherwise.
I may represent nearly 33% of the vote in the next Tory leadership election if the membership numbers continue to decline.
"Kids will be kids in every culture and they work round the rules."
I have to admit, that's so true.
The latest fad amongst Muslims who like to drink is that the Quran says it is unIslamic to be intoxicated, so the trick is to drink, but not too much so you don't get drunk.
Is an elegant solution
OK, it's toff-time with Downton
I just dont think people care about the politics of GS candidates any more. Indeed it doesnt usually matter. Except in unusual cases like a micro-sect taking over PCS. Mind you Jerry winning a Unite GS election could just change that!
Non-Story except in the heads of political anoraks and Westminster bubble roamers. It's lucky they have sites like this to obsess over it with like minded people. It's what sites like this excel in.
Do I need inoculations and is there a secret handshake?
No wonder the politicians are so keen to muzzle the press.
But if he continues to cover it up and somehow the details are released close to the election then it will not be good for him. A matter of judgement for him and he needs to get it right.
Though you may miss the meeting.
Nigel - "If he comes clean then as you say no-one will be too bothered" but the vast majority of people are not bothered apart from people who come out with the Sarajevo bollocks above. Many more people are worried about if they will freeze their nuts off this year because the prices they are paying for gas and electricity.
By the way I am not trying to shut down the debate on Falkirk or not saying it is not important, but it only really interests people on places like here. I revert back what I posted originally. People posting that it is a"non-story" sarcastically on here don't seem to realise, that it actually is....to the vast majority of people.
http://toys.usvsth3m.com/north-o-meter/
Best if you go barefoot.
Jesus wept.
If people who hate Labour want a reason why we keep winning. It's because of the quality of the opposition we face.
Are you tempted to come to the next PB drinks? I promise to personally protect you from JohnO if you do
Your line about your child reminds me of a letter in one of the papers under the headline "My utter shame" The letter told of a mother who was watching her son draw a picture of his three friends, two of which were Asian. When she pointed out that two of them were not white, her son looked at her and then coloured their faces in brown crayons." Innocents of youth.
Question for you.....how many people do you know, who are not on here or is not politically orientated has mentioned Falkirk to you?
No wonder Sean T has gone all Falling Down on us again - the site has been in a Falkirkian quagmire for weeks. Even when Mike did a thread showing how no-one cared, still they ranted on.
Sadly, you probably do see the world like that.