It has never struck me until this morning that regular posters on PB are (it seems to me) overwhelmingly urbanites, living in large towns and cities. Few of you seem to write from the perspective of living in a rural community. I also suspect the majority of you live in the south-east of England. Accordingly your thinking about how voters think or vote are "coloured" by the communities within which you live. No doubt I will be greeted with howls of protest but it would be an interesting exercise for all regular PBers to disclose in which constituency they live and vote. You all know I live in the most northerly mainland constituency Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross which is larger than the entire Home Counties I think.
I am in Ayrshire, constituency is Central Ayrshire for Westminster
Would that be in Scotand, Malcolm. I hear it is very nice.
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Problem is the Labour party IS what it used to be.
Totally O/T....the new star wars series on disney+...its bad, really bad, it so bad it is even worse than the hans solo movie. Its even worse than radiohead live at Glastonbury, thats how bad it is.
Incidentally one of the most serious findings seems to be that Dominic Cummings does appear to have been granted full security clearance...
I would be interested in knowing what you think "full security clearance" means in this context. Security Clearance (SC) can be easily obtained by pretty much anyone working in the Defence/Intelligence sector be that in govt, the military or in industry. It's nothing more than a very quick record check, takes about 2 weeks to process.
The next stage up is DV clearance which is much more in-depth and involves the authorities examining your personal life (friends, work record, financial situation etc) to see if there are any levers that a foreign power or corporation could use to persuade you to do naughty things.
There are stages above that I'm sure but those are the only two levels generally available outside of specialist occupations in the military/intell/govt sector.
If Dominic Cummings has either SC or DV clearance then anyone with some knowledge of the sector (so, not most journalists) would simply shrug their shoulders and say "big deal", even if they did believe that him working in Russia for a few years, a couple of decades ago, had influenced his political views.
I suspect that this report is simply full of "could" and "might" and "maybe" which Downing Street know would be jumped on as implying collusion or interference while actually saying bugger all of interest.
Given the "quality" that most of our journalists and editors regularly display in their complete lack of research, I'd say that's a realistic worry.
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
A reminder: the the accusation of Jews having split loyalties is rightly included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is exactly the same thing from a Conservative candidate with respect to Muslims.
Well, no it isn't the same, because the historical context is completely different.
I do agree he shouldn't be standing. I'm just curious why the line of "these comments were made [x] years ago, [y] has apologised for these comments and sincerely regrets them" only ever works for one side of the political spectrum? Naz Shah in particular has some cheek weighing in, given her history of rank ignorance, in particular her admission that she "didn’t get anti-Semitism as racism".
I have NEVER made those kind of comments. If someone has made racist statements, doesn't matter whether it's 20 years ago, I won't vote for them. Unlike a lot of people on here, I don't have any party loyalty. There seem to be a lot of diehards, though, who put their party ahead of even basic standards of decency in the candidates. And it doesn't matter what side you're on... if you do that, you're making the world a worse place.
That sounds totally reasonable, if you're basing your vote on the individuals on the ballot paper and nothing more.
My previous post was based on the assumption that you were talking about the Conservatives as a party. If you're instead ruling out voting for any party that doesn't display a zero tolerance, one-strike-and-you're-out-even-if-it-was-years-before-you-joined-the-party policy (which is what I inferred from your introduction), I think you'll not be voting ever again.
You're quite right that even with the best will in the world, you can't totally stop things like this from happening. From a party point of view, if an idiot slips through the net, it's not a systemic problem. But if they keep slipping through, the net is faulty and that IS the fault of the party.
A lot of Conservative voters who voted Remain in 2016 have no enthusiasm for the EU, and are reconciled to leaving it. The Conservatives have probably lost all the voters for whom it's a deal breaker.
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Same could be said of Conservatives in the 1980s, morphing into something more Thatcherite.
The current "Conservative Party" is well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
Is the a deal or has the BXP did this of it's own accord ?
Don't be stupid of course it is a deal.
It’s like the greens standing aside in Scotland every Westminster election.
They don't stand aside, they have no support and cannot afford to lose deposits in most seats you f***ing numpty. It is also a local constituency decision not a country wide stitch up for gain.
I know you dont like me being a vascillating fanny malc, so I have to say you sound like an utter fool this morning.
You are seriously tying yourself in knots to get outraged that one set of parties work together and thats terrible but when others do it's fine.
I'm sorry, but if a party says its not standing somewhere to help another then it's the same, even though the extents can be different.
It's either outrageous or it isn't for parties to work together formally or otherwise, you cannot widdle yourself in rage at one and not another, it looks bloody ridiculous and were it not that I trust people mean what they say itd be hard to believe it sincere it's so silly.
I appreciate your candour indeed but think you have it wrong. The Tories and BXP have done a national deal for BXP not to stand in over 300 Tory held seats, how do you see that comparing to the local NE Fife Green party members deciding they don't have £5K to throw down the drain. Yes the individual SNP candidate did say he hoped they would not stand against him as it was a marginal but hardly comparable.
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
My late Mother was a Tory Remainer and thought Nigel Farage was "a ghastly man"
She would not have voted for anything that had the whiff of Farage.
I am a Tory Brexiteer and think Farage a ghastly man.
But he is yesterday's ghastly man. He has been found out. He had no interest in Brexit - just in keeping his milch-cow soap box going. With the UK out of the EU, he really is nothing.
Far be it from me to defend the man, but in fairness he did campaign, including spending his own money and, AIUI putting his marriage under considerable ........ too great ..... a strain for quite a while before people began to take him seriously. I believe too, that he could have made more money on the Metal Exchange if he hadn't turned away into politics. I expect to see him as UK Ambassador to the US after Christmas, appointed by a triumphant, and triumphing, Boris.
Having said that, yes, he is a ghastly man. I fear that public life in our country is going to get worse before it gets better.
If Farage gets anything, let alone US Ambassadorship, out of standing down his candidates - then surely that is corruption.
Which is BAU for the Tories, you can bet your shirt he is on a promise.
He'll be HMG's nomination for EU Commissioner, but the quid pro quo is that he'll have to identify as a woman to meet Von Der Leyen's gender balance rule.
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Same could be said of Conservatives in the 1980s, morphing into something more Thatcherite.
The current "Conservative Party" is well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
Not in government spending, levels of immigration or social policy.
On topic: Well, as a Con2017 Remain voter, I can categorically say that my vote, whatever it is (I don't know yet) will not be influenced in the slightest by the amusing spectacle of Farage deciding to march his troops down the hill again. Why should it be? It's clearly simply an acknowledgement that, far from 'Changing politics for good', the BXP is nowhere in this election. Farage is right on that, but it has zero bearing on my vote, and I'm pretty sure I speak for most Con2107 Remain voters.
Blimey, is there going to be another referendum in 2107? Will Brexit still not be done by then?
A reminder: the the accusation of Jews having split loyalties is rightly included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is exactly the same thing from a Conservative candidate with respect to Muslims.
There's no future where the nation goes to war with Israel. There are multiple futures where we go to war with various Islamic nations that British Muslim people identify with closer than to the UK.
However, it's a distraction and we should dump him before the deadline.
It's not a "distraction", it's islamophobia. As plain as day.
It was an article he wrote in 2002 and apologised for/recanted in 2008.
For how long are the sins of the past held over a person?
When it comes to religious or racial intolerance, and in terms of candidature for parliament -- forever. Sorry if that seems harsh to you, but there are enough people out there who aren't bigots that we can afford to permanently discard those who are. Being a member of parliament is an enormous position of responsibility, an important element of which is pastoral care and representing the vulnerable. We've become so infused with the idea of parliamentarians as pugilists that we forget that an MP also needs to nurture and protect. An MP with a history of bigotry is forever damaged. We can do so much better than this.
Great. You can start by not implying support for articles heavily based on quotes from convicted bigot Naz Shah.
I can go further than that: don't vote Conservative, don't vote Labour. Both have the same problem. I'm sorry the article quotes Naz Shah, but that doesn't excuse what this Conservative candidate has said. Shoot the messenger if you like, but don't forget to read the message.
My constituency, Hampstead & Kilburn, having gone big for Labour in 2017, is shaping up to return to its 2010 status as an exciting 3 way marginal. Labour the favourites with a 60% chance, LDs next best at 30%, Cons outsiders but live outsiders at 10%. These being my ratings.
Makes a person feel so important, living in a seat like this where all 3 parties are in with a shot. You feel like your vote really counts. Which it does, of course, it counts ONE, same as everybody else's.
Incidentally one of the most serious findings seems to be that Dominic Cummings does appear to have been granted full security clearance...
I would be interested in knowing what you think "full security clearance" means in this context. Security Clearance (SC) can be easily obtained by pretty much anyone working in the Defence/Intelligence sector be that in govt, the military or in industry. It's nothing more than a very quick record check, takes about 2 weeks to process.
The next stage up is DV clearance which is much more in-depth and involves the authorities examining your personal life (friends, work record, financial situation etc) to see if there are any levers that a foreign power or corporation could use to persuade you to do naughty things.
There are stages above that I'm sure but those are the only two levels generally available outside of specialist occupations in the military/intell/govt sector.
If Dominic Cummings has either SC or DV clearance then anyone with some knowledge of the sector (so, not most journalists) would simply shrug their shoulders and say "big deal", even if they did believe that him working in Russia for a few years, a couple of decades ago, had influenced his political views.
I suspect that this report is simply full of "could" and "might" and "maybe" which Downing Street know would be jumped on as implying collusion or interference while actually saying bugger all of interest.
Given the "quality" that most of our journalists and editors regularly display in their complete lack of research, I'd say that's a realistic worry.
WillS
Which is hardly justification for suppressing it.
And it’s not as though you aren’t engaging in your own speculations.
A reminder: the the accusation of Jews having split loyalties is rightly included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is exactly the same thing from a Conservative candidate with respect to Muslims.
Writing in 2002
“In a passage about Muslim leaders warning the Iraq war could cause social unrest, he wrote: “Whatever the merits or demerits of war on Iraq, it is hardly a national strength to have a large minority with such divided loyalties during war.” “
I’m sure the victims and families of 7/7, London Bridge, the Ariana Grande concert, along with Lee Rigby, wish that no British Muslims were driven to terrorism by such foreign policy.
Placed in context, that's quite reasonable.
...apart from the islamophobic trope about "divided loyalties".
On topic: Well, as a Con2017 Remain voter, I can categorically say that my vote, whatever it is (I don't know yet) will not be influenced in the slightest by the amusing spectacle of Farage deciding to march his troops down the hill again. Why should it be? It's clearly simply an acknowledgement that, far from 'Changing politics for good', the BXP is nowhere in this election. Farage is right on that, but it has zero bearing on my vote, and I'm pretty sure I speak for most Con2107 Remain voters.
Blimey, is there going to be another referendum in 2107? Will Brexit still not be done by then?
It has never struck me until this morning that regular posters on PB are (it seems to me) overwhelmingly urbanites, living in large towns and cities. Few of you seem to write from the perspective of living in a rural community. I also suspect the majority of you live in the south-east of England. Accordingly your thinking about how voters think or vote are "coloured" by the communities within which you live. No doubt I will be greeted with howls of protest but it would be an interesting exercise for all regular PBers to disclose in which constituency they live and vote. You all know I live in the most northerly mainland constituency Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross which is larger than the entire Home Counties I think.
I am in Ayrshire, constituency is Central Ayrshire for Westminster
Would that be in Scotand, Malcolm. I hear it is very nice.
It is indeed Peter and it is also very green and pleasant, though some of that global warming would be appreciated at times.
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Same could be said of Conservatives in the 1980s, morphing into something more Thatcherite.
The current "Conservative Party" is well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
I don't agree. There is one specific policy (Brexit) where you disagree with them but in terms of general social policy they are far more centrist than they were at the time of Thatcher. Just looking at their policies on same sex relationships, general equality, minimum wage and a whole host of other topics and you see that they are more centrist than in Thatcher's day.
I am not a member of the party and never would be but the claim they are more right wing than Thatcher's day does not stand up.
A reminder: the the accusation of Jews having split loyalties is rightly included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is exactly the same thing from a Conservative candidate with respect to Muslims.
There's no future where the nation goes to war with Israel. There are multiple futures where we go to war with various Islamic nations that British Muslim people identify with closer than to the UK.
However, it's a distraction and we should dump him before the deadline.
It's not a "distraction", it's islamophobia. As plain as day.
It was an article he wrote in 2002 and apologised for/recanted in 2008.
For how long are the sins of the past held over a person?
When it comes to religious or racial intolerance, and in terms of candidature for parliament -- forever. Sorry if that seems harsh to you, but there are enough people out there who aren't bigots that we can afford to permanently discard those who are. Being a member of parliament is an enormous position of responsibility, an important element of which is pastoral care and representing the vulnerable. We've become so infused with the idea of parliamentarians as pugilists that we forget that an MP also needs to nurture and protect. An MP with a history of bigotry is forever damaged. We can do so much better than this.
I am as critical as anyone about bigotry in politics but that is too harsh. People can change. If Jeremy Corbyn came out tomorrow and said, after talks with Jewish leaders, he had realised his complcity in anti-Semitism, apologise for his worst transgressions, implement a genuinely independent inquiry that had the backing of Jewish groups, would take a zero tolerance approach, and then actually enforced it, I would accept he had changed.
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
Not necessarily. Russian cyber warfare takes on different characteristics depending on the message they want to sent. They have used malware to destroy computers to cripple infrastructure and damage financial institutions in Ukraine. They have stealthily stolen information to use as politically damaging leaks. They have engaged in DDOS attacks (including swamping switchboards with automated phone calls, interestingly).
No I'm not doing that - I'm scared of dogs. I've signed up to do some telephone and leaflets and possibly to man a stall. However, I need to throw off this stinking cold first.
A reminder: the the accusation of Jews having split loyalties is rightly included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is exactly the same thing from a Conservative candidate with respect to Muslims.
Writing in 2002
“In a passage about Muslim leaders warning the Iraq war could cause social unrest, he wrote: “Whatever the merits or demerits of war on Iraq, it is hardly a national strength to have a large minority with such divided loyalties during war.” “
I’m sure the victims and families of 7/7, London Bridge, the Ariana Grande concert, along with Lee Rigby, wish that no British Muslims were driven to terrorism by such foreign policy.
Placed in context, that's quite reasonable.
...apart from the islamophobic trope about "divided loyalties".
It depends what sort of loyalties. Lots of people have dual nationality; do these divided loyalties between for example UK and Germany matter? On Sunday I kept the two minute silence after the Last Post had been played by a German national who works for the NHS. Nothing wrong with any of these loyalties.
It has never struck me until this morning that regular posters on PB are (it seems to me) overwhelmingly urbanites, living in large towns and cities. Few of you seem to write from the perspective of living in a rural community. I also suspect the majority of you live in the south-east of England. Accordingly your thinking about how voters think or vote are "coloured" by the communities within which you live. No doubt I will be greeted with howls of protest but it would be an interesting exercise for all regular PBers to disclose in which constituency they live and vote. You all know I live in the most northerly mainland constituency Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross which is larger than the entire Home Counties I think.
I grew up in Newark - so an average semi rural midlands market town. The last 10 years I have lived in a small village in rural Lincolnshire. Rural enough to have issues with snow and fairly regular power outages. Great starscapes though.
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
A reminder: the the accusation of Jews having split loyalties is rightly included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is exactly the same thing from a Conservative candidate with respect to Muslims.
Writing in 2002
“In a passage about Muslim leaders warning the Iraq war could cause social unrest, he wrote: “Whatever the merits or demerits of war on Iraq, it is hardly a national strength to have a large minority with such divided loyalties during war.” “
I’m sure the victims and families of 7/7, London Bridge, the Ariana Grande concert, along with Lee Rigby, wish that no British Muslims were driven to terrorism by such foreign policy.
Placed in context, that's quite reasonable.
No it isn't. Divided loyalties is a charge designed to delegitimise immigrant groups for centuries. It is ugly and it is right he apologised for it.
I think the SNP has it's fair number of gammons, and looking at your posts Malcolm, I suspect you go red in the face every time you think about Tories! 😂😂
By the way, I thought I'd post this article again to get you to go full on gammon nationalist! It is written by a black Scottish woman. What d'y' think?
A reminder: the the accusation of Jews having split loyalties is rightly included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is exactly the same thing from a Conservative candidate with respect to Muslims.
It was an article he wrote in 2002 and apologised for/recanted in 2008.
For how long are the sins of the past held over a person?
When it comes to religious or racial intolerance, and in terms of candidature for parliament -- forever. Sorry if that seems harsh to you, but there are enough people out there who aren't bigots that we can afford to permanently discard those who are. Being a member of parliament is an enormous position of responsibility, an important element of which is pastoral care and representing the vulnerable. We've become so infused with the idea of parliamentarians as pugilists that we forget that an MP also needs to nurture and protect. An MP with a history of bigotry is forever damaged. We can do so much better than this.
Great. You can start by not implying support for articles heavily based on quotes from convicted bigot Naz Shah.
I can go further than that: don't vote Conservative, don't vote Labour. Both have the same problem. I'm sorry the article quotes Naz Shah, but that doesn't excuse what this Conservative candidate has said. Shoot the messenger if you like, but don't forget to read the message.
I don't really disagree with you on the main point, and I can't really understand why so many candidates for public office seem to have such an horrendous track of past comments. I'm just pointing out that none of our parties are close to meeting your standards, so you may want to re-think whether they're failing to meet basic pre-requisites of decency, or if your standards are simply too high.
It's not confined to the main parties, either. The Lib Dems effectively forced out their last leader but one for being religious, and the Greens happily defend criminal behaviour of all sorts as long as it's targeted against the "right" people (eg farmers, scientists testing medicines on animals, people who work for energy companies).
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
Nation states do engage in DDOS attacks.
Why do you say that? (genuine question, it is not an area I am familiar with beyond knowing what the acronym stands for)
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Same could be said of Conservatives in the 1980s, morphing into something more Thatcherite.
The current "Conservative Party" is well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
I don't agree. There is one specific policy (Brexit) where you disagree with them but in terms of general social policy they are far more centrist than they were at the time of Thatcher. Just looking at their policies on same sex relationships, general equality, minimum wage and a whole host of other topics and you see that they are more centrist than in Thatcher's day.
I am not a member of the party and never would be but the claim they are more right wing than Thatcher's day does not stand up.
The policies and attitudes you mention are really those of the Cameron era. Whether Johnson will stick with them depends how much he needs the ERG. The ERG is the new Conservative Party. they are well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
The Russians would be stupid not to launch a whole range of attacks during the general election. We are already a very divided country, so it should be a piece of piss for the Russians to stir the pot with even the most basic of attacks.
A lot of Conservative voters who voted Remain in 2016 have no enthusiasm for the EU, and are reconciled to leaving it. The Conservatives have probably lost all the voters for whom it's a deal breaker.
The deal breaker is the prospect of leaving with No Deal, not implementing the referendum result. So one of the questions people of my political persuasion have to consider is whether the risk of crashing out at the end of 2020 can be discounted. That is an absolute 100% red line, so it's a very important consideration; as Phil Hammond rightly said, there was no point doing a deal to escape crash-out on October 31st or Jan 31st if it comes up again a few months later, and the nature of the Boris Withdrawal Agreement unfortunately removes our leverage to get a good trade deal, which we had under May's version.
It is extremely troubling, therefore, that Boris has once again repeated his nonsense about meeting an arbitrary date, promising to have a deal ready for the end of 2020, which is impossible. This is especially so because both business and government will need at least 6 months to set up arrangements once we know what any trade deal is going to be, and the decision on extending will have to be taken just five months after starting talks.
We are reduced therefore to trying to second-guess which of the Boris pledges are going to be broken. That is no way to solicit the votes of sensible Conservatives.
On the other hand, it's also true that the only other alternative, a vote for the LibDems, is a vote for a hung parliament and therefore for prolonging the chaos. It might also be a vote which would let in a Corbyn government, crossing another 100% red line given the state of the Labour Party today. In addition Jo Swinson has not exactly been inspiring confidence in the LibDems as a grown-up party.
Difficult stuff to weigh up, which is why anything Farage says or does is completely irrelevant.
Has anyone had a go at Hilary Clinton for sticking her oar into our politics?
Did she do it from Clark County? At least it didn't start "Dear Limey Assholes..."
:-)
Someone should ask her where the 35,000 emails are, people deserve to see them. Or for a proper audit of the activities and funding of the Clinton Foundation.
I think the SNP has it's fair number of gammons, and looking at your posts Malcolm, I suspect you go red in the face every time you think about Tories! 😂😂
By the way, I thought I'd post this article again to get you to go full on gammon nationalist! It is written by a black Scottish woman. What d'y' think?
Usual bollox from people with a chip on their shoulder. Scotland is far from perfect but trying to say Nationalists are all racists is puerile. PS: Best you stick to your sheep.
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Same could be said of Conservatives in the 1980s, morphing into something more Thatcherite.
The current "Conservative Party" is well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
I don't agree. There is one specific policy (Brexit) where you disagree with them but in terms of general social policy they are far more centrist than they were at the time of Thatcher. Just looking at their policies on same sex relationships, general equality, minimum wage and a whole host of other topics and you see that they are more centrist than in Thatcher's day.
I am not a member of the party and never would be but the claim they are more right wing than Thatcher's day does not stand up.
But they were all Dave and Ozzy's innovations. Wait until Raab and Priti get to work, having ushered Boris into his office with a bottle of gin.
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Same could be said of Conservatives in the 1980s, morphing into something more Thatcherite.
The current "Conservative Party" is well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
I don't agree. There is one specific policy (Brexit) where you disagree with them but in terms of general social policy they are far more centrist than they were at the time of Thatcher. Just looking at their policies on same sex relationships, general equality, minimum wage and a whole host of other topics and you see that they are more centrist than in Thatcher's day.
I am not a member of the party and never would be but the claim they are more right wing than Thatcher's day does not stand up.
The policies and attitudes you mention are really those of the Cameron era. Whether Johnson will stick with them depends how much he needs the ERG. The ERG is the new Conservative Party. they are well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
So your view is not based on reality at all. Just on your personal bias and how that influences how you see things developing in the future if you happen to be right. .
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
Nation states do engage in DDOS attacks.
Why do you say that? (genuine question, it is not an area I am familiar with beyond knowing what the acronym stands for)
Usually it's to divert attention while they steal something important.
I'm not convinced anyone has much to gain from nicking the Labour party's manifesto and campaign leaflets.
A reminder: the the accusation of Jews having split loyalties is rightly included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is exactly the same thing from a Conservative candidate with respect to Muslims.
Writing in 2002
“In a passage about Muslim leaders warning the Iraq war could cause social unrest, he wrote: “Whatever the merits or demerits of war on Iraq, it is hardly a national strength to have a large minority with such divided loyalties during war.” “
I’m sure the victims and families of 7/7, London Bridge, the Ariana Grande concert, along with Lee Rigby, wish that no British Muslims were driven to terrorism by such foreign policy.
Placed in context, that's quite reasonable.
No it isn't. Divided loyalties is a charge designed to delegitimise immigrant groups for centuries. It is ugly and it is right he apologised for it.
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
Nation states do engage in DDOS attacks.
Why do you say that? (genuine question, it is not an area I am familiar with beyond knowing what the acronym stands for)
Usually it's to divert attention while they steal something important.
I'm not convinced anyone has much to gain from nicking the Labour party's manifesto and campaign leaflets.
Cheers. I had always thought DDOS attacks were simply to cause as much damage as possible to the target's business/operations. I hadn't realised they were usually a cover for something else.
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Same could be said of Conservatives in the 1980s, morphing into something more Thatcherite.
The current "Conservative Party" is well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
I don't agree. There is one specific policy (Brexit) where you disagree with them but in terms of general social policy they are far more centrist than they were at the time of Thatcher. Just looking at their policies on same sex relationships, general equality, minimum wage and a whole host of other topics and you see that they are more centrist than in Thatcher's day.
I am not a member of the party and never would be but the claim they are more right wing than Thatcher's day does not stand up.
But they were all Dave and Ozzy's innovations. Wait until Raab and Priti get to work, having ushered Boris into his office with a bottle of gin.
Raab negotiated on behalf of the Palestinians and is a big human rights advocate so can't be that right wing. I agree Patel seems like a headbanger.
A reminder: the the accusation of Jews having split loyalties is rightly included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is exactly the same thing from a Conservative candidate with respect to Muslims.
Writing in 2002
“In a passage about Muslim leaders warning the Iraq war could cause social unrest, he wrote: “Whatever the merits or demerits of war on Iraq, it is hardly a national strength to have a large minority with such divided loyalties during war.” “
I’m sure the victims and families of 7/7, London Bridge, the Ariana Grande concert, along with Lee Rigby, wish that no British Muslims were driven to terrorism by such foreign policy.
Placed in context, that's quite reasonable.
...apart from the islamophobic trope about "divided loyalties".
At least he didn't call for Muslims to be locked up in detention camps, like what the Chinese are doing in Xinjiang...
A reminder: the the accusation of Jews having split loyalties is rightly included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is exactly the same thing from a Conservative candidate with respect to Muslims.
Writing in 2002
“In a passage about Muslim leaders warning the Iraq war could cause social unrest, he wrote: “Whatever the merits or demerits of war on Iraq, it is hardly a national strength to have a large minority with such divided loyalties during war.” “
I’m sure the victims and families of 7/7, London Bridge, the Ariana Grande concert, along with Lee Rigby, wish that no British Muslims were driven to terrorism by such foreign policy.
Placed in context, that's quite reasonable.
No it isn't. Divided loyalties is a charge designed to delegitimise immigrant groups for centuries. It is ugly and it is right he apologised for it.
But he was right. And still is.
Does the same apply to Brits of a Polish background or Jewish background or Indian background, with regards hypothetical wars with Poland, Israel or India?
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Same could be said of Conservatives in the 1980s, morphing into something more Thatcherite.
The current "Conservative Party" is well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
I don't agree. There is one specific policy (Brexit) where you disagree with them but in terms of general social policy they are far more centrist than they were at the time of Thatcher. Just looking at their policies on same sex relationships, general equality, minimum wage and a whole host of other topics and you see that they are more centrist than in Thatcher's day.
I am not a member of the party and never would be but the claim they are more right wing than Thatcher's day does not stand up.
The policies and attitudes you mention are really those of the Cameron era. Whether Johnson will stick with them depends how much he needs the ERG. The ERG is the new Conservative Party. they are well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
So your view is not based on reality at all. Just on your personal bias and how that influences how you see things developing in the future if you happen to be right. .
Well possibly, but I have rarely noticed you to have an unbiased view on very much. Most of these things need to be measured on a continuum that is relevant to the times we live in. On such a basis Rees Mogg is much further from the centre in 2019 than Margaret Thatcher was in 1980. Agreed, this is opinion, but it is supportable and reasonable. Margaret Thatcher was far more pragmatic than most people give her credit for. She was also highly intelligent. Rees Mogg by comparison, does not stack up that well!
Not sure homosexuality's approved of by many religious texts.
Yeah, you see, I'm not defending religious beliefs per se. I'm an ardent atheist. If anyone wants leaf through their holy book and point to passages to condemn my sexuality, you won't find me reacting in a particularly patient way. They'd be told to go fuck themselves in pretty short order, and have certainly been in the past.
If people want to have a discussion about how the Bible or the Quran is wrong in its ethics, you'll find me a willing advocate. But religious intolerance is something beyond that. Accusing whole communities of having divided loyalties is wrong, in the same way as portraying all gay people as promiscuous is wrong. It's wrong even though you can find examples.
Once again, for the people at the back, you don't have to be a Muslim to find islamophobia vile. Ditto Jew/antisemitism. Ditto gay/homophobia. You don't have to choose between islamism and islamophobia. You don't have to choose between defending Israel's foreign policy and antisemitism. You don't have to choose between defending minorities and endorsing every single thing you could imagine they stand for.
I think I'm behind the curve. What is the issue about foreign states interfering in UK domestic affairs? It may be a bad idea but our law can't touch it. Is the suggestion that some UK party is paying for this or organising it - in which case of course it would be illegal.
In an internet age the only law of elections is going to be 'Caveat Emptor' - which is true for most things really - (or in this case 'Caveat Suffragator').
Whatever this is about, what I do see is that Hilary Clinton, a very powerful foreign national, was on the radio today effectively interfering in a UK election by attacking the government.
In my opinion there has been a deal with the Brexit Party prompted by the influence of the ERG. Johnson has been a pliable idiot in producing a video in which he makes promises he can't keep.
Another ditch beckons when he fails to take us out of the EU at the end of 2020.
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Same could be said of Conservatives in the 1980s, morphing into something more Thatcherite.
The current "Conservative Party" is well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
For the tories, the concepts of left and right, wet and dry, one nation or thatcherite - all smashed in 2016 and replaced by remain and brexit identities and nothing else.
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
Nation states do engage in DDOS attacks.
Why do you say that? (genuine question, it is not an area I am familiar with beyond knowing what the acronym stands for)
Usually it's to divert attention while they steal something important.
I'm not convinced anyone has much to gain from nicking the Labour party's manifesto and campaign leaflets.
Cheers. I had always thought DDOS attacks were simply to cause as much damage as possible to the target's business/operations. I hadn't realised they were usually a cover for something else.
To clarify: "usually" in this context means, "when performed by nation states it's usually as cover".
I suspect, but don't know, that the majority of attacks in general are pure vandalism.
A lot of Conservative voters who voted Remain in 2016 have no enthusiasm for the EU, and are reconciled to leaving it. The Conservatives have probably lost all the voters for whom it's a deal breaker.
The deal breaker is the prospect of leaving with No Deal, not implementing the referendum result. So one of the questions people of my political persuasion have to consider is whether the risk of crashing out at the end of 2020 can be discounted. That is an absolute 100% red line, so it's a very important consideration; as Phil Hammond rightly said, there was no point doing a deal to escape crash-out on October 31st or Jan 31st if it comes up again a few months later, and the nature of the Boris Withdrawal Agreement unfortunately removes our leverage to get a good trade deal, which we had under May's version.
It is extremely troubling, therefore, that Boris has once again repeated his nonsense about meeting an arbitrary date, promising to have a deal ready for the end of 2020, which is impossible. This is especially so because both business and government will need at least 6 months to set up arrangements once we know what any trade deal is going to be, and the decision on extending will have to be taken just five months after starting talks.
We are reduced therefore to trying to second-guess which of the Boris pledges are going to be broken. That is no way to solicit the votes of sensible Conservatives.
On the other hand, it's also true that the only other alternative, a vote for the LibDems, is a vote for a hung parliament and therefore for prolonging the chaos. It might also be a vote which would let in a Corbyn government, crossing another 100% red line given the state of the Labour Party today. In addition Jo Swinson has not exactly been inspiring confidence in the LibDems as a grown-up party.
Difficult stuff to weigh up, which is why anything Farage says or does is completely irrelevant.
If you were to place Jo Swinson's utterings alongside those of Boris "f*ck business" Johnson, I'm pretty sure hers would give a more grown-up impression than his!
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Same could be said of Conservatives in the 1980s, morphing into something more Thatcherite.
The current "Conservative Party" is well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
I don't agree. There is one specific policy (Brexit) where you disagree with them but in terms of general social policy they are far more centrist than they were at the time of Thatcher. Just looking at their policies on same sex relationships, general equality, minimum wage and a whole host of other topics and you see that they are more centrist than in Thatcher's day.
I am not a member of the party and never would be but the claim they are more right wing than Thatcher's day does not stand up.
But they were all Dave and Ozzy's innovations. Wait until Raab and Priti get to work, having ushered Boris into his office with a bottle of gin.
The most right wing and genuinely extremist PM we have had in my memory is Theresa May. Her time as Home Secretary under Cameron and subsequently as PM was characterised by persecution of minorities and increasing state intrusion into our lives. For all I disagree with Patel's views on capital punishment, she has done nothing so far that in any way approaches the genuinely extremist policies of May.
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
Nation states do engage in DDOS attacks.
Why do you say that? (genuine question, it is not an area I am familiar with beyond knowing what the acronym stands for)
Russia and the USA have both engaged in attacks that target large amounts of junk traffic at the servers hosting government web services in order to cripple their functionality. Russia at least once in Ukraine, and the USA, I forget the details, perhaps against North Korea in response to the North Korean hacks of some film company?
No I'm not doing that - I'm scared of dogs. I've signed up to do some telephone and leaflets and possibly to man a stall. However, I need to throw off this stinking cold first.
Damn! I was so looking forward to you canvassing me.
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
Nation states do engage in DDOS attacks.
Why do you say that? (genuine question, it is not an area I am familiar with beyond knowing what the acronym stands for)
Usually it's to divert attention while they steal something important.
I'm not convinced anyone has much to gain from nicking the Labour party's manifesto and campaign leaflets.
I'd have thought that any attacker at this stage would be more interested in simply disrupting the campaign than in stealing anything.
I think the SNP has it's fair number of gammons, and looking at your posts Malcolm, I suspect you go red in the face every time you think about Tories! 😂😂
By the way, I thought I'd post this article again to get you to go full on gammon nationalist! It is written by a black Scottish woman. What d'y' think?
Usual bollox from people with a chip on their shoulder. Scotland is far from perfect but trying to say Nationalists are all racists is puerile. PS: Best you stick to your sheep.
Does she have a chip on her shoulder? About what? That is a bit of a "I am not racist but..." comment n'est pas? No sheep round here btw, but if that is the sort of thing that occupies your mind I am sure you can get counselling to go with the anger management advice.
I think I'm behind the curve. What is the issue about foreign states interfering in UK domestic affairs? It may be a bad idea but our law can't touch it. Is the suggestion that some UK party is paying for this or organising it - in which case of course it would be illegal.
In an internet age the only law of elections is going to be 'Caveat Emptor' - which is true for most things really - (or in this case 'Caveat Suffragator').
Whatever this is about, what I do see is that Hilary Clinton, a very powerful foreign national, was on the radio today effectively interfering in a UK election by attacking the government.
Likewise of course with Trump attacking the opposition.
I think I'm behind the curve. What is the issue about foreign states interfering in UK domestic affairs? It may be a bad idea but our law can't touch it. Is the suggestion that some UK party is paying for this or organising it - in which case of course it would be illegal.
In an internet age the only law of elections is going to be 'Caveat Emptor' - which is true for most things really - (or in this case 'Caveat Suffragator').
Whatever this is about, what I do see is that Hilary Clinton, a very powerful foreign national, was on the radio today ineffectively interfering in a UK election by attacking the government.
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
Nation states do engage in DDOS attacks.
Why do you say that? (genuine question, it is not an area I am familiar with beyond knowing what the acronym stands for)
Usually it's to divert attention while they steal something important.
I'm not convinced anyone has much to gain from nicking the Labour party's manifesto and campaign leaflets.
I'd have thought that any attacker at this stage would be more interested in simply disrupting the campaign than in stealing anything.
If that was the serious intention, far worse things you can do than DDOS a server.
When it comes to religious or racial intolerance, and in terms of candidature for parliament -- forever. Sorry if that seems harsh to you, but there are enough people out there who aren't bigots that we can afford to permanently discard those who are. Being a member of parliament is an enormous position of responsibility, an important element of which is pastoral care and representing the vulnerable. We've become so infused with the idea of parliamentarians as pugilists that we forget that an MP also needs to nurture and protect. An MP with a history of bigotry is forever damaged. We can do so much better than this.
Great. You can start by not implying support for articles heavily based on quotes from convicted bigot Naz Shah.
Disagree with this analysis.
Religion has the concept of repentance followed by forgiveness followed by restoration. And I say that if someone has turned away from their bigotry then they can come back.
AFAICS that is what Naz Shah has done, and without further evidence to the contrary I'd say the same about Browne, given his apology in 2008 - 10 years should be enough to prove or disprove that.
He seems - rather than relying as many do on "I misspoke" or "I was joking" weasel words, to have said "I was wrong in what I said". I'll accept that, and look at the 10 years since for evidence.
On a separate note there seems to me that there is something of an issue with loyalty to Islam vs loyalty to a secular nation. And it has been debated in the Muslim community for several decades (*). I would the more recent idea of declaring Isis sympathisers to not be "real Muslims" is superficial
Christianity / Judaism have ways of separating or reconciling sacred and secular. IMO Islam has more problems as religion-incorporating-politics is in the inspired text, and there is less leeway to reinterpret. I would say the main thing it needs is time - like a century or so.
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
Nation states do engage in DDOS attacks.
Why do you say that? (genuine question, it is not an area I am familiar with beyond knowing what the acronym stands for)
For the same reason they pay thugs to beat people up sometimes. Not everything a state wants to do calls for some precise engineered assault
I am surprised at 69% who are still voting Conservative. Perhaps they don't realise how things have changed. Do they really want to support Brexit? And surely the Conservative Party is NOT what it used to be.
Same could be said of Conservatives in the 1980s, morphing into something more Thatcherite.
The current "Conservative Party" is well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
I don't agree. There is one specific policy (Brexit) where you disagree with them but in terms of general social policy they are far more centrist than they were at the time of Thatcher. Just looking at their policies on same sex relationships, general equality, minimum wage and a whole host of other topics and you see that they are more centrist than in Thatcher's day.
I am not a member of the party and never would be but the claim they are more right wing than Thatcher's day does not stand up.
The policies and attitudes you mention are really those of the Cameron era. Whether Johnson will stick with them depends how much he needs the ERG. The ERG is the new Conservative Party. they are well to the right of Margaret Thatcher
So your view is not based on reality at all. Just on your personal bias and how that influences how you see things developing in the future if you happen to be right. .
Well possibly, but I have rarely noticed you to have an unbiased view on very much. Most of these things need to be measured on a continuum that is relevant to the times we live in. On such a basis Rees Mogg is much further from the centre in 2019 than Margaret Thatcher was in 1980. Agreed, this is opinion, but it is supportable and reasonable. Margaret Thatcher was far more pragmatic than most people give her credit for. She was also highly intelligent. Rees Mogg by comparison, does not stack up that well!
In the end I would rather judge on policies and actions rather than the never ending commentary. I believe you were happy enough (a poor choice of words but it expresses the basic view) to remain a member of the Tory party when May was creating her culture of fear for legitimate British citizens who happened to be the wrong skin colour and introducing ever increased levels of state control over our lives.
Surely the reality is that you have a fundamental problem with Brexit and that has coloured all your other views.
Not sure homosexuality's approved of by many religious texts.
Yeah, you see, I'm not defending religious beliefs per se. I'm an ardent atheist. If anyone wants leaf through their holy book and point to passages to condemn my sexuality, you won't find me reacting in a particularly patient way. They'd be told to go fuck themselves in pretty short order, and have certainly been in the past.
If people want to have a discussion about how the Bible or the Quran is wrong in its ethics, you'll find me a willing advocate. But religious intolerance is something beyond that. Accusing whole communities of having divided loyalties is wrong, in the same way as portraying all gay people as promiscuous is wrong. It's wrong even though you can find examples.
Once again, for the people at the back, you don't have to be a Muslim to find islamophobia vile. Ditto Jew/antisemitism. Ditto gay/homophobia. You don't have to choose between islamism and islamophobia. You don't have to choose between defending Israel's foreign policy and antisemitism. You don't have to choose between defending minorities and endorsing every single thing you could imagine they stand for.
This response from Noo is excessively balanced. Coming on here with his common sense views. Frankly, it's a f**king outrage.
If you were to place Jo Swinson's utterings alongside those of Boris "f*ck business" Johnson, I'm pretty sure hers would give a more grown-up impression than his!
True, but then she comes out with childish whinging about being excluded from the debates because of her gender, or tacking a major change in the voting franchise on to a bill specifying an election in a few weeks' time.
The choice voters have to make is between a charlatan man-child, a lightweight, and a superannuated anti-Semitic Trot. It's true that on a personal level the lightweight is the least bad of the three, but do we want to prolong the hung-parliament nightmare?
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
Nation states do engage in DDOS attacks.
Why do you say that? (genuine question, it is not an area I am familiar with beyond knowing what the acronym stands for)
Usually it's to divert attention while they steal something important.
I'm not convinced anyone has much to gain from nicking the Labour party's manifesto and campaign leaflets.
I'd have thought that any attacker at this stage would be more interested in simply disrupting the campaign than in stealing anything.
If that was the serious intention, far worse things you can do than DDOS a server.
But DDOS is easy and cheap. Perhaps whoever did it didn't think it was worth spending more on disrupting a campaign that already looks doomed to failure!
Has anyone had a go at Hilary Clinton for sticking her oar into our politics?
Did she do it from Clark County? At least it didn't start "Dear Limey Assholes..."
:-)
Someone should ask her where the 35,000 emails are, people deserve to see them. Or for a proper audit of the activities and funding of the Clinton Foundation.
If you were to place Jo Swinson's utterings alongside those of Boris "f*ck business" Johnson, I'm pretty sure hers would give a more grown-up impression than his!
True, but then she comes out with childish whinging about being excluded from the debates because of her gender, or tacking a major change in the voting franchise on to a bill specifying an election in a few weeks' time.
The choice voters have to make is between a charlatan man-child, a lightweight, and a superannuated anti-Semitic Trot. It's true that of the three a lightweight is the least bad, but do we want to prolong the hung-parliament nightmare?
What exactly is wrong with a hung parliament? Other countries have them routinely and seem to be able to cope.
I think I'm behind the curve. What is the issue about foreign states interfering in UK domestic affairs? It may be a bad idea but our law can't touch it. Is the suggestion that some UK party is paying for this or organising it - in which case of course it would be illegal.
In an internet age the only law of elections is going to be 'Caveat Emptor' - which is true for most things really - (or in this case 'Caveat Suffragator').
Whatever this is about, what I do see is that Hilary Clinton, a very powerful foreign national, was on the radio today effectively interfering in a UK election by attacking the government.
There's a difference between expressing an opinion in the open, and foreign-funded campaign material. If Clinton were siphoning money towards Facebook adverts aimed at influencing opinion, circumventing campaigning finance laws, that would be deeply wrong. Speaking in an interview about her views is deeply normal. And I'm not being partisan about this. If Donald Trump also wants to express a view on what should happen in the UK -- which he does frequently -- he's welcome. Not that he really has a clue, but that's also besides the point.
If you were to place Jo Swinson's utterings alongside those of Boris "f*ck business" Johnson, I'm pretty sure hers would give a more grown-up impression than his!
True, but then she comes out with childish whinging about being excluded from the debates because of her gender, or tacking a major change in the voting franchise on to a bill specifying an election in a few weeks' time.
The choice voters have to make is between a charlatan man-child, a lightweight, and a superannuated anti-Semitic Trot. It's true that of the three a lightweight is the least bad, but do we want to prolong the hung-parliament nightmare?
What exactly is wrong with a hung parliament? Other countries have them routinely and seem to be able to cope.
Not when they are trying to negotiate Brexit against a deadline they don't.
Another dig at Angela Rayner. Do you find her diction difficult to decipher?
She's a fabulous role model for people who start out in life with nothing. She was brought up by her illiterate single mother - imagine for a minute how your parents might have contributed to your own, superior language skills.
I have to laugh about William Hague saying it is a fantasy that Jo Swinson can become PM. This is the same William Hague who repeatedly claimed he would win the 2001 election and become PM, when the Tories were only targeting 70 seats. Some of these targets were defence seats! Even if the Tories had won all targets in 2001, they would have had approximately 230 seats and Tony Blair would still be PM with an overall majority! I got into trouble when I worked at CCHQ and someone let slip the target number because I could not help but laugh as I knew what this meant and the disingenuous message leading Tories were advocating!
I don't think Swinson can become PM but when Hague went around claiming he could, when he had signed off a target seat strategy that means he could never have won in 2001 I think someone should reprimand him!
Incidentally one of the most serious findings seems to be that Dominic Cummings does appear to have been granted full security clearance...
I would be interested in knowing what you think "full security clearance" means in this context. Security Clearance (SC) can be easily obtained by pretty much anyone working in the Defence/Intelligence sector be that in govt, the military or in industry. It's nothing more than a very quick record check, takes about 2 weeks to process.
...
WillS
When I last had my SC renewed it involved a detailed questionnaire about my then girlfriend's family in Munster - and she was considered too much of a security risk to visit my desk. Some suspicions linger for a long time at the MoD.
It might take a bit longer for people with links to some other immigrant communities too.
Just for context on the "sophisticated cyber attack": they're talking about a DDOS, the most basic and crude form of attack, basically flooding the target with junk until it becomes unusable.
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
There is a suggestion it might not even be that. The candidates might have overloaded their own system with a last minute rush to access campaign material.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
Nation states do engage in DDOS attacks.
Why do you say that? (genuine question, it is not an area I am familiar with beyond knowing what the acronym stands for)
Usually it's to divert attention while they steal something important.
I'm not convinced anyone has much to gain from nicking the Labour party's manifesto and campaign leaflets.
I'd have thought that any attacker at this stage would be more interested in simply disrupting the campaign than in stealing anything.
Risk/reward. Getting caught obtaining nuclear secrets: worth it Getting caught nicking a bunch of vapid statements about making people's lives better by focusing on Their Priorities: not worth it
Edit: sorry, I didn't ready your comment properly. I think the point about risk/reward still stands
Another dig at Angela Rayner. Do you find her diction difficult to decipher?
She's a fabulous role model for people who start out in life with nothing. She was brought up by her illiterate single mother - imagine for a minute how your parents might have contributed to your own, superior language skills.
Her mouth hangs open at the end of a sentence like some ungulate.
A reminder: the the accusation of Jews having split loyalties is rightly included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This is exactly the same thing from a Conservative candidate with respect to Muslims.
Writing in 2002
“In a passage about Muslim leaders warning the Iraq war could cause social unrest, he wrote: “Whatever the merits or demerits of war on Iraq, it is hardly a national strength to have a large minority with such divided loyalties during war.” “
I’m sure the victims and families of 7/7, London Bridge, the Ariana Grande concert, along with Lee Rigby, wish that no British Muslims were driven to terrorism by such foreign policy.
Placed in context, that's quite reasonable.
No it isn't. Divided loyalties is a charge designed to delegitimise immigrant groups for centuries. It is ugly and it is right he apologised for it.
But he was right. And still is.
Does the same apply to Brits of a Polish background or Jewish background or Indian background, with regards hypothetical wars with Poland, Israel or India?
What's the likelihood of the UK going to war with any of those countries?
Take off the outrage hat for a minute and actually have a think about the reality of the situation. If the UK entered a war against Pakistan (not likely but a chance well above 0%) can you say with absolute certainty that every British Muslim with a Pakistani background would fall in line? If the answer isn't no, then you are absolutely kidding yourself because we already see British Muslims of Pakistani and other national backgrounds using Iraq II and our fight against ISIS as justification for attacks against us.
So let's drop the outrage and pretence. There is a real problem and just pretending it doesn't exist or hoping it will go away helps absolutely no one.
Ultimately there are British Muslims who have travelled to Syria and fought for ISIS. This alone shows there is an issue of split loyalty within the British Muslim community. I'll leave it to everyone else to decide how widespread it is and how much support these people have.
Comments
The next stage up is DV clearance which is much more in-depth and involves the authorities examining your personal life (friends, work record, financial situation etc) to see if there are any levers that a foreign power or corporation could use to persuade you to do naughty things.
There are stages above that I'm sure but those are the only two levels generally available outside of specialist occupations in the military/intell/govt sector.
If Dominic Cummings has either SC or DV clearance then anyone with some knowledge of the sector (so, not most journalists) would simply shrug their shoulders and say "big deal", even if they did believe that him working in Russia for a few years, a couple of decades ago, had influenced his political views.
I suspect that this report is simply full of "could" and "might" and "maybe" which Downing Street know would be jumped on as implying collusion or interference while actually saying bugger all of interest.
Given the "quality" that most of our journalists and editors regularly display in their complete lack of research, I'd say that's a realistic worry.
WillS
These can be bought online (with cryptocurrency for anonymity) for $20/hour.
If it was the Russians, they'd be in and out silently after grabbing key information, then publishing it via WikiLeaks or wherever.
Not sure homosexuality's approved of by many religious texts.
A lot of Conservative voters who voted Remain in 2016 have no enthusiasm for the EU, and are reconciled to leaving it. The Conservatives have probably lost all the voters for whom it's a deal breaker.
I agree, if it is DDOS, it highly unlikely to be a nation state. Also, why arent they using something like cloudflare.
I'm sorry the article quotes Naz Shah, but that doesn't excuse what this Conservative candidate has said. Shoot the messenger if you like, but don't forget to read the message.
And it’s not as though you aren’t engaging in your own speculations.
Or Trump has ordered the CIA to help Boris....
(When these leaflets do finally get printed, the will simply say "Your Labour candidate urges you to VOTE FOR BORIS!")
I am not a member of the party and never would be but the claim they are more right wing than Thatcher's day does not stand up.
PS: also don't have the bollox to show it in Scotland
Labour looking rather foolish over their lies about the nature of the attack
By the way, I thought I'd post this article again to get you to go full on gammon nationalist! It is written by a black Scottish woman. What d'y' think?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/27/parallels-scottish-nationalism-racism-sadiq-khan
It's not confined to the main parties, either. The Lib Dems effectively forced out their last leader but one for being religious, and the Greens happily defend criminal behaviour of all sorts as long as it's targeted against the "right" people (eg farmers, scientists testing medicines on animals, people who work for energy companies).
Did she do it from Clark County? At least it didn't start "Dear Limey Assholes..."
:-)
https://twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1194211513415979008?s=19
We can agree to disagree on whether it's juvenile - I'm just not seeing sleazy.
There are surprisingly close links between Russia and Israel...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1177446/israel-news-benjamin-netanyahu-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-iran-news-israel-elections-spt
It is extremely troubling, therefore, that Boris has once again repeated his nonsense about meeting an arbitrary date, promising to have a deal ready for the end of 2020, which is impossible. This is especially so because both business and government will need at least 6 months to set up arrangements once we know what any trade deal is going to be, and the decision on extending will have to be taken just five months after starting talks.
We are reduced therefore to trying to second-guess which of the Boris pledges are going to be broken. That is no way to solicit the votes of sensible Conservatives.
On the other hand, it's also true that the only other alternative, a vote for the LibDems, is a vote for a hung parliament and therefore for prolonging the chaos. It might also be a vote which would let in a Corbyn government, crossing another 100% red line given the state of the Labour Party today. In addition Jo Swinson has not exactly been inspiring confidence in the LibDems as a grown-up party.
Difficult stuff to weigh up, which is why anything Farage says or does is completely irrelevant.
PS: Best you stick to your sheep.
Sometimes this blog has an awful grip on what is actually going on politically.
I'm not convinced anyone has much to gain from nicking the Labour party's manifesto and campaign leaflets.
If people want to have a discussion about how the Bible or the Quran is wrong in its ethics, you'll find me a willing advocate. But religious intolerance is something beyond that. Accusing whole communities of having divided loyalties is wrong, in the same way as portraying all gay people as promiscuous is wrong. It's wrong even though you can find examples.
Once again, for the people at the back, you don't have to be a Muslim to find islamophobia vile. Ditto Jew/antisemitism. Ditto gay/homophobia. You don't have to choose between islamism and islamophobia. You don't have to choose between defending Israel's foreign policy and antisemitism. You don't have to choose between defending minorities and endorsing every single thing you could imagine they stand for.
In an internet age the only law of elections is going to be 'Caveat Emptor' - which is true for most things really - (or in this case 'Caveat Suffragator').
Whatever this is about, what I do see is that Hilary Clinton, a very powerful foreign national, was on the radio today effectively interfering in a UK election by attacking the government.
Another ditch beckons when he fails to take us out of the EU at the end of 2020.
I suspect, but don't know, that the majority of attacks in general are pure vandalism.
Surely the reality is that you have a fundamental problem with Brexit and that has coloured all your other views.
The state of it.
Worse, in fact, than digging out articles from 2002 and thinking it matters.
The choice voters have to make is between a charlatan man-child, a lightweight, and a superannuated anti-Semitic Trot. It's true that on a personal level the lightweight is the least bad of the three, but do we want to prolong the hung-parliament nightmare?
"We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services"
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Now, how about the Trump foundation or Trump University?
And I'm not being partisan about this. If Donald Trump also wants to express a view on what should happen in the UK -- which he does frequently -- he's welcome. Not that he really has a clue, but that's also besides the point.
She's a fabulous role model for people who start out in life with nothing. She was brought up by her illiterate single mother - imagine for a minute how your parents might have contributed to your own, superior language skills.
I don't think Swinson can become PM but when Hague went around claiming he could, when he had signed off a target seat strategy that means he could never have won in 2001 I think someone should reprimand him!
It might take a bit longer for people with links to some other immigrant communities too.
Getting caught nicking a bunch of vapid statements about making people's lives better by focusing on Their Priorities: not worth it
Edit: sorry, I didn't ready your comment properly. I think the point about risk/reward still stands
https://mobile.twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1193959465336426499
Fecking numpty
Take off the outrage hat for a minute and actually have a think about the reality of the situation. If the UK entered a war against Pakistan (not likely but a chance well above 0%) can you say with absolute certainty that every British Muslim with a Pakistani background would fall in line? If the answer isn't no, then you are absolutely kidding yourself because we already see British Muslims of Pakistani and other national backgrounds using Iraq II and our fight against ISIS as justification for attacks against us.
So let's drop the outrage and pretence. There is a real problem and just pretending it doesn't exist or hoping it will go away helps absolutely no one.
Ultimately there are British Muslims who have travelled to Syria and fought for ISIS. This alone shows there is an issue of split loyalty within the British Muslim community. I'll leave it to everyone else to decide how widespread it is and how much support these people have.