This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Much though I would like Dominic Grieve, one of the most distinguished, principled and independent-minded MPs of the last parliament, to win, I fear he has little chance.
Is he any more principled and independent minded than Jeremy Corbyn?
Are these necessarily positive attributes?
Grieve is principled and independent. I am not sure Jeremy Corbyn is either - he is just an old fashioned sixth form common room contrarian rent-a-leftie. He is also different to Grieve in the sense that Grieve has a brain.
How many of the mass of Tories in Beaconsfield, come the day, are going to risk theirs being the one seat that robs the Conservatives of a majority? And condemning the country to years more chaos? Because that is how the final days of the campaign are going to be shaped.
What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
Perhaps still some moderates left in the Labour Press Team?
Original tweet slightly disingenuous - it implies that Corbyn voted against repeal, but in fact he was absent. No idea whether he had a good reason to be absent, but he did not actively oppose repeal.
Johnson, yes, voted for. He was on the liberal wing at the time. Maybe he still is.
The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. The Tea Party includes in its number an African American GOP Senator. The Tea Party started as a movement about economic concerns and the TEA acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
If I was American I would vote Democrat over Donald Trump's vile GOP but I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
The Tea Party which started organising the moment Obama became president? Yeah, totally not racist.
They objected to his economic policies. Race wasn't discussed. So yes totally not racist.
Or do you think it is not possible to oppose the economic policies of a black leader without mentioning race, migration or anything else without being racist? Did opposing Obama automatically make you racist?
If so did opposing Thatcher automatically make you sexist?
Can you accept that people may not organise themselves in a group they outwardly accept as racist, and yet do and say racist things and have racist motivations?
Because by your definition as long as you don't say that race is the reason for doing obviously racist things, you aren't racist.
If you want to say that they're racist then do better than 'an organisation protesting taxes, deficit and other economic issues was formed after a left wing black American President took over'.
You could start by saying the racist things they do and the racist motivations they have. If they do racist things then yes call them racist.
Best practice when quoting odds would be to use the best price available really. Saying "1/4 is too short" without mentioning the selection is available at 1/3 is a bit pointless
"I’m planning a short series of posts on the betting in interesting seats"
Will any of the conclusions be that the Remain option is not value?
Whatever your view of Grieve, no one can accuse the Conservatives of not doing everything possible to get him elected. They select a candidate with absolutely no connection to the constituency and who demonstrated their campaigning incompetence at the 2017GE by increasing the Labour majority from 274 to nearly 14000 when they stood in their home seat of Ealing.
Normally I would write off Grieve's chances, but against this level of incompetence he may have an outside chance.
Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sexual assault. And he would not face extradition to the US had he not been a Russian puppet and leaked national security secrets.
Maybe he will get a pardon, but that would just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted for and Schiff is not allowing due process. National security secrets were unsafely held on Clinton's illegal private server apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts of the Republican party. What, precisely, has Trump done that is crooked? Not just, I dont like him, hes a fruitcake nonsense, but actual corruption?
It's a fair question. IIUC the specific thing is using the power of the office to persuade a foreign national and state to generate information against a political opponent. Technically that is crooked.
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
On topic - more likely IMO that the Tories have a healthy majority at least 5k or more than that this seat falls to Grieve.
If anyone really thinks its going to be close happy to have a small £20 wager at evens: you win if Grieve is elected, I win if Tories win over 5k majority, bet void if Tories win but with a small majority. What do you think @MikeSmithson ?
On topic: regarding Grieve at 5/2, let`s compare with other similarly priced opportunities: Norfolk North 2/1 (was 3/1) Tories, Richmond Park 7/2 Tories.
I`d say that Tories have a better chance of winning either Norfolk North or Richmond Park compared to Grieve winning in Beaconsfield.
The Tories have more chance of winning Glasgow Central than Richmond Park.
How many of the mass of Tories in Beaconsfield, come the day, are going to risk theirs being the one seat that robs the Conservatives of a majority? And condemning the country to years more chaos? Because that is how the final days of the campaign are going to be shaped.
I mean, I'm sure they can feel safe in the knowledge that Grieve has refused to allow Corbyn in No10, and many probably wouldn't mind him being a Brexit deciding vote.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
You may have identified the issue there. His "friends" in Hamas have their own spin on applying homophobia, which involves free mandatory flying lessons.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
At the time it wasn't - gender identity politics really wasn't a vote winning issue then.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
At the time it wasn't - gender identity politics really wasn't a vote winning issue then.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
Exactly, a protest that achieves nothing more important than voting for people's rights.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
Cameron introduced gay marriage while Corbyn was making friends with people who like to throw gays off tall buildings.
Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sexual assault. And he would not face extradition to the US had he not been a Russian puppet and leaked national security secrets.
Maybe he will get a pardon, but that would just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted for and Schiff is not allowing due process. National security secrets were unsafely held on Clinton's illegal private server apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts of the Republican party. What, precisely, has Trump done that is crooked? Not just, I dont like him, hes a fruitcake nonsense, but actual corruption?
Trump ""University" - fraud Public money being spent at Trump hotels etc - corruption Trump's children using govt to sell stuff - corruption Trump Foundation - a fake charity spending its money on Trump himself There's also the general corruption of passing laws and regulations which directly help him and his super-rich friends. And massive conflicts of interest. and so on
Apart from that it's not just "I don't like him" he's an actual white supremacist, climate-crisis denier, but if another Republican had won (Ted Cruz anyone?) they would probably have been just as bad. Your point about "due process" is rubbish, the House is investigating, if it goes to trial in the Senate due process will apply.
As for Clinton using a private email server for her government emails, it shows her willingness to think that rules don't apply to her, and reflects badly on her character, but is hardly evidence of corruption (though she may well be corrupt).
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
You may have identified the issue there. His "friends" in Hamas have their own spin on applying homophobia, which involves free mandatory flying lessons.
Yes that is true. But he will overlook that for the greater good (of overthrowing the J**ish-controlled Western Imperialist Military-Industrial Complex).
No-one is going to vote for that CORBYNISTA helper Grieve which would only help to bring in a Corbyn government.
CON maj 40%
There is no chance that any 2017 Tory voters will vote for Grieve - so he has to get his votes from the Lib Dems - ain't going to happen.
I think the hyperbole merchants should have a much-needed nap.
The personal vote thing might be over-stated, but if you're either not that fussed about Brexit (quite a lot of people aren't), or assumed in 2017 that Theresa had the cakey unicorns on order, I can see quite a lot to commend Grieve.
2017 voters - even Tory ones - were not being asked to make hard choices about the future relationship. I'm not saying it wasn't an option, but "No Deal is Better Than a Bad Deal" didn't feel quite as real as the discussion since on WTO.
How many of the mass of Tories in Beaconsfield, come the day, are going to risk theirs being the one seat that robs the Conservatives of a majority? And condemning the country to years more chaos? Because that is how the final days of the campaign are going to be shaped.
I mean, I'm sure they can feel safe in the knowledge that Grieve has refused to allow Corbyn in No10, and many probably wouldn't mind him being a Brexit deciding vote.
Any continuation of the chaos since May lost her majority in 2017 is horrific to the voters.
Beaconsfield might turn out to be the Tories' Blaenau Gwent in 2005: a respected independent triumphing over the candidate of the party machine, which treated him so deplorably.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
Would be vaguely interested to know if he was paired. I don't think there would have been a shortage of Cons MPs willing to miss the vote either tbh.
In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted for and Schiff is not allowing due process.
What do you think 'due process' is in a Congressional impeachment hearing? What do you think Schiff is not allowing?
The American constitution delegates all authority over Impeachment to the House.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Now begins to look like Blair scheduled the vote on the day of an anti-war demo precisely to put his rebellious backbenchers in a difficult position. Miss out on a chance to vote away hated, bigoted Tory legislation, or join a march to oppose the hated, war that Blair was pushing.
Nice to have a reminder of what an odious creep Blair was from time to time.
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
Categorically ruling out supporting Jeremy Corbyn because he would "be hugely detrimental to the United Kingdom in terms of the break-up of the United Kingdom" while having backed the Cons who have agreed to put a border in the Irish Sea.
How many black supporters is he going to have to invent to get out of this one?
Yeah, this comes at the same time as him using a stock image of a Kenyan woman on his document about improving African American lives, whilst that document has been met with scepticism by many African American politicians, and he misrepresented endorsements of said plan as endorsements for his candidacy. Not to mention his campaign leaking a focus group with African American voters and trying to spin his lack of support in that key demo in the primaries as just their homophobia.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
Boris is our current PM. I'm glad Boris thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
Categorically ruling out supporting Jeremy Corbyn because he would "be hugely detrimental to the United Kingdom in terms of the break-up of the United Kingdom" while having backed the Cons who have agreed to put a border in the Irish Sea.
... and failed to back the previous Conservative PM's proposal to prevent a border in the Irish Sea.
I know we shouldn't laugh, but sometimes it requires a special effort not to.
How many of the mass of Tories in Beaconsfield, come the day, are going to risk theirs being the one seat that robs the Conservatives of a majority? And condemning the country to years more chaos? Because that is how the final days of the campaign are going to be shaped.
I mean, I'm sure they can feel safe in the knowledge that Grieve has refused to allow Corbyn in No10, and many probably wouldn't mind him being a Brexit deciding vote.
Any continuation of the chaos since May lost her majority in 2017 is horrific to the voters.
The chaos is an inevitability given Porky's lie about the timetable for a FTA with the EU. But at least, at last, the voters have a real point of comparison between the leaders; the sight of Boris donning boxing gloves this morning - and breaking into a sweat after one feeble swing - confirms that Swinson is the better boxer.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
Cameron introduced gay marriage while Corbyn was making friends with people who like to throw gays off tall buildings.
And Cameron was part of the young Tories "Hang Nelson Mandela" campaign whilst Corbyn was active in the anti apartheid movement. Missing a vote =/= voting against a thing.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
Boris is our current PM. I'm glad Boris thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
Cameron introduced gay marriage while Corbyn was making friends with people who like to throw gays off tall buildings.
David Cameron voted in the earlier division; perhaps he had a dinner date. Cameron is odd in that he started out supporting section 28 but later forced through gay marriage. Possibly he felt constrained to follow the party line early on in his career, especially as he'd replaced as MP for Witney Shaun Woodward who had been sacked (and later) defected over section 28, or perhaps he changed his mind.
Beaconsfield might turn out to be the Tories' Blaenau Gwent in 2005: a respected independent triumphing over the candidate of the party machine, which treated him so deplorably.
That would be true if Grieve hadn't lost a vote of no confidence held by his local association.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
Cameron introduced gay marriage while Corbyn was making friends with people who like to throw gays off tall buildings.
David Cameron voted in the earlier division; perhaps he had a dinner date. Cameron is odd in that he started out supporting section 28 but later forced through gay marriage. Possibly he felt constrained to follow the party line early on in his career, especially as he'd replaced as MP for Witney Shaun Woodward who had been sacked (and later) defected over section 28, or perhaps he changed his mind.
It does sound from reporting that Cameron and Osborne truly believed in equal marriage, not just as an equality issue, but also as part of their conservative belief that marriage is a social good.
Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sexual assault. And he would not face extradition to the US had he not been a Russian puppet and leaked national security secrets.
Maybe he will get a pardon, but that would just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted for and Schiff is not allowing due process. National security secrets were unsafely held on Clinton's illegal private server apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts of the Republican party. What, precisely, has Trump done that is crooked? Not just, I dont like him, hes a fruitcake nonsense, but actual corruption?
Trump ""University" - fraud Public money being spent at Trump hotels etc - corruption Trump's children using govt to sell stuff - corruption Trump Foundation - a fake charity spending its money on Trump himself There's also the general corruption of passing laws and regulations which directly help him and his super-rich friends. And massive conflicts of interest. and so on
Apart from that it's not just "I don't like him" he's an actual white supremacist, climate-crisis denier, but if another Republican had won (Ted Cruz anyone?) they would probably have been just as bad. Your point about "due process" is rubbish, the House is investigating, if it goes to trial in the Senate due process will apply.
As for Clinton using a private email server for her government emails, it shows her willingness to think that rules don't apply to her, and reflects badly on her character, but is hardly evidence of corruption (though she may well be corrupt).
It's win-win-win for the Democrats.
If the impeachment succeeds, the Republican Party implodes.
If it doesn't, they coast in at the next Election AND whoever they elect can do what the hell they like without fear of impeachment, because it will have been shown to be inoperative.
In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted for and Schiff is not allowing due process.
What do you think 'due process' is in a Congressional impeachment hearing? What do you think Schiff is not allowing?
The American constitution delegates all authority over Impeachment to the House.
This Is US Federal Politics; IMO due process does not apply.
A couple of hundred ferrets in a sack attempting a political lynching, which will either work or it won't
In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted for and Schiff is not allowing due process.
What do you think 'due process' is in a Congressional impeachment hearing? What do you think Schiff is not allowing?
The American constitution delegates all authority over Impeachment to the House.
Well there was his refusing to allow Nunes to delegate his time to anther questioner by refusing to recognize her, and of course not permitting WH lawyers or the Republicans to call witnesses or subpoena. Interestingly Chuck Schumer was on yesterday saying he hoped the Republicans would accommodate Democrat requests on process if it goes to full trial in the Senate where the Reps will have control over it via McConnell as majority leader. Given how Schiff has acted I'd say there is zero chance of that.
Beaconsfield might turn out to be the Tories' Blaenau Gwent in 2005: a respected independent triumphing over the candidate of the party machine, which treated him so deplorably.
That would be true if Grieve hadn't lost a vote of no confidence held by his local association.
I am not sure that a vote by 300 members orchestrated by ex-Kippers means lot in predicting a GE vote.
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
You are such a fan of the Donald!
I dont mind him, I loathe the corrupt Democrats though. Hillary is an out and out crook. I see her foundation just 'lost' 16.8 million dollars
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Now begins to look like Blair scheduled the vote on the day of an anti-war demo precisely to put his rebellious backbenchers in a difficult position. Miss out on a chance to vote away hated, bigoted Tory legislation, or join a march to oppose the hated, war that Blair was pushing.
Nice to have a reminder of what an odious creep Blair was from time to time.
While we're on voting history, Jeremy Corbyn was one of only three MPs to sign an EDM looking forward to the day that humanity was wiped out by an asteroid. The other two were John McDonnell and Tony Banks. In fairness, the destruction of humanity was only the coda to what looks like a drunken rant about pigeons, but still a rather eccentric EDM to want to put your name to.
(New phone - can't work out how to post a link - if you don't know the details, google 'Tony Banks pigeon EDM')
Beaconsfield might turn out to be the Tories' Blaenau Gwent in 2005: a respected independent triumphing over the candidate of the party machine, which treated him so deplorably.
That would be true if Grieve hadn't lost a vote of no confidence held by his local association.
But is his local association run by conservatives?
It does sound from reporting that Cameron and Osborne truly believed in equal marriage, not just as an equality issue, but also as part of their conservative belief that marriage is a social good.
I am sure that is true, but I'm also sure that their views would have evolved over the previous 15 years or so, as was true of many people (both in the Conservative Party and in society generally) including yours truly.
Personally I was hugely influenced by this article, surprisingly by Tim Montgomerie:
It's the only time I can remember when a single article changed my mind on a significant issue. Previously I'd thought that legalisation of gay marriage wasn't necessary since civil partnerships effectively already gave gay couples similar rights. That article made me realise that I was focusing too much on the practical aspects (tax, inheritance etc), and neglecting the wider social and human aspects.
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
You are such a fan of the Donald!
Also "commissioned by the Democrats" is a bit of a 'simplification'.
"In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, while The Free Beacon stopped its backing in May of 2016.[3] In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. DNC officials denied knowing their attorney had contracted with Fusion GPS, and Steele asserted he was not aware the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research until months after he contracted with Fusion GPS.[10][11] Following Trump's election as president, funding from Clinton and the DNC ceased, but Steele continued his research and was reportedly paid directly by Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson.[12] While compiling the dossier, Steele passed information to both British and American intelligence services." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
Boris is our current PM. I'm glad Boris thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
Given Mayor Peteys troubles that'll further cement his difficulties getting any sort of black support and Sanders heart issues, today looks like a good day to dutch Sleepy Joe and 1/2020th for under 50% implied probability ?
Or is Boris drunk already and his minders think they can't sober him up in time for tonite?
Or perhaps the bookies have heard that Corbyn is to be replaced by Starmer? Or that Arcuri is to announce that she had 3 abortions at Boris' behest? Or maybe someone has sneaked a photo of Jacob in full Witchfinder General regalia? I can think of so many possibilities.
Beaconsfield might turn out to be the Tories' Blaenau Gwent in 2005: a respected independent triumphing over the candidate of the party machine, which treated him so deplorably.
That would be true if Grieve hadn't lost a vote of no confidence held by his local association.
But is his local association run by conservatives?
Probably not. It is possible they dress up in brown shirts at the weekend and swear secret allegiance to to Nige "El Duce" Farage.
Beaconsfield might turn out to be the Tories' Blaenau Gwent in 2005: a respected independent triumphing over the candidate of the party machine, which treated him so deplorably.
That would be true if Grieve hadn't lost a vote of no confidence held by his local association.
I am not sure that a vote by 300 members orchestrated by ex-Kippers means lot in predicting a GE vote.
It is meaningful in the context of the parallel being drawn with Blaenau Gwent, where a popular local candidate was blocked by the central party machine. If Grieve had been genuinely popular in his local association then he might have won the vote of confidence in his local association. The "centre vs local" pattern from Blaenau Gwent just doesn't fit.
Given Mayor Peteys troubles that'll further cement his difficulties getting any sort of black support and Sanders heart issues, today looks like a good day to dutch Sleepy Joe and 1/2020th for under 50% implied probability ?
Sanders' numbers have improved since his heart attack.
What with Bloomberg and Patrick getting in the race, also eating at Biden and Warren, I would think Bernie is going to look stronger as time goes by.
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
You are such a fan of the Donald!
I dont mind him, I loathe the corrupt Democrats though. Hillary is an out and out crook. I see her foundation just 'lost' 16.8 million dollars
It's a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Not at all concerned about the "behind closed doors" conversations with Vlad?
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
Cameron introduced gay marriage while Corbyn was making friends with people who like to throw gays off tall buildings.
And Cameron was part of the young Tories "Hang Nelson Mandela" campaign whilst Corbyn was active in the anti apartheid movement. Missing a vote =/= voting against a thing.
Irrelevant whataboutery. I'm not a Cameron supporter.
The point is there are at least legitimate examples of Cameron doing concrete things to support gay rights.
The crypto commies within the Labour movement however have a very poor record of advancing gay rights beyond fig leaf protests. "Sorry, I would vote for your rights but I'm busy making myself feel all self-righteous" is the political equivalent of "Sorry, I'm washing my hair".
Or is Boris drunk already and his minders think they can't sober him up in time for tonite?
Could just be people hedging in advance of the debate later.
Are we that sure he's going to get a drubbing?
There's no Swinson on stage, so that's a help. And we can be fairly sure that in the eyes of his supporters, and most of the Press, Corbyn has to knock him out to get a draw.
In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted for and Schiff is not allowing due process.
What do you think 'due process' is in a Congressional impeachment hearing? What do you think Schiff is not allowing?
The American constitution delegates all authority over Impeachment to the House.
Well there was his refusing to allow Nunes to delegate his time to anther questioner by refusing to recognize her,
Under the rules of the Committee that were voted on by the House Nunes could not delegate his time to her. It could only be delegated to counsel.
Beaconsfield might turn out to be the Tories' Blaenau Gwent in 2005: a respected independent triumphing over the candidate of the party machine, which treated him so deplorably.
That would be true if Grieve hadn't lost a vote of no confidence held by his local association.
But is his local association run by conservatives?
Probably not. It is possible they dress up in brown shirts at the weekend and swear secret allegiance to to Nige "El Duce" Farage.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
Boris is our current PM. I'm glad Boris thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
How can you tell what Boris thinks?
He voted to repeal Section 28 which is what we were talking about.
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
You are such a fan of the Donald!
I dont mind him, I loathe the corrupt Democrats though. Hillary is an out and out crook. I see her foundation just 'lost' 16.8 million dollars
It's a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Not at all concerned about the "behind closed doors" conversations with Vlad?
The refusal to disclose his tax returns is equally intriguing.
Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sexual assault. And he would not face extradition to the US had he not been a Russian puppet and leaked national security secrets.
Maybe he will get a pardon, but that would just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted fo apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts of the Republican party. What, precisely, has Trump done that is crooked? Not just, I dont like him, hes a fruitcake nonsense, but actual corruption?
Trump ""University" - fraud Public money being spent at Trump hotels etc - corruption Trump's children using govt to sell stuff - corruption Trump Foundation - a fake charity spending its money on Trump himself There's also the general corruption of passing laws and regulations which directly help him and his super-rich friends. And massive conflicts of interest. and so on
Apart from that it's not just "I don't like him" he's an actual white supremacist, climate-crisis denier, but if another Republican had won (Ted Cruz anyone?) they would probably have been just as bad. Your point about "due process" is rubbish, the House is investigating, if it goes to trial in the Senate due process will apply.
As for Clinton using a private email server for her government emails, it shows her willingness to think that rules don't apply to her, and reflects badly on her character, but is hardly evidence of corruption (though she may well be corrupt).
All sounds standard fayre for US politics. How rich has Pelosi got out of being in politics? His climate stance is an absolute shocker yes, but hardly corrupt. White supremacism is a nonsense, there is zero evidence for it and it was never associated with him as a very public figure in the 40 years before he stood. I struggle to see where he is any worse than any other US president or politician all of whom get very rich out of being in Washington. And as long as he hates Hillary the crook I'll back him over her any day of the week.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
At the time it wasn't - gender identity politics really wasn't a vote winning issue then.
At the time I was a teenager and definitely didn't fully understand the issues. I remember it very clearly though. Totemic seems a pretty good description to me, both at the time and in retrospect.
Beaconsfield might turn out to be the Tories' Blaenau Gwent in 2005: a respected independent triumphing over the candidate of the party machine, which treated him so deplorably.
That would be true if Grieve hadn't lost a vote of no confidence held by his local association.
But is his local association run by conservatives?
Probably not. It is possible they dress up in brown shirts at the weekend and swear secret allegiance to to Nige "El Duce" Farage.
This seems quite likely in the case of Conway, the former UKIP candidate who organised the vote against Grieve.
It would be interesting to know how many of those who have been active in the Conservative Association in Beaconsfield (the people who actually do the canvassing etc) are helping Grieve's campaign, and also the same in David Gauke's case. I have no inside info on this, but maybe someone else does.
I never understand why they do this. Yes, you want to seem "above it all", and these larger debates are always about piling on the incumbent, but by subbing in someone else it immediately makes you look weak.... At least dare the broadcasters to empty chair you, that takes courage.
With any time-averaging you have a balance between averaging over a long enough period that you even out random fluctuations and averaging over a shorter time period so that your average reacts rapidly to real changes.
Clearly they're using an averaging period that prioritises the former over the latter.
Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sexual assault. And he would not face extradition to the US had he not been a Russian puppet and leaked national security secrets.
Maybe he will get a pardon, but that would just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
In what sfo apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts of the Republican party. What, precisely, has Trump done that is crooked? Not just, I dont like him, hes a fruitcake nonsense, but actual corruption?
Trump ""University" - fraud Public money being spent at Trump hotels etc - corruption Trump's children using govt to sell stuff - corruption Trump Foundation - a fake charity spending its money on Trump himself There's also the general corruption of passing laws and regulations which directly help him and his super-rich friends. And massive conflicts of interest. and so on
Apart from that it's not just "I don't like him" he's an actual white supremacist, climate-crisis denier, but if another Republican had won (Ted Cruz anyone?) they would probably have been just as bad. Your point about "due process" is rubbish, the House is investigating, if it goes to trial in the Senate due process will apply.
As for Clinton using a private email server for her government emails, it shows her willingness to think that rules don't apply to her, and reflects badly on her character, but is hardly evidence of corruption (though she may well be corrupt).
All sounds standard fayre for US politics. How rich has Pelosi got out of being in politics? His climate stance is an absolute shocker yes, but hardly corrupt. White supremacism is a nonsense, there is zero evidence for it and it was never associated with him as a very public figure in the 40 years before he stood. I struggle to see where he is any worse than any other US president or politician all of whom get very rich out of being in Washington. And as long as he hates Hillary the crook I'll back him over her any day of the week.
Can you clarify please?
Are you saying she is a crook and he isn't? Or are you saying he's a bigger and therefore better crook?
Given Mayor Peteys troubles that'll further cement his difficulties getting any sort of black support and Sanders heart issues, today looks like a good day to dutch Sleepy Joe and 1/2020th for under 50% implied probability ?
Sanders' numbers have improved since his heart attack.
What with Bloomberg and Patrick getting in the race, also eating at Biden and Warren, I would think Bernie is going to look stronger as time goes by.
Bernie looks nailed on for runner-up imo. Last time probably showed the ceiling of his support, given Hillary was not really campaigning against him. Who wins is less clear. Most of the candidates are quite old but Mayor Pete's cv does not get much beyond running the school tuck shop. I wonder if Kamala Harris has been oversold but in the debates, she sounded less like a politician and more like a SpAd.
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
You are such a fan of the Donald!
I dont mind him, I loathe the corrupt Democrats though. Hillary is an out and out crook. I see her foundation just 'lost' 16.8 million dollars
It's a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Not at all concerned about the "behind closed doors" conversations with Vlad?
Not really. I'm sure most governments have behind closed doors conversations most of the time.
Crikey: “It’s not a top-tier TV event, hence why we’re holding back the big-name performers with stardust like Sajid [Javid] and Priti [Patel]. They’re being used carefully to have high impact,” said one senior Conservative.
White supremacism is a nonsense, there is zero evidence for it and it was never associated with him as a very public figure in the 40 years before he stood.
I dunno, how many non-racists do you know who have taken out full page adverts in the NYT calling for the the death penalty for a bunch of black people?
Or is Boris drunk already and his minders think they can't sober him up in time for tonite?
Could just be people hedging in advance of the debate later.
Are we that sure he's going to get a drubbing?
There's no Swinson on stage, so that's a help. And we can be fairly sure that in the eyes of his supporters, and most of the Press, Corbyn has to knock him out to get a draw.
Why are the punters so edgy?
My guess? The ishoos. The NHS in particular. Every mention of it imo takes an eighth of a point off the Cons at the polls. Electoral Calculus has them down by two seats from yesterday and as you noted, NOM is in to 15/8 and Cons OM out to 1/2.
Given Mayor Peteys troubles that'll further cement his difficulties getting any sort of black support and Sanders heart issues, today looks like a good day to dutch Sleepy Joe and 1/2020th for under 50% implied probability ?
Sanders' numbers have improved since his heart attack.
What with Bloomberg and Patrick getting in the race, also eating at Biden and Warren, I would think Bernie is going to look stronger as time goes by.
Bernie looks nailed on for runner-up imo. Last time probably showed the ceiling of his support, given Hillary was not really campaigning against him. Who wins is less clear. Most of the candidates are quite old but Mayor Pete's cv does not get much beyond running the school tuck shop. I wonder if Kamala Harris has been oversold but in the debates, she sounded less like a politician and more like a SpAd.
Harris seems to be losing money and staff; there was a recent politico article where lots of people were saying her campaign just isn't up to snuff. She also is gonna fail to win California's primary, which will be a really bad look.
I think if it isn't Bernie or Biden it will likely be Warren; she has had a D after her name long enough that those who hate Bernie for not can support her, and she has enough left wing credentials to get that base rallied behind her if Bernie drops out / endorses her at the convention. Biden probably is still most likely of anyone, but he has such severe weaknesses I can't see it happening.
It would be interesting to know how many of those who have been active in the Conservative Association in Beaconsfield (the people who actually do the canvassing etc) are helping Grieve's campaign, and also the same in David Gauke's case. I have no inside info on this, but maybe someone else does.
On a related note, I asked the Totnes Conservative Chairman the other day how many Sarah Wollaston had taken with her. She hasn't, he said. The memberhip has increased since she left.
Certainly those I've been leafletting and door-knocking with for her Conservative successor have an added determination to see the back of her.
Indeed Mr Brokenwheel, and the far left doesn't have a great record on gay rights. The company they keep includes Vladimir Putin and a number of Islamist homophobes. Indeed it may have been the latter group that Corbyn was trying to please when he was "washing his hair" at the time of the repeal.
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
You are such a fan of the Donald!
I dont mind him, I loathe the corrupt Democrats though. Hillary is an out and out crook. I see her foundation just 'lost' 16.8 million dollars
It's a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Not at all concerned about the "behind closed doors" conversations with Vlad?
Not really. I'm sure most governments have behind closed doors conversations most of the time.
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42 42 45 37 44 45 41 43 40 42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
Their methodology maybe:
"We weight according to sample size. There is little difference between a reasonable 1,000 person sample size or something larger, but because with a larger sample you can be more confident in viewing representative data in the cross-breaks, we weight them higher. Prolific pollsters are weighted down. Our tracker seeks to measure all pollsters. We weight down pollsters which publish more regularly than others to avoid one pollster saturating results. We weight by publication date. Newly published polls have a higher weighting in our tracker than older polls. We do not yet weight according to a pollster’s record in previous elections."
It would be interesting to know how many of those who have been active in the Conservative Association in Beaconsfield (the people who actually do the canvassing etc) are helping Grieve's campaign, and also the same in David Gauke's case. I have no inside info on this, but maybe someone else does.
I know quite a few longstanding members are campaigning for Gauke.
The JCL/Kipper entryists aren’t. But they don’t have much local knowledge/campaigning skills.
Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sd just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
In what sfo apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts of the Republican party. What, precisely, has Trump done that is crooked? Not just, I dont like him, hes a fruitcake nonsense, but actual corruption?
Trump ""University" - fraud Public money being spent at Trump hotels etc - corrupf passing laws and regulations which directly help him and his super-rich friends. And massive conflicts of interest. and so on
Apart from that it's not just "I don't like him" he's an actual white supremacist, climate-crisis denier, but if another Republican had won (Ted Cruz anyone?) they would probably have been just as bad. Your point about "due process" is rubbish, the House is investigating, if it goes to trial in the Senate due process will apply.
As for Clinton using a private email server for her government emails, it shows her willingness to think that rules don't apply to her, and reflects badly on her character, but is hardly evidence of corruption (though she may well be corrupt).
All sounds standard fayre for US politics. How rich has Pelosi got out of being in politics? His climate stance is an absolute shocker yes, but hardly corrupt. White supremacism is a nonsense, there is zero evidence for it and it was never associated with him as a very public figure in the 40 years before he stood. I struggle to see where he is any worse than any other US president or politician all of whom get very rich out of being in Washington. And as long as he hates Hillary the crook I'll back him over her any day of the week.
Can you clarify please?
Are you saying she is a crook and he isn't? Or are you saying he's a bigger and therefore better crook?
On which grounds do you find him preferable?
No I'm saying I despise the Clintons and their corruption. Trump I just consider to be your run of the mill, get rich and acrew everyone else, politician like the rest of the US Washington scene but as he promised to lock her up hes my guy until he achieves that. Then I cease to care what happens over there.
It would be interesting to know how many of those who have been active in the Conservative Association in Beaconsfield (the people who actually do the canvassing etc) are helping Grieve's campaign, and also the same in David Gauke's case. I have no inside info on this, but maybe someone else does.
On a related note, I asked the Totnes Conservative Chairman the other day how many Sarah Wollaston had taken with her. She hasn't, he said. The memberhip has increased since she left.
Certainly those I've been leafletting and door-knocking with for her Conservative successor have an added determination to see the back of her.
To (mis)quote Mandy Rice Davies; "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"
Comments
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
You could start by saying the racist things they do and the racist motivations they have. If they do racist things then yes call them racist.
"I’m planning a short series of posts on the betting in interesting seats"
Will any of the conclusions be that the Remain option is not value?
Normally I would write off Grieve's chances, but against this level of incompetence he may have an outside chance.
If anyone really thinks its going to be close happy to have a small £20 wager at evens: you win if Grieve is elected, I win if Tories win over 5k majority, bet void if Tories win but with a small majority. What do you think @MikeSmithson ?
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1196790563456073728
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
Public money being spent at Trump hotels etc - corruption
Trump's children using govt to sell stuff - corruption
Trump Foundation - a fake charity spending its money on Trump himself
There's also the general corruption of passing laws and regulations which directly help him and his super-rich friends.
And massive conflicts of interest.
and so on
Apart from that it's not just "I don't like him" he's an actual white supremacist, climate-crisis denier, but if another Republican had won (Ted Cruz anyone?) they would probably have been just as bad. Your point about "due process" is rubbish, the House is investigating, if it goes to trial in the Senate due process will apply.
As for Clinton using a private email server for her government emails, it shows her willingness to think that rules don't apply to her, and reflects badly on her character, but is hardly evidence of corruption (though she may well be corrupt).
2017 voters - even Tory ones - were not being asked to make hard choices about the future relationship. I'm not saying it wasn't an option, but "No Deal is Better Than a Bad Deal" didn't feel quite as real as the discussion since on WTO.
The American constitution delegates all authority over Impeachment to the House.
The Tories will win it easily. Still a true blue seat.
Nice to have a reminder of what an odious creep Blair was from time to time.
Grieve has as much chance now as Blair had then.
Categorically ruling out supporting Jeremy Corbyn because he would "be hugely detrimental to the United Kingdom in terms of the break-up of the United Kingdom" while having backed the Cons who have agreed to put a border in the Irish Sea.
I know we shouldn't laugh, but sometimes it requires a special effort not to.
If the impeachment succeeds, the Republican Party implodes.
If it doesn't, they coast in at the next Election AND whoever they elect can do what the hell they like without fear of impeachment, because it will have been shown to be inoperative.
A couple of hundred ferrets in a sack attempting a political lynching, which will either work or it won't
Interestingly Chuck Schumer was on yesterday saying he hoped the Republicans would accommodate Democrat requests on process if it goes to full trial in the Senate where the Reps will have control over it via McConnell as majority leader. Given how Schiff has acted I'd say there is zero chance of that.
Or is Boris drunk already and his minders think they can't sober him up in time for tonite?
It's a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend
In fairness, the destruction of humanity was only the coda to what looks like a drunken rant about pigeons, but still a rather eccentric EDM to want to put your name to.
(New phone - can't work out how to post a link - if you don't know the details, google 'Tony Banks pigeon EDM')
Personally I was hugely influenced by this article, surprisingly by Tim Montgomerie:
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2012/02/a-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html
It's the only time I can remember when a single article changed my mind on a significant issue. Previously I'd thought that legalisation of gay marriage wasn't necessary since civil partnerships effectively already gave gay couples similar rights. That article made me realise that I was focusing too much on the practical aspects (tax, inheritance etc), and neglecting the wider social and human aspects.
"In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, while The Free Beacon stopped its backing in May of 2016.[3] In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. DNC officials denied knowing their attorney had contracted with Fusion GPS, and Steele asserted he was not aware the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research until months after he contracted with Fusion GPS.[10][11] Following Trump's election as president, funding from Clinton and the DNC ceased, but Steele continued his research and was reportedly paid directly by Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson.[12] While compiling the dossier, Steele passed information to both British and American intelligence services."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier
What with Bloomberg and Patrick getting in the race, also eating at Biden and Warren, I would think Bernie is going to look stronger as time goes by.
The point is there are at least legitimate examples of Cameron doing concrete things to support gay rights.
The crypto commies within the Labour movement however have a very poor record of advancing gay rights beyond fig leaf protests. "Sorry, I would vote for your rights but I'm busy making myself feel all self-righteous" is the political equivalent of "Sorry, I'm washing my hair".
There's no Swinson on stage, so that's a help. And we can be fairly sure that in the eyes of his supporters, and most of the Press, Corbyn has to knock him out to get a draw.
Why are the punters so edgy?
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1196786949551534080
She got her allotted time later as mandated.
His climate stance is an absolute shocker yes, but hardly corrupt.
White supremacism is a nonsense, there is zero evidence for it and it was never associated with him as a very public figure in the 40 years before he stood.
I struggle to see where he is any worse than any other US president or politician all of whom get very rich out of being in Washington. And as long as he hates Hillary the crook I'll back him over her any day of the week.
https://www.ft.com/content/0852dd72-0acd-11ea-bb52-34c8d9dc6d84
Next.....
Clearly they're using an averaging period that prioritises the former over the latter.
Are you saying she is a crook and he isn't? Or are you saying he's a bigger and therefore better crook?
On which grounds do you find him preferable?
“It’s not a top-tier TV event, hence why we’re holding back the big-name performers with stardust like Sajid [Javid] and Priti [Patel]. They’re being used carefully to have high impact,” said one senior Conservative.
I think if it isn't Bernie or Biden it will likely be Warren; she has had a D after her name long enough that those who hate Bernie for not can support her, and she has enough left wing credentials to get that base rallied behind her if Bernie drops out / endorses her at the convention. Biden probably is still most likely of anyone, but he has such severe weaknesses I can't see it happening.
Certainly those I've been leafletting and door-knocking with for her Conservative successor have an added determination to see the back of her.
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42
42
45
37
44
45
41
43
40
42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
"We weight according to sample size. There is little difference between a reasonable 1,000 person sample size or something larger, but because with a larger sample you can be more confident in viewing representative data in the cross-breaks, we weight them higher.
Prolific pollsters are weighted down. Our tracker seeks to measure all pollsters. We weight down pollsters which publish more regularly than others to avoid one pollster saturating results.
We weight by publication date. Newly published polls have a higher weighting in our tracker than older polls.
We do not yet weight according to a pollster’s record in previous elections."
https://britainelects.newstatesman.com/methodology/
The JCL/Kipper entryists aren’t. But they don’t have much local knowledge/campaigning skills.