*IF* (and it's a big "if" at this stage, of course,) the polls stay where they are and turn out to be broadly predictive of the final vote shares, then it will become apparent that the election campaign effectively ended after about three weeks. The voters made their minds up and moved on to other things.
Whither the robots? Did their batteries fall out?
We're not going to know the answer to that until the results come in. The polls could narrow (though they're not showing much sign of doing so at the moment,) or they could turn out to have been wrong.
I think there may be a shy Labour effect this time around. To say you're voting Labour if you voted Leave seems inconsistent so I suspect many people will put themselves down as don't knows. But I expect don't knows to largely break for Labour in the Brexity northern heartlands.
And of course the pull of ancestral memories and tribal identity may be too hard to resist once people get to the ballot box. I think quite a few people quite like the Conservatives but worry their dead granddad or whoever would die of shame if he knew their family was voting for the hated Tories. On polling day this will be worth a % or two for Labour.
You may very well be proved right.
Funny. I was thinking the same yesterday and today whilst out and about. A sense that there are shy Labour supporters around.
May be wrong.
Lots of shy FORMER Labour voters. Not telling anyone - family, friends, pollsters - that they have abandoned Labour, just in case it turns out they need to distance themselves from it if their faith in Boris was misplaced.....
Within my circle, I find a lot of people still willing to say they will vote Labour and justify it as despite Corbyn, but because they have the right policies and the evil Tories. It feels very much like they are very happy to signal to others they are supportive of general Labour brand, even if they think Corbyn is a best a wally / at worst very dodgy.
I actually thought Corbyn's response to this journalist-fabricated non-story quite good:
'I'm campaigning to win the election to become prime minister, that's quite enough and I just want to do the job of prime minister, I'm not really very interested in country houses.'
I want Corbyn's version of Labour to go down so badly it is wiped from this history books. But this type of tripe really is a distraction at best.
He was the one who brought this up in the first place (unlike the Queen's speech). If you are going to announced a policy, it is normally a reasonable idea to know at least the most basic thing about it.
Well exactly. Even if just something he was floating half seriously, for example, I get baffled when people talk about journalistic non stories when it arises from things the candidate has said themselves.
My understanding was that he did not initiate it, but was asked by a previous journalist if he would, like McDonnell, open up Chequers to the homeless. So it was not something he floated, but something a journalist floated.
Fair enough if that's the case, but initiation was not the main point as to whether he said it (I genuinely don't know) - if he said nothing about it then there's nothing to criticise, if he said something about it then whoever started it his comments are fair enough to be scrutinised and criticised, unless we think Boris should not be criticised if he says something idiotic just because someone asked him about it first rather than him starting it?
You say something then it will be looked into. Don't ad lib, don't guess - if you have nothing to say, say nothing, or have something to say and say it no matter the question, as Yes Minister famously taught us. Politicians and supporters complaining about what people ask them, or look into things they said, is a bad look.
No-one's mentioned how Farage got on in his Brillo interview before Brillo went for the empty chair. In my opinion Farage handled Brillo better than any other interviewee. In fact he got the better of him, but of course Farage is now a side-show. Obviously Brillo had planned his attack on Boris, so finished the interview with Farage early enough to get it done. He's burnt his boats and will be persona non grata at CCHQ, but maybe he won't care as he retires in the lavender fields of Grasse.
Unless Neil is the factor which swings this election, which seems improbable, why would he be persona non grata? Is this yet another sign of the pettiness and vindictiveness of Boris?
That is *my* opinion. I wouldn't take it as gospel. But - again in my opinion - they're going to avoid the msm backlash exemplified by Brillo's splenetic attack in the future.
I actually thought Corbyn's response to this journalist-fabricated non-story quite good:
'I'm campaigning to win the election to become prime minister, that's quite enough and I just want to do the job of prime minister, I'm not really very interested in country houses.'
I want Corbyn's version of Labour to go down so badly it is wiped from this history books. But this type of tripe really is a distraction at best.
He was the one who brought this up in the first place (unlike the Queen's speech). If you are going to announced a policy, it is normally a reasonable idea to know at least the most basic thing about it.
Well exactly. Even if just something he was floating half seriously, for example, I get baffled when people talk about journalistic non stories when it arises from things the candidate has said themselves.
My understanding was that he did not initiate it, but was asked by a previous journalist if he would, like McDonnell, open up Chequers to the homeless. So it was not something he floated, but something a journalist floated.
Fair enough if that's the case, but initiation was not the main point as to whether he said it (I genuinely don't know) - if he said nothing about it then there's nothing to criticise, if he said something about it then whoever started it his comments are fair enough to be scrutinised and criticised, unless we think Boris should not be criticised if he says something idiotic just because someone asked him about it first rather than him starting it?
Back in the day we used to say "ask a silly question, get a silly answer". Modern journalists seem to regard this as a winning strategy.
No-one's mentioned how Farage got on in his Brillo interview before Brillo went for the empty chair. In my opinion Farage handled Brillo better than any other interviewee. In fact he got the better of him, but of course Farage is now a side-show. Obviously Brillo had planned his attack on Boris, so finished the interview with Farage early enough to get it done. He's burnt his boats and will be persona non grata at CCHQ, but maybe he won't care as he retires in the lavender fields of Grasse.
Unless Neil is the factor which swings this election, which seems improbable, why would he be persona non grata? Is this yet another sign of the pettiness and vindictiveness of Boris?
That is *my* opinion. I wouldn't take it as gospel. But - again in my opinion - they're going to avoid the msm backlash exemplified by Brillo's splenetic attack in the future.
Yes it is your opinion, but it would fit very well with Boris and his circle's approach, so while it is not gospel it's probably not far off. It's the same reason HYUFD's immediate reaction to the prorogration case decision was to declare the Supreme Court would be taken to the cleaners (I'm paraphrasing here) was worth noting, and lo and behold that is the plan, covered up with vague language.
I actually thought Corbyn's response to this journalist-fabricated non-story quite good:
'I'm campaigning to win the election to become prime minister, that's quite enough and I just want to do the job of prime minister, I'm not really very interested in country houses.'
I want Corbyn's version of Labour to go down so badly it is wiped from this history books. But this type of tripe really is a distraction at best.
He was the one who brought this up in the first place (unlike the Queen's speech). If you are going to announced a policy, it is normally a reasonable idea to know at least the most basic thing about it.
Well exactly. Even if just something he was floating half seriously, for example, I get baffled when people talk about journalistic non stories when it arises from things the candidate has said themselves.
My understanding was that he did not initiate it, but was asked by a previous journalist if he would, like McDonnell, open up Chequers to the homeless. So it was not something he floated, but something a journalist floated.
Fair enough if that's the case, but initiation was not the main point as to whether he said it (I genuinely don't know) - if he said nothing about it then there's nothing to criticise, if he said something about it then whoever started it his comments are fair enough to be scrutinised and criticised, unless we think Boris should not be criticised if he says something idiotic just because someone asked him about it first rather than him starting it?
No problem with him being asked about it. And no problem with Corbyn saying, "well, if it turns out not to be possible, it's not possible. It was never a real policy of mine or my focus, it was an off-the-cuff response to a direct journalist question."
The Formerly Great Britain has also featured prominently in the news lately with the most recent jihad attack on London Bridge. This latest attack showcased extreme civilian bravery, the idiocy of public policy relating to terrorists, and inane do-gooder rehabilitation schemes that end up in murder. It also highlighted the particularly Western phenomenon of human sacrifice. And it's not just bureaucrats anymore: it's parents offering up their children. We are also apparently supposed to take moral direction from London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who not only says diversity our strength, but that we should take our inspiration from the murder victims who dedicated their lives to the individuals that eventually murdered them. Very inspirational – for terrorists that is.
Of course, Steyn used to refer to Boris as 'my old friend' but doesn't anymore, presumably because Boris stopped returning his calls. I'm not getting the impression that Steyn regards Boris's imminent victory as a new dawn.
*IF* (and it's a big "if" at this stage, of course,) the polls stay where they are and turn out to be broadly predictive of the final vote shares, then it will become apparent that the election campaign effectively ended after about three weeks. The voters made their minds up and moved on to other things.
Whither the robots? Did their batteries fall out?
We're not going to know the answer to that until the results come in. The polls could narrow (though they're not showing much sign of doing so at the moment,) or they could turn out to have been wrong.
I think there may be a shy Labour effect this time around. To say you're voting Labour if you voted Leave seems inconsistent so I suspect many people will put themselves down as don't knows. But I expect don't knows to largely break for Labour in the Brexity northern heartlands.
And of course the pull of ancestral memories and tribal identity may be too hard to resist once people get to the ballot box. I think quite a few people quite like the Conservatives but worry their dead granddad or whoever would die of shame if he knew their family was voting for the hated Tories. On polling day this will be worth a % or two for Labour.
You may very well be proved right.
Funny. I was thinking the same yesterday and today whilst out and about. A sense that there are shy Labour supporters around.
May be wrong.
Lots of shy FORMER Labour voters. Not telling anyone - family, friends, pollsters - that they have abandoned Labour, just in case it turns out they need to distance themselves from it if their faith in Boris was misplaced.....
Within my circle, I find a lot of people still willing to say they will vote Labour and justify it as despite Corbyn, but because they have the right policies and the evil Tories. It feels very much like they are very happy to signal to others they are supportive of general Labour brand, even if they think Corbyn is a best a wally / at worst very dodgy.
Wow 1 million views already for the Andrew Neil challenge to Johnson .
Remember when we had an hourly count on how many people watched Jezza is a terrorist sympathiser video in 2017?
Do I ever. I was chief mocker of the video rampers
However... Thing to remember about the terrorist video is that it was a paid advert, running in front of all my fucking YouTube videos. This is entirely organic sharing. Of course, all million views could be in America for all we know.
Wow 1 million views already for the Andrew Neil challenge to Johnson .
I remember Tories being really excited about a widely shared video about Corbyn's past associations. In 2017.
The difference is this is the BBC and not some clip from the right wing press doing the rounds .
And how many millions of views did clips from Jezza's clown car crash interview get both online and via traditional media, and actually I don't think it shifted any votes.
Wow 1 million views already for the Andrew Neil challenge to Johnson .
I remember Tories being really excited about a widely shared video about Corbyn's past associations. In 2017.
The difference is this is the BBC and not some clip from the right wing press doing the rounds .
And how many millions of views did clips from Jezza's clown car crash interview get both online and via traditional media, and actually I don't think it shifted any votes.
It's the same story - both sides sharing the video amongst themselves, while the swing voter is nowhere near twitter.
Given the results of Tusk's EU presidency, I think Donald Tusk was one of the most spectacular mistakes of EU history.
The problem of management of the EU is that governments appoint political failures and exiles for EU jobs, it's a recipe for guaranteed failure.
Juncker for instance was the first Luxembourg PM to have lost re-election in 40 years, that's quite an achievement.
He didn’t. He was sacked after his security forces were found rigging the elections in his favour, not that he knew about it, oh no, how could he possibly have done...
Wow 1 million views already for the Andrew Neil challenge to Johnson .
I remember Tories being really excited about a widely shared video about Corbyn's past associations. In 2017.
No you see it's only silly when Labour fans do it
It's very easy to spot political behaviours, as they are things that both sides criticise each other for despite engaging in it themselves. It's like if the LDs complained about misleading barcharts. It wouldn't matter so much if the more, er, intense loyalists of each side acted like they remembered that they took the complete opposite side to things or behaviours when the other side did it. It's actually more worrying when people genuinely think only Labour are rude to opponents online for example, or only Tories say racist things.
I'm not sure it should be the media, getting together to decide who in their cosy cabal gets to do what interviews. Ground rules need to be agreed well in advance with a special body. The audiences should be silent and respectful, like they are in US debates. And I would have no debates within 10 days of polling.
These debates should not descend into ego trips and a desire to satisfy the news broadcaster's need for 24/7 bread and circuses. I want forensic examination of our leaders/potential leaders. I don't want gotcha telly. That they are still fighting over who attends what when, after most of the postals have already gone in is pathetic, on all sides. Nobody comes out of it with credit.
Yes, I agree - the way it's done now feeds the idea of politics as entertainment and blood sport.
I'm still fond of what they did (for all I know still do) in Denmark:
1. Give all parties 45 minutes to make their case however they choose - films, endorsements, policy wonks, whatever.
2. The next day, give a panel of journalists 45 minutes to probe, challenge, seek explanations, cite evidence - all perfectly polite, but ruthlessly precise.
Start with the smallest party at the last election, 3 weeks before the vote, and repeat every couple of days with the next largest. Every party gets the same time (subject to a minimum number of signatures to stand at all) - the big parties are closer to election day because they'll probably form a government, but you don't get any extra time just because you were big last time - you need to win by having better arguments.
He is talking his own book. No-one has the tiniest idea how this will work out. Just as no-one yet knows whether the EU will be an anti democratic and sclerotic disaster or a great thing or something in the middle.
*IF* (and it's a big "if" at this stage, of course,) the polls stay where they are and turn out to be broadly predictive of the final vote shares, then it will become apparent that the election campaign effectively ended after about three weeks. The voters made their minds up and moved on to other things.
Whither the robots? Did their batteries fall out?
We're not going to know the answer to that until the results come in. The polls could narrow (though they're not showing much sign of doing so at the moment,) or they could turn out to have been wrong.
I think there may be a shy Labour effect this time around. To say you're voting Labour if you voted Leave seems inconsistent so I suspect many people will put themselves down as don't knows. But I expect don't knows to largely break for Labour in the Brexity northern heartlands.
And of course the pull of ancestral memories and tribal identity may be too hard to resist once people get to the ballot box. I think quite a few people quite like the Conservatives but worry their dead granddad or whoever would die of shame if he knew their family was voting for the hated Tories. On polling day this will be worth a % or two for Labour.
You may very well be proved right.
Funny. I was thinking the same yesterday and today whilst out and about. A sense that there are shy Labour supporters around.
May be wrong.
Lots of shy FORMER Labour voters. Not telling anyone - family, friends, pollsters - that they have abandoned Labour, just in case it turns out they need to distance themselves from it if their faith in Boris was misplaced.....
Within my circle, I find a lot of people still willing to say they will vote Labour and justify it as despite Corbyn, but because they have the right policies and the evil Tories. It feels very much like they are very happy to signal to others they are supportive of general Labour brand, even if they think Corbyn is a best a wally / at worst very dodgy.
But then vote for Boris......
I have a sneaking suspicion that a number will be voting Lib Dem, but don't want to be associated with voting for the coalition partners and want to continue to signal their Labour principles.
Brutal but entirely deserved. A liar, a coward and a cheat.
This is the 1st comment on the thread. Says it all really. After that typically brilliant challenge by Neil I can't see BJ turning up. But it won't make any difference to Tory body politic any more than Impeachment by the House will make much impact on the hard core Trumpists, speaking of which here's a recent article about the latter:
Wow 1 million views already for the Andrew Neil challenge to Johnson .
I remember Tories being really excited about a widely shared video about Corbyn's past associations. In 2017.
The difference is this is the BBC and not some clip from the right wing press doing the rounds .
Given the excitement is over how widely viewed something is I don't see that the content being from a different source does make a difference. The point remains that the argument there would appear to be that a viral clip is meaningless when helpful to one side, but not meaningless when is helpful to the other.
It's a great clip, very effective and concise in laying out the major flaws of Johnson, delivered with gravitas. But being seen a lot isn't huge.
The Wrexham constituency poll tonight with conservatives at 44% labour at 29% is an eye opener especially as it is in the Airbus catchment area
If true labour are going to have a very bad night on the 12th
That’s got to be an error. Surely. If Labour are suffering that badly in Wrexham 1931 might look like a picnic.
Think the sample was 400 odd so margin of error wider than normal. So gap could be far far less (if it exists). That said it’s hardly bad news for Boris even allowing for the caveats.
Nevertheless fat lady, singing, not until, and all that. Still 6 days to go.
The Wrexham constituency poll tonight with conservatives at 44% labour at 29% is an eye opener especially as it is in the Airbus catchment area
If true labour are going to have a very bad night on the 12th
That’s got to be an error. Surely. If Labour are suffering that badly in Wrexham 1931 might look like a picnic.
FWIW, the last big batch of constituency polls yielded results not too far different from the YouGov MRP. The Wrexham one, however, doesn't: the central projection in the MRP gives a four-point Tory lead.
Given the results of Tusk's EU presidency, I think Donald Tusk was one of the most spectacular mistakes of EU history.
The problem of management of the EU is that governments appoint political failures and exiles for EU jobs, it's a recipe for guaranteed failure.
Juncker for instance was the first Luxembourg PM to have lost re-election in 40 years, that's quite an achievement.
He didn’t. He was sacked after his security forces were found rigging the elections in his favour, not that he knew about it, oh no, how could he possibly have done...
It's not Twitter, it's BBC News, which is seen by a lot of people. This clip is going viral via BBC News.
Was the decision to pursue the issue in such a prominent way signed off by Tony Hall? It's disturbing that news organisations have taken it upon themselves to define the electoral process. Every pathetic A5 flyer must carry the address of the printer and publisher, but TV channels can apparently say and do whatever suits them.
The Wrexham constituency poll tonight with conservatives at 44% labour at 29% is an eye opener especially as it is in the Airbus catchment area
If true labour are going to have a very bad night on the 12th
That’s got to be an error. Surely. If Labour are suffering that badly in Wrexham 1931 might look like a picnic.
Think the sample was 400 odd so margin of error wider than normal. So gap could be far far less (if it exists). That said it’s hardly bad news for Boris even allowing for the caveats.
Nevertheless fat lady, singing, not until, and all that. Still 6 days to go.
This doesn't gain a tonne of traction because the leaders debate is happening tommorow which will dominate the political news cycle.
I think it would have been far harder for Boris if Neil had offered the challenge earlier this week. Now, as you say he will appear in a debate tomorrow night and that is another couple of days.
Then I presume Labour will announce some massive attempted bribe on Sunday and before we know it is Wednesday.
Why are some Tories getting so defensive about the 3 minute clip .
I’m sure they’d be loving it if Corbyn had tried to dodge AN and he laid into him .
I think most of us on here were/are saying he should do the interview.
Ah, but if you don't think it is the most amazing thing since sliced bread, and even if you do think it but don't think people should be too excited, then its being defensive. We're one step away from the perennial 'X must be rattled'.
This doesn't gain a tonne of traction because the leaders debate is happening tommorow which will dominate the political news cycle.
Well unless the BBC make the debate about Bozza not doing he interview, which they might do as an act of revenge. Tbh, he looks bad either way now.
I very much expect to give him a very rough time tomorrow night. If they make it all about not doing an interview though, it will look very weird as he is standing there doing a debate.
Tories seem to be very quick to dismiss something we know for a fact they'd be going on about if this was Corbyn
But Corbyn was torn a new orifice in his interview and it changed very little. Despite him coming across as a lying, clueless, tired, stupid, racist fool.
It's not Twitter, it's BBC News, which is seen by a lot of people. This clip is going viral via BBC News.
It is a comfort blanket for you but will not change a vote
Maybe but it shows that Johnson is not only a mendacious disingenuous racist buffoon, but he's also an out and out coward.
He talks tough, but while he is flexible and that can see him achieve things, he folds easy and runs away whenever he can. He's not strong or stable. Unfortunately, people don't mind that.
Orthodox Jews seeking to join Labour party faced home vetting visits, dossier alleges https://t.co/iz3vOvNLCW
Why would you want to join a party that would discriminate against you like that? And even if it weren't discriminatory against one social group, who would consent to home vetting visits to join a political party?
Tories seem to be very quick to dismiss something we know for a fact they'd be going on about if this was Corbyn
But Corbyn was torn a new orifice in his interview and it changed very little. Despite him coming across as a lying, clueless, tired, stupid, racist fool.
Then if it's so easy Johnson should go on there - what's he got to hide?
He almost certainly won't do the interview now - but this was worth it
Given an interview would have him cracking jokes or spluttering in a way that might have made for a good clip but also might have made putting together a good viral video harder, it's probably better for Labour than the interview would have been, particularly if Boris had done ok.
Wow 1 million views already for the Andrew Neil challenge to Johnson .
I remember Tories being really excited about a widely shared video about Corbyn's past associations. In 2017.
The difference is this is the BBC and not some clip from the right wing press doing the rounds .
And how many millions of views did clips from Jezza's clown car crash interview get both online and via traditional media, and actually I don't think it shifted any votes.
Well I think it made a pretty bad impression, but the disaster was mitigated considerably once it became known that Johnson was going to chicken out.
Didn't Gordon Brown avoid being interviewed by Andrew Neil for most of his time in government?
I can understand that BBC and other channels might want to maintain high viewing figures during a General Election campaign, but how many people will watch tomorrow's programme given that it is on the last Friday of the campaign. Many people will be heading off for Christmas drink and parties.
Given the results of Tusk's EU presidency, I think Donald Tusk was one of the most spectacular mistakes of EU history.
The problem of management of the EU is that governments appoint political failures and exiles for EU jobs, it's a recipe for guaranteed failure.
Juncker for instance was the first Luxembourg PM to have lost re-election in 40 years, that's quite an achievement.
He didn’t. He was sacked after his security forces were found rigging the elections in his favour, not that he knew about it, oh no, how could he possibly have done...
Brutal but entirely deserved. A liar, a coward and a cheat.
This is the 1st comment on the thread. Says it all really. After that typically brilliant challenge by Neil I can't see BJ turning up. But it won't make any difference to Tory body politic any more than Impeachment by the House will make much impact on the hard core Trumpists, speaking of which here's a recent article about the latter:
Posted this too late on previous thread I hope anyone who hasn’t had their children vaccinated against MMR is taking bot of the news from Samoa.
My son's school currently has quite a serious outbreak of mumps. I was worried for my son momentarily before I remembered that one of the 'M's in MMR stood for mumps so, having his had shots as planned, I believe he should be fine.
But my next thought was then one of some horror at the implications of these other kids getting mumps which I assume means they never had the MMR.
Children are a reservoir of disease as it is. Quite why it is that the presence of unvaccinated kids in schools is still tolerated I don't know.
Were I PM, MMR vaccination would be compulsory for kids to go to school, Andrew Wakefield would be extradited from the US and put in prison for all the harm he has done and people who believe in homeopathy and all this anti-vaccination rubbish should have the vote taken away (and given remedial science classes) as they are clearly too stupid to be allowed out on their own.
The LDs will make promising to being interviewed by Andrew Neil their core policy as a result? (They do have a policy about mandating leaders' debates already)
Tories seem to be very quick to dismiss something we know for a fact they'd be going on about if this was Corbyn
But Corbyn was torn a new orifice in his interview and it changed very little. Despite him coming across as a lying, clueless, tired, stupid, racist fool.
Then if it's so easy Johnson should go on there - what's he got to hide?
Nothing. Unlike Mr Corbyn and his cupboard of terrorist skeletons.
The fact it’s winding-up Labour supporters something rotten is a source of extreme amusement for me.
We're not going to know the answer to that until the results come in. The polls could narrow (though they're not showing much sign of doing so at the moment,) or they could turn out to have been wrong.
Indeed. 10 pm next Thursday. I think a medium to large Con win is baked in but nevertheless I will be wracked with tension as for every GE except for 2001.
Yeah, I wasn’t exactly holding my breath in 2001 either.
Whoever made that chart going back in time, Bravo!
Almost as good as a Lib Dodgy bar chart?
No, because it's based on real numbers scaled appropriately. It is a very effective way of presenting the data graphically, given we read from left to right and given that presenting time right to left breaks expectations.
Tories seem to be very quick to dismiss something we know for a fact they'd be going on about if this was Corbyn
But Corbyn was torn a new orifice in his interview and it changed very little. Despite him coming across as a lying, clueless, tired, stupid, racist fool.
Then if it's so easy Johnson should go on there - what's he got to hide?
Nothing. Unlike Mr Corbyn and his cupboard of terrorist skeletons.
The fact it’s winding-up Labour supporters something rotten is a source of extreme amusement for me.
Nothing funnier than a foam-mouthed leftie 😂
I know, right? Since they enjoy videos so much, maybe they'd like this one from today's Sun homepage:
"JEREMY Corbyn was filmed embracing a hate preacher who said Israelis make bread with children’s blood.
The Labour leader met Sheik Raed Salah and shook hands with him in 2012 after he smuggled himself into the UK to give a number of hate speeches.
He was arrested on the orders of the then Home Secretary Theresa May, and although his deportation was blocked a judge ruled he used the blood libel - a trope which claims that Jews kill children to use their blood for religious rituals.
Yet the new clip – which emerged today – showed Corbyn shaking the cleric’s hand at the same meeting where he called him an “honoured citizen” and invited him for tea in Parliament."
Tories seem to be very quick to dismiss something we know for a fact they'd be going on about if this was Corbyn
But Corbyn was torn a new orifice in his interview and it changed very little. Despite him coming across as a lying, clueless, tired, stupid, racist fool.
Then if it's so easy Johnson should go on there - what's he got to hide?
Nothing. Unlike Mr Corbyn and his cupboard of terrorist skeletons.
The fact it’s winding-up Labour supporters something rotten is a source of extreme amusement for me.
Nothing funnier than a foam-mouthed leftie 😂
Corbyn was scrutinised, it was a car crash. But Johnson has run away, why?
The LDs will make promising to being interviewed by Andrew Neil their core policy as a result? (They do have a policy about mandating leaders' debates already)
Why bother having a policy to mandate debates if TV channels have already done it?
Comments
**Andrew Neil with the chair**
SLD 2/5
SNP 5/2
SLab 66/1
SCon 100/1
You say something then it will be looked into. Don't ad lib, don't guess - if you have nothing to say, say nothing, or have something to say and say it no matter the question, as Yes Minister famously taught us. Politicians and supporters complaining about what people ask them, or look into things they said, is a bad look.
If true labour are going to have a very bad night on the 12th
It's hardly a real gotcha. It is tripe.
The Formerly Great Britain has also featured prominently in the news lately with the most recent jihad attack on London Bridge. This latest attack showcased extreme civilian bravery, the idiocy of public policy relating to terrorists, and inane do-gooder rehabilitation schemes that end up in murder. It also highlighted the particularly Western phenomenon of human sacrifice. And it's not just bureaucrats anymore: it's parents offering up their children. We are also apparently supposed to take moral direction from London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who not only says diversity our strength, but that we should take our inspiration from the murder victims who dedicated their lives to the individuals that eventually murdered them. Very inspirational – for terrorists that is.
https://www.steynonline.com/9890/prince-andrew-puke-of-york
Of course, Steyn used to refer to Boris as 'my old friend' but doesn't anymore, presumably because Boris stopped returning his calls. I'm not getting the impression that Steyn regards Boris's imminent victory as a new dawn.
However... Thing to remember about the terrorist video is that it was a paid advert, running in front of all my fucking YouTube videos. This is entirely organic sharing. Of course, all million views could be in America for all we know.
The problem of management of the EU is that governments appoint political failures and exiles for EU jobs, it's a recipe for guaranteed failure.
Juncker for instance was the first Luxembourg PM to have lost re-election in 40 years, that's quite an achievement.
I'm still fond of what they did (for all I know still do) in Denmark:
1. Give all parties 45 minutes to make their case however they choose - films, endorsements, policy wonks, whatever.
2. The next day, give a panel of journalists 45 minutes to probe, challenge, seek explanations, cite evidence - all perfectly polite, but ruthlessly precise.
Start with the smallest party at the last election, 3 weeks before the vote, and repeat every couple of days with the next largest. Every party gets the same time (subject to a minimum number of signatures to stand at all) - the big parties are closer to election day because they'll probably form a government, but you don't get any extra time just because you were big last time - you need to win by having better arguments.
3. Conclude with one all-leaders debate.
But it won't make any difference to Tory body politic any more than Impeachment by the House will make much impact on the hard core Trumpists, speaking of which here's a recent article about the latter:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/opinion/life-expectancy-united-states.html
It's a great clip, very effective and concise in laying out the major flaws of Johnson, delivered with gravitas. But being seen a lot isn't huge.
Nevertheless fat lady, singing, not until, and all that. Still 6 days to go.
Up the stags.
I’m sure they’d be loving it if Corbyn had tried to dodge AN and he laid into him .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Luxembourg_general_election
But anyway he gave the impression that he was mostly drunk on the job most of the time.
https://t.co/iz3vOvNLCW
Then I presume Labour will announce some massive attempted bribe on Sunday and before we know it is Wednesday.
Despite him coming across as a lying, clueless, tired, stupid, racist fool.
I can understand that BBC and other channels might want to maintain high viewing figures during a General Election campaign, but how many people will watch tomorrow's programme given that it is on the last Friday of the campaign. Many people will be heading off for Christmas drink and parties.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23264789
https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series?seid=MEHOINUSA672N&utm_source=series_page&utm_medium=related_content&utm_term=related_resources&utm_campaign=alfred
It explains a lot of things.
(They do have a policy about mandating leaders' debates already)
The fact it’s winding-up Labour supporters something rotten is a source of extreme amusement for me.
Nothing funnier than a foam-mouthed leftie 😂
Come on.
Jacob Rees-Mogg arrives late for only public grilling of election https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/general-election-2019-jacob-rees-3614056?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/10491940/footage-shows-jeremy-corbyn-embracing-islamic-hate-preacher-who-was-jailed-over-hamas-fundraising/
"JEREMY Corbyn was filmed embracing a hate preacher who said Israelis make bread with children’s blood.
The Labour leader met Sheik Raed Salah and shook hands with him in 2012 after he smuggled himself into the UK to give a number of hate speeches.
He was arrested on the orders of the then Home Secretary Theresa May, and although his deportation was blocked a judge ruled he used the blood libel - a trope which claims that Jews kill children to use their blood for religious rituals.
Yet the new clip – which emerged today – showed Corbyn shaking the cleric’s hand at the same meeting where he called him an “honoured citizen” and invited him for tea in Parliament."
Puts things into perspective, doesn't it?
But Johnson has run away, why?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/233104