It was just a late challenge, no malice in it. It was a red card, no doubt, but I would have thought a three match ban was for challenges with more spite in them than that
Given the UK's geographic proximity and economic interdependence with the EU27, the future relationship will only deliver in a mutually satisfactory way if it includes robust guarantees which ensure a level playing field.
The aim should be to prevent unfair competitive advantage that the UK could enjoy through undercutting of levels of protection with respect to, inter alia, competition and state aid, tax, social, environment and regulatory measures and practices.
Jess Philips sets out her stall for Labour Leader. She ruins her argument in the first paragraph, the rest is not very good at all, but a least the did not mention Thatcher ans seems to be focusing on the future as opposed to obsessing about the past glory days.
Given the experience of election 2017 and the dementia tax proposal any political party which proposes any major changes on it faces political suicide, so no surprise there
80 seat majority with five years. Now is the time to do something.
Nope, we Tory activists do not want a new poll tax or dementia tax thanks with local council elections in May and nor does Boris
HYUFD I can understand you not wanting these if you think they are wrong, but not wanting them because it would cost you council seats is not moral. What is the point of getting into power if you aren't going to do stuff that you think is right. Political parties are not football teams. The objective is to do stuff not just to win. What is the point of that?
Political parties are like football teams. Corbynite Labour opposed Blair/Brown, and Boris's Conservatives ran against the Cameron and May governments on austerity, police and of course Brexit. It ejected prominent members including two former Chancellors. Some members left but most remained. Just like football when a new manager sells the star midfielder, the fans stay loyal.
The ONLY point of having a large majority is to use it at the beginning of the session to do things you daren't do at the end.
And that's especially true of a policy that affects your core voters.
The political truth about dementia - which Tory activists are too out of touch to understand - is that current policies don't particularly hurt the poorest. If you've got no assets - and in 2017, 37% of the population lived in a home they didn't own - you get your social care for free: you're not worried about losing your home if you're renting. If you're worth a few million, you can afford to pay any dementia tax anyway.
The people today's dither hits worst are averagely to slightly above averagely affluent pensioners. The people most terrified about losing their home voted Tory.
When Tory activists bleat about the unpopularity of a proper social policy, they don't mean it'd be unpopular among Tory voters. They mean it'd be unpopular among Tory activists.
They truly are the stupid party
No, it is to deliver Tory policies you were elected on. Given the Tories never win renters (combining private and social) it is those with assets who make up the Tory core vote and it would be political suicide to take away their house ie their main owned asset which is what May discovered and Boris will never do it
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
So because Vince Vaughan happens to be a Republican and Trump supporter that suddenly makes his films you previously watched unwatchable? The fanaticism of the left
Given the experience of election 2017 and the dementia tax proposal any political party which proposes any major changes on it faces political suicide, so no surprise there
80 seat majority with five years. Now is the time to do something.
Nope, we Tory activists do not want a new poll tax or dementia tax thanks with local council elections in May and nor does Boris
HYUFD I can understand you not wanting these if you think they are wrong, but not wanting them because it would cost you council seats is not moral. What is the point of getting into power if you aren't going to do stuff that you think is right. Political parties are not football teams. The objective is to do stuff not just to win. What is the point of that?
Political parties are like football teams. Corbynite Labour opposed Blair/Brown, and Boris's Conservatives ran against the Cameron and May governments on austerity, police and of course Brexit. It ejected prominent members including two former Chancellors. Some members left but most remained. Just like football when a new manager sells the star midfielder, the fans stay loyal.
The ONLY point of having a large majority is to use it at the beginning of the session to do things you daren't do at the end.
And that's especially true of a policy that affects your core voters.
The political truth about dementia - which Tory activists are too out of touch to understand - is that current policies don't particularly hurt the poorest. If you've got no assets - and in 2017, 37% of the population lived in a home they didn't own - you get your social care for free: you're not worried about losing your home if you're renting. If you're worth a few million, you can afford to pay any dementia tax anyway.
The people today's dither hits worst are averagely to slightly above averagely affluent pensioners. The people most terrified about losing their home voted Tory.
When Tory activists bleat about the unpopularity of a proper social policy, they don't mean it'd be unpopular among Tory voters. They mean it'd be unpopular among Tory activists.
They truly are the stupid party
Imagine losing in a landslide to the stupid party!
Must be the Stupider Party, although indications are the it's the Stupidest Possible Party.
"That was a Party Election Broadcast by the Silly Party!"
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
The Conservatives promised to bankrupt the country and blame it on Labour.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
So because Vince Vaughan happens to be a Republican and Trump supporter that suddenly makes his films you previously watched unwatchable? The fanaticism of the left
I’m sorry but you cant lecture anyone on the subject of fanaticism.
54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election after Brexit, we do not care what ex Labour Welsh leaders with an axe to grind against Boris think
7th, like the number of years since indyref1 before Sturgeon faces an SNP leadership coup having surpassed even May in dithering and seen the Unionists take a majority at Holyrood
You never got back to me about that fake tweet you were fluffing earlier on today.
No fake tweet, and as the Wings website link I gave you shows and you completely ignored they have given up on Sturgeon
Find it yourself, as a diehard Unionist their Twitter blocked me months ago but I linked to what was retweeted on what they said and as you yet again completely ignored the website link from their site today I posted why should I bother giving you links anyway?
As was pointed out to you the WoS twitter account was suspended a month ago, so anything purporting to be a current tweet was a fake.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they post fake tweets*, then you win.
*I'm pretty sure you ultra Unionist chickenhawks and computer chair warriors don't have much fight in you, hence the constant running away.
There was nothing fake about it, as the link from the Wings over Scotland website I linked to made very clear from Sturgeon 'There is no Plan A'.
Deny it all you want, the ultra Nats are getting angry with Nicola
54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election after Brexit, we do not care what ex Labour Welsh leaders with an axe to grind against Boris think
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Franchise expanded to 18 year olds in 1969? Tory includes 12 or so UUP MPs?
7th, like the number of years since indyref1 before Sturgeon faces an SNP leadership coup having surpassed even May in dithering and seen the Unionists take a majority at Holyrood
You never got back to me about that fake tweet you were fluffing earlier on today.
No fake tweet, and as the Wings website link I gave you shows and you completely ignored they have given up on Sturgeon
Find it yourself, as a diehard Unionist their Twitter blocked me months ago but I linked to what was retweeted on what they said and as you yet again completely ignored the website link from their site today I posted why should I bother giving you links anyway?
As was pointed out to you the WoS twitter account was suspended a month ago, so anything purporting to be a current tweet was a fake.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they post fake tweets*, then you win.
*I'm pretty sure you ultra Unionist chickenhawks and computer chair warriors don't have much fight in you, hence the constant running away.
There was nothing fake about it, as the link from the Wings over Scotland website I linked to made very clear
54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election after Brexit, we do not care what ex Labour Welsh leaders with an axe to grind against Boris think
Una, Grande y Libre! (but run away from a fight whenever possible).
Maybe he did have a plan on the day he become PM, it's just that it was shit?
That plan in full:
a) no one should have to sell your home
b) Somebody has to pay for it
c) Er... that's it so far.
Great plan, stick go it Boris, after their antics of 2017 do not give Labour an inch, if they want to take political suicide that is up to them, otherwise wait for a Royal cross party Commission
you do know the Tories are in charge and therefore they have to take some action to set up that Royal Commission, don't you? It won't magically appear by itself.
It won't without Labour and LD participation either
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Britain goes better with Shell. You got an ology, your a scientist! Whazzup! If you see Sid, tell him. Heineken refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach. It's good to talk. My name? JR Hartley. Mums go to Iceland. Harp stats sharp to the bottom of the glass. A finger of fudge is just enough until it's time to eat. Kiara! Adora! It's just for me and my dog. Charley says... The Milky Bars are on me!
7th, like the number of years since indyref1 before Sturgeon faces an SNP leadership coup having surpassed even May in dithering and seen the Unionists take a majority at Holyrood
You never got back to me about that fake tweet you were fluffing earlier on today.
No fake tweet, and as the Wings website link I gave you shows and you completely ignored they have given up on Sturgeon
Find it yourself, as a diehard Unionist their Twitter blocked me months ago but I linked to what was retweeted on what they said and as you yet again completely ignored the website link from their site today I posted why should I bother giving you links anyway?
As was pointed out to you the WoS twitter account was suspended a month ago, so anything purporting to be a current tweet was a fake.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they post fake tweets*, then you win.
*I'm pretty sure you ultra Unionist chickenhawks and computer chair warriors don't have much fight in you, hence the constant running away.
There was nothing fake about it, as the link from the Wings over Scotland website I linked to made very clear
I don’t see the tweet on that page. Can you point it out please?
I posted it earlier as someone captured a screenshot of it when posted, as the Wings twitter account has been suspended there is no other copy on Twitter
7th, like the number of years since indyref1 before Sturgeon faces an SNP leadership coup having surpassed even May in dithering and seen the Unionists take a majority at Holyrood
You never got back to me about that fake tweet you were fluffing earlier on today.
No fake tweet, and as the Wings website link I gave you shows and you completely ignored they have given up on Sturgeon
Find it yourself, as a diehard Unionist their Twitter blocked me months ago but I linked to what was retweeted on what they said and as you yet again completely ignored the website link from their site today I posted why should I bother giving you links anyway?
As was pointed out to you the WoS twitter account was suspended a month ago, so anything purporting to be a current tweet was a fake.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they post fake tweets*, then you win.
*I'm pretty sure you ultra Unionist chickenhawks and computer chair warriors don't have much fight in you, hence the constant running away.
There was nothing fake about it, as the link from the Wings over Scotland website I linked to made very clear
I don’t see the tweet on that page. Can you point it out please?
I posted it earlier as someone captured a screenshot of it when posted, as the Wings twitter account has been suspended there is no other copy on Twitter
Britain goes better with Shell. You got an ology, your a scientist! Whazzup! If you see Sid, tell him. Heineken refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach. It's good to talk. My name? JR Hartley. Mums go to Iceland. Harp stats sharp to the bottom of the glass. A finger of fudge is just enough until it's time to eat. Kiara! Adora! It's just for me and my dog. Charley says... The Milky Bars are on me!
Britain goes better with Shell. You got an ology, your a scientist! Whazzup! If you see Sid, tell him. Heineken refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach. It's good to talk. My name? JR Hartley. Mums go to Iceland. Harp stats sharp to the bottom of the glass. A finger of fudge is just enough until it's time to eat. Kiara! Adora! It's just for me and my dog. Charley says... The Milky Bars are on me!
Feed Me!
isam: your friend still keen on RLB`s chances - you mentioned it last week?
7th, like the number of years since indyref1 before Sturgeon faces an SNP leadership coup having surpassed even May in dithering and seen the Unionists take a majority at Holyrood
You never got back to me about that fake tweet you were fluffing earlier on today.
No fake tweet, and as the Wings website link I gave you shows and you completely ignored they have given up on Sturgeon
Find it yourself, as a diehard Unionist their Twitter blocked me months ago but I linked to what was retweeted on what they said and as you yet again completely ignored the website link from their site today I posted why should I bother giving you links anyway?
As was pointed out to you the WoS twitter account was suspended a month ago, so anything purporting to be a current tweet was a fake.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they post fake tweets*, then you win.
*I'm pretty sure you ultra Unionist chickenhawks and computer chair warriors don't have much fight in you, hence the constant running away.
There was nothing fake about it, as the link from the Wings over Scotland website I linked to made very clear
I don’t see the tweet on that page. Can you point it out please?
I posted it earlier as someone captured a screenshot of it when posted, as the Wings twitter account has been suspended there is no other copy on Twitter
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Peter Bonetti.
Naahhh. I've heard that rumour lots of times but just don't believe it. You don't overturn a 98 seat majority on a footy match
7th, like the number of years since indyref1 before Sturgeon faces an SNP leadership coup having surpassed even May in dithering and seen the Unionists take a majority at Holyrood
You never got back to me about that fake tweet you were fluffing earlier on today.
No fake tweet, and as the Wings website link I gave you shows and you completely ignored they have given up on Sturgeon
Find it yourself, as a diehard Unionist their Twitter blocked me months ago but I linked to what was retweeted on what they said and as you yet again completely ignored the website link from their site today I posted why should I bother giving you links anyway?
As was pointed out to you the WoS twitter account was suspended a month ago, so anything purporting to be a current tweet was a fake.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they post fake tweets*, then you win.
*I'm pretty sure you ultra Unionist chickenhawks and computer chair warriors don't have much fight in you, hence the constant running away.
There was nothing fake about it, as the link from the Wings over Scotland website I linked to made very clear
I don’t see the tweet on that page. Can you point it out please?
I posted it earlier as someone captured a screenshot of it when posted, as the Wings twitter account has been suspended there is no other copy on Twitter
So the tweet is either fake or has nothing to do with the events of today. Glad we cleared that one up. How misleading.
Nope you can lie all you want, that was the original tweet as confirmed by the Twitter tick attached. Wings over Scotland has turned against Sturgeon
Yes. But as you are a bit thick I will explain it to you. Wing's has been suspended for a month. Thus that image of a tweet cannot be a tweet in relation to today's events.
7th, like the number of years since indyref1 before Sturgeon faces an SNP leadership coup having surpassed even May in dithering and seen the Unionists take a majority at Holyrood
You never got back to me about that fake tweet you were fluffing earlier on today.
No fake tweet, and as the Wings website link I gave you shows and you completely ignored they have given up on Sturgeon
Find it yourself, as a diehard Unionist their Twitter blocked me months ago but I linked to what was retweeted on what they said and as you yet again completely ignored the website link from their site today I posted why should I bother giving you links anyway?
As was pointed out to you the WoS twitter account was suspended a month ago, so anything purporting to be a current tweet was a fake.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they post fake tweets*, then you win.
*I'm pretty sure you ultra Unionist chickenhawks and computer chair warriors don't have much fight in you, hence the constant running away.
There was nothing fake about it, as the link from the Wings over Scotland website I linked to made very clear
I don’t see the tweet on that page. Can you point it out please?
I posted it earlier as someone captured a screenshot of it when posted, as the Wings twitter account has been suspended there is no other copy on Twitter
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Franchise expanded to 18 year olds in 1969? Tory includes 12 or so UUP MPs?
Why would allwing teens to vote increase Tory votes?
7th, like the number of years since indyref1 before Sturgeon faces an SNP leadership coup having surpassed even May in dithering and seen the Unionists take a majority at Holyrood
You never got back to me about that fake tweet you were fluffing earlier on today.
No fake tweet, and as the Wings website link I gave you shows and you completely ignored they have given up on Sturgeon
I don’t see the tweet on that page. Can you point it out please?
I posted it earlier as someone captured a screenshot of it when posted, as the Wings twitter account has been suspended there is no other copy on Twitter
It won't without Labour and LD participation either
I note your previous comment the first principle from a Conservative viewpoint is no one should have to sell their home to pay for care home bills.
Fine - I get that - but as a care home in London and the South East can cost up to £1200pw that's a lot of money needing to be found to support the care home industry which is as much about staff costs as anything.
The notion people should contribute throughout life to care costs is laudable - I believe only 20% of elderly currently go into care (the dementia numbers, though each one a heartbreaking tale) are tiny. The alternative seems to be we all contribute to a care home fund from which those needing it can draw - I suppose it's analogous to paying tax for education for those of us without children. We contribute even if we derive no direct benefit - one can argue a better educated work force is an indirect benefit.
The other aspect is the burden social care costs have imposed on Councils especially Shire authorities. A big part of that is the assessment process which requires bureaucracy to administer it - a much simplified version would by itself achieve significant savings.
7th, like the number of years since indyref1 before Sturgeon faces an SNP leadership coup having surpassed even May in dithering and seen the Unionists take a majority at Holyrood
You never got back to me about that fake tweet you were fluffing earlier on today.
No fake tweet, and as the Wings website link I gave you shows and you completely ignored they have given up on Sturgeon
I don’t see the tweet on that page. Can you point it out please?
I posted it earlier as someone captured a screenshot of it when posted, as the Wings twitter account has been suspended there is no other copy on Twitter
So the tweet is either fake or has nothing to do with the events of today. Glad we cleared that one up. How misleading.
Nope you can lie all you want, that was the original tweet as confirmed by the Twitter tick attached. Wings over Scotland has turned against Sturgeon
Yes. But as you are a bit thick I will explain it to you. Wing's has been suspended for a month. Thus that image of a tweet cannot be a tweet in relation to today's events.
It is literally impossible.
It absolutely connects to today's events as their website shows, a consistent anti Sturgeon line from Wings even if you are too thick to read it
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Franchise expanded to 18 year olds in 1969? Tory includes 12 or so UUP MPs?
Why would allwing teens to vote increase Tory votes?
Utterly disgraceful . Can one imagine what the UK press would have done if it had been another EU country which failed to inform the UK .
Farage would have been on QT ranting and raving about it afore you could say corrupt EUSSR.
Added to the violations of the Schengen Information System then the EU must be thinking what on earth is going on . I thought if there’s one thing you might be able to rely on is the UK not trashing its reputation on security matters .
Even that now is in tatters across the EU.
If Huawei are invited to run our 5G programme we won’t have any security reputation left to shred. None of the other countries in the 5 Eyes Group are using them. Why would they risk having the UK as the weakest link?
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Peter Bonetti.
Naahhh. I've heard that rumour lots of times but just don't believe it. You don't overturn a 98 seat majority on a footy match
Britain goes better with Shell. You got an ology, your a scientist! Whazzup! If you see Sid, tell him. Heineken refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach. It's good to talk. My name? JR Hartley. Mums go to Iceland. Harp stats sharp to the bottom of the glass. A finger of fudge is just enough until it's time to eat. Kiara! Adora! It's just for me and my dog. Charley says... The Milky Bars are on me!
Britain goes better with Shell. You got an ology, your a scientist! Whazzup! If you see Sid, tell him. Heineken refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach. It's good to talk. My name? JR Hartley. Mums go to Iceland. Harp stats sharp to the bottom of the glass. A finger of fudge is just enough until it's time to eat. Kiara! Adora! It's just for me and my dog. Charley says... The Milky Bars are on me!
Feed Me!
isam: your friend still keen on RLB`s chances - you mentioned it last week?
He seemed to think it would be a match between RLB and Starmer. If Nandy is in the mix that changes it I guess, though he said RLB was a bet at 7.8 and she is now 6 so I guess it was a good tip at the time
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
I’m sorry but you really are embarrassing yourself here.
No, that is you
You are being ridiculous.
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
It won't without Labour and LD participation either
I note your previous comment the first principle from a Conservative viewpoint is no one should have to sell their home to pay for care home bills.
Fine - I get that - but as a care home in London and the South East can cost up to £1200pw that's a lot of money needing to be found to support the care home industry which is as much about staff costs as anything.
The notion people should contribute throughout life to care costs is laudable - I believe only 20% of elderly currently go into care (the dementia numbers, though each one a heartbreaking tale) are tiny. The alternative seems to be we all contribute to a care home fund from which those needing it can draw - I suppose it's analogous to paying tax for education for those of us without children. We contribute even if we derive no direct benefit - one can argue a better educated work force is an indirect benefit.
The other aspect is the burden social care costs have imposed on Councils especially Shire authorities. A big part of that is the assessment process which requires bureaucracy to administer it - a much simplified version would by itself achieve significant savings.
As I have said previously my personal view is National Insurance should pay for social care but the winning Tory manifesto is absolutely clear, the home will not be sold to pay for social care
Britain goes better with Shell. You got an ology, your a scientist! Whazzup! If you see Sid, tell him. Heineken refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach. It's good to talk. My name? JR Hartley. Mums go to Iceland. Harp stats sharp to the bottom of the glass. A finger of fudge is just enough until it's time to eat. Kiara! Adora! It's just for me and my dog. Charley says... The Milky Bars are on me!
Feed Me!
isam: your friend still keen on RLB`s chances - you mentioned it last week?
He seemed to think it would be a match between RLB and Starmer. If Nandy is in the mix that changes it I guess, though he said RLB was a bet at 7.8 and she is now 6 so I guess it was a good tip at the time
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
That's plausible. It can't be Vietnam, Powellism and Northern Ireland didn't get big until a few years later. I did think of proEuropeanism but again, that's a few years later. You're left with economic stuff.
This is bugging me. I can come up with a plausible explanation for every election 1945 to 2019 except for 1970. Dammit...
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
I’m sorry but you really are embarrassing yourself here.
No, that is you
You are being ridiculous.
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
That is absolutely a tweet and runs identical with the anti Sturgeon line on todays Wings website and runs absolutely in tandem with it despite your false and misleading attempts to deny it
It won't without Labour and LD participation either
I note your previous comment the first principle from a Conservative viewpoint is no one should have to sell their home to pay for care home bills.
Fine - I get that - but as a care home in London and the South East can cost up to £1200pw that's a lot of money needing to be found to support the care home industry which is as much about staff costs as anything.
The notion people should contribute throughout life to care costs is laudable - I believe only 20% of elderly currently go into care (the dementia numbers, though each one a heartbreaking tale) are tiny. The alternative seems to be we all contribute to a care home fund from which those needing it can draw - I suppose it's analogous to paying tax for education for those of us without children. We contribute even if we derive no direct benefit - one can argue a better educated work force is an indirect benefit.
The other aspect is the burden social care costs have imposed on Councils especially Shire authorities. A big part of that is the assessment process which requires bureaucracy to administer it - a much simplified version would by itself achieve significant savings.
As I have said previously my personal view is National Insurance should pay for social care but the winning Tory manifesto is absolutely clear, the home will not be sold to pay for social care
I really don't know why this is so difficult. Brown managed a penny on NI for NHS and not a peep from the tabloids or voters.
Just has to be presented correctly. Who better than Johnson?
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
I’m sorry but you really are embarrassing yourself here.
No, that is you
You are being ridiculous.
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
That is absolutely a tweet and runs identical with the anti Sturgeon line on todays Wings website and runs absolutely in tandem with it despite your false and misleading attempts to deny it
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
I’m sorry but you really are embarrassing yourself here.
No, that is you
You are being ridiculous.
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
That is absolutely a tweet and runs identical with the anti Sturgeon line on todays Wings website and runs absolutely in tandem with it despite your false and misleading attempts to deny it
What part of “they’ve had their account suspended since December” do you not understand?
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
That's plausible. It can't be Vietnam, Powellism and Northern Ireland didn't get big until a few years later. I did think of proEuropeanism but again, that's a few years later. You're left with economic stuff.
This is bugging me. I can come up with a plausible explanation for every election 1945 to 2019 except for 1970. Dammit...
There was a suggestion Powellism led to higher than expected swings in the West Midlands, but it’s difficult to justify that on the data I’ve seen.
The other factor to remember is that under Heath, du Cann and Barber the Tory party ran a very smart long term campaign. It identified swing voters in target seats and pursued them relentlessly for three years. As a result, it picked up the votes it needed to in the places it needed to without making a big national song and dance. This is one reason Labour didn’t notice they were losing out. They were, like Hilary Clinton and Theresa May, listening to all the wrong noises.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Franchise expanded to 18 year olds in 1969? Tory includes 12 or so UUP MPs?
Why would allwing teens to vote increase Tory votes?
it was more that labours voters stayed at home. in both 1964 and 1970 Labour got around 12.2 million votes but in 1970 they had all the additional votes from the newly enfranchised 18-21 year olds. The tories however put on over a million votes between the two elections.
I also don't think we can use todays demographics (young / old) to determine how the youf would have voted in 1970 when there was much more of a class based voting trend.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
That's plausible. It can't be Vietnam, Powellism and Northern Ireland didn't get big until a few years later. I did think of proEuropeanism but again, that's a few years later. You're left with economic stuff.
This is bugging me. I can come up with a plausible explanation for every election 1945 to 2019 except for 1970. Dammit...
You're getting me interested! All I remember is falling asleep in front of the TV and waking to the disconcerting sight of Ted Heath's shoulders heaving in triumph.
Courtesy of AndyJS (I believe) we can watch election night on Youtube:
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
That's plausible. It can't be Vietnam, Powellism and Northern Ireland didn't get big until a few years later. I did think of proEuropeanism but again, that's a few years later. You're left with economic stuff.
This is bugging me. I can come up with a plausible explanation for every election 1945 to 2019 except for 1970. Dammit...
You're getting me interested! All I remember is falling asleep in front of the TV and waking to the disconcerting sight of Ted Heath's shoulders heaving in triumph.
Courtesy of AndyJS (I believe) we can watch election night on Youtube:
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
I’m sorry but you really are embarrassing yourself here.
No, that is you
You are being ridiculous.
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
That is absolutely a tweet and runs identical with the anti Sturgeon line on todays Wings website and runs absolutely in tandem with it despite your false and misleading attempts to deny it
What part of “they’ve had their account suspended since December” do you not understand?
What part of 'Wings Over Scotland is anti Sturgeon' do you not understand, I have posted evidence after evidence from twitter and their own website, the facts do not lie despite your refusal to accept them
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
I’m sorry but you really are embarrassing yourself here.
No, that is you
You are being ridiculous.
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
That is absolutely a tweet and runs identical with the anti Sturgeon line on todays Wings website and runs absolutely in tandem with it despite your false and misleading attempts to deny it
What part of “they’ve had their account suspended since December” do you not understand?
What part of 'Wings Over Scotland is anti Sturgeon' do you not understand, I have posted evidence after evidence from twitter and their own website, the facts do not lie despite your refusal to accept them
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
Does a day trip to Big Pit qualify as a career underground?
I am perhaps being disingenuous but would a HNC in Mining Engineering be required if one was either the canary or chipping away at the face?
I don’t know exactly what role he played. My guess is he was a technician. But, certainly by the 90s, that role was pretty crucial to coal extraction so if my guess is right I’m happy to call him a miner.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
I've never understood the 'Labour were expected to win in 1970' meme.
The local election results were dreadful for Labour between 1967 and 1969 as were parliamentary byelections.
Even the April 1970 GLC elections predicted a Conservative win at the GE:
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
I’m sorry but you really are embarrassing yourself here.
No, that is you
You are being ridiculous.
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
That is absolutely a tweet and runs identical with the anti Sturgeon line on todays Wings website and runs absolutely in tandem with it despite your false and misleading attempts to deny it
What part of “they’ve had their account suspended since December” do you not understand?
What part of 'Wings Over Scotland is anti Sturgeon' do you not understand, I have posted evidence after evidence from twitter and their own website, the facts do not lie despite your refusal to accept them
No-one is disputing that. I’m disputing that the racist bigot you posted as a source was using a photo of a tweet (from 5th December based on my research) to suggest that was the response to today’s events.
It’s just misleading and instead of acknowledging that you’ve doubled down and its just weird and embarrassing.
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
Does a day trip to Big Pit qualify as a career underground?
I am perhaps being disingenuous but would a HNC in Mining Engineering be required if one was either the canary or chipping away at the face?
I don’t know exactly what role he played. My guess is he was a technician. But, certainly by the 90s, that role was pretty crucial to coal extraction so if my guess is right I’m happy to call him a miner.
Call him what you like! I can think of several words more suitable and more offensive than miner!
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
That's plausible. It can't be Vietnam, Powellism and Northern Ireland didn't get big until a few years later. I did think of proEuropeanism but again, that's a few years later. You're left with economic stuff.
This is bugging me. I can come up with a plausible explanation for every election 1945 to 2019 except for 1970. Dammit...
You're getting me interested! All I remember is falling asleep in front of the TV and waking to the disconcerting sight of Ted Heath's shoulders heaving in triumph.
Courtesy of AndyJS (I believe) we can watch election night on Youtube:
It might be interesting to see where the Tory gains were and what the pundits had to say about it at the time.
Apparently the pollsters predicted an easy Labour victory.
In retrospect it was an election to lose. The incoming Tory government were unprepared for office and relied on their "lost weekend" Selsdon scheme (watered-down Thatcherism, if only they had realised at the time) combined with EEC entry and ... err ... that was it. The February 1974 election is much easier to explain.
But Labour would have struggled, too, in much the same way.
1970 was the most interesting election until 2017. The answer is essentially in two parts. First, it was the Powell election. A bit like Corbyn-Brexit in 2017, you could read into Heath-Powell whatever you liked. Some people thought they were voting Tory to send a message that they liked Powell, and they did not expect to end up instead supporting Heath with a big majority. Same way Corbyn was supported by a big seat gain. Second, and not unrelated, it was one of the first big breaches in the class voting system. It seems now like the start of the slow drift away from class and toward race / white racial consciousness as the main identity divide.
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
I spoke to a friend who is involved with Labour in the NE. She said Lavery was never a miner. He worked at a colliery. But apparently his being a miner is a carefully crafted falsehood.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
I've never understood the 'Labour were expected to win in 1970' meme.
The local election results were dreadful for Labour between 1967 and 1969 as were parliamentary byelections.
Even the April 1970 GLC elections predicted a Conservative win at the GE:
Though this does beg the question as to why Labour became so unpopular so soon after their big 1966 GE victory.
There was the 1967 'pound in your pocket' devaluation but did that really have such an effect or were there other issues ?
Wilson was quite unpopular away from the north of England and the age of deference had continued to crumble on his watch, assisted by good old BBC2 late-night satire. Appearing on TV with the fab four, who remorselessly took the piss, didn't help either. A working class hero is something to be...
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Franchise expanded to 18 year olds in 1969? Tory includes 12 or so UUP MPs?
Northern Ireland then had 12 MPs - of whom 8 were UlsterUnionists taking the Tory Whip. Without them , Heath's Tory majority would have been just 15 - reduced to 13 in May 1971 following loss of the Bromsgrove by election - and 11 in December 1972 when Sutton & Cheam was gained by the Liberals.By late 1973 , Heath's majority would have been just 4 without Unionist support.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
That's plausible. It can't be Vietnam, Powellism and Northern Ireland didn't get big until a few years later. I did think of proEuropeanism but again, that's a few years later. You're left with economic stuff.
This is bugging me. I can come up with a plausible explanation for every election 1945 to 2019 except for 1970. Dammit...
There was a suggestion Powellism led to higher than expected swings in the West Midlands, but it’s difficult to justify that on the data I’ve seen.
The other factor to remember is that under Heath, du Cann and Barber the Tory party ran a very smart long term campaign. It identified swing voters in target seats and pursued them relentlessly for three years. As a result, it picked up the votes it needed to in the places it needed to without making a big national song and dance. This is one reason Labour didn’t notice they were losing out. They were, like Hilary Clinton and Theresa May, listening to all the wrong noises.
Certainly a big swing in your part of the world in 1970:
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
Does a day trip to Big Pit qualify as a career underground?
I am perhaps being disingenuous but would a HNC in Mining Engineering be required if one was either the canary or chipping away at the face?
I don’t know exactly what role he played. My guess is he was a technician. But, certainly by the 90s, that role was pretty crucial to coal extraction so if my guess is right I’m happy to call him a miner.
Call him what you like! I can think of several words more suitable and more offensive than miner!
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
I've never understood the 'Labour were expected to win in 1970' meme.
The local election results were dreadful for Labour between 1967 and 1969 as were parliamentary byelections.
Even the April 1970 GLC elections predicted a Conservative win at the GE:
Though this does beg the question as to why Labour became so unpopular so soon after their big 1966 GE victory.
There was the 1967 'pound in your pocket' devaluation but did that really have such an effect or were there other issues ?
Wilson was quite unpopular away from the north of England and the age of deference had continued to crumble on his watch, assisted by good old BBC2 late-night satire. Appearing on TV with the fab four, who remorselessly took the piss, didn't help either. A working class hero is something to be...
But the heaviest Labour losses in 1970 were in Lancashire where Wilson had his constituency.
Whereas Labour did relatively well in southern England.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Franchise expanded to 18 year olds in 1969? Tory includes 12 or so UUP MPs?
Northern Ireland then had 12 MPs - of whom 8 were UlsterUnionists taking the Tory Whip. Without them , Heath's Tory majority would have been just 15 - reduced to 13 in May 1971 following loss of the Bromsgrove by election - and 11 in December 1972 when Sutton & Cheam was gained by the Liberals.By late 1973 , Heath's majority would have been just 4 without Unionist support.
but the UUP did stop taking the whip during the parliament (1972 ish) because of the suspension of stormont.
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
I’m sorry but you really are embarrassing yourself here.
No, that is you
You are being ridiculous.
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
That is absolutely a tweet and runs identical with the anti Sturgeon line on todays Wings website and runs absolutely in tandem with it despite your false and misleading attempts to deny it
What part of “they’ve had their account suspended since December” do you not understand?
What part of 'Wings Over Scotland is anti Sturgeon' do you not understand, I have posted evidence after evidence from twitter and their own website, the facts do not lie despite your refusal to accept them
No-one is disputing that. I’m disputing that the racist bigot you posted as a source was using a photo of a tweet (from 5th December based on my research) to suggest that was the response to today’s events.
It’s just misleading and instead of acknowledging that you’ve doubled down and its just weird and embarrassing.
Proper corbynista-esque
It is not misleading at all, it was a screenshot of the original tweet reinforcing the point WOS wants Sturgeon to go and today's website post just reinforces that despite your continual absurd previous attempts to deny it
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Peter Bonetti.
Naahhh. I've heard that rumour lots of times but just don't believe it. You don't overturn a 98 seat majority on a footy match
By election losses had already reduced Labour's majority to circa 67 by early 1970.
1970 was the most interesting election until 2017. The answer is essentially in two parts. First, it was the Powell election. A bit like Corbyn-Brexit in 2017, you could read into Heath-Powell whatever you liked. Some people thought they were voting Tory to send a message that they liked Powell, and they did not expect to end up instead supporting Heath with a big majority. Same way Corbyn was supported by a big seat gain. Second, and not unrelated, it was one of the first big breaches in the class voting system. It seems now like the start of the slow drift away from class and toward race / white racial consciousness as the main identity divide.
I remember campaigning, for the Liberals, in 1970. It wasn't good for us, although we hoped to do better than we did. I don't, TBH, recall Powell as being important where we were. TBH, I don't recall the Labour campaign as being 'inspiring'. Nor were the Tories, but the idea of the EEC was, where I was, quite popular, apart from among elderly Non-Conformists (The Treaty of ROME!!). I don't recall any one big issue, TBH; one of those times when I wish I'd kept a diary!
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
I’m sorry but you really are embarrassing yourself here.
No, that is you
You are being ridiculous.
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
That is absolutely a tweet and runs identical with the anti Sturgeon line on todays Wings website and runs absolutely in tandem with it despite your false and misleading attempts to deny it
What part of “they’ve had their account suspended since December” do you not understand?
What part of 'Wings Over Scotland is anti Sturgeon' do you not understand, I have posted evidence after evidence from twitter and their own website, the facts do not lie despite your refusal to accept them
No-one is disputing that. I’m disputing that the racist bigot you posted as a source was using a photo of a tweet (from 5th December based on my research) to suggest that was the response to today’s events.
It’s just misleading and instead of acknowledging that you’ve doubled down and its just weird and embarrassing.
Proper corbynista-esque
It is not misleading at all, it was a screenshot of the original tweet reinforcing the point WOS wants Sturgeon to go and today's website post just reinforces that despite your continual absurd previous attempts to deny it
Why didn’t you just say that then rather than arguing when I pointed out that the tweet was either fake or from a while ago?
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Peter Bonetti.
Naahhh. I've heard that rumour lots of times but just don't believe it. You don't overturn a 98 seat majority on a footy match
By election losses had already reduced Labour's majority to circa 67 by early 1970.
Which is an indication of how unpopular the Labour government had been after 1966.
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
I’m sorry but you really are embarrassing yourself here.
No, that is you
You are being ridiculous.
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
That is absolutely a tweet and runs identical with the anti Sturgeon line on todays Wings website and runs absolutely in tandem with it despite your false and misleading attempts to deny it
What part of “they’ve had their account suspended since December” do you not understand?
What part of 'Wings Over Scotland is anti Sturgeon' do you not understand, I have posted evidence after evidence from twitter and their own website, the facts do not lie despite your refusal to accept them
No-one is disputing that. I’m disputing that the racist bigot you posted as a source was using a photo of a tweet (from 5th December based on my research) to suggest that was the response to today’s events.
It’s just misleading and instead of acknowledging that you’ve doubled down and its just weird and embarrassing.
Proper corbynista-esque
It is not misleading at all, it was a screenshot of the original tweet reinforcing the point WOS wants Sturgeon to go and today's website post just reinforces that despite your continual absurd previous attempts to deny it
Why didn’t you just say that then rather than arguing when I pointed out that the tweet was either fake or from a while ago?
HYUFD never admits he is wrong. It’s one of the immutable laws of PB.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
That's plausible. It can't be Vietnam, Powellism and Northern Ireland didn't get big until a few years later. I did think of proEuropeanism but again, that's a few years later. You're left with economic stuff.
This is bugging me. I can come up with a plausible explanation for every election 1945 to 2019 except for 1970. Dammit...
There was a suggestion Powellism led to higher than expected swings in the West Midlands, but it’s difficult to justify that on the data I’ve seen.
The other factor to remember is that under Heath, du Cann and Barber the Tory party ran a very smart long term campaign. It identified swing voters in target seats and pursued them relentlessly for three years. As a result, it picked up the votes it needed to in the places it needed to without making a big national song and dance. This is one reason Labour didn’t notice they were losing out. They were, like Hilary Clinton and Theresa May, listening to all the wrong noises.
Certainly a big swing in your part of the world in 1970:
That was largely due to the personal unpopularity of Jennie Lee. She had not visited the constituency in a long time, and had set up the Open University, which was regarded with suspicion by the miners in Cannock as a potential rich man’s playground paid for with poor men‘s taxes.
Comments
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/seminar-20200114-lpf_en.pdf
Key bits:
Given the UK's geographic proximity and economic interdependence with the EU27, the future relationship will only deliver in a mutually satisfactory way if it includes robust guarantees which ensure a level playing field.
The aim should be to prevent unfair competitive advantage that the UK could enjoy through undercutting of levels of protection with respect to, inter alia, competition and state aid, tax, social, environment and regulatory measures and practices.
Jess Philips sets out her stall for Labour Leader. She ruins her argument in the first paragraph, the rest is not very good at all, but a least the did not mention Thatcher ans seems to be focusing on the future as opposed to obsessing about the past glory days.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Deny it all you want, the ultra Nats are getting angry with Nicola
https://wingsoverscotland.com/there-is-no-plan/
(but run away from a fight whenever possible).
https://twitter.com/TheBrawly/status/1217051984718594048?s=20
It is literally impossible.
Wings Over Scotland’s Twitter account has been suspended for a month. It can’t possibly be about today’s events.
Secondly, are you aware of the existence of photoshop? I’m not saying it is fake but the presence of a blue tick on a photo is literally irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Place_of_Strife
He has been running an anti Sturgeon campaign for maybe the best part of a year by now
https://wingsoverscotland.com/there-is-no-plan/
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
Fine - I get that - but as a care home in London and the South East can cost up to £1200pw that's a lot of money needing to be found to support the care home industry which is as much about staff costs as anything.
The notion people should contribute throughout life to care costs is laudable - I believe only 20% of elderly currently go into care (the dementia numbers, though each one a heartbreaking tale) are tiny. The alternative seems to be we all contribute to a care home fund from which those needing it can draw - I suppose it's analogous to paying tax for education for those of us without children. We contribute even if we derive no direct benefit - one can argue a better educated work force is an indirect benefit.
The other aspect is the burden social care costs have imposed on Councils especially Shire authorities. A big part of that is the assessment process which requires bureaucracy to administer it - a much simplified version would by itself achieve significant savings.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/there-is-no-plan/
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/11/15/another-reason-why-cameron-shouldnt-hold-the-referendum-next-june/
You don't even need Photoshop
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
Can I just blow my trumpet and say I said she was the dark horse some time ago on here?
This is bugging me. I can come up with a plausible explanation for every election 1945 to 2019 except for 1970. Dammit...
Game on.
Just has to be presented correctly. Who better than Johnson?
The other factor to remember is that under Heath, du Cann and Barber the Tory party ran a very smart long term campaign. It identified swing voters in target seats and pursued them relentlessly for three years. As a result, it picked up the votes it needed to in the places it needed to without making a big national song and dance. This is one reason Labour didn’t notice they were losing out. They were, like Hilary Clinton and Theresa May, listening to all the wrong noises.
https://twitter.com/ryanjthomas83/status/1217165651489353728
Just topped up.
I also don't think we can use todays demographics (young / old) to determine how the youf would have voted in 1970 when there was much more of a class based voting trend.
https://twitter.com/HarryJMcCarthy/status/1217153353379172355
Courtesy of AndyJS (I believe) we can watch election night on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq8PMfpA-6g
It might be interesting to see where the Tory gains were and what the pundits had to say about it at the time.
I am perhaps being disingenuous but would a HNC in Mining Engineering be required if one was either the canary or chipping away at the face?
The local election results were dreadful for Labour between 1967 and 1969 as were parliamentary byelections.
Even the April 1970 GLC elections predicted a Conservative win at the GE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Greater_London_Council_election
Though this does beg the question as to why Labour became so unpopular so soon after their big 1966 GE victory.
There was the 1967 'pound in your pocket' devaluation but did that really have such an effect or were there other issues ?
https://twitter.com/malachybrowne/status/1217160635672399872?s=20
It’s just misleading and instead of acknowledging that you’ve doubled down and its just weird and embarrassing.
Proper corbynista-esque
But Labour would have struggled, too, in much the same way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannock_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Whereas Labour did relatively well in southern England.
I don't recall any one big issue, TBH; one of those times when I wish I'd kept a diary!