Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ashcroft poll: 73% LAB members say the antisemitism issue was

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ashcroft poll: 73% LAB members say the antisemitism issue was invented or wildly exaggerated by Corbyn’s opponents

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,721
    The differential in that last chart between Labour members and Labour voters is interesting... and quite stark.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited February 2020
    Watching the Trump and Bernie rallies last night, reminds me a lot of Jezza Labour Party i.e. very cult like behaviour and any criticism is not considered valid / all a smear. And it is all about a party within a party i.e Bernie fans hate the DNC.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    Is this a dead thread or just no-one noticed
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Doesn't the last chart show what we already know on here - the labour party has moved to the left as more centralist members have left due to their views being ignored.
  • Labour Antisemitism problem all made up...

    The latest campaign video from Momentum shows Rebecca Long-Bailey setting out the need to have a “positive vision of Britain can be post-Brexit”. It stars an audience member explaining how the Labour vote was split in both directions by Brexit. Neither Long-Bailey nor Momentum spotted that the member asking the question appears to be Maria Carroll – a former candidate who ran a secret Facebook group advising Holocaust-denying members how to beat charges of antisemitism.

    https://order-order.com/2020/02/11/long-bailey-video-features-candidate-advised-holocaust-deniers-deny-antisemitism-charges/
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    O/T

    Interesting that solar is generating 10% of power at this time of year.

    https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
  • malcolmg said:

    Is this a dead thread or just no-one noticed

    It is a bit early for the thread to be dead Malcolm, unlike the Labour Party which seems to be entering its zombie phase ;)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited February 2020
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Interesting that solar is generating 10% of power at this time of year.

    https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

    Its interesting isn't it? Doubt the percentage that coal is generating at this time of year - who could have imagine that even just a decade ago?

    I see little reason why we can't be at ~95% renewable/nuclear by the end of this decade with non-renewable/nuclear as scarce as coal is nowadays.
  • From the Ashcroft focus groups:

    Former Labour voters in our focus groups often raised the subject spontaneously.

    Though there were mixed views as to how widespread the problem was and whether Jeremy Corbyn himself was guilty of it (and some linked it to his reported support for terrorist groups), they regarded his apparent inability to deal with the problem convincingly as an indictment of his leadership: “Corbyn has a dark shadow – links to terrorism, the antisemitism stuff. I don’t know much about it but it was there;” “He denied things but there was proof, and he argued black was white;” “He didn’t do anything about the antisemitism. He knew it was rife, he knew it was, and he denied it all the way along. You lose respect for someone then;” “Why couldn’t he say, ‘yes we’ve got a problem and I’m dealing with it and I’m sorry’? Why couldn’t he say that?” “I was very unhappy about the Jewish stuff. Even if it wasn’t all true, the insensitivity was stunning.”


    Nothing to see here, obv.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,722
    Re diversity... imagine the Twitter reaction to a panel consisting of Ken Clarke, Ken Livingstone, Nigel Farage, & Tony Blair being introduced on a talk show as diverse, and how the same people would react to the next episodes panel being Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbot, Zarah Sultana and Owen Jones
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    Any of our London based folk struggling for a babysitter ? This man offering ! https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1227165803247816705
  • Pulpstar said:

    Any of our London based folk struggling for a babysitter ? This man offering ! https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1227165803247816705

    If he needs a place to stay for the night, can't he use AirBnB like everyone else?
  • Watching the Bernie rally last night, I don't get the big hype about AOC. She is an appalling speaker, some of the earlier warm up acts were far better. At least Bernie has got good well rehearsed patter, even if it is all freebies for everybody promises.

    Reminds me a bit of Jezza / RLB.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    This seems less surprising than one might think, as the samples are naturally biased by self-selection. Members have a more favourable view than others of the current party and its current leadership - um, yes, that's why they're members and why others are not members. If we reinstated Tony as a leader, for example, we would then, I suspect, have a different membership which would take a different view.

    O/T: there was a lot of talk a week or two back about how Trump's ratings were much improved, up to 49% favourable, and he was ahead of most Democrats and thus poised for re-election. That appears to have a temporary blip and (apart from the discredited Rasmussen poll) he is back at -8ish, and 4-9 points berhind all potential Democrats - cf. current polling at https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    The pattern that Buttigieg does (just) worst against Trump seems persistent, and I wonder why. Voters not that keen on moderation (Klobouchar does marginally worse than Sanders too)? Anti-gay prejudice? It can't still be lack of recognition, surely?





  • Who are 2019 Lab Defectors?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited February 2020


    The pattern that Buttigieg does (just) worst against Trump seems persistent, and I wonder why. Voters not that keen on moderation (Klobouchar does marginally worse than Sanders too)? Anti-gay prejudice? It can't still be lack of recognition, surely?

    I am sure homophobia is an element, but the real killer for him is that he polls single digits with African American voters. They really really don't seem to like him. I don't know if it is police scandal or something else.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2020
    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.
  • TW@TS....

    Four 'absolute idiots' are rescued from Ben Nevis in an 80mph blizzard after attempting to climb the UK's highest mountain during Storm Ciara while wearing TRAINERS

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7990811/Four-idiots-rescued-Ben-Nevis-80mph-blizzard-scaling-mountain-TRAINERS.html

  • Raining again here. Windy but not on a par with the latest storm.
  • Downing Street has dismissed concerns about a deportation flight to Jamaica as the preoccupation of a “Westminster bubble” and vowed to press ahead with an inquiry into the use of judicial review.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/deportation-flight-leaves-uk-for-jamaica-despite-court-ruling

    I wonder who said that?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Downing Street has dismissed concerns about a deportation flight to Jamaica as the preoccupation of a “Westminster bubble” and vowed to press ahead with an inquiry into the use of judicial review.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/deportation-flight-leaves-uk-for-jamaica-despite-court-ruling

    I wonder who said that?

    A broken O2 phone mast which had nothing to do with the home office does not seem a valid reason to delay a deportation flight.

  • The pattern that Buttigieg does (just) worst against Trump seems persistent, and I wonder why. Voters not that keen on moderation (Klobouchar does marginally worse than Sanders too)? Anti-gay prejudice? It can't still be lack of recognition, surely?

    I am sure homophobia is an element, but the real killer for him is that he polls single digits with African American voters. They really really don't seem to like him. I don't know if it is police scandal or something else.
    I wonder how much that matters in the swing states?

    Nationally 12.6 of America is African American.

    Wisconsin is 6.4% African American
    Pennsylvania is 11.0% African American

    Not sure what it is in all the swing states, but it wouldn't surprise me if the states with the highest and lowest shares are not swing states.
  • eek said:

    Downing Street has dismissed concerns about a deportation flight to Jamaica as the preoccupation of a “Westminster bubble” and vowed to press ahead with an inquiry into the use of judicial review.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/deportation-flight-leaves-uk-for-jamaica-despite-court-ruling

    I wonder who said that?

    A broken O2 phone mast which had nothing to do with the home office does not seem a valid reason to delay a deportation flight.
    A lack of access to legal advice does seem one, if true. But only for those who lacked it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited February 2020

    eek said:

    Downing Street has dismissed concerns about a deportation flight to Jamaica as the preoccupation of a “Westminster bubble” and vowed to press ahead with an inquiry into the use of judicial review.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/deportation-flight-leaves-uk-for-jamaica-despite-court-ruling

    I wonder who said that?

    A broken O2 phone mast which had nothing to do with the home office does not seem a valid reason to delay a deportation flight.
    A lack of access to legal advice does seem one, if true. But only for those who lacked it.
    Hardly Guantánamo Bay...

    It claimed detainees had 'ample access' to other methods of communication during the mobile network outages, including free sim cards upon request, access to landlines and the internet and face-to-face legal surgeries.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7990213/Home-office-mass-deportation-flight-takes-Jamaica-scheduled.html
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 6,167
    edited February 2020
    eek said:

    Downing Street has dismissed concerns about a deportation flight to Jamaica as the preoccupation of a “Westminster bubble” and vowed to press ahead with an inquiry into the use of judicial review.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/deportation-flight-leaves-uk-for-jamaica-despite-court-ruling

    I wonder who said that?

    A broken O2 phone mast which had nothing to do with the home office does not seem a valid reason to delay a deportation flight.
    The fundamental issue is not that O2 had a network problem, but that detainees were unable to exercise their right to obtain legal advice.

    This sort of ruling isn't about attributing blame (although query whether the Home Office ought to have contingency plans if mobile networks are down for a period). The issue is the substantive one - if you're facing deportation, you REALLY need to be able to get speak to your lawyer, and they couldn't.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    BTW was it someone on here who recommended ‘The light that failed’, or did I pick it up from a Guardian article? A very insightful read, so far at least.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited February 2020

    eek said:

    Downing Street has dismissed concerns about a deportation flight to Jamaica as the preoccupation of a “Westminster bubble” and vowed to press ahead with an inquiry into the use of judicial review.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/deportation-flight-leaves-uk-for-jamaica-despite-court-ruling

    I wonder who said that?

    A broken O2 phone mast which had nothing to do with the home office does not seem a valid reason to delay a deportation flight.
    A lack of access to legal advice does seem one, if true. But only for those who lacked it.
    but the lack of legal advice is due to the lack of the phone mast and an unwillingness to use backup plans.

    I assume landlines are still available in detention centres for management so while it may not be possible to ring the person directly it should have still been possible for messages to be passed to the detainees and for the reverse to also be true.

    Were that not to be the case, it would be in the interest of all deportees to ensure phone masts were continually broken.

    And I'm very surprised it's you I'm arguing with Philip, I would have thought you would see that the legal advice argument didn't stand up 100%...
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    Thinking about the democratic Primary, and if it goes to a 'Contested Convention'

    In past cycles every state had its own rules for who delegates could/must votes for if there candidate drops out, some had to vote form them anyway in the first round (but change in second round) some let the delegates decide, and some it would depend on who came next in that state.

    This year the Democratic party have brought in a lot of standardization, i.e. all states use a from of PR with a 15% threshold. Have the rules on how delegates vote if there guy drops out also been standardized and if so to what?
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    Downing Street has dismissed concerns about a deportation flight to Jamaica as the preoccupation of a “Westminster bubble” and vowed to press ahead with an inquiry into the use of judicial review.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/deportation-flight-leaves-uk-for-jamaica-despite-court-ruling

    I wonder who said that?

    A broken O2 phone mast which had nothing to do with the home office does not seem a valid reason to delay a deportation flight.
    A lack of access to legal advice does seem one, if true. But only for those who lacked it.
    but the lack of legal advice is due to the lack of the phone mast and an unwillingness to use backup plans.

    I assume landlines are still available in detention centres for management so while it may not be possible to ring the person directly it should have still been possible for messages to be passed to the detainees and for the reverse to also be true.

    Were that not to be the case, it would be in the interest of all deportees to ensure phone masts were continually broken.

    And I'm very surprised it's you I'm arguing with Philip, I would have thought you would see that the legal advice argument didn't stand up 100%...
    I believe very firmly in access to legal advice must be ensured. It does seem an odd argument, but without knowing more I can see how it stands up. I am curious whether why all these detainees were using O2 and why nobody complained before yesterday - but possibly that's all they were given access to and they did complain but nothing got done about it. If that's the case then they should be given access to legal advice and only then can the deportation go ahead.

    I'd rather always err on the side the accused.
  • eek said:

    Downing Street has dismissed concerns about a deportation flight to Jamaica as the preoccupation of a “Westminster bubble” and vowed to press ahead with an inquiry into the use of judicial review.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/deportation-flight-leaves-uk-for-jamaica-despite-court-ruling

    I wonder who said that?

    A broken O2 phone mast which had nothing to do with the home office does not seem a valid reason to delay a deportation flight.
    A lack of access to legal advice does seem one, if true. But only for those who lacked it.
    Hardly Guantánamo Bay...

    It claimed detainees had 'ample access' to other methods of communication during the mobile network outages, including free sim cards upon request, access to landlines and the internet and face-to-face legal surgeries.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7990213/Home-office-mass-deportation-flight-takes-Jamaica-scheduled.html
    See that changes things. I did caveat with "if true" - if they had ample access elsewhere then it does not seem to be true.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    Downing Street has dismissed concerns about a deportation flight to Jamaica as the preoccupation of a “Westminster bubble” and vowed to press ahead with an inquiry into the use of judicial review.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/deportation-flight-leaves-uk-for-jamaica-despite-court-ruling

    I wonder who said that?

    A broken O2 phone mast which had nothing to do with the home office does not seem a valid reason to delay a deportation flight.
    A lack of access to legal advice does seem one, if true. But only for those who lacked it.
    but the lack of legal advice is due to the lack of the phone mast and an unwillingness to use backup plans.

    I assume landlines are still available in detention centres for management so while it may not be possible to ring the person directly it should have still been possible for messages to be passed to the detainees and for the reverse to also be true.

    Were that not to be the case, it would be in the interest of all deportees to ensure phone masts were continually broken.

    And I'm very surprised it's you I'm arguing with Philip, I would have thought you would see that the legal advice argument didn't stand up 100%...
    I believe very firmly in access to legal advice must be ensured. It does seem an odd argument, but without knowing more I can see how it stands up. I am curious whether why all these detainees were using O2 and why nobody complained before yesterday - but possibly that's all they were given access to and they did complain but nothing got done about it. If that's the case then they should be given access to legal advice and only then can the deportation go ahead.

    I'd rather always err on the side the accused.
    This is from 2011 but I understand this is still the case for most detention centres.

    New detainees arriving at Yarl’s Wood immigration prison, run by outsourcing giant Serco, are being given new mobile phones locked to O2 SIM cards with the back covers glued on so that no other SIM cards can be used, Corporate Watch can reveal. The new system, criticised by campaigners for isolating, monitoring and exploiting detainees even further, follows a similar scheme introduced by G4S in Tinsley House earlier this year.

    https://corporatewatch.org/compulsory-o2-mobiles-for-yarls-wood-detainees/
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
  • This is from 2011 but I understand this is still the case for most detention centres.

    New detainees arriving at Yarl’s Wood immigration prison, run by outsourcing giant Serco, are being given new mobile phones locked to O2 SIM cards with the back covers glued on so that no other SIM cards can be used, Corporate Watch can reveal. The new system, criticised by campaigners for isolating, monitoring and exploiting detainees even further, follows a similar scheme introduced by G4S in Tinsley House earlier this year.

    https://corporatewatch.org/compulsory-o2-mobiles-for-yarls-wood-detainees/

    Well if we're going to compel detainees to use O2 then O2 isn't working and they don't give an alternative then that does seem to be our responsibility.

    Had the detainees just been given an alternative when O2 broke this wouldn't be an issue. Saying "an alternative is available" I don't trust 100% as I'm not sure how available it was made and how much it was offered.

    IANAL but surely they can now be given a working phone, offered the legal advice, then deportation rescheduled for a month or two or however long it takes to reschedule it?
  • justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.

    That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    BigRich said:

    Thinking about the democratic Primary, and if it goes to a 'Contested Convention'

    In past cycles every state had its own rules for who delegates could/must votes for if there candidate drops out, some had to vote form them anyway in the first round (but change in second round) some let the delegates decide, and some it would depend on who came next in that state.

    This year the Democratic party have brought in a lot of standardization, i.e. all states use a from of PR with a 15% threshold. Have the rules on how delegates vote if there guy drops out also been standardized and if so to what?

    Pretty much everyone is freed up when their candidate drops out. Some are freed up on the second ballot even if their candidate is still in.
  • novanova Posts: 525

    justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.

    That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
    I agree about the polarisation - That one really even more of a Brexit election, with the Lib Dems not having recovered from the coalition, and UKIP ruderless after Farage.

    "Not wanting to give May a landslide" surely has no basis in reality though. There's no way voters have enough information to decide to vote for a party they want to lose, in order to keep the party they want to win grounded.

    It's the kind of thing a minister says in the election studio when they didn't do as well as they'd hoped :)
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431

    justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.

    That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
    It's more nuanced than that.

    Corbyn did deserve credit for some of the improvement from 2015 to 2017. His lack of triangulation and his movement of the discussion to the economic left with policies that were even reasonably popular with Tory voters (rail nationalisation, national care service), made him more electable than a continuity-Miliband leader would have been.

    And in 2017, circumstances and Labour's Brexit policy enabled them to move the discussion onto other things. Salisbury hadn't happened yet. Anti-Semitism wasn't at the forefront of the national consciousness. And of course the manifesto wasn't the dog's breakfast that the 2019 manifesto was.

    So it's not hard to reconcile Justin's analysis with the Ashcroft focus groups.
  • A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.

    A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited February 2020

    justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.

    That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
    Labour was still polling circa 40% in some polls as late as April 2019 - a month or so before the Euro elections. Prior to that, the departure of the Tigger MPs in February hit Labour's poll ratings for a few weeks. Whilst that breakaway may have ended up scuppering Labour's electoral chances, it can reasonably be argued that it proved to be a significant contribution to subsequently enabling Brexit. I wonder how they now feel about that?
  • nova said:

    justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.

    That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
    I agree about the polarisation - That one really even more of a Brexit election, with the Lib Dems not having recovered from the coalition, and UKIP ruderless after Farage.

    "Not wanting to give May a landslide" surely has no basis in reality though. There's no way voters have enough information to decide to vote for a party they want to lose, in order to keep the party they want to win grounded.

    It's the kind of thing a minister says in the election studio when they didn't do as well as they'd hoped :)
    I think there were people who could have voted Lib Dem in 2017 but didn't because they didn't want May to get a landslide, then did do so in 2019.
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.

    That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
    Labour was still polling circa 40% in some polls as late as April 2019 - a month or so before the Euro elections. Prior to that, the departure of the Tigger MPs in February hit Labour's poll ratings for a few weeks. Whilst that breakaway may have ended up scuppering Labour's electoral chances, it can reasonably be argued that it proved to be a significant contribution to subsequently enabling Brexit. I wonder how they now feel about that?
    Of course Remainer MPs trying to stop Brexit didn't just enable Brexit, they enabled a much harder Brexit than would have occured had they just voted for May's deal.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Any of our London based folk struggling for a babysitter ? This man offering ! https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1227165803247816705

    The government really needs to get a grip of homelessness. The sight of someone high profile, only recently and prominently made unemployed, having to beg on Twitter for different homes to sleep in with a sleeping bag is rather tragic.
    Every time I come on this site, you are here commenting. Isn't it time you asked OGH to ban you again, before you find yourself homeless?
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.

    That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
    Labour was still polling circa 40% in some polls as late as April 2019 - a month or so before the Euro elections. Prior to that, the departure of the Tigger MPs in February hit Labour's poll ratings for a few weeks. Whilst that breakaway may have ended up scuppering Labour's electoral chances, it can reasonably be argued that it proved to be a significant contribution to subsequently enabling Brexit. I wonder how they now feel about that?
    I suspect they still blame the people who tried to find a compromise in the national interest, while calling those people left wing extremists and themselves sensible centrists.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited February 2020

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.

    That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
    Labour was still polling circa 40% in some polls as late as April 2019 - a month or so before the Euro elections. Prior to that, the departure of the Tigger MPs in February hit Labour's poll ratings for a few weeks. Whilst that breakaway may have ended up scuppering Labour's electoral chances, it can reasonably be argued that it proved to be a significant contribution to subsequently enabling Brexit. I wonder how they now feel about that?
    Of course Remainer MPs trying to stop Brexit didn't just enable Brexit, they enabled a much harder Brexit than would have occured had they just voted for May's deal.
    I agree with that - and the LibDems and ChangeUK MPs were fools not to support some of the Indicative Vote options when they came before the Commons. Brexit has never been a salient issue for me at all - I did vote Leave - but I failed to see the sense in such MPs not voting for Kenneth Clarke's proposal.
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100

    Pulpstar said:

    Any of our London based folk struggling for a babysitter ? This man offering ! https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1227165803247816705

    The government really needs to get a grip of homelessness. The sight of someone high profile, only recently and prominently made unemployed, having to beg on Twitter for different homes to sleep in with a sleeping bag is rather tragic.
    Every time I come on this site, you are here commenting. Isn't it time you asked OGH to ban you again, before you find yourself homeless?
    Surely the reverse is equally true
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    edited February 2020
    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    Pulpstar said:

    Any of our London based folk struggling for a babysitter ? This man offering ! https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1227165803247816705

    The government really needs to get a grip of homelessness. The sight of someone high profile, only recently and prominently made unemployed, having to beg on Twitter for different homes to sleep in with a sleeping bag is rather tragic.
    Every time I come on this site, you are here commenting. Isn't it time you asked OGH to ban you again, before you find yourself homeless?
    That's really rather unpleasant and unnecessary.
  • Labour Antisemitism problem all made up...

    The latest campaign video from Momentum shows Rebecca Long-Bailey setting out the need to have a “positive vision of Britain can be post-Brexit”. It stars an audience member explaining how the Labour vote was split in both directions by Brexit. Neither Long-Bailey nor Momentum spotted that the member asking the question appears to be Maria Carroll – a former candidate who ran a secret Facebook group advising Holocaust-denying members how to beat charges of antisemitism.

    https://order-order.com/2020/02/11/long-bailey-video-features-candidate-advised-holocaust-deniers-deny-antisemitism-charges/

    If Starmer is successful by a decent margin he needs to find a hard case who can root out Momentum. Lord Watson of Witchfinder sounds like a possible contender!
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Any of our London based folk struggling for a babysitter ? This man offering ! https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1227165803247816705

    The government really needs to get a grip of homelessness. The sight of someone high profile, only recently and prominently made unemployed, having to beg on Twitter for different homes to sleep in with a sleeping bag is rather tragic.
    Every time I come on this site, you are here commenting. Isn't it time you asked OGH to ban you again, before you find yourself homeless?
    That's really rather unpleasant and unnecessary.
    Commenting on here is clearly normally unnecessary. I thought it might be good advice based on his previous comments, so I may be doing him a favour. Commenting on blogs can be quite addictive, and if it keeps you from the more important then it is clearly corrosive in some cases.
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Any of our London based folk struggling for a babysitter ? This man offering ! https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1227165803247816705

    The government really needs to get a grip of homelessness. The sight of someone high profile, only recently and prominently made unemployed, having to beg on Twitter for different homes to sleep in with a sleeping bag is rather tragic.
    Every time I come on this site, you are here commenting. Isn't it time you asked OGH to ban you again, before you find yourself homeless?
    That's really rather unpleasant and unnecessary.
    In character though?
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    edited February 2020
    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287

    Labour Antisemitism problem all made up...

    The latest campaign video from Momentum shows Rebecca Long-Bailey setting out the need to have a “positive vision of Britain can be post-Brexit”. It stars an audience member explaining how the Labour vote was split in both directions by Brexit. Neither Long-Bailey nor Momentum spotted that the member asking the question appears to be Maria Carroll – a former candidate who ran a secret Facebook group advising Holocaust-denying members how to beat charges of antisemitism.

    https://order-order.com/2020/02/11/long-bailey-video-features-candidate-advised-holocaust-deniers-deny-antisemitism-charges/

    If Starmer is successful by a decent margin he needs to find a hard case who can root out Momentum. Lord Watson of Witchfinder sounds like a possible contender!
    You mean the man that believed a pack of lies about a Westminster paedophile ring..ffs...
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Any of our London based folk struggling for a babysitter ? This man offering ! https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1227165803247816705

    The government really needs to get a grip of homelessness. The sight of someone high profile, only recently and prominently made unemployed, having to beg on Twitter for different homes to sleep in with a sleeping bag is rather tragic.
    Every time I come on this site, you are here commenting. Isn't it time you asked OGH to ban you again, before you find yourself homeless?
    That's really rather unpleasant and unnecessary.
    Commenting on here is clearly normally unnecessary. I thought it might be good advice based on his previous comments, so I may be doing him a favour. Commenting on blogs can be quite addictive, and if it keeps you from the more important then it is clearly corrosive in some cases.
    You in charge of vetting posts now?
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Okay so drug dealing is minor - it's a view.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.

    That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
    Labour was still polling circa 40% in some polls as late as April 2019 - a month or so before the Euro elections. Prior to that, the departure of the Tigger MPs in February hit Labour's poll ratings for a few weeks. Whilst that breakaway may have ended up scuppering Labour's electoral chances, it can reasonably be argued that it proved to be a significant contribution to subsequently enabling Brexit. I wonder how they now feel about that?
    Of course Remainer MPs trying to stop Brexit didn't just enable Brexit, they enabled a much harder Brexit than would have occured had they just voted for May's deal.
    If we end up with a hard "no deal" Brexit the responsibility will lie 100% with this government because they have the votes to pretty much choose any sort of Brexit they want.

    That's the downside of a huge parliamentary majority - there is nobody else to blame.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited February 2020
    You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this.
    https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632
    Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    alterego said:

    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Okay so drug dealing is minor - it's a view.
    I think it's the aged 17 bit (where he is still a minor) that is the questionable bit.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Gabs3 said:
    Yep - if Boris doesn't get a fix on this it will drive even more of the London seats to Labour

    It's not an issue up north where houses are still at 2004 prices..
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    alterego said:

    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Okay so drug dealing is minor - it's a view.
    Okay, I understand why you wrote that, but it is a bit of a silly one-liner. I neither said nor think that drug dealing is minor. However, he was *a* minor when he committed the crime, and he probably doesn't remember living in any other country. Whether you agree with the "view" or not, you should at least be able to appreciate its validity.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    edited February 2020
    Gabs3 said:
    In just under 20 years, the population of RoI has increased by 38%. In percentage terms, that is double the increase in the UK population during that time.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.

    That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
    Labour was still polling circa 40% in some polls as late as April 2019 - a month or so before the Euro elections. Prior to that, the departure of the Tigger MPs in February hit Labour's poll ratings for a few weeks. Whilst that breakaway may have ended up scuppering Labour's electoral chances, it can reasonably be argued that it proved to be a significant contribution to subsequently enabling Brexit. I wonder how they now feel about that?
    Of course Remainer MPs trying to stop Brexit didn't just enable Brexit, they enabled a much harder Brexit than would have occured had they just voted for May's deal.
    I`m not sure I agree with this. The Brexit that we ended up with is IMO the "softest" Brexit possible (i.e. leaving with a WA and transitional period). Any softer and it wouldn`t have been regarded as Brexit at all (i.e. May`s deal).
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Guardian articles on such subjects have a long-standing habit of omitting certain key details that support the opposite view to their piece.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    New My Savvy NY Friend on the Dem Nominee Update:

    He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,341
    edited February 2020
    justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    Ashcroft can still be about right. Politics is subject to relativity. In absolute terms Jezza is a hopeless terrorist supporting Marxist. Up against the 2017 Tory leadership and campaign that looked quite good. Up against the Boris machine it looked rather less outstanding. Goodness knows what he would look like against Roy Jenkins, Dennis Healey or Ken Clarke.

    Secondly the 2017 happened to attract the fashionista/yoof/Oh Jeremy Corbyn/Glast vote. It's a very creditable achievement as long as you are not expecting those groups to remember to support you twice, or even remember your name, over a period as gigantically lengthy as 2 years.

    A good number of my dear friends in these particular camps failed actually to turn up at the correct, or indeed any, polling station on either occasion.

  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Guardian articles on such subjects have a long-standing habit of omitting certain key details that support the opposite view to their piece.
    Hmmm. The Guardian's not my news source of choice, because the opinion pieces make for a very damaging echo chamber, but it has as much integrity in the reporting of facts as any newspaper.

    I'm surprised by how often people link the Mail here. The right wing newspaper with the closest standards to the Guardian is the Times, and even if you don't like the paywall, there are other places to go before stooping as far as the Mail. I've tended to give people the benefit of the doubt that it's just the easiest click, but if they then go on to dismiss the Guardian, we really would be in Donald Trump "fake news" land.
  • Stocky said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
    Quite a lot will depend on Corbyn's attitude.

    Foot was ultimately a party man, and was pretty self-denying in terms of public involvement after 1983. But he didn't have the cult of personality around him that Corbyn does, and Corbyn could do a lot of damage.

    I suppose it partly depends on how Corbyn himself views his legacy. I've never fully understood if "the Project" was largely an invention of those around him, and he was just a bloke who never really expected to be where he was and just quite enjoyed reveling in the acclaim of his tribe, or if he would judge himself a failure if the party wasn't transformed in his image. If the former, he may well just wander off to his allotment and make an occasional appearance waving at a crowd - that's the best way to preserve his reputation. But if he truly believes in the Project, I don't think he could resist wading in against Starmer.
  • Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Guardian articles on such subjects have a long-standing habit of omitting certain key details that support the opposite view to their piece.
    e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/they-taking-me-now-tension-and-confusion-before-jamaica-deportation-flight

    First name I google "Junior Kerr"...7 years GBH for stabbing somebody.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,341
    edited February 2020

    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Guardian articles on such subjects have a long-standing habit of omitting certain key details that support the opposite view to their piece.
    e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/they-taking-me-now-tension-and-confusion-before-jamaica-deportation-flight

    First name I google "Junior Kerr"...7 years GBH for stabbing somebody.
    The Guardian is fast becoming the mirror image of the Mail in this respect. There is also no attempt whatever to separate out fact and opinion.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited February 2020
    kicorse said:

    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Guardian articles on such subjects have a long-standing habit of omitting certain key details that support the opposite view to their piece.
    Hmmm. The Guardian's not my news source of choice, because the opinion pieces make for a very damaging echo chamber, but it has as much integrity in the reporting of facts as any newspaper.

    I'm surprised by how often people link the Mail here. The right wing newspaper with the closest standards to the Guardian is the Times, and even if you don't like the paywall, there are other places to go before stooping as far as the Mail. I've tended to give people the benefit of the doubt that it's just the easiest click, but if they then go on to dismiss the Guardian, we really would be in Donald Trump "fake news" land.
    Guardian is regularly linked here, however when it comes to these types of stories they have form, rather like the Mail.

    It has been pointed out numerous times how they have omitted key details to a sympathetic sounding case, just as the Mail does when it goes full outrage on why somebody got a light sentence by selectively quoting the defence case for a reduction when it turns out the judge either gave the max time and / or ignored the more outlandish claim in their decision.
  • Covid 19 isn't exactly as snappy as the Black Death, is it?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,847
    The poll headline is unsurprising given it's Labour members. Because if they believed that most of the political opponents of Corbyn were not exaggerating and fabricating like crazy around antisemitism in their party - i.e. if they believed what these people were saying about the nature and scale of the problem - they would likely have resigned, thus would no longer be Labour members, thus would not have been sampled.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431

    kicorse said:

    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Guardian articles on such subjects have a long-standing habit of omitting certain key details that support the opposite view to their piece.
    Hmmm. The Guardian's not my news source of choice, because the opinion pieces make for a very damaging echo chamber, but it has as much integrity in the reporting of facts as any newspaper.

    I'm surprised by how often people link the Mail here. The right wing newspaper with the closest standards to the Guardian is the Times, and even if you don't like the paywall, there are other places to go before stooping as far as the Mail. I've tended to give people the benefit of the doubt that it's just the easiest click, but if they then go on to dismiss the Guardian, we really would be in Donald Trump "fake news" land.
    Guardian is regularly linked here, however when it comes to these types of stories they have form, rather like the Mail.

    It has been pointed out numerous times how they have omitted key details to a sympathetic sounding case, just as the Mail does when it goes full outrage on why somebody got a light sentence by selectively quoting the defence case for a reduction when it turns out the judge either gave the max time and / or ignored the more outlandish claim in their decision.
    OK. Anyway, on this story, the actual Guardian quote is:

    - On the Kay Burley at Breakfast show on Sky News, the chancellor was asked if he was sorry about one of the cases being a 23-year-old who spent 15 months in jail after being convicted at 17 for drug offences. He had come to the UK aged five. “We’re not even saying sorry,” Javid said.

    So they were actually reporting the journalism of another outlet. It's possible that Sky News omitted an important detail, but if so, I doubt it was due to any soft-on-crime ideology.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    Okay then, how do we explain two prisoners getting Covid 19?
  • A classic example of Guardian story was the granny being deported to Singapore, they made it sound like the lady came to the UK 30 years ago and that was it, and she was had been scoped up totally out of the blue and being sent back.

    Her story was much more complicated and involved long period back in Singapore, had property there, overstaying her leave to remain after a number of failed applications. She decided that she wouldn't voluntarily leave despite being informed she wasn't here legally and that if she continued to do she would be removed.

    In the end she did get a reprieve, but the Guardian omitted all the key details that turned a story from an old lady having done nothing wrong being sent back to Singapore to something far less clear cut.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Guardian articles on such subjects have a long-standing habit of omitting certain key details that support the opposite view to their piece.
    e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/they-taking-me-now-tension-and-confusion-before-jamaica-deportation-flight

    First name I google "Junior Kerr"...7 years GBH for stabbing somebody.
    To get seven years for GBH you've damn nearly killed someone, almost certainly left them with life-changing injuries. Does any other country not deport a foreigner convicted of such a serious crime?
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,410
    TOPPING said:

    New My Savvy NY Friend on the Dem Nominee Update:

    He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.

    Wasn't he saying that Warren was a cert weeks ago?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Covid 19 isn't exactly as snappy as the Black Death, is it?

    Not as dangerous either.
  • novanova Posts: 525

    nova said:

    justin124 said:

    What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.

    We did warn ya.

    But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
    2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.

    That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
    I agree about the polarisation - That one really even more of a Brexit election, with the Lib Dems not having recovered from the coalition, and UKIP ruderless after Farage.

    "Not wanting to give May a landslide" surely has no basis in reality though. There's no way voters have enough information to decide to vote for a party they want to lose, in order to keep the party they want to win grounded.

    It's the kind of thing a minister says in the election studio when they didn't do as well as they'd hoped :)
    I think there were people who could have voted Lib Dem in 2017 but didn't because they didn't want May to get a landslide, then did do so in 2019.
    There are certainly people who voted Labour in 2017 that voted Lib Dem in 2019, but do you really believe people voted Labour in 2017 in order to get a Tory govt, but keep down the majority?

    For it to be one of the main factors, it would involve hundreds of thousands of people actively making a risky decision with their vote - I've never seen any evidence that voters behave that way in large numbers.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,847
    edited February 2020
    TOPPING said:

    New My Savvy NY Friend on the Dem Nominee Update:

    He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.

    That's very interesting - although do I not like that last bit. Trump thrashing Bernie in November is one of those notions which is so viscerally unpleasant that I find myself unable to contemplate it with any sort of equanimity or equilibrium. It's quite hard to find something comparable to illustrate the point. Something similar that I just do not trust myself to dwell on. I guess the closest I could come up with is Death.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287

    A classic example of Guardian story was the granny being deported to Singapore, they made it sound like the lady came to the UK 30 years ago and that was it, and she was had been scoped up totally out of the blue and being sent back.

    Her story was much more complicated and involved long period back in Singapore, had property there, overstaying her leave to remain after a number of failed applications. She decided that she wouldn't voluntarily leave despite being informed she wasn't here legally and that if she continued to do she would be removed.

    In the end she did get a reprieve, but the Guardian omitted all the key details that turned a story from an old lady having done nothing wrong being sent back to Singapore to something far less clear cut.

    The Grauniad being economical with the truth.. I am shocked I tell ya, shocked.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    eadric said:

    Gabs3 said:
    Paradoxically, this secures the Union. All Unionists and lots of neutrals in NI will be repulsed by this (and, incidentally, lots of southern Irish will abhor it, as well). They will react in the opposite direction, against Sinn Fein.

    It sets back the cause of unification by a generation. It sadly increases the prospect of renewed violence.
    It doesn't set back the cause of unification. Plenty of people want a united Ireland and the fact that SF is trying to historicise The Troubles is not surprising at all.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited February 2020
    eadric said:

    algarkirk said:

    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Guardian articles on such subjects have a long-standing habit of omitting certain key details that support the opposite view to their piece.
    e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/they-taking-me-now-tension-and-confusion-before-jamaica-deportation-flight

    First name I google "Junior Kerr"...7 years GBH for stabbing somebody.
    The Guardian is fast becoming the mirror image of the Mail in this respect. There is also no attempt whatever to separate out fact and opinion.

    The Guardian and the Mail are twins separated at birth. eg the Mail has had Fascist sympathies at times, the Guardian has openly employed Trots, traitors and Marxists (Richard Gott)

    This has always been true politically, but the mirror image quality is reinforced, now, by the way they both operate, commercially. Both "papers" have decided against a paywall, and offer everything for free online, in the hope of generating enough traffic they can make a profit. Both are doing it quite well.

    The trouble with this model is that by definition, the editors have to choose clickbaity headlines and incendiary subjects, stuff that pleases their political friends and which enrages everyone else (so they click on it to get angry). Thus the Mail goes for scrounging benefits cheats and the sideboob of shame and the Guardian goes for awful government "racism" and stuff about vegan threesomes.

    The two papers are the epitome of our polarised times, driven by the financial dynamics of the internet.
    But only one is winning the online war....that academic study on how much people looked at all news sites during the GE was revealing. It was the Mail or the BBC and basically nobody else.

    The Guardian are dead keen to defend the BBC over-arching media output, even while BBC news site is driving Guardian future into the ground in the way they have done for local radio / newspapers.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,182
    edited February 2020

    You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this.
    https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632
    Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.

    Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.

    I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.

    Edit - a quarter, not a half.
    Edit #2 - and what will be the geographical spread of infection? Much worse in China, or basically just worldwide?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    New My Savvy NY Friend on the Dem Nominee Update:

    He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.

    Wasn't he saying that Warren was a cert weeks ago?
    Yep. He didn't like her "lack of clarity" on, say, Healthcare. Bernie says it will be paid for by taxes and people should understand that; she says that it will be the "billionaires" who pay. But of course there aren't enough billionaires for this to be anything other than economical with the truth.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,847
    algarkirk said:

    The Guardian is fast becoming the mirror image of the Mail in this respect. There is also no attempt whatever to separate out fact and opinion.

    Bit of a quality gap though TBF. I think even the staunchest Mail fan would acknowledge that.
  • Cookie said:

    You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this.
    https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632
    Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.

    Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.

    I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
    Too generic for official use, SARS and MERS were also Corona viruses.
    I expect the general public will still call it Coronavirus.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    edited February 2020
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    New My Savvy NY Friend on the Dem Nominee Update:

    He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.

    That's very interesting - although do I not like that last bit. Trump thrashing Bernie in November is one of those notions which is so viscerally unpleasant that I find myself unable to contemplate it with any sort of equanimity or equilibrium. It's quite hard to find something comparable to illustrate the point. Something similar that I just do not trust myself to dwell on. I guess the closest I could come up with is Death.
    How about human life being wiped out by a meteor strike? :wink:
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    New My Savvy NY Friend on the Dem Nominee Update:

    He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.

    That's very interesting - although do I not like that last bit. Trump thrashing Bernie in November is one of those notions which is so viscerally unpleasant that I find myself unable to contemplate it with any sort of equanimity or equilibrium. It's quite hard to find something comparable to illustrate the point. Something similar that I just do not trust myself to dwell on. I guess the closest I could come up with is Death.
    Slightly over dramatic. As my SNYF says, people despise him personally for all kinds of valid reasons, but he has not been bad for the American economy.
  • Cookie said:

    You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this.
    https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632
    Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.

    Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.

    I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
    Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.

    Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    eadric said:

    TOPPING said:

    eadric said:

    Gabs3 said:
    Paradoxically, this secures the Union. All Unionists and lots of neutrals in NI will be repulsed by this (and, incidentally, lots of southern Irish will abhor it, as well). They will react in the opposite direction, against Sinn Fein.

    It sets back the cause of unification by a generation. It sadly increases the prospect of renewed violence.
    It doesn't set back the cause of unification. Plenty of people want a united Ireland and the fact that SF is trying to historicise The Troubles is not surprising at all.
    You're just wrong and you know nothing on this subject, apart from pretending you were a soldier. It's laughable.
    Soldier? Oops caught out. Plus I was too busy training for the 110m hurdles at the Barcelona Olympics (came a respectable 4th).

    On NI I am right, that said.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,847
    TOPPING said:

    Slightly over dramatic. As my SNYF says, people despise him personally for all kinds of valid reasons, but he has not been bad for the American economy.

    Well he's chucked a mega deficit at it. But I guess people don't worry about that until it goes pop.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited February 2020
    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    algarkirk said:

    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    alterego said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.

    Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
    The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.

    I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
    Guardian articles on such subjects have a long-standing habit of omitting certain key details that support the opposite view to their piece.
    e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/they-taking-me-now-tension-and-confusion-before-jamaica-deportation-flight

    First name I google "Junior Kerr"...7 years GBH for stabbing somebody.
    The Guardian is fast becoming the mirror image of the Mail in this respect. There is also no attempt whatever to separate out fact and opinion.

    The Guar
    The two papers are the epitome of our polarised times, driven by the financial dynamics of the internet.
    But only one is winning the online war....that academic study on how much people looked at all news sites during the GE was revealing. It was the Mail or the BBC and basically nobody else.

    The Guardian are dead keen to defend the BBC, even while BBC news site is driving Guardian future into the ground.
    Not true. The Guardian is actually doing pretty well now: making a working profit. Credit to them for that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/aug/07/guardian-broke-even-last-year-parent-company-confirms

    SOME newspapers are now prospering again, and have found a way to make the internet work for them. The worst of the carnage may be over.

    https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/06/business/bc-us-new-york-times-results.html
    I know they made a small profit thanks to a load of donations. But the academic study during the GE should really concern them, right learning / side boob of shame fans hit up the Daily Mail website, the left learning ones hit up the BBC.

    I was actually really shocked how little traffic they got at what should be a peak time.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    Cookie said:

    You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this.
    https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632
    Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.

    Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
    Well, I imagine Cervecería Modelo is not entirely thrilled by the name.
This discussion has been closed.