I can see the narrative already. All the sundays carry the yob peeing next to the memorial to the killed police officer and carry lots of footage of the football holigans attacking the police earlier in the day. And there is widespread condemnation.
The ramble rousers will share around the videos of white individuals being beaten by black mob and say look at this and all the bias media talk about is the other stuff.
And next weekend back for round 2. Boris, Khan and Met need to close this down ASAP.
Having now witnessed the reality of these riots, it is fascinating to compare them to what the MSM report
Like, for some of them, there seems to be some mystery as to whether BLM were even in Trafalgar Square or not.
This is farcical. I saw it with my own eyes. Several hundred angry protestors all carrying BLM-esque placards, and some of them were intent on horrible violence. I saw BLM supporters hunt down lone whites and attack them in quite cowardly ways: I saw it.
And it's not like I was the only observer. There were dozens of journalists, photographers, etc.
The TV lies, and the papers lie. I know this is not that shocking, but to do it this blatantly is remarkable: to me
Something seriously wrong with UK broadcast media at the moment. They all have become Corbynista's. It's pretty disgusting to see.
Look at this. The Guardian's main report. It is just a series of lies, evasions, half truths and decoys from beginning to end
The painful fact is that by far the worst violence, today, came from BLM. They are the only side that hunted down people because of skin colour, they are the only side that tried to kill isolated victims.
None of this is mentioned. If you read this and decided to believe it, you would, in fact, think there was very little BLM presence in central London at all, whereas in fact there were many hundreds, and they wanted trouble. I saw it.
Look at these gems:
"One protester told the Guardian she was disappointed there had not been a bigger presence to oppose the presence of the far right. Weyman Bennett, the co-convenor of SUTR, said: “It’s a disgrace that the far right were allowed to be involved in thuggery and rioting,"
"The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, urged the people in Parliament Square to leave by the 5pm deadline set by the Metropolitan police under the Public Order Act.
He wrote on Twitter: “Everyone who intended to come to BLM protests today but didn’t has reduced the risk of confrontation with these extreme right-wingers, and the spread of Covid-19."
It's all a load of gaslighting bullshit. Khan is one of the worst offenders. I am angry.
BLM were already protesting grievances.
The white supremacist thugs went looking for trouble to fight with BLM.
And you're blaming BLM for violence? Quelle surprise!
I'm blaming both sides. The far-right and far-left are equally obnoxious IMO.
I am not a football fan at all, but out of nostalgia for the day I did briefly tune in to the Youtube recording shown on here of the1966 World Cup Final held at the end of July 1966.That was four months following the 1966 election, and Wilson's Labour Government was still well ahead in the polls despite an emergency economic package - including a Wage Freeze - having been introduced a week earlier.That continued to be true into Autumn 1966 , but by Spring 1968 its electoral position was so dire that at the London Borough elections the Tories gained control of Hackney, Lambeth, Islington as well as cities such as Liverpool-Manchester- Leeds-Sheffield - Newcastle - and Norwich!
That golden period was also interrupted by the 1968/69 flu epidemic which killed about 80,000 people in the UK, although a surprising number of people who lived through the time can't remember it much.
I do vaguely recall that epidemic and can certainly confirm the lack of any sense of health crisis even remotely comparable to our current experience. Perhaps that was due to the existence of a vaccine?
I can see the narrative already. All the sundays carry the yob peeing next to the memorial to the killed police officer and carry lots of footage of the football holigans attacking the police earlier in the day. And there is widespread condemnation.
The ramble rousers will share around the videos of white individuals being beaten by black mob and say look at this and all the bias media talk about is the other stuff.
And next weekend back for round 2. Boris, Khan and Met need to close this down ASAP.
Having now witnessed the reality of these riots, it is fascinating to compare them to what the MSM report
Like, for some of them, there seems to be some mystery as to whether BLM were even in Trafalgar Square or not.
This is farcical. I saw it with my own eyes. Several hundred angry protestors all carrying BLM-esque placards, and some of them were intent on horrible violence. I saw BLM supporters hunt down lone whites and attack them in quite cowardly ways: I saw it.
And it's not like I was the only observer. There were dozens of journalists, photographers, etc.
The TV lies, and the papers lie. I know this is not that shocking, but to do it this blatantly is remarkable: to me
Something seriously wrong with UK broadcast media at the moment. They all have become Corbynista's. It's pretty disgusting to see.
Look at this. The Guardian's main report. It is just a series of lies, evasions, half truths and decoys from beginning to end
The painful fact is that by far the worst violence, today, came from BLM. They are the only side that hunted down people because of skin colour, they are the only side that tried to kill isolated victims.
None of this is mentioned. If you read this and decided to believe it, you would, in fact, think there was very little BLM presence in central London at all, whereas in fact there were many hundreds, and they wanted trouble. I saw it.
Look at these gems:
"One protester told the Guardian she was disappointed there had not been a bigger presence to oppose the presence of the far right. Weyman Bennett, the co-convenor of SUTR, said: “It’s a disgrace that the far right were allowed to be involved in thuggery and rioting,"
"The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, urged the people in Parliament Square to leave by the 5pm deadline set by the Metropolitan police under the Public Order Act.
He wrote on Twitter: “Everyone who intended to come to BLM protests today but didn’t has reduced the risk of confrontation with these extreme right-wingers, and the spread of Covid-19."
It's all a load of gaslighting bullshit. Khan is one of the worst offenders. I am angry.
BLM were already protesting grievances.
The white supremacist thugs went looking for trouble to fight with BLM.
And you're blaming BLM for violence? Quelle surprise!
We told you that applauding violent criminal damage - the statue-toppling - would end in blood. So it is. I get that you're now embarrassed
Ancient history was never my strong point, but didn't a Minneapolis police dude, Officer Chauvin, start all this?
I am not a football fan at all, but out of nostalgia for the day I did briefly tune in to the Youtube recording shown on here of the1966 World Cup Final held at the end of July 1966.That was four months following the 1966 election, and Wilson's Labour Government was still well ahead in the polls despite an emergency economic package - including a Wage Freeze - having been introduced a week earlier.That continued to be true into Autumn 1966 , but by Spring 1968 its electoral position was so dire that at the London Borough elections the Tories gained control of Hackney, Lambeth, Islington as well as cities such as Liverpool-Manchester- Leeds-Sheffield - Newcastle - and Norwich!
That golden period was also interrupted by the 1968/69 flu epidemic which killed about 80,000 people in the UK, although a surprising number of people who lived through the time can't remember it much.
What did the EDL crowd hope to achieve today? Did they think a) they wouldn't encounter any trouble or b) if they did they'd come out of it victorious? Either way, their mystique as hardened, all-conquering fighting men is now in tatters.
What an odd take on events.
What's odd about it?
If the EDL lot had come out "victorious" today, I doubt you're analysis would be "what a great day for the EDL".
I can see the narrative already. All the sundays carry the yob peeing next to the memorial to the killed police officer and carry lots of footage of the football holigans attacking the police earlier in the day. And there is widespread condemnation.
The ramble rousers will share around the videos of white individuals being beaten by black mob and say look at this and all the bias media talk about is the other stuff.
And next weekend back for round 2. Boris, Khan and Met need to close this down ASAP.
Having now witnessed the reality of these riots, it is fascinating to compare them to what the MSM report
Like, for some of them, there seems to be some mystery as to whether BLM were even in Trafalgar Square or not.
This is farcical. I saw it with my own eyes. Several hundred angry protestors all carrying BLM-esque placards, and some of them were intent on horrible violence. I saw BLM supporters hunt down lone whites and attack them in quite cowardly ways: I saw it.
And it's not like I was the only observer. There were dozens of journalists, photographers, etc.
The TV lies, and the papers lie. I know this is not that shocking, but to do it this blatantly is remarkable: to me
Something seriously wrong with UK broadcast media at the moment. They all have become Corbynista's. It's pretty disgusting to see.
Look at this. The Guardian's main report. It is just a series of lies, evasions, half truths and decoys from beginning to end
The painful fact is that by far the worst violence, today, came from BLM. They are the only side that hunted down people because of skin colour, they are the only side that tried to kill isolated victims.
None of this is mentioned. If you read this and decided to believe it, you would, in fact, think there was very little BLM presence in central London at all, whereas in fact there were many hundreds, and they wanted trouble. I saw it.
Look at these gems:
"One protester told the Guardian she was disappointed there had not been a bigger presence to oppose the presence of the far right. Weyman Bennett, the co-convenor of SUTR, said: “It’s a disgrace that the far right were allowed to be involved in thuggery and rioting,"
"The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, urged the people in Parliament Square to leave by the 5pm deadline set by the Metropolitan police under the Public Order Act.
He wrote on Twitter: “Everyone who intended to come to BLM protests today but didn’t has reduced the risk of confrontation with these extreme right-wingers, and the spread of Covid-19."
It's all a load of gaslighting bullshit. Khan is one of the worst offenders. I am angry.
BLM were already protesting grievances.
The white supremacist thugs went looking for trouble to fight with BLM.
And you're blaming BLM for violence? Quelle surprise!
Weyman Bennett, of the SWP. Not a good look to have him on your side.
I can see the narrative already. All the sundays carry the yob peeing next to the memorial to the killed police officer and carry lots of footage of the football holigans attacking the police earlier in the day. And there is widespread condemnation.
The ramble rousers will share around the videos of white individuals being beaten by black mob and say look at this and all the bias media talk about is the other stuff.
And next weekend back for round 2. Boris, Khan and Met need to close this down ASAP.
Having now witnessed the reality of these riots, it is fascinating to compare them to what the MSM report
Like, for some of them, there seems to be some mystery as to whether BLM were even in Trafalgar Square or not.
This is farcical. I saw it with my own eyes. Several hundred angry protestors all carrying BLM-esque placards, and some of them were intent on horrible violence. I saw BLM supporters hunt down lone whites and attack them in quite cowardly ways: I saw it.
And it's not like I was the only observer. There were dozens of journalists, photographers, etc.
The TV lies, and the papers lie. I know this is not that shocking, but to do it this blatantly is remarkable: to me
Something seriously wrong with UK broadcast media at the moment. They all have become Corbynista's. It's pretty disgusting to see.
Look at this. The Guardian's main report. It is just a series of lies, evasions, half truths and decoys from beginning to end
The painful fact is that by far the worst violence, today, came from BLM. They are the only side that hunted down people because of skin colour, they are the only side that tried to kill isolated victims.
None of this is mentioned. If you read this and decided to believe it, you would, in fact, think there was very little BLM presence in central London at all, whereas in fact there were many hundreds, and they wanted trouble. I saw it.
Look at these gems:
"One protester told the Guardian she was disappointed there had not been a bigger presence to oppose the presence of the far right. Weyman Bennett, the co-convenor of SUTR, said: “It’s a disgrace that the far right were allowed to be involved in thuggery and rioting,"
"The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, urged the people in Parliament Square to leave by the 5pm deadline set by the Metropolitan police under the Public Order Act.
He wrote on Twitter: “Everyone who intended to come to BLM protests today but didn’t has reduced the risk of confrontation with these extreme right-wingers, and the spread of Covid-19."
It's all a load of gaslighting bullshit. Khan is one of the worst offenders. I am angry.
BLM were already protesting grievances.
The white supremacist thugs went looking for trouble to fight with BLM.
And you're blaming BLM for violence? Quelle surprise!
Weyman Bennett, of the SWP. Not a good look to have him on your side.
The SWP aren't on my side.
I don't believe in judging people by fellow travellers or bandwagon jumpers.
Prediction. In 20-30 years time, Boris will have been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and no one will give a shit who this Tweeter is.
This tweeter is Lord Cooper of Windrush - formerly based at No 10 as Cameron's polling guru having established Populus with others.He joined the Tories shortly before the 1992 election - along with a few others such as Danny Finkelstein - having previously been a policy adviser to David Owen. Before joining the SDP in 1981 he campaigned for Labour at the 1979 election.Also attended Reigate Grammar School - at the same time as Keir Starmer.
I am not a football fan at all, but out of nostalgia for the day I did briefly tune in to the Youtube recording shown on here of the1966 World Cup Final held at the end of July 1966.That was four months following the 1966 election, and Wilson's Labour Government was still well ahead in the polls despite an emergency economic package - including a Wage Freeze - having been introduced a week earlier.That continued to be true into Autumn 1966 , but by Spring 1968 its electoral position was so dire that at the London Borough elections the Tories gained control of Hackney, Lambeth, Islington as well as cities such as Liverpool-Manchester- Leeds-Sheffield - Newcastle - and Norwich!
That golden period was also interrupted by the 1968/69 flu epidemic which killed about 80,000 people in the UK, although a surprising number of people who lived through the time can't remember it much.
I do vaguely recall that epidemic and can certainly confirm the lack of any sense of health crisis even remotely comparable to our current experience. Perhaps that was due to the existence of a vaccine?
Perhaps it's more to do with the fact people knew what flu was? 12 weeks ago we didn't know that millions in the UK wouldn't die. We didn't know how it was transmitted, how infectious it was,.what the exact symptoms were, how to treat it, or how to mitigate it. We knew all that about flu.
I can see the narrative already. All the sundays carry the yob peeing next to the memorial to the killed police officer and carry lots of footage of the football holigans attacking the police earlier in the day. And there is widespread condemnation.
The ramble rousers will share around the videos of white individuals being beaten by black mob and say look at this and all the bias media talk about is the other stuff.
And next weekend back for round 2. Boris, Khan and Met need to close this down ASAP.
Having now witnessed the reality of these riots, it is fascinating to compare them to what the MSM report
Like, for some of them, there seems to be some mystery as to whether BLM were even in Trafalgar Square or not.
This is farcical. I saw it with my own eyes. Several hundred angry protestors all carrying BLM-esque placards, and some of them were intent on horrible violence. I saw BLM supporters hunt down lone whites and attack them in quite cowardly ways: I saw it.
And it's not like I was the only observer. There were dozens of journalists, photographers, etc.
The TV lies, and the papers lie. I know this is not that shocking, but to do it this blatantly is remarkable: to me
Something seriously wrong with UK broadcast media at the moment. They all have become Corbynista's. It's pretty disgusting to see.
Look at this. The Guardian's main report. It is just a series of lies, evasions, half truths and decoys from beginning to end
The painful fact is that by far the worst violence, today, came from BLM. They are the only side that hunted down people because of skin colour, they are the only side that tried to kill isolated victims.
None of this is mentioned. If you read this and decided to believe it, you would, in fact, think there was very little BLM presence in central London at all, whereas in fact there were many hundreds, and they wanted trouble. I saw it.
Look at these gems:
"One protester told the Guardian she was disappointed there had not been a bigger presence to oppose the presence of the far right. Weyman Bennett, the co-convenor of SUTR, said: “It’s a disgrace that the far right were allowed to be involved in thuggery and rioting,"
"The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, urged the people in Parliament Square to leave by the 5pm deadline set by the Metropolitan police under the Public Order Act.
He wrote on Twitter: “Everyone who intended to come to BLM protests today but didn’t has reduced the risk of confrontation with these extreme right-wingers, and the spread of Covid-19."
It's all a load of gaslighting bullshit. Khan is one of the worst offenders. I am angry.
BLM were already protesting grievances.
The white supremacist thugs went looking for trouble to fight with BLM.
And you're blaming BLM for violence? Quelle surprise!
We told you that applauding violent criminal damage - the statue-toppling - would end in blood. So it is. I get that you're now embarrassed
I'm not embarrassed.
Those who went looking for blood should be ashamed of themselves. End of story.
You really are an arse, aren't you? It was predicted that the statue stuff would lead to this. It led to this. It's not really relevant that this involves some deeply unpleasant people, is it, when that was part of the prediction?
This is of course none of your doing, because you are very obviously someone without the guts to go out and riot for himself (if you had, you'd know what a dangerous and frightening thing a riot is even if only a statue gets damaged). So well bred spaniels civilly delight To mumble at the game they dare not bite. But you don't make yourself look good mimsily cheering it on from your mum's basement. Go out and punch an EDLer or a Minnesota cop, or stfu.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
Wow, the BoZo fanbois are REALLY twitchy tonight...
You can't still be sore that we rejected the extension, can you?
Sad
Remoaners on here desperate as usual 😊
As far as I can tell there are plenty of Brexiteers who are unhappy about rejecting an extension as well. Well I am at least and I am pretty sure I have seen other Brexit supporters on here with the same view.
I can see the narrative already. All the sundays carry the yob peeing next to the memorial to the killed police officer and carry lots of footage of the football holigans attacking the police earlier in the day. And there is widespread condemnation.
The ramble rousers will share around the videos of white individuals being beaten by black mob and say look at this and all the bias media talk about is the other stuff.
And next weekend back for round 2. Boris, Khan and Met need to close this down ASAP.
Having now witnessed the reality of these riots, it is fascinating to compare them to what the MSM report
Like, for some of them, there seems to be some mystery as to whether BLM were even in Trafalgar Square or not.
This is farcical. I saw it with my own eyes. Several hundred angry protestors all carrying BLM-esque placards, and some of them were intent on horrible violence. I saw BLM supporters hunt down lone whites and attack them in quite cowardly ways: I saw it.
And it's not like I was the only observer. There were dozens of journalists, photographers, etc.
The TV lies, and the papers lie. I know this is not that shocking, but to do it this blatantly is remarkable: to me
Something seriously wrong with UK broadcast media at the moment. They all have become Corbynista's. It's pretty disgusting to see.
Look at this. The Guardian's main report. It is just a series of lies, evasions, half truths and decoys from beginning to end
The painful fact is that by far the worst violence, today, came from BLM. They are the only side that hunted down people because of skin colour, they are the only side that tried to kill isolated victims.
None of this is mentioned. If you read this and decided to believe it, you would, in fact, think there was very little BLM presence in central London at all, whereas in fact there were many hundreds, and they wanted trouble. I saw it.
Look at these gems:
"One protester told the Guardian she was disappointed there had not been a bigger presence to oppose the presence of the far right. Weyman Bennett, the co-convenor of SUTR, said: “It’s a disgrace that the far right were allowed to be involved in thuggery and rioting,"
"The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, urged the people in Parliament Square to leave by the 5pm deadline set by the Metropolitan police under the Public Order Act.
He wrote on Twitter: “Everyone who intended to come to BLM protests today but didn’t has reduced the risk of confrontation with these extreme right-wingers, and the spread of Covid-19."
It's all a load of gaslighting bullshit. Khan is one of the worst offenders. I am angry.
BLM were already protesting grievances.
The white supremacist thugs went looking for trouble to fight with BLM.
And you're blaming BLM for violence? Quelle surprise!
We told you that applauding violent criminal damage - the statue-toppling - would end in blood. So it is. I get that you're now embarrassed
I'm not embarrassed.
Those who went looking for blood should be ashamed of themselves. End of story.
You really are an arse, aren't you? It was predicted that the statue stuff would lead to this. It led to this. It's not really relevant that this involves some deeply unpleasant people, is it, when that was part of the prediction?
This is of course none of your doing, because you are very obviously someone without the guts to go out and riot for himself (if you had, you'd know what a dangerous and frightening thing a riot is even if only a statue gets damaged). So well bred spaniels civilly delight To mumble at the game they dare not bite. But you don't make yourself look good mimsily cheering it on from your mum's basement. Go out and punch an EDLer or a Minnesota cop, or stfu.
I'm not going out because of COVID19.
I don't believe in violence against people. I have had my eye socket shattered in the past (from an unprovoked assault) and its not an experience I'd ever wish on anyone else or be keen to have happen again.
Non violent civil disorder is not the same thing as looking for fights.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
2015 Parliament was, it was a surprisingly big win as far as everyone was concerned at the time. There had been little expectation of a Tory majority.
And above all he has absolutely got under your skin for years, and you have yet to record a win over him
Andrew Cooper turned out to be useless, urging the Conservatives to chase after left wing middle class voters, rather than right wing working class voters, the winning strategy,
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
I selected examples of Parliaments which saw big majorities. That was not true of the 2015 and 2017 Parliaments both of which failed to run beyond half the full term alloted to them.
Interesting analysis from the US - two sets of protests - 1964 largely peaceful reporting focussed on police violence & civil rights helped LBJ win on Civil rights platform. 1968 more violent helped Nixon win on Law & order platform.
I can see the narrative already. All the sundays carry the yob peeing next to the memorial to the killed police officer and carry lots of footage of the football holigans attacking the police earlier in the day. And there is widespread condemnation.
The ramble rousers will share around the videos of white individuals being beaten by black mob and say look at this and all the bias media talk about is the other stuff.
And next weekend back for round 2. Boris, Khan and Met need to close this down ASAP.
Having now witnessed the reality of these riots, it is fascinating to compare them to what the MSM report
Like, for some of them, there seems to be some mystery as to whether BLM were even in Trafalgar Square or not.
This is farcical. I saw it with my own eyes. Several hundred angry protestors all carrying BLM-esque placards, and some of them were intent on horrible violence. I saw BLM supporters hunt down lone whites and attack them in quite cowardly ways: I saw it.
And it's not like I was the only observer. There were dozens of journalists, photographers, etc.
The TV lies, and the papers lie. I know this is not that shocking, but to do it this blatantly is remarkable: to me
Something seriously wrong with UK broadcast media at the moment. They all have become Corbynista's. It's pretty disgusting to see.
Look at this. The Guardian's main report. It is just a series of lies, evasions, half truths and decoys from beginning to end
The painful fact is that by far the worst violence, today, came from BLM. They are the only side that hunted down people because of skin colour, they are the only side that tried to kill isolated victims.
None of this is mentioned. If you read this and decided to believe it, you would, in fact, think there was very little BLM presence in central London at all, whereas in fact there were many hundreds, and they wanted trouble. I saw it.
Look at these gems:
"One protester told the Guardian she was disappointed there had not been a bigger presence to oppose the presence of the far right. Weyman Bennett, the co-convenor of SUTR, said: “It’s a disgrace that the far right were allowed to be involved in thuggery and rioting,"
"The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, urged the people in Parliament Square to leave by the 5pm deadline set by the Metropolitan police under the Public Order Act.
He wrote on Twitter: “Everyone who intended to come to BLM protests today but didn’t has reduced the risk of confrontation with these extreme right-wingers, and the spread of Covid-19."
It's all a load of gaslighting bullshit. Khan is one of the worst offenders. I am angry.
BLM were already protesting grievances.
The white supremacist thugs went looking for trouble to fight with BLM.
And you're blaming BLM for violence? Quelle surprise!
I'm blaming both sides. The far-right and far-left are equally obnoxious IMO.
That's fair enough Andy. eadric doesn't appear to be.
Andrew Cooper turned out to be useless, urging the Conservatives to chase after left wing middle class voters, rather than right wing working class voters, the winning strategy,
Andrew Cooper got us Cameron. And now we have BoZo.
Andrew Cooper turned out to be useless, urging the Conservatives to chase after left wing middle class voters, rather than right wing working class voters, the winning strategy,
Andrew Cooper got us Cameron. And now we have BoZo.
That's not a win...
Cameron was decent but barely squeaked a majority at his second attempt.
Boris got an 80 seat landslide majority.
No wonder you're so torn up that you insist on childishly calling him BoZo.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
2015 Parliament was, it was a surprisingly big win as far as everyone was concerned at the time. There had been little expectation of a Tory majority.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
2015 Parliament was, it was a surprisingly big win as far as everyone was concerned at the time. There had been little expectation of a Tory majority.
Cameron's overall majority was just 12, and he did suffer a small net loss to Labour which he managed to offset by substantial gains at the expense of the LibDems.
10 years in jail for those who desecrate war memorials
Not sure even the Telegraph can do that.
I was pleasantly surprised to find out it has been law since last October. It was brought in after the vandalism of the Bomber Command memorial last spring and came into effect in October 2019. 10 Years for vandalising or defacing a war memorial and life for premeditated arson of a war memorial. Though how you are expected to set fire to granite or marble I am not sure.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
2015 Parliament was, it was a surprisingly big win as far as everyone was concerned at the time. There had been little expectation of a Tory majority.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
2015 Parliament was, it was a surprisingly big win as far as everyone was concerned at the time. There had been little expectation of a Tory majority.
Cameron's overall majority was just 12, and he did suffer a small net loss to Labour which he managed to offset by substantial gains at the expense of the LibDems.
10 years in jail for those who desecrate war memorials
Not sure even the Telegraph can do that.
I was pleasantly surprised to find out it has been law since last October. It was brought in after the vandalism of the Bomber Command memorial last spring and came into effect in October 2019. 10 Years for vandalising or defacing a war memorial and life for premeditated arson of a war memorial. Though how you are expected to set fire to granite or marble I am not sure.
There's certainly a mammoth difference between a war memorial and a statue of a slaver. Glad the law recognises that.
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.
Chris Curtis of YouGov wrote
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade apart from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
And above all he has absolutely got under your skin for years, and you have yet to record a win over him
Andrew Cooper turned out to be useless, urging the Conservatives to chase after left wing middle class voters, rather than right wing working class voters, the winning strategy,
The masterstroke of Cameron describing Mary Louisa Toynbee as his favourite columnist didn't win over as many of the Crouch End coffee shop voters as it was expected to.
10 years in jail for those who desecrate war memorials
Not sure even the Telegraph can do that.
I was pleasantly surprised to find out it has been law since last October. It was brought in after the vandalism of the Bomber Command memorial last spring and came into effect in October 2019. 10 Years for vandalising or defacing a war memorial and life for premeditated arson of a war memorial. Though how you are expected to set fire to granite or marble I am not sure.
There's certainly a mammoth difference between a war memorial and a statue of a slaver. Glad the law recognises that.
Yep I wasn't making any comment on that. This is specifically for war memorials of which the various newspaper articles tell me there are over 100,000 of up and down the country. Not sure if Winston counts as such but the moron trying to set fire to the flags on the cenotaph during last week's BLM march could be in real trouble.
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.
Chris Curtis of YouGov wrote
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade about from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
Devastated. It's going to kill us in the General Election next week...
Wow, the BoZo fanbois are REALLY twitchy tonight...
You are so funny and obsessed
From several conversations I've had over the weekend quite a few core Conservatives (including my very blue parents) are now starting to get very worried about Boris.
This has nothing to do with Brexit, obvs: it's because he's quite clearly struggling to do the job. He's rarely on the pitch and, when he is, he isn't leading from the front and doesn't look well.
They're sad but are now also openly discussing alternatives.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
2015 Parliament was, it was a surprisingly big win as far as everyone was concerned at the time. There had been little expectation of a Tory majority.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
2015 Parliament was, it was a surprisingly big win as far as everyone was concerned at the time. There had been little expectation of a Tory majority.
Cameron's overall majority was just 12, and he did suffer a small net loss to Labour which he managed to offset by substantial gains at the expense of the LibDems.
It was still a big win.
What was the spread level before the election?
It may have been a surprise win - but in terms of scale it was not at all big - indeed far smaller than Major's 1992 majority. It was a narrow win which most had not expected.
10 years in jail for those who desecrate war memorials
Not sure even the Telegraph can do that.
I was pleasantly surprised to find out it has been law since last October. It was brought in after the vandalism of the Bomber Command memorial last spring and came into effect in October 2019. 10 Years for vandalising or defacing a war memorial and life for premeditated arson of a war memorial. Though how you are expected to set fire to granite or marble I am not sure.
You can set fire to the flags/drapes attached to various monuments, such as at The Cenotaph.
So ironically we kinda have a flag burning 'amendment' here.
Wow, the BoZo fanbois are REALLY twitchy tonight...
You are so funny and obsessed
From several conversations I've had over the weekend quite a few core Conservatives (including my very blue parents) are now starting to get very worried about Boris.
This has nothing to do with Brexit, obvs: it's because he's quite clearly struggling to do the job. He's rarely on the pitch and, when he is, he isn't leading from the front and doesn't look well.
They're sad but are now also openly discussing alternatives.
Early days though.
He wasn't great pre-covid, but post-covid he is operating at corbyn levels.
From several conversations I've had over the weekend quite a few core Conservatives (including my very blue parents) are now starting to get very worried about Boris.
This has nothing to do with Brexit, obvs: it's because he's quite clearly struggling to do the job. He's rarely on the pitch and, when he is, he isn't leading from the front and doesn't look well.
They're sad but are now also openly discussing alternatives.
Early days though.
The tragedy being all of that was obvious before he was elected leader.
You only had to look at his tenure as Foreign Secretary to see just how inept and lazy he was.
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.
Chris Curtis of YouGov wrote
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade about from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
Devastated. It's going to kill us in the General Election next week...
You do realise the last few times a PM has managed to trash their reputation like this (Gordon Brown, the election that never was, and Theresa May 2017) there's been no way back for the PM.
I can see the narrative already. All the sundays carry the yob peeing next to the memorial to the killed police officer and carry lots of footage of the football holigans attacking the police earlier in the day. And there is widespread condemnation.
The ramble rousers will share around the videos of white individuals being beaten by black mob and say look at this and all the bias media talk about is the other stuff.
And next weekend back for round 2. Boris, Khan and Met need to close this down ASAP.
Having now witnessed the reality of these riots, it is fascinating to compare them to what the MSM report
Like, for some of them, there seems to be some mystery as to whether BLM were even in Trafalgar Square or not.
This is farcical. I saw it with my own eyes. Several hundred angry protestors all carrying BLM-esque placards, and some of them were intent on horrible violence. I saw BLM supporters hunt down lone whites and attack them in quite cowardly ways: I saw it.
And it's not like I was the only observer. There were dozens of journalists, photographers, etc.
The TV lies, and the papers lie. I know this is not that shocking, but to do it this blatantly is remarkable: to me
Something seriously wrong with UK broadcast media at the moment. They all have become Corbynista's. It's pretty disgusting to see.
Look at this. The Guardian's main report. It is just a series of lies, evasions, half truths and decoys from beginning to end
The painful fact is that by far the worst violence, today, came from BLM. They are the only side that hunted down people because of skin colour, they are the only side that tried to kill isolated victims.
None of this is mentioned. If you read this and decided to believe it, you would, in fact, think there was very little BLM presence in central London at all, whereas in fact there were many hundreds, and they wanted trouble. I saw it.
Look at these gems:
"One protester told the Guardian she was disappointed there had not been a bigger presence to oppose the presence of the far right. Weyman Bennett, the co-convenor of SUTR, said: “It’s a disgrace that the far right were allowed to be involved in thuggery and rioting,"
"The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, urged the people in Parliament Square to leave by the 5pm deadline set by the Metropolitan police under the Public Order Act.
He wrote on Twitter: “Everyone who intended to come to BLM protests today but didn’t has reduced the risk of confrontation with these extreme right-wingers, and the spread of Covid-19."
It's all a load of gaslighting bullshit. Khan is one of the worst offenders. I am angry.
BLM were already protesting grievances.
The white supremacist thugs went looking for trouble to fight with BLM.
And you're blaming BLM for violence? Quelle surprise!
I'm blaming both sides. The far-right and far-left are equally obnoxious IMO.
That's fair enough Andy. eadric doesn't appear to be.
Read my original comment on the prior thread. Both sides contained vile, thuggish elements, who came only for trouble. I condemn them both.
But the worst violence, today, as far as I can tell, came from BLM. That was my perception today as an eye-witness and it seems to be confirmed by video evidence since.
Perhaps it doesn't matter. We are staring into the abyss.
My beef with you is that you applauded the statue-toppling in Bristol, which was like lighting a match under dry tinder, and it has led to the fires we see now.
You're a fool.
So the MoS front page picture of right-wing violence is misleading?
Wow, the BoZo fanbois are REALLY twitchy tonight...
You are so funny and obsessed
From several conversations I've had over the weekend quite a few core Conservatives (including my very blue parents) are now starting to get very worried about Boris.
This has nothing to do with Brexit, obvs: it's because he's quite clearly struggling to do the job. He's rarely on the pitch and, when he is, he isn't leading from the front and doesn't look well.
They're sad but are now also openly discussing alternatives.
Early days though.
I share your parents view
I have said for a while covid has hit him hard as did the idiotic decision on Cummings
I am not at all certain he will be in office this time next year
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.
Chris Curtis of YouGov wrote
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade about from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
Devastated. It's going to kill us in the General Election next week...
You do realise the last few times a PM has managed to trash their reputation like this (Gordon Brown, the election that never was, and Theresa May 2017, there's been no way back for the PM.)
You could add Dave and George and the 2016 EU Referendum to that.
Wow, the BoZo fanbois are REALLY twitchy tonight...
Now and every night these days.
2024 we win again! 2010-2015-2017-2019-2024 5-0 to the CON. Keep dreaming LAB
Nobody actually won in 2010 and 2017. The Tories were only in office with the help of Opposition parties.
I tell you what. LAB didn't win! You don't win anything with 250 seats
I accept that - though it is not impossible that a party with 262 ends up forming a Government. I wonder what the DUP would have done post June 2017 had Starmer then been Labour leader.
10 years in jail for those who desecrate war memorials
Not sure even the Telegraph can do that.
I was pleasantly surprised to find out it has been law since last October. It was brought in after the vandalism of the Bomber Command memorial last spring and came into effect in October 2019. 10 Years for vandalising or defacing a war memorial and life for premeditated arson of a war memorial. Though how you are expected to set fire to granite or marble I am not sure.
These yobs have been with us for yonks.
Regardless of what you thought about Colston (a genuinely contentious statue) failing to properly police that gave carte blanche to mobs nationwide. So we ended up (within 72 hours) with virtually every major national figure from the last 300 years being targeted, with the media not engaging their brain.
The Bristol police should have intercepted the ropeleaders (not a typo - very obvious who they were) and otherwise allowed a very vigorous protest to go on at the statue.
We could have then had a much more urgent and serious debate about its future, and the right precedent would have been reinforced not undermined.
You do realise the last few times a PM has managed to trash their reputation like this (Gordon Brown, the election that never was, and Theresa May 2017, there's been no way back for the PM.)
Unlike Mrs May, BoZo is no longer plotting the demise of the sitting PM...
Like Gordo though, he is facing a popular leader of the opposition.
Andrew Cooper turned out to be useless, urging the Conservatives to chase after left wing middle class voters, rather than right wing working class voters, the winning strategy,
Andrew Cooper got us Cameron. And now we have BoZo.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
2015 Parliament was, it was a surprisingly big win as far as everyone was concerned at the time. There had been little expectation of a Tory majority.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
2015 Parliament was, it was a surprisingly big win as far as everyone was concerned at the time. There had been little expectation of a Tory majority.
Cameron's overall majority was just 12, and he did suffer a small net loss to Labour which he managed to offset by substantial gains at the expense of the LibDems.
It was still a big win.
What was the spread level before the election?
It may have been a surprise win - but in terms of scale it was not at all big - indeed far smaller than Major's 1992 majority. It was a narrow win which most had not expected.
Most. But not all. I was convinced by the ITN poll showing the Tories sweeping the West Country. The signs were there. Even though it is largely forgotten there was a swing to Labour from Con in E+W.
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.
Chris Curtis of YouGov wrote
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade about from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
Devastated. It's going to kill us in the General Election next week...
You do realise the last few times a PM has managed to trash their reputation like this (Gordon Brown, the election that never was, and Theresa May 2017, there's been no way back for the PM.)
You could add Dave and George and the 2016 EU Referendum to that.
I think there was, Dave still comfortably led on best PM/leader ratings.
Dave was also that rarity, a PM to resign whilst still leading in the polls.
And above all he has absolutely got under your skin for years, and you have yet to record a win over him
Andrew Cooper turned out to be useless, urging the Conservatives to chase after left wing middle class voters, rather than right wing working class voters, the winning strategy,
One of my minor life achievements: Andrew Cooper has blocked me.
That might be because I trolled him on Twitter with "Calamity Cooper" once too often. But I did it because he seemed to have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing from his experiences but was still intent on (emotionally) lecturing others as if he was still right.
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.
Chris Curtis of YouGov wrote
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade about from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
Devastated. It's going to kill us in the General Election next week...
You do realise the last few times a PM has managed to trash their reputation like this (Gordon Brown, the election that never was, and Theresa May 2017, there's been no way back for the PM.)
You could add Dave and George and the 2016 EU Referendum to that.
I think there was, Dave still comfortably led on best PM/leader ratings.
Dave was also that rarity, a PM to resign whilst still leading in the polls.
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.
Chris Curtis of YouGov wrote
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade about from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
Devastated. It's going to kill us in the General Election next week...
You do realise the last few times a PM has managed to trash their reputation like this (Gordon Brown, the election that never was, and Theresa May 2017, there's been no way back for the PM.)
Neither of them had 4 years (or 4.5 years if we go for lucky December again) to turn things around either. Neither of them had already won a landslide majority in their own right.
But I hear you, we need a plan just in case things don't work out. So if the Tories are 10 points underwater in late 2023, we might consider giving the leadership to someone more popular (Sunak, etc). If they're 20+ points underwater, we switch to Sunak vel sim. AND give Scotland immediate independence so that their MPs disappear and our effective majority increases by 40.
Personally I am surprised crossover hasn't happened yet
Boris figures nose diving is no surprise
Will it change anything, I doubt it.
However. Boris, Patel, Khan and the Met have to get together and stop these weekend fracas
If need be close down central London for the next few weekends
No need to involve Khan. Boris, Priti and police need to take action now to close this down like we did in the 2011 riots.
Of course you have to include Khan, he is London's mayor with responsibility for policing
I live in London. I, like most sensible Londoners, know it's best not to involve Khan with anything! He is an extreme left winger. He encourages division.
He is elected
I consider him to be one of London's worse mayors but until he is out of office he remains in charge of the Met
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.
Chris Curtis of YouGov wrote
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade about from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
Devastated. It's going to kill us in the General Election next week...
You do realise the last few times a PM has managed to trash their reputation like this (Gordon Brown, the election that never was, and Theresa May 2017, there's been no way back for the PM.)
Neither of them had 4 years (or 4.5 years if we go for lucky December again) to turn things around either. Neither of them had already won a landslide majority in their own right.
But I hear you, we need a plan just in case things don't work out. So if the Tories are 10 points underwater in late 2023, we might consider giving the leadership to someone more popular (Sunak, etc). If they're 20+ points underwater, we switch to Sunak vel sim. AND give Scotland immediate independence so that their MPs disappear and our effective majority increases by 40.
It always pays to think ahead...
Gordon Brown had the better part of three years, which is close to four years.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
2015 Parliament was, it was a surprisingly big win as far as everyone was concerned at the time. There had been little expectation of a Tory majority.
Net approval is good for Starmer (on some metrics best since Blair) however the PM ratings, where Starmer and Johnson are roughly tied are pretty similar to where Corbyn was against May in Summer 2017 just after that election.
That still suggests the 2017 result could be a a ceiling in terms of votes and seats for Labour.
To be narrowly the largest party at the next election which is still 4 years away realistically Starmer would probably need a consistent lead of around +10 on best PM but that would also require the Tories suffering substantial seat losses to the Lib Dems which is not yet forthcoming.
But almost invariably , an incumbent government a mere six months following a big election win tends to be performing better in the polls than at the subsequent general election. That was true of the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. That is probably even more likely today due to the Covid crisis boost national governments have enjoyed.
Interesting selection of Parliaments to choose. Even if it applied to all then XKCD would apply, but the opposite happened in the last two Parliaments where the government did better at the following election than the polls six months after the prior vote.
The last two parliaments weren't "following a big election win", so don't meet @justin124's criteria.
2015 Parliament was, it was a surprisingly big win as far as everyone was concerned at the time. There had been little expectation of a Tory majority.
Cameron's overall majority was just 12, and he did suffer a small net loss to Labour which he managed to offset by substantial gains at the expense of the LibDems.
It was still a big win.
What was the spread level before the election?
It may have been a surprise win - but in terms of scale it was not at all big - indeed far smaller than Major's 1992 majority. It was a narrow win which most had not expected.
Most. But not all. I was convinced by the ITN poll showing the Tories sweeping the West Country. The signs were there. Even though it is largely forgotten there was a swing to Labour from Con in E+W.
Personally I was not surprised by the big Tory gains from the LDs , but had expected them to suffer more significant losses to Labour. Wales actually did swing to the Tories where they gained Vale of Clwyd and Gower , but England overall saw a pro- Labour swing of circa 1% - which proved far too small to offset the first term incumbency bonus enjoyed in the marginals gained in 2010.
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.
Chris Curtis of YouGov wrote
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade about from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
Devastated. It's going to kill us in the General Election next week...
You do realise the last few times a PM has managed to trash their reputation like this (Gordon Brown, the election that never was, and Theresa May 2017, there's been no way back for the PM.)
You could add Dave and George and the 2016 EU Referendum to that.
I think there was, Dave still comfortably led on best PM/leader ratings.
Dave was also that rarity, a PM to resign whilst still leading in the polls.
What were Osborne's ratings like by the end?
Bad, but his always ratings oscillated.
As Osborne used to point out Gordon Brown was at one point the most popular Chancellor in the history of the country.
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.
Chris Curtis of YouGov wrote
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade about from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
Devastated. It's going to kill us in the General Election next week...
You do realise the last few times a PM has managed to trash their reputation like this (Gordon Brown, the election that never was, and Theresa May 2017, there's been no way back for the PM.)
Neither of them had 4 years (or 4.5 years if we go for lucky December again) to turn things around either. Neither of them had already won a landslide majority in their own right.
But I hear you, we need a plan just in case things don't work out. So if the Tories are 10 points underwater in late 2023, we might consider giving the leadership to someone more popular (Sunak, etc). If they're 20+ points underwater, we switch to Sunak vel sim. AND give Scotland immediate independence so that their MPs disappear and our effective majority increases by 40.
It always pays to think ahead...
Gordon Brown had the better part of three years, which is close to four years.
Again, Boris won the biggest Tory landslide in decades. He is a proven winner and has the capacity to win again, and for that feat he's not going to lose my confidence any time soon.
10 years in jail for those who desecrate war memorials
Not sure even the Telegraph can do that.
I was pleasantly surprised to find out it has been law since last October. It was brought in after the vandalism of the Bomber Command memorial last spring and came into effect in October 2019. 10 Years for vandalising or defacing a war memorial and life for premeditated arson of a war memorial. Though how you are expected to set fire to granite or marble I am not sure.
These yobs have been with us for yonks.
Regardless of what you thought about Colston (a genuinely contentious statue) failing to properly police that gave carte blanche to mobs nationwide. So we ended up (within 72 hours) with virtually every major national figure from the last 300 years being targeted, with the media not engaging their brain.
The Bristol police should have intercepted the ropeleaders (not a typo - very obvious who they were) and otherwise allowed a very vigorous protest to go on at the statue.
We could have then had a much more urgent and serious debate about its future, and the right precedent would have been reinforced not undermined.
Absolutely! I'm astonished the police didn't intervene. Apart from anything else, someone could have been killed with that thing crashing to the ground.
I can see the narrative already. All the sundays carry the yob peeing next to the memorial to the killed police officer and carry lots of footage of the football holigans attacking the police earlier in the day. And there is widespread condemnation.
The ramble rousers will share around the videos of white individuals being beaten by black mob and say look at this and all the bias media talk about is the other stuff.
And next weekend back for round 2. Boris, Khan and Met need to close this down ASAP.
Having now witnessed the reality of these riots, it is fascinating to compare them to what the MSM report
Like, for some of them, there seems to be some mystery as to whether BLM were even in Trafalgar Square or not.
This is farcical. I saw it with my own eyes. Several hundred angry protestors all carrying BLM-esque placards, and some of them were intent on horrible violence. I saw BLM supporters hunt down lone whites and attack them in quite cowardly ways: I saw it.
And it's not like I was the only observer. There were dozens of journalists, photographers, etc.
The TV lies, and the papers lie. I know this is not that shocking, but to do it this blatantly is remarkable: to me
Something seriously wrong with UK broadcast media at the moment. They all have become Corbynista's. It's pretty disgusting to see.
Look at this. The Guardian's main report. It is just a series of lies, evasions, half truths and decoys from beginning to end
The painful fact is that by far the worst violence, today, came from BLM. They are the only side that hunted down people because of skin colour, they are the only side that tried to kill isolated victims.
None of this is mentioned. If you read this and decided to believe it, you would, in fact, think there was very little BLM presence in central London at all, whereas in fact there were many hundreds, and they wanted trouble. I saw it.
Look at these gems:
"One protester told the Guardian she was disappointed there had not been a bigger presence to oppose the presence of the far right. Weyman Bennett, the co-convenor of SUTR, said: “It’s a disgrace that the far right were allowed to be involved in thuggery and rioting,"
"The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, urged the people in Parliament Square to leave by the 5pm deadline set by the Metropolitan police under the Public Order Act.
He wrote on Twitter: “Everyone who intended to come to BLM protests today but didn’t has reduced the risk of confrontation with these extreme right-wingers, and the spread of Covid-19."
It's all a load of gaslighting bullshit. Khan is one of the worst offenders. I am angry.
BLM were already protesting grievances.
The white supremacist thugs went looking for trouble to fight with BLM.
And you're blaming BLM for violence? Quelle surprise!
I'm blaming both sides. The far-right and far-left are equally obnoxious IMO.
That's fair enough Andy. eadric doesn't appear to be.
Read my original comment on the prior thread. Both sides contained vile, thuggish elements, who came only for trouble. I condemn them both.
But the worst violence, today, as far as I can tell, came from BLM. That was my perception today as an eye-witness and it seems to be confirmed by video evidence since.
Perhaps it doesn't matter. We are staring into the abyss.
My beef with you is that you applauded the statue-toppling in Bristol, which was like lighting a match under dry tinder, and it has led to the fires we see now.
You're a fool.
So the MoS front page picture of right-wing violence is misleading?
Yes, I believe it is. I was there and watched. That doesn't make me infallible, but it does make me a more interesting resource than anyone else on here
So far every journalist's report I have found is unequivocally blaming far-right thugs for the violence.
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.
Chris Curtis of YouGov wrote
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade about from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
Devastated. It's going to kill us in the General Election next week...
I don't wish to worry you but we are now as close to Polling Day on 2nd May 2024 as to 25th July 2016 - ie a month beyond the EU Referendum and two weeks after Theresa May became PM!
I can see the narrative already. All the sundays carry the yob peeing next to the memorial to the killed police officer and carry lots of footage of the football holigans attacking the police earlier in the day. And there is widespread condemnation.
The ramble rousers will share around the videos of white individuals being beaten by black mob and say look at this and all the bias media talk about is the other stuff.
And next weekend back for round 2. Boris, Khan and Met need to close this down ASAP.
Having now witnessed the reality of these riots, it is fascinating to compare them to what the MSM report
Like, for some of them, there seems to be some mystery as to whether BLM were even in Trafalgar Square or not.
This is farcical. I saw it with my own eyes. Several hundred angry protestors all carrying BLM-esque placards, and some of them were intent on horrible violence. I saw BLM supporters hunt down lone whites and attack them in quite cowardly ways: I saw it.
And it's not like I was the only observer. There were dozens of journalists, photographers, etc.
The TV lies, and the papers lie. I know this is not that shocking, but to do it this blatantly is remarkable: to me
Something seriously wrong with UK broadcast media at the moment. They all have become Corbynista's. It's pretty disgusting to see.
Look at this. The Guardian's main report. It is just a series of lies, evasions, half truths and decoys from beginning to end
The painful fact is that by far the worst violence, today, came from BLM. They are the only side that hunted down people because of skin colour, they are the only side that tried to kill isolated victims.
None of this is mentioned. If you read this and decided to believe it, you would, in fact, think there was very little BLM presence in central London at all, whereas in fact there were many hundreds, and they wanted trouble. I saw it.
Look at these gems:
"One protester told the Guardian she was disappointed there had not been a bigger presence to oppose the presence of the far right. Weyman Bennett, the co-convenor of SUTR, said: “It’s a disgrace that the far right were allowed to be involved in thuggery and rioting,"
"The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, urged the people in Parliament Square to leave by the 5pm deadline set by the Metropolitan police under the Public Order Act.
He wrote on Twitter: “Everyone who intended to come to BLM protests today but didn’t has reduced the risk of confrontation with these extreme right-wingers, and the spread of Covid-19."
It's all a load of gaslighting bullshit. Khan is one of the worst offenders. I am angry.
BLM were already protesting grievances.
The white supremacist thugs went looking for trouble to fight with BLM.
And you're blaming BLM for violence? Quelle surprise!
I'm blaming both sides. The far-right and far-left are equally obnoxious IMO.
That's fair enough Andy. eadric doesn't appear to be.
Read my original comment on the prior thread. Both sides contained vile, thuggish elements, who came only for trouble. I condemn them both.
But the worst violence, today, as far as I can tell, came from BLM. That was my perception today as an eye-witness and it seems to be confirmed by video evidence since.
Perhaps it doesn't matter. We are staring into the abyss.
My beef with you is that you applauded the statue-toppling in Bristol, which was like lighting a match under dry tinder, and it has led to the fires we see now.
You're a fool.
So the MoS front page picture of right-wing violence is misleading?
Yes, I believe it is. I was there and watched. That doesn't make me infallible, but it does make me a more interesting resource than anyone else on here
So far every journalist's report I have found is unequivocally blaming far-right thugs for the violence.
They can't all be lying.
You don't have to look very hard on internet to see that isnt 100% true. There are plenty of blue check mark photo journalists who were there, have photos and videos, showing more than just the football thugs involved in serious violence.
Comments
And you think that's a good poll for BoZo...
Bless
Well, that's certainly what they thought the future would look like in the 50s.
That or nobody can predict that far in the future. You don't half (re)post a lot of sh*te.
I woudn't mind, but it's tediously partisan sh*te too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDhb4uW_r10
12 minutes in.
10 years in jail for those who desecrate war memorials
I don't believe in judging people by fellow travellers or bandwagon jumpers.
12 weeks ago we didn't know that millions in the UK wouldn't die.
We didn't know how it was transmitted, how infectious it was,.what the exact symptoms were, how to treat it, or how to mitigate it.
We knew all that about flu.
Sad
If I were a betting man I'd say they are losing confidence
That the Stay Alert slogan would lead to an increase in infection.
That the Dominic Cummings story would lead to an increase in infection.
This is of course none of your doing, because you are very obviously someone without the guts to go out and riot for himself (if you had, you'd know what a dangerous and frightening thing a riot is even if only a statue gets damaged). So well bred spaniels civilly delight To mumble at the game they dare not bite. But you don't make yourself look good mimsily cheering it on from your mum's basement. Go out and punch an EDLer or a Minnesota cop, or stfu.
Funny.... not so much
The derangement is strong in this one.
I don't believe in violence against people. I have had my eye socket shattered in the past (from an unprovoked assault) and its not an experience I'd ever wish on anyone else or be keen to have happen again.
Non violent civil disorder is not the same thing as looking for fights.
And when I sense something - well we all know what it means. It's like a spooky little window.
Just because a prominent Tory think BoZo is one of the worst PMs in history, you all had a hissy fit.
Strange, given how brilliant you all think he is. Unless...
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1271889838963331073
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/11/protests-started-out-looking-like-1968-they-turned-into-1964/
That's not a win...
Boris got an 80 seat landslide majority.
No wonder you're so torn up that you insist on childishly calling him BoZo.
What was the spread level before the election?
I am sorry to see someone lose it so comprehensively
You must be very unhappy in your life
I use a more appropriate one
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade apart from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
This has nothing to do with Brexit, obvs: it's because he's quite clearly struggling to do the job. He's rarely on the pitch and, when he is, he isn't leading from the front and doesn't look well.
They're sad but are now also openly discussing alternatives.
Early days though.
So ironically we kinda have a flag burning 'amendment' here.
You only had to look at his tenure as Foreign Secretary to see just how inept and lazy he was.
https://twitter.com/MetPoliceEvents/status/1271898594304577542?s=20
I have said for a while covid has hit him hard as did the idiotic decision on Cummings
I am not at all certain he will be in office this time next year
Regardless of what you thought about Colston (a genuinely contentious statue) failing to properly police that gave carte blanche to mobs nationwide. So we ended up (within 72 hours) with virtually every major national figure from the last 300 years being targeted, with the media not engaging their brain.
The Bristol police should have intercepted the ropeleaders (not a typo - very obvious who they were) and otherwise allowed a very vigorous protest to go on at the statue.
We could have then had a much more urgent and serious debate about its future, and the right precedent would have been reinforced not undermined.
Like Gordo though, he is facing a popular leader of the opposition.
Kind of a win.
Dave was also that rarity, a PM to resign whilst still leading in the polls.
That might be because I trolled him on Twitter with "Calamity Cooper" once too often. But I did it because he seemed to have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing from his experiences but was still intent on (emotionally) lecturing others as if he was still right.
https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1271909774171439104?s=20
But I hear you, we need a plan just in case things don't work out. So if the Tories are 10 points underwater in late 2023, we might consider giving the leadership to someone more popular (Sunak, etc). If they're 20+ points underwater, we switch to Sunak vel sim. AND give Scotland immediate independence so that their MPs disappear and our effective majority increases by 40.
It always pays to think ahead...
He was poor in Indyref as well, where he turned 60:40 into 55:45.
Just not quite crap enough to lose.
And that Conservative MPs never get personal votes.
BoZo has an International crisis where we only lead in excess deaths
As Osborne used to point out Gordon Brown was at one point the most popular Chancellor in the history of the country.
https://www.facebook.com/MichelinUK/videos/897700514057114/
They can't all be lying.
Cameron was a liar and a warmonger.
But then so was his model Blair and his mate Clegg.
It seems to be the default setting of those who enter politics.