Latest IBD Poll out, Biden still +5% in the 4 way so pretty much no move the last few days. Found this bit in the summary quite interesting: 'In addition to faring better among 2016 Trump and Clinton voters, Biden has wide leads among 2016 third-party voters (48%-33%) and nonvoters (64%-27%). Nonvoters are expected to make up roughly 10% of the electorate, though there are some indications in early vote totals that it could be significantly higher.'
Presume 'nonvoters' are 2016 nonvoters who now intend to vote?
PB HISTORIANS: has any other major party in Britain suspended its immediately previous leader? I can’t think of an example. Any abroad in other democracies?
Not your finest hour Keir not even a Clause 4 moment. Unless Corbyn does something silly in the next few days this is going to look like very summary justice and not worthy of a lawyer.
You're showing your own true colours. For all the way you look down upon people from Hartlepool you're nothing other than an apologist for racism yourself.
Keir had no choice after the EHRC report today and Corbyn's remarks. The only reason you can't see that is you side with the racists yourself.
No. I just don't see him as a racist. I loathe him for his part in the UK leaving the EU but racism is something particular something you know when you see it.
PB HISTORIANS: has any other major party in Britain suspended its immediately previous leader? I can’t think of an example. Any abroad in other democracies?
Ramsay MacDonald.
The Brexit party pretty much every other month.
I'm guessing you mean UKIP?
That's certainly true though are they still a 'major' party?
PB HISTORIANS: has any other major party in Britain suspended its immediately previous leader? I can’t think of an example. Any abroad in other democracies?
Ramsay MacDonald.
Did they suspend him? Good call - chapeau - but wiki is unclear on the details.
Not your finest hour Keir not even a Clause 4 moment. Unless Corbyn does something silly in the next few days this is going to look like very summary justice and not worthy of a lawyer.
You're showing your own true colours. For all the way you look down upon people from Hartlepool you're nothing other than an apologist for racism yourself.
Keir had no choice after the EHRC report today and Corbyn's remarks. The only reason you can't see that is you side with the racists yourself.
No. I just don't see him as a racist. I loathe him for his part in the UK leaving the EU but racism is something particular something you know when you see it.
PB HISTORIANS: has any other major party in Britain suspended its immediately previous leader? I can’t think of an example. Any abroad in other democracies?
Ramsay MacDonald.
The Brexit party pretty much every other month.
I'm guessing you mean UKIP?
That's certainly true though are they still a 'major' party?
You're right, I did, and until the turn of the year they still had more MEPs than any other party. (Just maybe there was a flaw in that plan).
Diane Abbott Tahir Ali Mike Amesbury Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Barry Gardiner Kate Hollern Afzal Khan Rebecca Lon Bailey Angel Rayner Steve Reed Lloyd Russell-Moyle Barry Sheerman Zarah Sultana
All of you who have been doubting him - this is what leadership looks like.
(No, Johnson kicking everyone out in a fit of pique because they quite rightly told him his deal was worse than May’s and would be calamitous isn’t comparable.)
Bozo promising on national TV an independent investigation into his own party’s issues, then burying this as soon as he got the top job, doesn’t look so bright now.
It helped him get the top job and if you lie as much as he does, no-one can really blame him when they find out he lied again. It is what makes him and Trump scandal proof.
Johnson appears to use the strategy of saying whatever it takes to survive until tomorrow. What he said yesterday will then be irrelevant...
The Tories were reported to the EHRC by the MCB, and decided that an investigation was not required.
Agree the Tories should have had their own, however.
And, as usual, BJ useless at communication and keeping his trap shut.
SKS doing the correct things so far. Sitting MPs will be an interesting one - Sultana etc.
There is nothing much going on for a while. Throw out the leftie nutters, have by-elections and select moderates to contest them. Given the drubbing Labour took last time, probably all of its seats are safe ones.
By elections only happen if the MPs concerned resign. How likely is that?
There are other mechanisms these days. MPs can be subject to de-selection via petition or some such. the Tories tried it on Sarah Wollaston IIRC...
Just thought I'd pop in to say - that Kier Starmer has got some neck. Getting all huffy about the politics of the Leader who appointed him to the Shadow Cabinet - and sat by him for three years whilst all this shit was going down.
The expression "opportunistic shit" comes to mind...
Yesterday was a new record high for cases in the USA, yet it was a Wednesday. In the past 2 weeks Thurs and Fri have been 11% and 20% higher and (last week) 16% and 26% higher.
If this (admitted very short trend, although it seems consistent for the 2 weeks prior to that also) then today and Friday will be around 93,000 and 100,000.
If it hits 100,000 I assume that is going to be big news.
Might need to check my arithmetic, it tends to be dodgy!
Deaths also look they are back to going up and look to be heading towards regular daily figures of over 1,000 mid week.
Just thought I'd pop in to say - that Kier Starmer has got some neck. Getting all huffy about the politics of the Leader who appointed him to the Shadow Cabinet - and sat by him for three years whilst all this shit was going down.
The expression "opportunistic shit" comes to mind...
Just thought I'd pop in to say - that Kier Starmer has got some neck. Getting all huffy about the politics of the Leader who appointed him to the Shadow Cabinet - and sat by him for three years whilst all this shit was going down.
The expression "opportunistic shit" comes to mind...
Aye. It's called politics for a reason, I guess. Best thing Starmer's done so far though, imo.
I'm Spartacus! I thought Corbyn was the worst leader Labour have ever had and from the moment he was elected I didn't think he had a snowball in Hell's chance of winning but I never believed and still don't that he 'has a racist bone in his body' to quote his son and there aren't many Party leaders i could say that about. Just a few examples Michael Howard (Gypsies etc) Margaret Thatcher (South Africa) Boris Johnson (Watermelons and pilarboxes) IDS (don't get me started........)
I don't know if he's racist but the obvious explanation for his failure on this is that everything was all about him and his own small world. Antisemitism problem in the party? How does this affect me? People are obviously trying to stop me. Er... no it's not all about you Jeremy.
You can see it in Milne's politics on say Eastern Europe. It's all to do with America! Er no... some students don't like their corrupt government. It's this utterly blinkered and stupid worldview these people have.
Just thought I'd pop in to say - that Kier Starmer has got some neck. Getting all huffy about the politics of the Leader who appointed him to the Shadow Cabinet - and sat by him for three years whilst all this shit was going down.
The expression "opportunistic shit" comes to mind...
That's high praise. Sir Keir is doing OK, but I'm not sure I'd go that far.
That's below the statewide average then? That doesn't seem good news for Biden.
Biden would presumably want Harris to be up at least as much or more than the rest of the state - if Harris provides a smaller percentage of the votes then that isn't a good thing.
These are all the Texas counties who voted for Clinton over Trump.
Check out Travis County (Austin) and Bexar County (San Antonio)! Otherwise a mixed bag.
Yesterday was a new record high for cases in the USA, yet it was a Wednesday. In the past 2 weeks Thurs and Fri have been 11% and 20% higher and (last week) 16% and 26% higher.
If this (admitted very short trend, although it seems consistent for the 2 weeks prior to that also) then today and Friday will be around 93,000 and 100,000.
If it hits 100,000 I assume that is going to be big news.
Might need to check my arithmetic, it tends to be dodgy!
Deaths also look they are back to going up and look to be heading towards regular daily figures of over 1,000 mid week.
Trump can say that only those intent on spreading Covid are going out to vote next week....
He decided to leave (hopefully temporarily) because of the abuse he received last week. With today's news it was a wise and timely decision.
That's a shame. Who abused him?
Not really appropriate to say. We all have different tolerances for what we consider abuse.
I suspect a youngster working in London away from home during a pandemic is more susceptible to insult and mockery than an old b****** like myself, who could no longer care less.
Yesterday was a new record high for cases in the USA, yet it was a Wednesday. In the past 2 weeks Thurs and Fri have been 11% and 20% higher and (last week) 16% and 26% higher.
If this (admitted very short trend, although it seems consistent for the 2 weeks prior to that also) then today and Friday will be around 93,000 and 100,000.
If it hits 100,000 I assume that is going to be big news.
Might need to check my arithmetic, it tends to be dodgy!
Deaths also look they are back to going up and look to be heading towards regular daily figures of over 1,000 mid week.
Trump can say that only those intent on spreading Covid are going out to vote next week....
Er... doesn't he need as many as possible to vote on election day, given those are more likely to be Republicans?
This surprises me, I must admit. There is the benefit of showing that "Under New Leadership" is no empty slogan. Against this is the risk of internal warfare in the party. I would have said the potential damage is greater than the benefit but it looks like Starmer disagrees. Let's see how the Left react.
He’s a f*cking anti-Semite and you would have ZERO tolerance for a clear and obvious racist in the Tory party. Your true colours are showing.
My "true colours". Oh dear. C'mon.
Despite writing countless posts on here that are not - cough - completely free of racist sentiment I have noticed that you tend to become apoplectic about antisemitism on the Left and in the Labour Party.
Why is this? I bet you can't explain it to my satisfaction.
Just thought I'd pop in to say - that Kier Starmer has got some neck. Getting all huffy about the politics of the Leader who appointed him to the Shadow Cabinet - and sat by him for three years whilst all this shit was going down.
The expression "opportunistic shit" comes to mind...
And no, we didn't miss you. Back off to your moths if you don't understand how politics works.
Not your finest hour Keir not even a Clause 4 moment. Unless Corbyn does something silly in the next few days this is going to look like very summary justice and not worthy of a lawyer.
You're showing your own true colours. For all the way you look down upon people from Hartlepool you're nothing other than an apologist for racism yourself.
Keir had no choice after the EHRC report today and Corbyn's remarks. The only reason you can't see that is you side with the racists yourself.
No. I just don't see him as a racist. I loathe him for his part in the UK leaving the EU but racism is something particular something you know when you see it.
I don't think Corbyn is a racist either.
I understand pb.com is cock-a-hoop --- and I love the way LadyG has announced the Labour Party now has the unique opportunity to claim LadyG's vote as if they have won the lottery -- but the pb demographic is very narrow & largely very prosperous.
Can we forget America for today? It’s dull. Biden is going to win. Endex
The Labour civil war is PROPER politics. Delicious
Biden is likely to win the popular vote, whether he wins the EC however is still not guaranteed.
Trump has about as much chance of winning the EC as Corbyn had of winning a majority of the Commons last December.
No poll showed Corbyn winning a majority last year or even most seats, Trafalgar has Trump narrowly winning the EC, Rasmussen has Trump either ahead or only 1% further behind Biden in the popular vote relative to where he was in 2016.
IBD also only shows a fractional popular vote swing to Biden relative to Hillary in 2016.
Plus of course in 2019 most of the swing was Labour to LD not Labour to Tory, the Tory vote only rose 1.2% from 2017 to 2019 while the LD vote rose 4.2%, there is no such major third party in the US
That's below the statewide average then? That doesn't seem good news for Biden.
Biden would presumably want Harris to be up at least as much or more than the rest of the state - if Harris provides a smaller percentage of the votes then that isn't a good thing.
These are all the Texas counties who voted for Clinton over Trump.
Check out Travis County (Austin) and Bexar County (San Antonio)! Otherwise a mixed bag.
Travis and Bexar being up is good but Harris and Dallas being down (relatively) is bad. Especially given their size.
Not your finest hour Keir not even a Clause 4 moment. Unless Corbyn does something silly in the next few days this is going to look like very summary justice and not worthy of a lawyer.
You're showing your own true colours. For all the way you look down upon people from Hartlepool you're nothing other than an apologist for racism yourself.
Keir had no choice after the EHRC report today and Corbyn's remarks. The only reason you can't see that is you side with the racists yourself.
No. I just don't see him as a racist. I loathe him for his part in the UK leaving the EU but racism is something particular something you know when you see it.
I don't think Corbyn is a racist either.
I understand pb.com is cock-a-hoop --- and I love the way LadyG has announced the Labour Party now has the unique opportunity to claim LadyG's vote as if they have won the lottery -- but the pb demographic is very narrow & largely very prosperous.
Just thought I'd pop in to say - that Kier Starmer has got some neck. Getting all huffy about the politics of the Leader who appointed him to the Shadow Cabinet - and sat by him for three years whilst all this shit was going down.
The expression "opportunistic shit" comes to mind...
Keir
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Why can't PBers spell the name of the Loto? All these masters degrees, doctorates, fancy wine, business class flights, extravagant bird-watching trips and...
This surprises me, I must admit. There is the benefit of showing that "Under New Leadership" is no empty slogan. Against this is the risk of internal warfare in the party. I would have said the potential damage is greater than the benefit but it looks like Starmer disagrees. Let's see how the Left react.
He’s a f*cking anti-Semite and you would have ZERO tolerance for a clear and obvious racist in the Tory party. Your true colours are showing.
My "true colours". Oh dear. C'mon.
Despite writing countless posts on here that are not - cough - completely free of racist sentiment I have noticed that you tend to become apoplectic about antisemitism on the Left and in the Labour Party.
Why is this? I bet you can't explain it to my satisfaction.
Amazingly, ‘satisfying Kinabalu on PB’ does not appear in the first thousand items on my To Do list
All too dithery and picky by half. If you had balls and principles you'd suspend Corbyn over the report, not as a reaction to his reaction to it. Blinder, schminder; this is going to unravel faster than a George Osborne budget.
Yesterday was a new record high for cases in the USA, yet it was a Wednesday. In the past 2 weeks Thurs and Fri have been 11% and 20% higher and (last week) 16% and 26% higher.
If this (admitted very short trend, although it seems consistent for the 2 weeks prior to that also) then today and Friday will be around 93,000 and 100,000.
If it hits 100,000 I assume that is going to be big news.
Might need to check my arithmetic, it tends to be dodgy!
Deaths also look they are back to going up and look to be heading towards regular daily figures of over 1,000 mid week.
Trump can say that only those intent on spreading Covid are going out to vote next week....
Er... doesn't he need as many as possible to vote on election day, given those are more likely to be Republicans?
He's going to lose, so he might as well blame Covid on Democrat voters standing in long lines....
Yesterday was a new record high for cases in the USA, yet it was a Wednesday. In the past 2 weeks Thurs and Fri have been 11% and 20% higher and (last week) 16% and 26% higher.
If this (admitted very short trend, although it seems consistent for the 2 weeks prior to that also) then today and Friday will be around 93,000 and 100,000.
If it hits 100,000 I assume that is going to be big news.
Might need to check my arithmetic, it tends to be dodgy!
Deaths also look they are back to going up and look to be heading towards regular daily figures of over 1,000 mid week.
Trump can say that only those intent on spreading Covid are going out to vote next week....
Er... doesn't he need as many as possible to vote on election day, given those are more likely to be Republicans?
Following on from that point, one thing I had thought about is a lot of Trumps supporters either don't seem to care about Covid or like Trump himself, believe its gone. So its quite possible that they will still march out to vote next week en masse while the more, careful, realistic and perhaps fearful voters (largely Dem perhaps) stay home so the balance of on the day R voters could be even more skewed than normal perhaps. Just a thought
Just thought I'd pop in to say - that Kier Starmer has got some neck. Getting all huffy about the politics of the Leader who appointed him to the Shadow Cabinet - and sat by him for three years whilst all this shit was going down.
The expression "opportunistic shit" comes to mind...
And no, we didn't miss you. Back off to your moths if you don't understand how politics works.
All of you who have been doubting him - this is what leadership looks like.
(No, Johnson kicking everyone out in a fit of pique because they quite rightly told him his deal was worse than May’s and would be calamitous isn’t comparable.)
Bozo promising on national TV an independent investigation into his own party’s issues, then burying this as soon as he got the top job, doesn’t look so bright now.
It helped him get the top job and if you lie as much as he does, no-one can really blame him when they find out he lied again. It is what makes him and Trump scandal proof.
Johnson appears to use the strategy of saying whatever it takes to survive until tomorrow. What he said yesterday will then be irrelevant...
The Tories were reported to the EHRC by the MCB, and decided that an investigation was not required.
Agree the Tories should have had their own, however.
And, as usual, BJ useless at communication and keeping his trap shut.
SKS doing the correct things so far. Sitting MPs will be an interesting one - Sultana etc.
There is nothing much going on for a while. Throw out the leftie nutters, have by-elections and select moderates to contest them. Given the drubbing Labour took last time, probably all of its seats are safe ones.
By elections only happen if the MPs concerned resign. How likely is that?
There are other mechanisms these days. MPs can be subject to de-selection via petition or some such. the Tories tried it on Sarah Wollaston IIRC...
That only arises in the case of criminal offences or when an MP is suspended from the Commons for an extended period. Losing - or resigning - the party whip has no such effect.
Given McDonnell's long standing closeness to Corbyn I think that statement is notable for being very lukewarm in its support for him. McDonnell is a whole lot smarter than Corbyn (not a high bar, admittedly) and I think can see that Corbyn is just irredeemable.
All too dithery and picky by half. If you had balls and principles you'd suspend Corbyn over the report, not as a reaction to his reaction to it. Blinder, schminder; this is going to unravel faster than a George Osborne budget.
I did think that. He must have known JC was going to refute it's findings, so why wait ?
Just thought I'd pop in to say - that Kier Starmer has got some neck. Getting all huffy about the politics of the Leader who appointed him to the Shadow Cabinet - and sat by him for three years whilst all this shit was going down.
The expression "opportunistic shit" comes to mind...
And no, we didn't miss you. Back off to your moths if you don't understand how politics works.
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
I wonder what it will mean for the next GE. I would have thought a lot of Labour Corbynistas would stay loyal to him and his cronies if they moved to BLM, Ind or Green and so it’s worse for them, but credit to Sir Keir for doing what he thought was the right thing despite that
He will have a massive surge of centrist support. The kind of people you need to win an election. As Tony Blair conclusively demonstrated (for all his faults).
Blair did manage keep the more left wing elements in the party as well though.
Well it's a bit different because Neil Kinnock and John Smith had already chased them out. Starmer inherited a toxic red stench.
And to Isam et. al. it's not enough to appeal to the centre. You need to win it. In real elections. And, yes, this anti-semitism does matter to ordinary people. You chat to many grassroots Labour activists up and down the country and toxic Corbyn was THE issue on the doorstep, more so even than Brexit. Some of that for sure was pumped by the media but it was a real issue.
All too dithery and picky by half. If you had balls and principles you'd suspend Corbyn over the report, not as a reaction to his reaction to it. Blinder, schminder; this is going to unravel faster than a George Osborne budget.
Reminder: Starmer is a QC.
I find the man ineffably boring, as a speaker, and largely uninteresting, as a thinker, but I do not doubt his intelligence, especially his lawyerly intelligence. You don’t get to take silk by making crass mistakes
All too dithery and picky by half. If you had balls and principles you'd suspend Corbyn over the report, not as a reaction to his reaction to it. Blinder, schminder; this is going to unravel faster than a George Osborne budget.
All of George's budgets ensured the Tory majority of 2015.
I wonder what it will mean for the next GE. I would have thought a lot of Labour Corbynistas would stay loyal to him and his cronies if they moved to BLM, Ind or Green and so it’s worse for them, but credit to Sir Keir for doing what he thought was the right thing despite that
He will have a massive surge of centrist support. The kind of people you need to win an election. As Tony Blair conclusively demonstrated (for all his faults).
Blair did manage keep the more left wing elements in the party as well though.
Well it's a bit different because Neil Kinnock and John Smith had already chased them out. Starmer inherited a toxic red stench.
And to Isam et. al. it's not enough to appeal to the centre. You need to win it. In real elections. And, yes, this anti-semitism does matter to ordinary people. You chat to many grassroots Labour activists up and down the country and toxic Corbyn was THE issue on the doorstep, more so even than Brexit. Some of that for sure was pumped by the media but it was a real issue.
It's a good day for decency and democracy.
Well maybe, but he still got more votes than any Labour leader since Blair in 2017, and even in 2019 beat Brown and Miliband I think?
Ha, I'm sure if the majority of public pollsters are way off this election they'll include the Trafalgars, Rasmussens and Susquehannas to show they weren't so far off.
Some of those figures are really mind boggling. TX, GA,NC, unless there is a shy trump civilization living underground, these figures must be good news for Biden.
Some of the Trumpets are extremely motivated. So they may well be voting early as well. Do we have any quality data on the way early voting is swinging?
The data we have is mixed, with some states telling you more, and others telling you less.
But in summary:
(1) turnout is *slightly* higher in Democrat areas than Republican, but the gap is fairly small and given higher on the day voting in Republican areas may be reversed by the time it comes to counting (2) the Democrats took an early lead as far as registered supporters go, but that is being eroded as we get nearer to election day (3) African American relative turnout is well down on 2012, and probably down on 2016 (4) there are a lot of people voting this year who didn't vote in 2016, and there appears (although the data is sparse) to be greater youth turnout (5) women are making up a higher percentage of the vote than expected, and could easily be 11 points or more than men
All too dithery and picky by half. If you had balls and principles you'd suspend Corbyn over the report, not as a reaction to his reaction to it. Blinder, schminder; this is going to unravel faster than a George Osborne budget.
I did think that. He must have known JC was going to refute it's findings, so why wait ?
A bit of PB hindsight here plus it doesn't seem SKS' style.
Looks like excellent stuff. Great use of the Smiths too.
Been a fan of Gillian A since her X files days, she was also excellent in The Fall and Hannibal Series. Suspect she will be just as good in this, Looking forward to it
I wonder what it will mean for the next GE. I would have thought a lot of Labour Corbynistas would stay loyal to him and his cronies if they moved to BLM, Ind or Green and so it’s worse for them, but credit to Sir Keir for doing what he thought was the right thing despite that
He will have a massive surge of centrist support. The kind of people you need to win an election. As Tony Blair conclusively demonstrated (for all his faults).
Blair did manage keep the more left wing elements in the party as well though.
Well it's a bit different because Neil Kinnock and John Smith had already chased them out. Starmer inherited a toxic red stench.
And to Isam et. al. it's not enough to appeal to the centre. You need to win it. In real elections. And, yes, this anti-semitism does matter to ordinary people. You chat to many grassroots Labour activists up and down the country and toxic Corbyn was THE issue on the doorstep, more so even than Brexit. Some of that for sure was pumped by the media but it was a real issue.
It's a good day for decency and democracy.
Well said. They need to rid their party of the lunatic fringes, much like the Tories, at least SKS has made some steps towards doing it. It would be a sad day for comedy on this site if, say, Richard Burgon were to follow.
The odious Lloyd Russell Moyle also needs banjoed into the sun.
Looks like excellent stuff. Great use of the Smiths too.
Been a fan of Gillian A since her X files days, she was also excellent in The Fall and Hannibal Series. Suspect she will be just as good in this, Looking forward to it
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
All too dithery and picky by half. If you had balls and principles you'd suspend Corbyn over the report, not as a reaction to his reaction to it. Blinder, schminder; this is going to unravel faster than a George Osborne budget.
I did think that. He must have known JC was going to refute it's findings, so why wait ?
The "why wait?" is fairly obvious.
If you do it the moment the report is published, you leave yourself open to "he was just waiting for any excuse" line. As it is, you can say "this is the LAST thing I wanted, but sadly Jeremy's reaction left me with no choice".
He did the same over RLB - gave her one chance to delete and apologise for the Maxine Peake retweet; she didn't; she was sacked.
Some of those figures are really mind boggling. TX, GA,NC, unless there is a shy trump civilization living underground, these figures must be good news for Biden.
Some of the Trumpets are extremely motivated. So they may well be voting early as well. Do we have any quality data on the way early voting is swinging?
The data we have is mixed, with some states telling you more, and others telling you less.
But in summary:
(1) turnout is *slightly* higher in Democrat areas than Republican, but the gap is fairly small and given higher on the day voting in Republican areas may be reversed by the time it comes to counting (2) the Democrats took an early lead as far as registered supporters go, but that is being eroded as we get nearer to election day (3) African American relative turnout is well down on 2012, and probably down on 2016 (4) there are a lot of people voting this year who didn't vote in 2016, and there appears (although the data is sparse) to be greater youth turnout (5) women are making up a higher percentage of the vote than expected, and could easily be 11 points or more than men
Mixed bag for Biden there, 4 and 5 , good news, 3 not so good
Diane Abbott Tahir Ali Mike Amesbury Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Barry Gardiner Kate Hollern Afzal Khan Rebecca Lon Bailey Angel Rayner Steve Reed Lloyd Russell-Moyle Barry Sheerman Zarah Sultana
I wonder if any pbers remember a moment on This Week many years ago when Diane Abbott suggested that it was quite common for some people on the left to make antisemitic remarks.
I don't think I'm imagining it. By the way she was condemning not condoning.
BLIMEY, I WAS NOT EXPECTING THIS I thought this was going to be about the Biden + 9 Texas poll.
Need to find out more about the pollster
What made me wonder about the Democrats taking Texas is the 20-30% of registered voters in the two largest Republican voting counties (Collin and Denton) being new since 2016. They moved from voting about +20% for Trump in 2016, to + single figures for Cruz two years ago. If that move has continued - and it's quite a big if - then I think it's seriously on.
All too dithery and picky by half. If you had balls and principles you'd suspend Corbyn over the report, not as a reaction to his reaction to it. Blinder, schminder; this is going to unravel faster than a George Osborne budget.
I did think that. He must have known JC was going to refute it's findings, so why wait ?
The "why wait?" is fairly obvious.
If you do it the moment the report is published, you leave yourself open to "he was just waiting for any excuse" line. As it is, you can say "this is the LAST thing I wanted, but sadly Jeremy's reaction left me with no choice".
He did the same over RLB - gave her one chance to delete and apologise for the Maxine Peake retweet; she didn't; she was sacked.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
But Jake Hepple, the guy behind the Burnley white lives matter banner wasn't sacked for that.
He was sacked for inter alia, admitting to using words like 'Paki' on social media, and more pertinently for a welder, sacked for doing cocaine.
Just thought I'd pop in to say - that Kier Starmer has got some neck. Getting all huffy about the politics of the Leader who appointed him to the Shadow Cabinet - and sat by him for three years whilst all this shit was going down.
The expression "opportunistic shit" comes to mind...
Keir
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Why can't PBers spell the name of the Loto? All these masters degrees, doctorates, fancy wine, business class flights, extravagant bird-watching trips and...
THEY CAN'T EVEN EFFING SPELL.
Jesus, are you STILL wound up by my deliberately spelling it???
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
As I'm sure we can all agree - the law should protect twats.
Otherwise half of PB would be had up for the offence of "posting while being a twat".
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
As I'm sure we can all agree - the law should protect twats.
Otherwise half of PB would be had up for the offence of "posting while being a twat".
Of course. He has the right to be a twat. But he's still a twat.
Some of those figures are really mind boggling. TX, GA,NC, unless there is a shy trump civilization living underground, these figures must be good news for Biden.
Some of the Trumpets are extremely motivated. So they may well be voting early as well. Do we have any quality data on the way early voting is swinging?
The data we have is mixed, with some states telling you more, and others telling you less.
But in summary:
(1) turnout is *slightly* higher in Democrat areas than Republican, but the gap is fairly small and given higher on the day voting in Republican areas may be reversed by the time it comes to counting (2) the Democrats took an early lead as far as registered supporters go, but that is being eroded as we get nearer to election day (3) African American relative turnout is well down on 2012, and probably down on 2016 (4) there are a lot of people voting this year who didn't vote in 2016, and there appears (although the data is sparse) to be greater youth turnout (5) women are making up a higher percentage of the vote than expected, and could easily be 11 points or more than men
Are there not quite a lot of Independents, which makes the sums much harder. I would imagine that they would be less keen on Trump now than 4 years ago.
All too dithery and picky by half. If you had balls and principles you'd suspend Corbyn over the report, not as a reaction to his reaction to it. Blinder, schminder; this is going to unravel faster than a George Osborne budget.
Reminder: Starmer is a QC.
I find the man ineffably boring, as a speaker, and largely uninteresting, as a thinker, but I do not doubt his intelligence, especially his lawyerly intelligence. You don’t get to take silk by making crass mistakes
Equally, what works on a High Court judge doesn't necessarily work on joe public. I'd be interested to know what proportion of his advocacy was jury vs judge alone.
Comments
That's certainly true though are they still a 'major' party?
That you don't speaks volumes.
Why do I get the feeling if this was about anybody other than Jews, people would be in uproar over that comment.
The expression "opportunistic shit" comes to mind...
If this (admitted very short trend, although it seems consistent for the 2 weeks prior to that also) then today and Friday will be around 93,000 and 100,000.
If it hits 100,000 I assume that is going to be big news.
Might need to check my arithmetic, it tends to be dodgy!
Deaths also look they are back to going up and look to be heading towards regular daily figures of over 1,000 mid week.
You can see it in Milne's politics on say Eastern Europe. It's all to do with America! Er no... some students don't like their corrupt government. It's this utterly blinkered and stupid worldview these people have.
Check out Travis County (Austin) and Bexar County (San Antonio)! Otherwise a mixed bag.
I suspect a youngster working in London away from home during a pandemic is more susceptible to insult and mockery than an old b****** like myself, who could no longer care less.
https://twitter.com/rt_com/status/1321818967090999296?s=21
Holy Cow, Starmer, you're the man!
Despite writing countless posts on here that are not - cough - completely free of racist sentiment I have noticed that you tend to become apoplectic about antisemitism on the Left and in the Labour Party.
Why is this? I bet you can't explain it to my satisfaction.
You leave the house for an hour, and all this kicks off. Good job I bought popcorn.
I understand pb.com is cock-a-hoop --- and I love the way LadyG has announced the Labour Party now has the unique opportunity to claim LadyG's vote as if they have won the lottery -- but the pb demographic is very narrow & largely very prosperous.
IBD also only shows a fractional popular vote swing to Biden relative to Hillary in 2016.
Plus of course in 2019 most of the swing was Labour to LD not Labour to Tory, the Tory vote only rose 1.2% from 2017 to 2019 while the LD vote rose 4.2%, there is no such major third party in the US
Need more GOTV in Harris and Dallas.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Why can't PBers spell the name of the Loto? All these masters degrees, doctorates, fancy wine, business class flights, extravagant bird-watching trips and...
THEY CAN'T EVEN EFFING SPELL.
Sounds like a softening of your position HY.
You flipping back to a Biden win?
Called it in the last thread - "in light of his comments". The report didn't hang Corbyn; his reaction to it did.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
And to Isam et. al. it's not enough to appeal to the centre. You need to win it. In real elections. And, yes, this anti-semitism does matter to ordinary people. You chat to many grassroots Labour activists up and down the country and toxic Corbyn was THE issue on the doorstep, more so even than Brexit. Some of that for sure was pumped by the media but it was a real issue.
It's a good day for decency and democracy.
Reminder: Starmer is a QC.
I find the man ineffably boring, as a speaker, and largely uninteresting, as a thinker, but I do not doubt his intelligence, especially his lawyerly intelligence. You don’t get to take silk by making crass mistakes
Howz your ARSE enjoying retirement?
Its still FOP, I see...
Can I point out that this is the funniest Bestie cartoon ever?
But in summary:
(1) turnout is *slightly* higher in Democrat areas than Republican, but the gap is fairly small and given higher on the day voting in Republican areas may be reversed by the time it comes to counting
(2) the Democrats took an early lead as far as registered supporters go, but that is being eroded as we get nearer to election day
(3) African American relative turnout is well down on 2012, and probably down on 2016
(4) there are a lot of people voting this year who didn't vote in 2016, and there appears (although the data is sparse) to be greater youth turnout
(5) women are making up a higher percentage of the vote than expected, and could easily be 11 points or more than men
Starmer stone walled but some predicted it would not last more than a few hours and so it has come to pass
I congratulate Starmer on making the decision and hope this brings about a more electable labour party
The odious Lloyd Russell Moyle also needs banjoed into the sun.
If you do it the moment the report is published, you leave yourself open to "he was just waiting for any excuse" line. As it is, you can say "this is the LAST thing I wanted, but sadly Jeremy's reaction left me with no choice".
He did the same over RLB - gave her one chance to delete and apologise for the Maxine Peake retweet; she didn't; she was sacked.
I don't think I'm imagining it. By the way she was condemning not condoning.
They moved from voting about +20% for Trump in 2016, to + single figures for Cruz two years ago. If that move has continued - and it's quite a big if - then I think it's seriously on.
He was sacked for inter alia, admitting to using words like 'Paki' on social media, and more pertinently for a welder, sacked for doing cocaine.
You really don't want a coked up welder.
I had hoped, but....
Otherwise half of PB would be had up for the offence of "posting while being a twat".