politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » London Mayoral punters should factor in the total ruthlessn

Nah, Zac is no Boris.

FPT:

AlastairMeeks said:

At the risk of being mocked, I should point out that "no overall majority" in the Scottish Parliament elections is 10/1. The SNP look to be heading for a majority, but not by all that much...

And if they lose MSPs as quickly as they lose MPs.........

CarlottaVance said:

How did a 'totally ruthless election machine' end up with damp lettuce Goldsmith as a candidate in the first place?

There was no one else. Literally. Karren Brady was the other person they tried to get on board, but she didn't want to run in the end. She would have destroyed Khan.

If they wanted to attack Khan on this they should have been more forensic and focused. I don't think - based on what I've seen - that he is an extremist - but I think he lacks judgment and lacked judgment when he allied himself temporarily with those who are.

Focusing on his judgment and making voters worry about whether they could trust him, whether they can trust him when he says he will confront the extremists when he has never done so in the past would have been better.

Khan himself realises he has a weakness which is why he has tried to address it. The Tories have used a blunderbuss when perhaps a scalpel would have been better. But Goldsmith is a weak candidate and not ruthless enough and without the personality to cut through.

Both are very sub-standard candidates.

If I lived in London and was offered that choice, I'd be depressed too.

Oh, I see what you mean.

Being serious, Mike is right. Although Super Thursday gives everyone across the country the chance to vote, most people won't. London will be a low-turnout election, probably even compared with recent mayoral contests so the issue is - as it always is in local elections - GOTV rather than flipping swing voters (though it's not an either/or).

I'm not convinced that the attacks on Khan will depress the Labour vote all that much; perhaps in some WWC areas. The bigger impact will be on whether it's a driving factor in turning out Tories who'd otherwise sit on their hands.

Are there any Tories on here who like Zac as their candidate? It seems like a lot of nose holding to stop Saqid.

Whichever wins, I expect them to last one term only (as I also do of the next US President).

New Ipsos MORI polling shows the British public are split on US President Barack Obama expressing his view on whether or not Britain should stay in the European Union. Half (49%) think that President Obama should express his view while 46% say that he should not.

Opinion strongly differs however when looking at who will vote to remain in European Union and those who will vote to leave (respondents were told that President Obama was expected to say that it is a matter for the British people to decide, but that the US supports a strong UK in the EU).

Two in three (68%) remain voters say Mr Obama should express his view (28% say he should not) versus one in four (25%) leave supporters (72% say he should not). Labour supporters are also more likely to say that the President should express his view – 64% saying he should (34% say he should not). This compares to 45% of Conservative supporters (53% say he should not) and 16% of UKIP voters (81% say he should not).

There is little difference between those who have definitely decided how they will vote in the referendum (51% say he should and 46% say he should not) and those who may change their mind (48% say he should and 50% say he should not) both groups also split.

Nevertheless the majority of the British public say that President Obama’s view will not be important to them in deciding how they will vote. Fifteen percent say his view will be important to them while 83% say that his view will not be very or at all important. Mr Obama’s views are more important to remain supporters than leave supporters (at 20% vs 7%), to the young rather than older people (24% of 18-34s vs 10% of 55+), and to those who may change their mind than those definitely decided (21% vs 12%).

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3723/Remain-and-leave-supporters-split-on-President-Obamas-EU-intervention.aspx

Sean_F said:

TonyE said:

Conservative Central Office gave up on this a long time ago. Khan is nailed on. The Tories have decided that actually Labour in office in London is probably better for their GE chances than Labour in opposition.

He's a Tory strategist's wet dream, not particularly good, and bound to come unstuck. He may or may not have an appalling taste in friends. The fact that Zac Goldsmith was the candidate they put up against him practically proves that they want him elected!

I disagree. I think the Conservatives want to win this if they can.

They're going about it a funny way then! Pick a mega rich white trust fund candidate to run against an Asian son of a bus driver in the most left wing election ground in the nation.

Is political intelligence at Great Martin Street simply an oxymoron?

Innocent_Abroad said:

Whichever wins, I expect them to last one term only (as I also do of the next US President).

The next London mayoral election should be on the same day as GE2020 so is likely to be overshadowed by that. If Khan wins (which seems likely), he could well end up with a second term just on the basis of the general London GE vote.

TonyE said:

Sean_F said:

TonyE said:

Conservative Central Office gave up on this a long time ago. Khan is nailed on. The Tories have decided that actually Labour in office in London is probably better for their GE chances than Labour in opposition.

He's a Tory strategist's wet dream, not particularly good, and bound to come unstuck. He may or may not have an appalling taste in friends. The fact that Zac Goldsmith was the candidate they put up against him practically proves that they want him elected!

I disagree. I think the Conservatives want to win this if they can.

They're going about it a funny way then! Pick a mega rich white trust fund candidate to run against an Asian son of a bus driver in the most left wing election ground in the nation.

Is political intelligence at Great Martin Street simply an oxymoron?

Without his money, Zac is a nobody.

https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/723480981596987392

SandyRentool said:

Plato_Says said:

Are there any Tories on here who like Zac as their candidate? It seems like a lot of nose holding to stop Saqid.

A Greeny Leaver - what's not to like?

All of the above?

Cyclefree said:

TonyE said:

Conservative Central Office gave up on this a long time ago. Khan is nailed on. The Tories have decided that actually Labour in office in London is probably better for their GE chances than Labour in opposition.

He's a Tory strategist's wet dream, not particularly good, and bound to come unstuck. He may or may not have an appalling taste in friends. The fact that Zac Goldsmith was the candidate they put up against him practically proves that they want him elected!

This is the "Lenin in a sealed carriage mistake", no? I think it a mistake ever to cede ground to your opponent on the basis of some so-called strategy. Your opponent might turn out to be better than you anticipated - see Corbyn in PMQs this week; it allows them a chance to embed themselves; it creates a status quo which is harder to overturn. Finally, if the Tories were really concerned about the extremists who might be emboldened by Khan's win, it is beyond stupid - indeed quite dangerous - to allow them more space to spread their poison just because it might help you win some other election later.

That poison kills people. Some things are too important for political game-playing.

I don't think for a moment that the Tories are concerned about Khan emboldening extremists (you'd have to be a pretty wet extremist to care who won the mayoral election) - they merely think it's a button that might work, so let's press it and see. It's a sleazy thing to do because it carries the message that if you're an enlightened Muslim it doesn't help if you condemn anti-semitism, endorse gay marriage and hate ISIS - the Tories will try to smear you anyway. If you're a moderate Muslim, that's not an encouraging lesson to learn.

But I'm sure they'd like to win - TonyE's theory is more making a virtue of possible necessity, in the same class as the people who say "That was a good General Election to lose".

Cyclefree said:

TonyE said:

Conservative Central Office gave up on this a long time ago. Khan is nailed on. The Tories have decided that actually Labour in office in London is probably better for their GE chances than Labour in opposition.

He's a Tory strategist's wet dream, not particularly good, and bound to come unstuck. He may or may not have an appalling taste in friends. The fact that Zac Goldsmith was the candidate they put up against him practically proves that they want him elected!

This is the "Lenin in a sealed carriage mistake", no? I think it a mistake ever to cede ground to your opponent on the basis of some so-called strategy. Your opponent might turn out to be better than you anticipated - see Corbyn in PMQs this week; it allows them a chance to embed themselves; it creates a status quo which is harder to overturn. Finally, if the Tories were really concerned about the extremists who might be emboldened by Khan's win, it is beyond stupid - indeed quite dangerous - to allow them more space to spread their poison just because it might help you win some other election later.

That poison kills people. Some things are too important for political game-playing.

As an aside, didn't letting Lenin reach Russia work out rather well for the Germans?

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, what's the Lenin reference?

[All I can think of is that it might be Stalin acquiring influence through his role as general secretary, or whatever it was, but it's not my area].

When revolution first broke out in early 1917 in Russia, Lenin was not there. The Germans facilitated his return to Russia in a train because they reckoned that all that revolution would make Russia easier to beat. Which was true. The Germans temporarily won a lot of territory with the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and got Russia out of the war. But they unleashed a monster that devoured half their nation. A case of winning the battle but losing the longer war. (And of course they didn't even the actual war either.)

You don’t have to be a crank to be an Outer but the Out campaign seems disproportionately stuffed with cranks. You know, the kinds of people who screech that people voting to Remain are nothing more than Vichy-style collaborators. One day, you’d hope, these people will be ashamed of this kind of talk but I wouldn’t want to wager too much money on that proposition. They might, however, want to reflect on the thought that careless talk costs votes.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/barack-obama-is-right-to-offer-his-governments-view-on-the-eu-referendum/

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

TonyE said:

Conservative Central Office gave up on this a long time ago. Khan is nailed on. The Tories have decided that actually Labour in office in London is probably better for their GE chances than Labour in opposition.

He's a Tory strategist's wet dream, not particularly good, and bound to come unstuck. He may or may not have an appalling taste in friends. The fact that Zac Goldsmith was the candidate they put up against him practically proves that they want him elected!

This is the "Lenin in a sealed carriage mistake", no? I think it a mistake ever to cede ground to your opponent on the basis of some so-called strategy. Your opponent might turn out to be better than you anticipated - see Corbyn in PMQs this week; it allows them a chance to embed themselves; it creates a status quo which is harder to overturn. Finally, if the Tories were really concerned about the extremists who might be emboldened by Khan's win, it is beyond stupid - indeed quite dangerous - to allow them more space to spread their poison just because it might help you win some other election later.

That poison kills people. Some things are too important for political game-playing.

But I'm sure they'd like to win - TonyE's theory is more making a virtue of possible necessity, in the same class as the people who say "That was a good General Election to lose".

I remember talking to some Labour people in the aftermath of 2010 and they said the same as it would be easy for them to win in 2015 given the demographic advantages and the nature of coalitions in addition to the cuts that the Tories would get blamed for. Lesson - there is no such thing as a good election to lose.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/723458258535632896

Good man. Some of us are still hoping.

MaxPB said:

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

TonyE said:

Conservative Central Office gave up on this a long time ago. Khan is nailed on. The Tories have decided that actually Labour in office in London is probably better for their GE chances than Labour in opposition.

He's a Tory strategist's wet dream, not particularly good, and bound to come unstuck. He may or may not have an appalling taste in friends. The fact that Zac Goldsmith was the candidate they put up against him practically proves that they want him elected!

This is the "Lenin in a sealed carriage mistake", no? I think it a mistake ever to cede ground to your opponent on the basis of some so-called strategy. Your opponent might turn out to be better than you anticipated - see Corbyn in PMQs this week; it allows them a chance to embed themselves; it creates a status quo which is harder to overturn. Finally, if the Tories were really concerned about the extremists who might be emboldened by Khan's win, it is beyond stupid - indeed quite dangerous - to allow them more space to spread their poison just because it might help you win some other election later.

That poison kills people. Some things are too important for political game-playing.

But I'm sure they'd like to win - TonyE's theory is more making a virtue of possible necessity, in the same class as the people who say "That was a good General Election to lose".

I remember talking to some Labour people in the aftermath of 2010 and they said the same as it would be easy for them to win in 2015 given the demographic advantages and the nature of coalitions in addition to the cuts that the Tories would get blamed for. Lesson - there is no such thing as a good election to lose.

Just remembered Mervyn King said whichever party won in 2010 would be out for a generation.

What with that prediction and his signature on the 364 economists letter about Sir Geoffrey Howe's policies, I officially give him the Sion Simon award for awesome political predictions.

Nice try. Zac seems like a nice guy, but he'll always be dodo goldsmith to be, not a hope.

Though as it is London, I don't care in the slightest if I'm proved right or wrong being so definitive.

Great Ted Cruz ad - going for both Clinton & Trump:

https://youtu.be/4cpqoVqqDGk

CarlottaVance said:

You don’t have to be a crank to be an Outer but the Out campaign seems disproportionately stuffed with cranks. You know, the kinds of people who screech that people voting to Remain are nothing more than Vichy-style collaborators. One day, you’d hope, these people will be ashamed of this kind of talk but I wouldn’t want to wager too much money on that proposition. They might, however, want to reflect on the thought that careless talk costs votes.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/barack-obama-is-right-to-offer-his-governments-view-on-the-eu-referendum/

I can;t help thinking that people are criticising the leave movement as they imagine it to be, rather than as it is.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

TonyE said:

Conservative Central Office gave up on this a long time ago. Khan is nailed on. The Tories have decided that actually Labour in office in London is probably better for their GE chances than Labour in opposition.

He's a Tory strategist's wet dream, not particularly good, and bound to come unstuck. He may or may not have an appalling taste in friends. The fact that Zac Goldsmith was the candidate they put up against him practically proves that they want him elected!

This is the "Lenin in a sealed carriage mistake", no? I think it a mistake ever to cede ground to your opponent on the basis of some so-called strategy. Your opponent might turn out to be better than you anticipated - see Corbyn in PMQs this week; it allows them a chance to embed themselves; it creates a status quo which is harder to overturn. Finally, if the Tories were really concerned about the extremists who might be emboldened by Khan's win, it is beyond stupid - indeed quite dangerous - to allow them more space to spread their poison just because it might help you win some other election later.

That poison kills people. Some things are too important for political game-playing.

But I'm sure they'd like to win - TonyE's theory is more making a virtue of possible necessity, in the same class as the people who say "That was a good General Election to lose".

I remember talking to some Labour people in the aftermath of 2010 and they said the same as it would be easy for them to win in 2015 given the demographic advantages and the nature of coalitions in addition to the cuts that the Tories would get blamed for. Lesson - there is no such thing as a good election to lose.

Just remembered Mervyn King said whichever party won in 2010 would be out for a generation.

What with that prediction and his signature on the 364 economists letter about Sir Geoffrey Howe's policies, I officially give him the Sion Simon award for awesome political predictions.

Haha, Mervyn King was brought up in that conversation as were "cuts worse than Thatcher" and "eyewatering". I just listened. Eventually someone asked my opinion as a Tory voter (though not member back then) and I remember saying that it is better to be in power than not and that we've saved the nation from 5 years of Brown ruining our reputation overseas. Not sure I made many friends that evening...

AlastairMeeks said:

I realise that it may be hard for some to accept, but there is always the possibility that Barack Obama's advice is sincere.

Shame his obvious concern for British economic wellbeing didn't show so much when he was enjoying ripping the entrails out of BP.

However, his 'sincerity' or otherwise is beside the point, which is how this will be recieved. I am prepared to believe that he still has star power and that his advice means a lot to some electors, but is there some sort of indication? Has he been surrounded by crowds of excited well-wishers? Or is it more Uncle Sam giving us a ticking off?

His comment was correct about at least one of the winning parties at GE 2010.

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

TonyE said:

Nick: the message to enlightened Muslims point is a fair one. Why then is it that even an enlightened Muslim - as you say Khan is (and I have praised him for what he has said on anti-Semitism, for instance) - seems to use as advisors those who are not as enlightened as him e.g. those who worked on the Lutfur Rahman campaign? Really, using people who worked on a campaign which was condemned by a court as religiously sectarian and corrupt??? How enlightened or sensible is that?

Why - as an enlightened Muslim - does he hang around with Cage? Anyone with any judgment, any common-sense, any decency should have been giving Cage a very wide berth indeed for some considerable time?

Why - as an enlightened Muslim - has he not condemned his local iman for his demands to boycott Ahmadi Muslims? (You cannot be unaware of the sectarianism which has been directed at the Ahmadis and which has led to murder, sadly.

Why- as an enlightened Muslim - does he support an Islamic blasphemy law?

Why - as an enlightened Muslim - was he equivocal about condemning what Al Qaradawi said about stoning, and the beating of women and suicide bombing?

As I asked yesterday, why is it that senior Labour people always seem to associate with extremist Muslims and not the liberal peaceful non-extremist Muslims they're always talking about?

And why is it that when people ask about this the default reaction is to try and shut down the debate: either by alleging racism or by saying that it sends the wrong message.

It creates the perception that Labour thinks the extremists are the only Muslims worth talking to, that these are the Muslims who represent the community. And that does a grave disservice to the non-extremists. It really does send an appalling message to the non-extreme and the liberals. And it does give more oxygen to the extremists.

There are plenty of non-extreme Muslims who don't hang around with Cage and justify stoning and the rest of it who would be splendid role models and could advise Labour and Khan. But they're not there, are they? Why not? It's legitimate to ask this.

And extremists do care about who wins because someone who doesn't take the fight to them will, by default, give them the space to spread. There has already been far too much of that, too much turning of blind eyes. I really hope if Khan wins he does take the fight to the extremists as he has promised. Because it is long past the time for that to be done. But I am not hopeful on the basis of his track record. I hope I am proved wrong.

In the blue corner, Labour candidate dropped in Clifton, Bristol for selling fake viagra. http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2016-04-22/election-candidate-suspended-for-fake-viagra-tobacco-conviction/

dr_spyn said:

In the blue corner, Labour candidate dropped in Clifton, Bristol for selling fake viagra. http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2016-04-22/election-candidate-suspended-for-fake-viagra-tobacco-conviction/

Not what you'd call a hardened criminal.

@polruan.

ROFLMAO - don't think I had heard that one. Would have carried 5 years under Article 58.

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Yes, but he was right about the euro when many others in his profession were wrong.

And it looked bloody dicey at GE2015 all the way up until *that* exit poll.

Honestly it didn't. The polls before the GE didn't match to my own experiences and to the leader ratings, I thought at worse we would end up with 305 seats and at best 320 seats, I didn't see any chance of EICIPM every coming to pass despite the basilicious polls pointing to that just days before the election. Looking at it from a logical point of view, the British public were never going to put Ed Miliband forwards as PM, especially not backed by a separatist party, as soon as those Ed in Salmond's pocket posters came out it was all over for Labour.

It's easy to be confident in retrospect but it's simply not possible for an electorate to manage things so closely. Had the Conservatives won 15 fewer seats, Miliband could easily have been PM - and there were enough seats with tight majorities and where very large numbers voted Labour (or Lib Dem or SNP) to suggest that many people weren't that scared.

I agree that 'on the ground' the feeling was tending towards Con most votes and most seats but a Con- / Con-led govt? Not so nailed on.

TheScreamingEagles said:

ComRes: ComRes poll for @itvnews finds 51% say @POTUS should not air views on #EUref

Dave gets it wrong again. The World At One said Downing Street was "ecstatic" about the Obama endorsement.

dr_spyn said:

@polruan.

ROFLMAO - don't think I had heard that one. Would have carried 5 years under Article 58.

Unfairly stiff sentence in the circumstances.

More on that ComRes poll

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-22/obamas-views-on-eu-membership-not-important-to-most-britons-itv-news-poll-suggests/

taffys said:

CarlottaVance said:

You don’t have to be a crank to be an Outer but the Out campaign seems disproportionately stuffed with cranks. You know, the kinds of people who screech that people voting to Remain are nothing more than Vichy-style collaborators. One day, you’d hope, these people will be ashamed of this kind of talk but I wouldn’t want to wager too much money on that proposition. They might, however, want to reflect on the thought that careless talk costs votes.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/barack-obama-is-right-to-offer-his-governments-view-on-the-eu-referendum/

I can;t help thinking that people are criticising the leave movement as they imagine it to be, rather than as it is.

Indeed. On the previous thread CarlottaVance has quoted a piece by Dominic Raab which she says insults Obama. It really doesn't. Anyone who can read the piece quoted and see an insult probably needs to be in one of those university safe spaces.

Cyclefree said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, what's the Lenin reference?

[All I can think of is that it might be Stalin acquiring influence through his role as general secretary, or whatever it was, but it's not my area].

When revolution first broke out in early 1917 in Russia, Lenin was not there. The Germans facilitated his return to Russia in a train because they reckoned that all that revolution would make Russia easier to beat. Which was true. The Germans temporarily won a lot of territory with the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and got Russia out of the war. But they unleashed a monster that devoured half their nation. A case of winning the battle but losing the longer war. (And of course they didn't even the actual war either.)

Not in 1918. The second revolution forced Russia out of the war, which had continued on the eastern front after the fall of the tsar and should have allowed Germany to transfer huge numbers of troops to the west (in fact, taking possession of nearly all of Ukraine and beyond used more for occupation than was sensible). Even then, Germany came close to winning the war in the Spring of 1918. When they did lose, it was on the West that they were broken. A Russia in less turmoil wouldn't have helped them.

As for the later war, assuming all else panned out in the same way (which is very far from guaranteed), yes, the Soviet Union ended up destroying Germany (with a little help from the RAF and USAF), but wouldn't much the same have been true of a republican Russia that hadn't been through the civil war, famines and purges of the USSR? Remember that one reason that Germany was willing to write Austria the blank cheque in 1914 was because they feared that Russia might be unbeatable given its rate of development within a few years.

Looking at the American media, Boris really is copping some flak.

I wonder if it will become a full blown story here?

Richard_Tyndall said:

taffys said:

CarlottaVance said:

You don’t have to be a crank to be an Outer but the Out campaign seems disproportionately stuffed with cranks. You know, the kinds of people who screech that people voting to Remain are nothing more than Vichy-style collaborators. One day, you’d hope, these people will be ashamed of this kind of talk but I wouldn’t want to wager too much money on that proposition. They might, however, want to reflect on the thought that careless talk costs votes.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/barack-obama-is-right-to-offer-his-governments-view-on-the-eu-referendum/

I can;t help thinking that people are criticising the leave movement as they imagine it to be, rather than as it is.

Indeed. On the previous thread CarlottaVance has quoted a piece by Dominic Raab which she says insults Obama. It really doesn't. Anyone who can read the piece quoted and see an insult probably needs to be in one of those university safe spaces.

Which part of "frankly wanton double standards" and "frankly absurd" do you regard as compliments?

Gove is the past master of the polite insult- something his colleagues could learn.

As Alex Massie observed "a lot of angry people"....

MaxPB said:

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

TonyE said:

Conservative Central Office gave up on this a long time ago. Khan is nailed on. The Tories have decided that actually Labour in office in London is probably better for their GE chances than Labour in opposition.

He's a Tory strategist's wet dream, not particularly good, and bound to come unstuck. He may or may not have an appalling taste in friends. The fact that Zac Goldsmith was the candidate they put up against him practically proves that they want him elected!

This is the "Lenin in a sealed carriage mistake", no? I think it a mistake ever to cede ground to your opponent on the basis of some so-called strategy. Your opponent might turn out to be better than you anticipated - see Corbyn in PMQs this week; it allows them a chance to embed themselves; it creates a status quo which is harder to overturn. Finally, if the Tories were really concerned about the extremists who might be emboldened by Khan's win, it is beyond stupid - indeed quite dangerous - to allow them more space to spread their poison just because it might help you win some other election later.

That poison kills people. Some things are too important for political game-playing.

But I'm sure they'd like to win - TonyE's theory is more making a virtue of possible necessity, in the same class as the people who say "That was a good General Election to lose".

I remember talking to some Labour people in the aftermath of 2010 and they said the same as it would be easy for them to win in 2015 given the demographic advantages and the nature of coalitions in addition to the cuts that the Tories would get blamed for. Lesson - there is no such thing as a good election to lose.

Interesting. Was 1992 a good election for Labour to lose? I had always thought it was as it tarred the Tories with Black Wednesday with all that that entailed. But contrariwise if Labour had won would Blairism have happened? Although New Labour is a fading memory now, Labour have never gotten over it. Corbyn's leadership is but one of its flawed legacies.

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

taffys said:

CarlottaVance said:

You don’t have to be a crank to be an Outer but the Out campaign seems disproportionately stuffed with cranks. You know, the kinds of people who screech that people voting to Remain are nothing more than Vichy-style collaborators. One day, you’d hope, these people will be ashamed of this kind of talk but I wouldn’t want to wager too much money on that proposition. They might, however, want to reflect on the thought that careless talk costs votes.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/barack-obama-is-right-to-offer-his-governments-view-on-the-eu-referendum/

I can;t help thinking that people are criticising the leave movement as they imagine it to be, rather than as it is.

Indeed. On the previous thread CarlottaVance has quoted a piece by Dominic Raab which she says insults Obama. It really doesn't. Anyone who can read the piece quoted and see an insult probably needs to be in one of those university safe spaces.

Which part of "frankly wanton double standards" and "frankly absurd" do you regard as compliments?

Gove is the past master of the polite insult- something his colleagues could learn.

As Alex Massie observed "a lot of angry people"....

I'd call those criticisms, not insults.

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

taffys said:

CarlottaVance said:

You don’t have to be a crank to be an Outer but the Out campaign seems disproportionately stuffed with cranks. You know, the kinds of people who screech that people voting to Remain are nothing more than Vichy-style collaborators. One day, you’d hope, these people will be ashamed of this kind of talk but I wouldn’t want to wager too much money on that proposition. They might, however, want to reflect on the thought that careless talk costs votes.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/barack-obama-is-right-to-offer-his-governments-view-on-the-eu-referendum/

I can;t help thinking that people are criticising the leave movement as they imagine it to be, rather than as it is.

Indeed. On the previous thread CarlottaVance has quoted a piece by Dominic Raab which she says insults Obama. It really doesn't. Anyone who can read the piece quoted and see an insult probably needs to be in one of those university safe spaces.

Which part of "frankly wanton double standards" and "frankly absurd" do you regard as compliments?

Gove is the past master of the polite insult- something his colleagues could learn.

As Alex Massie observed "a lot of angry people"....

They sure as hell aren't insults.

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

taffys said:

CarlottaVance said:

You don’t have to be a crank to be an Outer but the Out campaign seems disproportionately stuffed with cranks. You know, the kinds of people who screech that people voting to Remain are nothing more than Vichy-style collaborators. One day, you’d hope, these people will be ashamed of this kind of talk but I wouldn’t want to wager too much money on that proposition. They might, however, want to reflect on the thought that careless talk costs votes.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/barack-obama-is-right-to-offer-his-governments-view-on-the-eu-referendum/

I can;t help thinking that people are criticising the leave movement as they imagine it to be, rather than as it is.

Indeed. On the previous thread CarlottaVance has quoted a piece by Dominic Raab which she says insults Obama. It really doesn't. Anyone who can read the piece quoted and see an insult probably needs to be in one of those university safe spaces.

Which part of "frankly wanton double standards" and "frankly absurd" do you regard as compliments?

Gove is the past master of the polite insult- something his colleagues could learn.

As Alex Massie observed "a lot of angry people"....

Has Massie talked to leavers? been to meetings? Done any research?

Richard_Tyndall said:

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

taffys said:

CarlottaVance said:

You don’t have to be a crank to be an Outer but the Out campaign seems disproportionately stuffed with cranks. You know, the kinds of people who screech that people voting to Remain are nothing more than Vichy-style collaborators. One day, you’d hope, these people will be ashamed of this kind of talk but I wouldn’t want to wager too much money on that proposition. They might, however, want to reflect on the thought that careless talk costs votes.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/barack-obama-is-right-to-offer-his-governments-view-on-the-eu-referendum/

I can;t help thinking that people are criticising the leave movement as they imagine it to be, rather than as it is.

Indeed. On the previous thread CarlottaVance has quoted a piece by Dominic Raab which she says insults Obama. It really doesn't. Anyone who can read the piece quoted and see an insult probably needs to be in one of those university safe spaces.

Which part of "frankly wanton double standards" and "frankly absurd" do you regard as compliments?

Gove is the past master of the polite insult- something his colleagues could learn.

As Alex Massie observed "a lot of angry people"....

There is a big difference between insults and compliments. The lack of one does not imply the other.

And yes the more you post on this the more I realise you really do need to be in one of those University safe zones.next you'll be telling us that simply by disagreeing someone is being insulting.

Thank you for making my point about Leavers being fond of insults.

And I had you down as one of the rational ones....

Much though I would like to be able to agree with Mike that the Conservative Party machine is as effective as he suggests, I'm not sure it really is, particularly not in this election where the enthusiasm of party members for Zac is distinctly lukewarm. That might not matter if the alternative was genuinely alarming, but he isn't. Compared with Ken Livingstone, Sadiq Khan seems a perfectly reasonable guy, the cogent posts of Ms Cyclefree notwithstanding.

I'm also not convinced that CCHQ really regards this as an election worth throwing the kitchen sink at. Mayor Zac could well end up as more of a nuisance than an asset, given his Heathrow position. Admittedly Sadiq is also now anti-Heathrow, but fortunately no-one takes his position seriously. In any case, from Cameron's point of view, being opposed by a mayor of the opposition party is one thing, being opposed by your own party's mayor rather more awkward.

In betting terms, I'm already on both candidates at gratifyingly long odds, but I tilted my position towards Sadiq a few weeks ago when his odds were more attractive than they are now. If I were starting from scratch, I suppose Zac might just be worth a speculative punt at around 9/1, but I don't think the current odds are far out.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looking at the American media, Boris really is copping some flak.

I wonder if it will become a full blown story here?

Ironic since Bojo's unpleasant pish is as nothing compared to the crap the US Right have thrown at Obama.

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, ah, thanks.

It sounds similarish to Constantius appointing Julian as Caesar, responsible for defending Gaul. Julian had been an academic interested in paganism, and got the job on the basis of being the only male relative of Constantius who hadn't either died in war or been murdered by, er, Constantius.

Julian ended up being so capable his soldiers named him emperor and he was forced into civil war, which he won through the flawless method of Constantius falling fatally ill before the armies could meet and naming Julian his successor.

You see this is why I love PB. On a thread about a rather dull Mayoral contest I get to share a bit of my knowledge about the Russian Revolution and in return I learn something about classical history.

taffys said:

CarlottaVance said:

You don’t have to be a crank to be an Outer but the Out campaign seems disproportionately stuffed with cranks. You know, the kinds of people who screech that people voting to Remain are nothing more than Vichy-style collaborators. One day, you’d hope, these people will be ashamed of this kind of talk but I wouldn’t want to wager too much money on that proposition. They might, however, want to reflect on the thought that careless talk costs votes.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/barack-obama-is-right-to-offer-his-governments-view-on-the-eu-referendum/

I can;t help thinking that people are criticising the leave movement as they imagine it to be, rather than as it is.

You could find a dozen examples of what the Spectator is saying in half an hour on any political/newspaper comments section every day

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looking at the American media, Boris really is copping some flak.

I wonder if it will become a full blown story here?

Ironic since Bojo's unpleasant pish is as nothing compared to the crap the US Right have thrown at Obama.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/723494146116333568