politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s not just Manchester where there’ll be 2017 directly elect

I've been to the Birmingham German Christmas Market a few times and apparently they put measures in place there to prevent this type of attack. I wonder if they also did so in Berlin.

RobD said:

matt said:

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Off topic, I have been sitting on tarmac at Heathrow for one hour now. No reason given.

Iberia has rather fancy new planes, and you get to hear "Oh Blanca Navidad" in histrionic Spanish, but customer service seems a little lacking.

I hope the plane door is open, unless you on wifi of course

I guess you're a legacy airline passenger from that.

Just a US airline passenger. FAA regs.

AA lets you use WiFi on landing now

ydoethur said:

AndyJS said:

Sky: "several dead" in Berlin.

Not exactly been a good day, has it? First the Russian Ambassador to Ankara, now this (although this may be another Glasgow and not another Nice).

German Police confirm it was an attack similar to Nice using a truck

At least 50 injured — Sky.

AndyJS said:

I've been to the Birmingham German Christmas Market a few times and apparently they put measures in place there to prevent this type of attack. I wonder if they also did so in Berlin.

Was it like this under the IRA, or are things worse? Very depressing, either way.

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

I've been to the Birmingham German Christmas Market a few times and apparently they put measures in place there to prevent this type of attack. I wonder if they also did so in Berlin.

Was it like this under the IRA, or are things worse? Very depressing, either way.

Attacks were far more frequent, but mostly confined to Northern Ireland.

Sky News witness: truck was travelling at about 40 mph and hit the middle of the market.

Polish sounds...unlikely.

https://twitter.com/News_Executive/status/810937809540435969

Theuniondivvie said:

Polish sounds...unlikely.

https://twitter.com/News_Executive/status/810937809540435969

Fake news?

No-one needs safe spaces when it comes to discussion.

They don't need them, or deserve them, but many people's histrionic reactions designed to shut down or divert attention, to comments and topics they do not like, particularly though not universally on the internet, shows many people think they need them.

Constantly amazed that those who keep calling election results wrong, or ending up on the losing side of them, won't take the friendly advice of those of us who seem to be more in tune with the public.

How would any of us aspire to be a pundit one day if we allowed calling results wrong to dent our confidence? Like a shark, you must only move forward.

Me, I'm about 50-50 at the monent. USA wrong, Brexit right.

Bild newspaper: attacker "on the run".

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

I've been to the Birmingham German Christmas Market a few times and apparently they put measures in place there to prevent this type of attack. I wonder if they also did so in Berlin.

Was it like this under the IRA, or are things worse? Very depressing, either way.

Warnings were usually - though not invariably - given.

Depends whether the reference is to the truck or the driver. If the driver fled, presumably the former.

So we have possible coordinated ISIS attacks in Germany, Switzerland and Turkey today.

What has Merkel done! Accepting a number of migrants that can be integrated is one thing. But 1 million from a completely different culture. Wtf there is zero chance of them being integrated simply too many of them, whether this was by a recent migrant or not my point stands. What a disaster.

Speedy said:

So we have possible coordinated ISIS attacks in Germany, Switzerland and Turkey today.

Trump needs to stick to his word and crush them.

Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.

The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.

There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.

Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.

It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.

Cyclefree said:

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

I've been to the Birmingham German Christmas Market a few times and apparently they put measures in place there to prevent this type of attack. I wonder if they also did so in Berlin.

Was it like this under the IRA, or are things worse? Very depressing, either way.

Warnings were usually - though not invariably - given.

Also a lot of IRA explosions targeted property, rather than life. They could have killed a lot more than they did otherwise.

As soon as Omagh and McCarthy showed that had changed, public opinion in Ireland shifted against them and they were forced to wind down their campaigns.

Recent Islamic terrorism however has been all about killing as many people as possible.

RobD said:

Cyclefree said:

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

I've been to the Birmingham German Christmas Market a few times and apparently they put measures in place there to prevent this type of attack. I wonder if they also did so in Berlin.

Was it like this under the IRA, or are things worse? Very depressing, either way.

Warnings were usually - though not invariably - given.

Yes, that was a small crumb of comfort. It appears terrorists today don't have the same scruples.

Causing as much death as possible seems to be the aim. The IRA had certain political aims and carefully calibrated the balance between showing how lethal they could be and not going so over the top that the reaction would set their cause back. This didn't always work of course and it didn't make them in any sense "better" terrorists than today's lot. It was simply a consequence of how they sought to achieve their aims. Today's terrorists make a different calculation, that's all.

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.

Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.

Having witnessed a series of community governance reviews firsthand, it's my view that residents are some of the worst people for trying to establish what is and is not logically part of an area.

Speedy said:

RobD said:

Speedy said:

So we have possible coordinated ISIS attacks in Germany, Switzerland and Turkey today.

Trump needs to stick to his word and crush them.

Meanwhile the "Free the Electors" Hillary movement has produced results, for Trump though:

https://twitter.com/komonews/status/810943683298082816

So that's minus 4 electors for Hillary, a last desperate effort to stop Trump backfires as usual.

Even if this is correct, hadn't two already declared they would not vote for Hilary, long before all this kicked off?

I think four is already a record for faithless electors, incidentally.

Edit:
https://twitter.com/Pleased2CU/status/810946046629068800

Cyclefree said:

RobD said:

Cyclefree said:

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

I've been to the Birmingham German Christmas Market a few times and apparently they put measures in place there to prevent this type of attack. I wonder if they also did so in Berlin.

Was it like this under the IRA, or are things worse? Very depressing, either way.

Warnings were usually - though not invariably - given.

Yes, that was a small crumb of comfort. It appears terrorists today don't have the same scruples.

Causing as much death as possible seems to be the aim. The IRA had certain political aims and carefully calibrated the balance between showing how lethal they could be and not going so over the top that the reaction would set their cause back. This didn't always work of course and it didn't make them in any sense "better" terrorists than today's lot. It was simply a consequence of how they sought to achieve their aims. Today's terrorists make a different calculation, that's all.

I don't know, I think Islamic terrorists are far more barbaric than the IRA.

kle4 said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.

Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.

Having witnessed a series of community governance reviews firsthand, it's my view that residents are some of the worst people for trying to establish what is and is not logically part of an area.

The absolute worst must be estate agents. Forever inventing fictitious areas or moving places into a neighbouring more desirable area.

kle4 said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.

Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.

Having witnessed a series of community governance reviews firsthand, it's my view that residents are some of the worst people for trying to establish what is and is not logically part of an area.

Indeed. The excitable parochial voices drown out the vast majority who are indifferent/mildly pro.

I've seen a few comments re whether this is like when the IRA were more active and stating either things mainly happened in NI or warnings were given. Firstly although of course most murders were in NI there were significant attacks on the mainland ¨warnings if given were usually vague or as at Manchester designed to send people into the path of the bomb ¨if you are under about 40 years old you probably have little idea just what living in the cold war in a bankrupt country with frequent terrorism was like - it was pretty fun as far as I remember but in terms of existential angst easily the equal of today

Jobabob said:

Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.

I live in Gateshead and believe every minute we delay 'Greater Newcastle' it costs us dearly.

RobD said:

Cyclefree said:

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

I've been to the Birmingham German Christmas Market a few times and apparently they put measures in place there to prevent this type of attack. I wonder if they also did so in Berlin.

Was it like this under the IRA, or are things worse? Very depressing, either way.

Warnings were usually - though not invariably - given.

Yes, that was a small crumb of comfort. It appears terrorists today don't have the same scruples.

Moral comparisons aside, giving warnings before a bomb attack and the sort of thing that has probably happened in Berlin are two rather different things.

In the Seventies, PIRA was as vicious as ISIS (so were their loyalist enemies). They were perfectly happy to let off no-warning car bombs in shopping centres.

Cyclefree said:

RobD said:

Cyclefree said:

RobD said:

Cyclefree said:

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

I've been to the Birmingham German Christmas Market a few times and apparently they put measures in place there to prevent this type of attack. I wonder if they also did so in Berlin.

Was it like this under the IRA, or are things worse? Very depressing, either way.

Warnings were usually - though not invariably - given.

Yes, that was a small crumb of comfort. It appears terrorists today don't have the same scruples.

Causing as much death as possible seems to be the aim. The IRA had certain political aims and carefully calibrated the balance between showing how lethal they could be and not going so over the top that the reaction would set their cause back. This didn't always work of course and it didn't make them in any sense "better" terrorists than today's lot. It was simply a consequence of how they sought to achieve their aims. Today's terrorists make a different calculation, that's all.

I don't know, I think Islamic terrorists are far more barbaric than the IRA.

Oh yes they are barbaric. Theirs is a cruelty which is pure evil.

But the IRA were pretty cruel too: kneecappings, dragging mothers out from their homes in front of their children before killing them, planting bombs which killed children, shooting dead a baby in its mother's arms etc. I just didn't want to suggest that the IRA were somehow not evil bastards just because they didn't go in for the sort of gruesome viciousness IS seems to specialize in.

OK, I take back what I said- I clearly don't know enough about what the IRA did

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.

Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.

Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.

kingbongo said:

if you are under about 40 years old you probably have little idea just what living in the cold war in a bankrupt country with frequent terrorism was like - it was pretty fun as far as I remember but in terms of existential angst easily the equal of today

Indeed there is absolutely no comparison with any terrorism and thinking that the latest super power confrontation might kick off WW III and we'd all be dead within a few minutes.

IIRC the government's main planning scenario for a Soviet attack was something nuts like 15 million dead in the first few hours, and another 30 million over a couple of weeks.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.

The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.

There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.

Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.

It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.

The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.

Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.

Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.

Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.

So much for democracy.

On thread this is a good way of distinguishing Heathite Tories from Thatcherite Tories.

Heath created the metropolitan counties, Avon, Cleveland etc.

Thatcher got rid of the extra layer of government.

Osborne is yet again showing his Heathite tendencies.

So do any PB Tories wish to show they are Heathite or Thatcherite ?

Gallowgate said:

Jobabob said:

Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.

I live in Gateshead and believe every minute we delay 'Greater Newcastle' it costs us dearly.

As do many there. I know the area well. Most people who live there tell outsiders they are from Newcastle. Quite rightly - it's the same city.

another_richard said:

On thread this is a good way of distinguishing Heathite Tories from Thatcherite Tories.

Heath created the metropolitan counties, Avon, Cleveland etc.

Thatcher got rid of the extra layer of government.

Osborne is yet again showing his Heathite tendencies.

So do any PB Tories wish to show they are Heathite or Thatcherite ?

Which -ite would I be if I wanted to abolish the councils and give regional governors direct control?

Telegraph reporting that Germany's N24 TV station say that "at least" nine are dead, including passenger in lorry. One man has been apprehended. Not a good day.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/19/lorry-ploughs-crowd-christmas-market-berlin/.

RobD said:

another_richard said:

On thread this is a good way of distinguishing Heathite Tories from Thatcherite Tories.

Heath created the metropolitan counties, Avon, Cleveland etc.

Thatcher got rid of the extra layer of government.

Osborne is yet again showing his Heathite tendencies.

So do any PB Tories wish to show they are Heathite or Thatcherite ?

Which -ite would I be if I wanted to abolish the councils and give regional governors direct control?

A Cromwellite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_Major-Generals

The pictures show a big truck similar in size to the one in Nice.

Absolutely horrific.

Government saying to Berliners to stay at home

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.

Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.

Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.

So much for democracy.

On the ground reality of settlements can be vastly different from what is currently labelled as such (I don't know the areas in question), and resistance to recognizing that can be justified, particularly if no benefit is accrued from changing it (eg, if there is no improvement made by doing so, there's no harm sticking with the status quo), but like many things planning related (or at least adjacent) a lot of the time of residents or local residents have a justified point, it is entirely incidental as the same points would have been made justified or not. Lone inspectors can overrule local representative decision makers on planning matters precisely because merely doing what local people want may miss the bigger picture or be unreasonable; the problem with many of the metro mayor and devolution proposals and amalgamation ideas, is that in principle I would accept much more readily that things could be improved by imposing new arrangements which would face local opposition, but its done in such a haphazard way that local opposition leans more on the justified scale than not, at present, in many instances.

RobD said:

another_richard said:

On thread this is a good way of distinguishing Heathite Tories from Thatcherite Tories.

Heath created the metropolitan counties, Avon, Cleveland etc.

Thatcher got rid of the extra layer of government.

Osborne is yet again showing his Heathite tendencies.

So do any PB Tories wish to show they are Heathite or Thatcherite ?

Which -ite would I be if I wanted to abolish the councils and give regional governors direct control?

A Jeffersonite?

Another probable terror attack in the capital of Germany on the day the Russian ambassador to Turkey is shot dead by a Turkish police officer in front of cameras.
2016 really has been a mad year.

RobD said:

another_richard said:

RobD said:

another_richard said:

On thread this is a good way of distinguishing Heathite Tories from Thatcherite Tories.

Heath created the metropolitan counties, Avon, Cleveland etc.

Thatcher got rid of the extra layer of government.

Osborne is yet again showing his Heathite tendencies.

So do any PB Tories wish to show they are Heathite or Thatcherite ?

Which -ite would I be if I wanted to abolish the councils and give regional governors direct control?

A Cromwellite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_Major-Generals

Palpatine was following precedent!

Other way around, he was a long long time ago, remember.

On the subject of elected mayors, the recent thread about Burnham was interesting. Whilst technically this should be in the bag for him, the 1/6 is bound to lengthen in the run up to the election. He is an archetypal career politician, and he failed to win the labour leadership in 2015, and his campaign is starting to look a bit cringeworthy: he is running the whole 'people are fed up with politicians' line and inviting people to write his own manifesto, which is bound to ultimately end up either as a sham where people are let down (most likely) or a manifesto that represents the views of people who came forward to get involved, inevitably left wing activists who are far removed from the reality of urban politics. Nothing is in the bag for him, and he has to straggle the impossible leave vs remain tightrope, being pulled one way by an urban core of activists against the voters on the other.

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.

The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.

There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.

Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.

It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.

The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.

Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.

It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.

kle4 said:

another_richard said:

RobD said:

another_richard said:

On thread this is a good way of distinguishing Heathite Tories from Thatcherite Tories.

Heath created the metropolitan counties, Avon, Cleveland etc.

Thatcher got rid of the extra layer of government.

Osborne is yet again showing his Heathite tendencies.

So do any PB Tories wish to show they are Heathite or Thatcherite ?

Which -ite would I be if I wanted to abolish the councils and give regional governors direct control?

A Cromwellite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_Major-Generals

Ah yes, our short but ill-fated attempt at direct military rule. Like many, Cromwell learned that parliaments are great, but they constantly get in the way as well.

"They clamped down on what they considered to be rowdy behaviour (such as heavy drinking, music, dancing and fairs). They even tried to stop Christmas celebrations."

Now that's topical, Puritans where against Christmas, oh the irony haha.

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.

The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.

There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.

Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.

It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.

The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.

Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.

It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.

Only if you treat all situations equally and ignore that my point was about the whole scheme not specific examples, which strikes me as even more bizarre logic! Manchester and Liverpool seem among the more sensible ones, actually, but the approach in other areas, cobbled together, I have yet to be convinced make much sense, and therefore add unnecessary confusion to an already over complicated system.

SeanT said:

Angela Merkel should go down as the worst Chancellor in modern German history. Inter alia, her intransigence and stupidity on Free Movement (and her idiocy on Syrian migrants) led directly to Brexit.

She made the Eurozone a German Empire though.
And she would probably remain Chancellor for life if she chooses.