Andrew NeilVerified account @afneil 2h2 hours ago
What has neutral Sweden done to deserve this? Never in Mid-East war Non-Nato Most welcoming of Muslim refugees. Massive foreign aid
Oddly naive view from Neil, rarely. There's no such thing as deserving or undeserving when it comes to Islamic terrorism. We are all deserving in the eye's of these terrorists because we aren't Muslims and they are armed with clear cut passages from the Koran which encourages the perpetration of violence against non-Muslims. It is the basic and most simple reason why Islam is not compatible with the west and why minorities in Muslim majority countries are treated like shit.
Matthew Goodwin makes many good points but it is pretty poor for him to fail to point out, because it doesn't suit his agenda, that Marine Le Pen's decline in the same time frame is at least as significant as Emmanuel Macron's. It looks more like outside candidates polling better with increased attention than any Macron-specific defects.
Matthew Goodwin makes many good points but it is pretty poor for him to fail to point out, because it doesn't suit his agenda, that Marine Le Pen's decline in the same time frame is at least as significant as Emmanuel Macron's. It looks more like outside candidates polling better with increased attention than any Macron-specific defects.
The race that was supposed to be the right facing off against the far right could be the left facing off against the far left. Le Pen may not even make the second round if she continues to decline and Melenchon keeps rising.
The Russians know more about the precise details of that chemical weapons attack than theyd like to let on that takes us well beyond just a 'didnt happen' denial.
For starters, was it regular Sarin?
You don't say, come out of the closet Tapestry all is forgiven.
Variations on original formulations are not unusual.
That's interesting, thanks. Might it even be possible to 'fingerprint' it to tell which lab it might have been made in?
Very difficult regarding origination because though there are different methods around manufacture, purity and preservation, you would have to have very good access and sampling, for example fragments of the device used to carry it. If you did have all the sources and analysis to hand you certainly can understand something of it.
My thinking is a bit more broad, as in how good quality was it, was it the only chemical weapon used. What we do know is that the bombed airbase had some very interesting containers and I doubt very much the Russians didn't know about it given they are an important part of the running of that base. I suppose they could be large volumes of jet fighter washing fluid.
Matthew Goodwin makes many good points but it is pretty poor for him to fail to point out, because it doesn't suit his agenda, that Marine Le Pen's decline in the same time frame is at least as significant as Emmanuel Macron's. It looks more like outside candidates polling better with increased attention than any Macron-specific defects.
The race that was supposed to be the right facing off against the far right could be the left facing off against the far left. Le Pen may not even make the second round if she continues to decline and Melenchon keeps rising.
Well if it is Macron-Melenchon at that point I've won
I'd expect Macron to win that particular bout handily though
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
Hard to see the logic, really. The Tories campaigned for Remain; if his beef is that they made a pretty poor fist of it, the same is true of the Lib Dems.
Let me hazard a couple of guesses: despite being on cocktail party terms with his Tory MP, he did not ring up the MP pre-referendum and offer his services to campaign for a Remain vote, and despite sounding a well-heeled sort of chap he did not write out a cheque for, ooh, £25000 or £50000 to the Remain campaign.
But he is still JOLLY ANGRY.
...and completely fictional.
The inside of Roger's head must look like a Max Ernst creation.
If only the inside of my head looked like a Max Ernst creation I'd never need to go out. It reminds me of Steve Martin's line to Diane Keaton 'If I had your breasts I'd just spend all day playing with them"
Sad to think that he may indeed now have Diane Keaton's breasts, but no longer the desire to play with them.
@georgeeaton: Ed Miliband says he doesn't regret decision to oppose intervention in Syria during Last Leg appearance.
Cannot face up to one of his more shameful episodes. Not the failure to intervene - that, if sincerely held, is a position that is defendable. But pretending that his actions around that time were based around a desire to oppose intervention in general, rather than a political argument about when and how. Presenting as a principled anti-interventionist stance, when the stance was much more complicated than that.
Matthew Goodwin makes many good points but it is pretty poor for him to fail to point out, because it doesn't suit his agenda, that Marine Le Pen's decline in the same time frame is at least as significant as Emmanuel Macron's. It looks more like outside candidates polling better with increased attention than any Macron-specific defects.
The race that was supposed to be the right facing off against the far right could be the left facing off against the far left. Le Pen may not even make the second round if she continues to decline and Melenchon keeps rising.
No it won't, today's IFOP has Le Pen first, Macron second, Fillon third and Melenchon still fourth (though will be interesting to see if Le Pen and Melenchon's opposition to the US strikes and Macron and Fillon's support for them has any impact)
Le Pen 24.5% Macron 23.5% Fillon 18.5% Melenchon 17% Hamon 9.5% Dupont-Aignan 4.5%
"Labour MPs ‘appalled’ at Corbyn’s attack on Syria airstrikes
Labour faced another day of turmoil after Jeremy Corbyn condemned the missile strikes in Syria to the disgust of many of his parliamentary colleagues."
Slow hand-clap for the PLP. Just at the time the membership was MAYBE starting to reconsider support for Corbyn, they go and remind everyone why they were so irritated with the PLP (and hence why Corbyn got in) in the first place.
They were irritated with the PLP for deeming the use of chemical weapons to be crossing a red line?
No, because their mantra always seems to be "bomb first, think later".
I'm yet to see any explanation of how toppling Assad (which is surely the intention of strikes like this) would be a satisfactory outcome. Do people really want ISIS to be able to take over that country? Obviously the idea of "moderate" rebels taking over is for the birds, just as it was in 2013.
Syria is repeatedly using chemical weapons, which have been banned by convention for many decades. Worse, he's using them against civilians. The international community (via the UN) is doing f'all about it.
This is important. One of the reasons countries like Syria felt able to develop such weapons was because of the west's craven attitude towards Saddam's use of them in the 1980s. They are cheaper and easier to develop than weaponised nukes (except for some biological weapons), and can be very effective in area denial. If you're a sh*t like Assad and there are not going to be any penalties for having chemical weapons, why not have them?
From a purely selfish point of view, the more states that have chemical weapons, the more likely they are to be used against us. Precedents are being set.
Incidentally, it also makes a joke of Security Council resolution 2118
It was not just a craven attitude by the West it was complicity on a grand scale. Saddam was 'our man' against those nasty Iranians. As such we were quite content to let him kill tens of thousands of Iranians and Kurds with chemical weapons used on dozens of occasions on a massive scale. The US even went so far as to try to pretend that it was the Iranians who used the weapons at Halabja not the Iraqis. Of course as soon as Saddam stopped being 'our man' then we started on the campaign about what a wicked person he was to have used chemical weapons. Now we do the same with Syria because Assad is a bad man and not one of ours. The hypocrisy is sickening.
@georgeeaton: Ed Miliband says he doesn't regret decision to oppose intervention in Syria during Last Leg appearance.
Cannot face up to one of his more shameful episodes. Not the failure to intervene - that, if sincerely held, is a position that is defendable. But pretending that his actions around that time were based around a desire to oppose intervention in general, rather than a political argument about when and how. Presenting as a principled anti-interventionist stance, when the stance was much more complicated than that.
And reneging on a commitment to the PM. That was unforgivable in a matter as grave as this.
If (like Ken Clark, and some Labour MPs) he had weighed up the risks and decided that on balance the risks of action outweighed the risks of inaction, that would have been fine. But it was nothing like that, it was pure moral weakness.
And reneging on a commitment to the PM. That was unforgivable in a matter as grave as this.
If (like Ken Clark, and some Labour MPs) he had weighed up the risks and decided that on balance the risks of action outweighed the risks of inaction, that would have been fine. But it was nothing like that, it was pure moral weakness.
@georgeeaton: Ed Miliband says he doesn't regret decision to oppose intervention in Syria during Last Leg appearance.
Cannot face up to one of his more shameful episodes. Not the failure to intervene - that, if sincerely held, is a position that is defendable. But pretending that his actions around that time were based around a desire to oppose intervention in general, rather than a political argument about when and how. Presenting as a principled anti-interventionist stance, when the stance was much more complicated than that.
And reneging on a commitment to the PM. That was unforgivable in a matter as grave as this.
If (like Ken Clark, and some Labour MPs) he had weighed up the risks and decided that on balance the risks of action outweighed the risks of inaction, that would have been fine. But it was nothing like that, it was pure moral weakness.
Was there ever a trustworthy source which stated that Miliband gave Cameron an actual *commitment*? I remember Iain Martin saying at the time that how it really went down was that Miliband gave some of his standard meaningless non-committal waffle ("I don't rule it out in principle but let's make sure we meet all these conditions, blahblahblah") when he was asked privately, and Cameron just selectively heard what he wanted to hear.
Andrew NeilVerified account @afneil 2h2 hours ago
What has neutral Sweden done to deserve this? Never in Mid-East war Non-Nato Most welcoming of Muslim refugees. Massive foreign aid
Oddly naive view from Neil, rarely. There's no such thing as deserving or undeserving when it comes to Islamic terrorism. We are all deserving in the eye's of these terrorists because we aren't Muslims and they are armed with clear cut passages from the Koran which encourages the perpetration of violence against non-Muslims. It is the basic and most simple reason why Islam is not compatible with the west and why minorities in Muslim majority countries are treated like shit.
@georgeeaton: Ed Miliband says he doesn't regret decision to oppose intervention in Syria during Last Leg appearance.
Cannot face up to one of his more shameful episodes. Not the failure to intervene - that, if sincerely held, is a position that is defendable. But pretending that his actions around that time were based around a desire to oppose intervention in general, rather than a political argument about when and how. Presenting as a principled anti-interventionist stance, when the stance was much more complicated than that.
And reneging on a commitment to the PM. That was unforgivable in a matter as grave as this.
If (like Ken Clark, and some Labour MPs) he had weighed up the risks and decided that on balance the risks of action outweighed the risks of inaction, that would have been fine. But it was nothing like that, it was pure moral weakness.
There may be disagreement about whether there was such a commitment. But given the amendment we know Ed M was in favour of intervention of some kind in principle, but since it failed and the government motion failed, he has pretended that he was against any intervention.
@georgeeaton: Ed Miliband says he doesn't regret decision to oppose intervention in Syria during Last Leg appearance.
Cannot face up to one of his more shameful episodes. Not the failure to intervene - that, if sincerely held, is a position that is defendable. But pretending that his actions around that time were based around a desire to oppose intervention in general, rather than a political argument about when and how. Presenting as a principled anti-interventionist stance, when the stance was much more complicated than that.
And reneging on a commitment to the PM. That was unforgivable in a matter as grave as this.
If (like Ken Clark, and some Labour MPs) he had weighed up the risks and decided that on balance the risks of action outweighed the risks of inaction, that would have been fine. But it was nothing like that, it was pure moral weakness.
There may be disagreement about whether there was such a commitment. But given the amendment we know Ed M was in favour of intervention of some kind in principle, but since it failed and the government motion failed, he has pretended that he was against any intervention.
Exactly, Miliband's position was completely untenable and transparently dishonest. With the one exception of Blair's dodgy dossier, I can't think of anything as disgraceful in UK parliamentary politics in the 50 years* I've been following politics
Perhaps Jolyon Maugham's action in the Irish courts might actually strengthen Theresa May's hand by introducing some useful legal uncertainty.
Didn't we have a big discussion on here about whether or not A50 revocation could be used to extend the process in exactly the way described? Seem to recall Scott_P being adamant it was not possible
Didn't we have a big discussion on here about whether or not A50 revocation could be used to extend the process in exactly the way described? Seem to recall Scott_P being adamant it was not possible
Indeed, and it probably isn't possible. It certainly requires a fairly heroic parsing of the Lisbon Treaty. But IANAL, and it would be sufficient to sow a little doubt in the minds of our EU friends to act as a useful discouragement against being too absurd in their demands. That article is interesting because it suggests that Michel Barnier at least does have a smidgen of doubt - otherwise why mention it?
That's curious. Le Pen suffers a heavier defeat against Melenchon than against the other candidates.
Yeah, that's not plausible.
Probably is plausible in that if Melenchon is eliminated, Le Pen probably gets a fair amount of support from Melenchons supporters in the second round. As HYUFD said earlier, they fish in the same pool
Probably is plausible in that if Melenchon is eliminated, Le Pen probably gets a fair amount of support from Melenchons supporters in the second round. As HYUFD said earlier, they fish in the same pool
They fish in the same pool to some extent, but a chunk (I'd suggest quite a large chunk) of Mélenchon's support is more like our very own Corbynistas, who would be absolutely horrified by the idea of supporting Le Pen.
Probably is plausible in that if Melenchon is eliminated, Le Pen probably gets a fair amount of support from Melenchons supporters in the second round. As HYUFD said earlier, they fish in the same pool
They fish in the same pool to some extent, but a chunk (I'd suggest quite a large chunk) of Mélenchon's support is more like our very own Corbynistas, who would be absolutely horrified by the idea of supporting Le Pen.
Yes, on looking at it a little more closely and ignoring the opinion that they fish in the same pool, it would seem that only 12% of Melenchon's support would go to Le Pen in the second round if she were up against Macron, who would get 53% of his support with the rest abstaining, according to today's ifop poll.
I think Melenchon would beat Le Pen quite easily in a head to head, but not the 68-32 that poll shows, although that poll was taken before Melenchon surge this week.
That's curious. Le Pen suffers a heavier defeat against Melenchon than against the other candidates.
It depends on the poll, a February poll had Melenchon beating her by a much closer 54% to 46%, the same margin he beat Fillon, Macron beat Le Pen 65% to 35% in that poll. Melenchon won almost 90% of Hamon voters and over 70% of Macron voters but Le Pen won 70% of Fillon voters
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
Hard to see the logic, really. The Tories campaigned for Remain; if his beef is that they made a pretty poor fist of it, the same is true of the Lib Dems.
Let me hazard a couple of guesses: despite being on cocktail party terms with his Tory MP, he did not ring up the MP pre-referendum and offer his services to campaign for a Remain vote, and despite sounding a well-heeled sort of chap he did not write out a cheque for, ooh, £25000 or £50000 to the Remain campaign.
But he is still JOLLY ANGRY.
The Tories neither campaigned for leave or remain. The party was 100% neutral. No resources officially or unofficially were used to influence the outcome.
Probably is plausible in that if Melenchon is eliminated, Le Pen probably gets a fair amount of support from Melenchons supporters in the second round. As HYUFD said earlier, they fish in the same pool
They fish in the same pool to some extent, but a chunk (I'd suggest quite a large chunk) of Mélenchon's support is more like our very own Corbynistas, who would be absolutely horrified by the idea of supporting Le Pen.
Yes, on looking at it a little more closely and ignoring the opinion that they fish in the same pool, it would seem that only 12% of Melenchon's support would go to Le Pen in the second round if she were up against Macron, who would get 53% of his support with the rest abstaining, according to today's ifop poll.
I think Melenchon would beat Le Pen quite easily in a head to head, but not the 68-32 that poll shows, although that poll was taken before Melenchon surge this week.
Le Pen gets more support from Melenchon voters than she does from Hamon voters certainly against Macron and in such a scenario 47% of Melenchon supporters are not yet committing to vote for Macron.
Is there actually any evidence that links leaflets stuck through letter boxes to increased vote share? We had a leaflet from the Lib Dems yesterday and its transition from letter box to recycling bin was seamless, ditto one today from some other party. Pavement pounding and leafleting strikes me as being a waste of time and paper.
How else would a minority political party get its message across to the electors?
The LibDems need only recapture a handful of the seats they lost to the Tories at GE 2015, which doesn't appear too demanding on recent polling evidence, coupled with Labour not losing any more seats to the Tories at GE 2020 which appears likely if only as a PHEW! relief reaction to a new credible leader being appointed as their leader before then, which will surely be the case and then hey presto, as if by magic, the Tories are certain to lose their very slim overall majority and yet those nice folk at Betfair Exchange (and indeed others) will offer you odds of 2/1 against such an eventuality. That looks like a gimme to me and I've wagered hundreds on such an outcome, but as ever DYOR.
Probably is plausible in that if Melenchon is eliminated, Le Pen probably gets a fair amount of support from Melenchons supporters in the second round. As HYUFD said earlier, they fish in the same pool
They fish in the same pool to some extent, but a chunk (I'd suggest quite a large chunk) of Mélenchon's support is more like our very own Corbynistas, who would be absolutely horrified by the idea of supporting Le Pen.
Yes, on looking at it a little more closely and ignoring the opinion that they fish in the same pool, it would seem that only 12% of Melenchon's support would go to Le Pen in the second round if she were up against Macron, who would get 53% of his support with the rest abstaining, according to today's ifop poll.
I think Melenchon would beat Le Pen quite easily in a head to head, but not the 68-32 that poll shows, although that poll was taken before Melenchon surge this week.
Le Pen gets more support from Melenchon voters than she does from Hamon voters certainly against Macron and in such a scenario 47% of Melenchon supporters are not yet committing to vote for Macron.
Conversely, you could say that 88% of Melenchon supporters are not yet commiting to vote for Le Pen!
Probably is plausible in that if Melenchon is eliminated, Le Pen probably gets a fair amount of support from Melenchons supporters in the second round. As HYUFD said earlier, they fish in the same pool
They fish in the same pool to some extent, but a chunk (I'd suggest quite a large chunk) of Mélenchon's support is more like our very own Corbynistas, who would be absolutely horrified by the idea of supporting Le Pen.
Yes, on looking at it a little more closely and ignoring the opinion that they fish in the same pool, it would seem that only 12% of Melenchon's support would go to Le Pen in the second round if she were up against Macron, who would get 53% of his support with the rest abstaining, according to today's ifop poll.
I think Melenchon would beat Le Pen quite easily in a head to head, but not the 68-32 that poll shows, although that poll was taken before Melenchon surge this week.
Le Pen gets more support from Melenchon voters than she does from Hamon voters certainly against Macron and in such a scenario 47% of Melenchon supporters are not yet committing to vote for Macron.
Conversely, you could say that 88% of Melenchon supporters are not yet commiting to vote for Le Pen!
True though after Melenchon and Le Pen both opposed the US strikes today while Macron supported them I expect the number of Melenchon voters not voting for Le Pen in the runoff to fall a little in the next poll
The Economist have built a French Presidential election model: polls-only.
Our model finds there is a 15% probability that run-off will not wind up being one of those two possibilities [Le Pen v Macron/Fillon], and we have no polling data to predict what might happen in such a situation. For the sake of argument, however, if we temporarily ignore the risk of a run-off pairing that has not been polled, Mr Macron would currently have a 84% chance of victory, Mr Fillon 14% and Ms Le Pen 2%.
The Russians know more about the precise details of that chemical weapons attack than theyd like to let on that takes us well beyond just a 'didnt happen' denial.
For starters, was it regular Sarin?
You don't say, come out of the closet Tapestry all is forgiven.
Variations on original formulations are not unusual.
What we do know is that the bombed airbase had some very interesting containers
The Economist have built a French Presidential election model: polls-only.
Our model finds there is a 15% probability that run-off will not wind up being one of those two possibilities [Le Pen v Macron/Fillon], and we have no polling data to predict what might happen in such a situation. For the sake of argument, however, if we temporarily ignore the risk of a run-off pairing that has not been polled, Mr Macron would currently have a 84% chance of victory, Mr Fillon 14% and Ms Le Pen 2%.
The Economist have built a French Presidential election model: polls-only.
Our model finds there is a 15% probability that run-off will not wind up being one of those two possibilities [Le Pen v Macron/Fillon], and we have no polling data to predict what might happen in such a situation. For the sake of argument, however, if we temporarily ignore the risk of a run-off pairing that has not been polled, Mr Macron would currently have a 84% chance of victory, Mr Fillon 14% and Ms Le Pen 2%.
"We start with our estimates for each candidate: currently around 25% for Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron, 18% for Mr Fillon, 16% for Mr Mélenchon "
However, their calculations would be thrown totally off course if they were to base them on the latest BVA poll this evening which gives Le Pen and Macron 23% and Melenchon and Fillon 19%
The Economist have built a French Presidential election model: polls-only.
Our model finds there is a 15% probability that run-off will not wind up being one of those two possibilities [Le Pen v Macron/Fillon], and we have no polling data to predict what might happen in such a situation. For the sake of argument, however, if we temporarily ignore the risk of a run-off pairing that has not been polled, Mr Macron would currently have a 84% chance of victory, Mr Fillon 14% and Ms Le Pen 2%.
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
Me too. I was a habitual Conservative voter for decades. After Brexit I will vote for whatever candidate is most likely to prevent a Conservative win. Even if that's "Corbyn's Labour".
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
Me too. I was a habitual Conservative voter for decades. After Brexit I will vote for whatever candidate is most likely to prevent a Conservative win. Even if that's "Corbyn's Labour".
May is doing worse with ABs relative to Cameron but significantly better with C1s and C2s and marginally better with DEs
The Economist have built a French Presidential election model: polls-only.
Our model finds there is a 15% probability that run-off will not wind up being one of those two possibilities [Le Pen v Macron/Fillon], and we have no polling data to predict what might happen in such a situation. For the sake of argument, however, if we temporarily ignore the risk of a run-off pairing that has not been polled, Mr Macron would currently have a 84% chance of victory, Mr Fillon 14% and Ms Le Pen 2%.
"We start with our estimates for each candidate: currently around 25% for Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron, 18% for Mr Fillon, 16% for Mr Mélenchon "
However, their calculations would be thrown totally off course if they were to base them on the latest BVA poll this evening which gives Le Pen and Macron 23% and Melenchon and Fillon 19%
Amongst the over 35s IFOP has it Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 22% Melenchon 15% and Hamon 8% and amongst the over 65s Fillon 38% Macron 24% Le Pen 15% Melenchon 9% Hamon 6%. As older voters are much more likely to vote as recent elections and referendums confirm I expect it to be much tighter than the headline polls suggest as to which of Fillon or Macron faces Le Pen in the runoff http://dataviz.ifop.com:8080/IFOP_ROLLING/IFOP_07-04-2017.pdf
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
Me too. I was a habitual Conservative voter for decades. After Brexit I will vote for whatever candidate is most likely to prevent a Conservative win. Even if that's "Corbyn's Labour".
May is doing worse with ABs relative to Cameron but significantly better with C1s and C2s and marginally better with DEs
This is why TM would be smart to nick Corbyns VAT on private school fees policy for her JAM sandwich. Pick a fight with the top 15% and do it on her own turf.
I think she's too weak without her own mandate, though.
I don't understand...why are the Swedish media pixelating out the (suspected) terrorist in the photos of his arrest...when the authorities have already released pictures of him?
They show the faces of victims and special force police but not the suspect.
Not sure the graph makes your point. I had a good look at the GDP figure comparisons between Scotland and UK back to 2007.
1) If they are affected by who is First Minister then Salmond must be a wizard since during his term of office Scotland outgrew the UK both in absolute terms but also crucially on the better measure of GDP per capita. This was for just about the first time for a sustained period since the second world war.
2)If you extract the South East and London from the figures Scotland outgrew the rest of UK during the Salmond years by some 50 per cent.
3) In the run up to the 2014 referendum Scotland outgrew the UK by a measurable distance belying the suggestion from Carlotta/Tory research dept/George Osborne that the prospect of indy was putting off investment. Indeed the opposite seemed to be the case.
4) The recent flatlining of Scottish growth is explained by the 100,00 job losses in the biggest industry since the Scottish GDP figures don't measure output offshore (which has been going up) but activity onshore which has been going down,. This affects not just the narrow measurement of oil and gas and mineral extraction in the output tables but services, construction and engineering.
5) Imagine where the UK output would be if it had lost 1 million jobs which is the equivalent in its biggest industry.
Lastly the more recent employment figures are much better pointing to a recovery this year and despite the above unemployment in Scotland is not back to the UK average and employment only 1 per cent below. That points to a great deal of resilience in the Scottish economy.
Thus when the GDP figures turn positive (as they will in the first quarter of 2017) then no doubt Carlotta/Tory research dept will allocate Nicola Sturgeon the credit - just as they previously lavished praise on Mr Salmond!
The Economist have built a French Presidential election model: polls-only.
Our model finds there is a 15% probability that run-off will not wind up being one of those two possibilities [Le Pen v Macron/Fillon], and we have no polling data to predict what might happen in such a situation. For the sake of argument, however, if we temporarily ignore the risk of a run-off pairing that has not been polled, Mr Macron would currently have a 84% chance of victory, Mr Fillon 14% and Ms Le Pen 2%.
"A great deal of resilience in the Scottish economy"?
Looks like GDP has been flatlining for two years. And really, if I took out the two best performing Scottish regions I could make the disparity even bigger!
The funniest claim from the SNP rebuttal department (not Scotslass - not a good European, evidently, with all that cherry-picking!) was the claim that a lenders requirement that an Aberdeen City Council bond be repaid immediately in the event of independence was somehow the work of the borrower........
5. A striking feature of the data today was the lack of any growth in the all-important services sector in the final quarter of 2016. Given the importance of this sector to the health of the overall economy, this is a real worry. However, on an annual basis, this sector did grow by +1.6% (or +1.8% on a 4Q-on-4Q basis) in 2016. Nevertheless, the Scottish services sector has been lagging way behind the equivalent UK sector-illustrated in the chart below. This matters because, given its sheer scale, this is actually the biggest driver of the relative gap in performance between the UK and Scottish economies.
6. Performance in the Scottish manufacturing sector has also been poor, with output shrinking by -0.9% at the end of 2016; and the sector contracting by -4.6% over the year. Worryingly, all parts of the manufacturing sector declined during 2016. The Food & Drink sector, for instance, shrank by -6.6% over the year, with a similar decline (-6.3%) in the Metals, Metal Products & Machinery sector.
Exactly, Miliband's position was completely untenable and transparently dishonest. With the one exception of Blair's dodgy dossier, I can't think of anything as disgraceful in UK parliamentary politics in the 50 years* I've been following politics
* (I was a precocious child!)
David Cameron failed to make the case for intervention and then blamed Milliband for it. The vote was lost because he didn't have much support for it amongst his own MPs, reflecting a wider opposition amongst the public.
Top marks to Private Eye again. They've been saying for years what a scandal it is.
The extraordinary thing is, even the artist's impression looks ugly. Imagine what it would be like in reality.
I think it looks neat. But no way should so much public money have been spent on something just to look neat.
The phrase "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend" springs to mind. As for the cost, isn't David Cameron at risk of being surcharged for it? Established financial procedures were ignored. It can't be acceptable for a PM to overrule civil service advice without a credible justification. He wasn't above the law then and he certainly isn't now.
Not sure where you get that from: the report doesn't mention 'Cameron' or 'PM' once. Boris Johnson, on the other hand, has a fair few mentions; few of them complimentary.
Cameron was mentioned in a news report from October:
' David Cameron personally intervened to approve extra taxpayer funding for London's controversial Garden Bridge project, it has emerged.
The former prime minister did so against advice from officials, an investigation by the National Audit Office (NAO) found.
The NAO said nearly £23m of taxpayer money was now at risk of being lost.
Transport Minister Lord Ahmad said the government remained supportive of the project.
London mayor Sadiq Khan has ordered a full review of the proposals for the Thames river crossing.
The Whitehall spending watchdog said government ministers ignored the advice of civil servants on at least two occasions not to extend funding to the Garden Bridge Trust.
On the second occasion that they did so Conservative party chairman Sir Patrick McLoughlin, who was then transport secretary, issued a formal ministerial direction to civil servants requiring them to extend the taxpayers' exposure and underwrite liabilities of £15m if the project did not go ahead.
That ministerial direction was issued after cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood wrote to the Department for Transport (DfT) expressing the "frustration" of Mr Cameron and then chancellor George Osborne at perceived hold-ups to the funding. '
Syria is repeatedly using chemical weapons, which have been banned by convention for many decades. Worse, he's using them against civilians. The international community (via the UN) is doing f'all about it.
This is important. One of the reasons countries like Syria felt able to develop such weapons was because of the west's craven attitude towards Saddam's use of them in the 1980s. They are cheaper and easier to develop than weaponised nukes (except for some biological weapons), and can be very effective in area denial. If you're a sh*t like Assad and there are not going to be any penalties for having chemical weapons, why not have them?
From a purely selfish point of view, the more states that have chemical weapons, the more likely they are to be used against us. Precedents are being set.
Incidentally, it also makes a joke of Security Council resolution 2118
It was not just a craven attitude by the West it was complicity on a grand scale. Saddam was 'our man' against those nasty Iranians. As such we were quite content to let him kill tens of thousands of Iranians and Kurds with chemical weapons used on dozens of occasions on a massive scale. The US even went so far as to try to pretend that it was the Iranians who used the weapons at Halabja not the Iraqis. Of course as soon as Saddam stopped being 'our man' then we started on the campaign about what a wicked person he was to have used chemical weapons. Now we do the same with Syria because Assad is a bad man and not one of ours. The hypocrisy is sickening.
Well, indeed. But Assad, like Saddam, is a bad man. We should not ignore his actions just because we made a wrong, immoral decision in the past.
Comments
My thinking is a bit more broad, as in how good quality was it, was it the only chemical weapon used. What we do know is that the bombed airbase had some very interesting containers and I doubt very much the Russians didn't know about it given they are an important part of the running of that base. I suppose they could be large volumes of jet fighter washing fluid.
I'd expect Macron to win that particular bout handily though
Le Pen 24.5%
Macron 23.5%
Fillon 18.5%
Melenchon 17%
Hamon 9.5%
Dupont-Aignan 4.5%
http://dataviz.ifop.com:8080/IFOP_ROLLING/IFOP_07-04-2017.pdf
If (like Ken Clark, and some Labour MPs) he had weighed up the risks and decided that on balance the risks of action outweighed the risks of inaction, that would have been fine. But it was nothing like that, it was pure moral weakness.
https://twitter.com/lucympowell/status/850461226635329536
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/850462919896829953
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
* (I was a precocious child!)
https://youtu.be/pVevIuIRuok
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/07/michel-barnier-eu-red-line-theresa-may-article-50-brussels
Perhaps Jolyon Maugham's action in the Irish courts might actually strengthen Theresa May's hand by introducing some useful legal uncertainty.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BO6GP9NMY
I think Melenchon would beat Le Pen quite easily in a head to head, but not the 68-32 that poll shows, although that poll was taken before Melenchon surge this week.
http://www.lalibre.be/actu/international/sondage-dedicated-emmanuel-macron-president-de-la-republique-58aa982fcd703b981556229b
That looks like a gimme to me and I've wagered hundreds on such an outcome, but as ever DYOR.
Our model finds there is a 15% probability that run-off will not wind up being one of those two possibilities [Le Pen v Macron/Fillon], and we have no polling data to predict what might happen in such a situation. For the sake of argument, however, if we temporarily ignore the risk of a run-off pairing that has not been polled, Mr Macron would currently have a 84% chance of victory, Mr Fillon 14% and Ms Le Pen 2%.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/election-forecasting?fsrc=scn/tw/once
However, their calculations would be thrown totally off course if they were to base them on the latest BVA poll this evening which gives Le Pen and Macron 23% and Melenchon and Fillon 19%
https://twitter.com/UK__News/status/849619726196244480
Sweden truck attack suspect 'is 39-year-old from Uzbekistan who posted jihadist propaganda'
https://twitter.com/Shona_Angus/status/850387351180369920
http://dataviz.ifop.com:8080/IFOP_ROLLING/IFOP_07-04-2017.pdf
I think she's too weak without her own mandate, though.
And from Sep 2016: the National Front offered to help Mélenchon get the 500 nominations required for candidacy in the election.
I don't understand...why are the Swedish media pixelating out the (suspected) terrorist in the photos of his arrest...when the authorities have already released pictures of him?
They show the faces of victims and special force police but not the suspect.
Is this some legal thing in Sweden?
Not sure the graph makes your point. I had a good look at the GDP figure comparisons between Scotland and UK back to 2007.
1) If they are affected by who is First Minister then Salmond must be a wizard since during his term of office Scotland outgrew the UK both in absolute terms but also crucially on the better measure of GDP per capita. This was for just about the first time for a sustained period since the second world war.
2)If you extract the South East and London from the figures Scotland outgrew the rest of UK during the Salmond years by some 50 per cent.
3) In the run up to the 2014 referendum Scotland outgrew the UK by a measurable distance belying the suggestion from Carlotta/Tory research dept/George Osborne that the prospect of indy was putting off investment. Indeed the opposite seemed to be the case.
4) The recent flatlining of Scottish growth is explained by the 100,00 job losses in the biggest industry since the Scottish GDP figures don't measure output offshore (which has been going up) but activity onshore which has been going down,. This affects not just the narrow measurement of oil and gas and mineral extraction in the output tables but services, construction and engineering.
5) Imagine where the UK output would be if it had lost 1 million jobs which is the equivalent in its biggest industry.
Lastly the more recent employment figures are much better pointing to a recovery this year and despite the above unemployment in Scotland is not back to the UK average and employment only 1 per cent below. That points to a great deal of resilience in the Scottish economy.
Thus when the GDP figures turn positive (as they will in the first quarter of 2017) then no doubt Carlotta/Tory research dept will allocate Nicola Sturgeon the credit - just as they previously lavished praise on Mr Salmond!
"A great deal of resilience in the Scottish economy"?
Looks like GDP has been flatlining for two years. And really, if I took out the two best performing Scottish regions I could make the disparity even bigger!
Donald Trump 'considering sacking Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus' as simmering West Wing feud engulfs White House
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/donald-trump-considering-sacking-steve-bannon-reince-priebus/
It certainly doesn't make the SNP's point that 'its all Brexit fault' as that would affect the UK too.
Any additional uncertainty in Scotland you can think of?
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/04/05/khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack-evidence-far/
5. A striking feature of the data today was the lack of any growth in the all-important services sector in the final quarter of 2016. Given the importance of this sector to the health of the overall economy, this is a real worry. However, on an annual basis, this sector did grow by +1.6% (or +1.8% on a 4Q-on-4Q basis) in 2016. Nevertheless, the Scottish services sector has been lagging way behind the equivalent UK sector-illustrated in the chart below. This matters because, given its sheer scale, this is actually the biggest driver of the relative gap in performance between the UK and Scottish economies.
6. Performance in the Scottish manufacturing sector has also been poor, with output shrinking by -0.9% at the end of 2016; and the sector contracting by -4.6% over the year. Worryingly, all parts of the manufacturing sector declined during 2016. The Food & Drink sector, for instance, shrank by -6.6% over the year, with a similar decline (-6.3%) in the Metals, Metal Products & Machinery sector.
https://fraserofallander.org/2017/04/05/7-bullet-points-on-the-gdp-data-released-today/