politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » GE2017 sees a changed political geography with 3 new regions

SquareRoot said:

There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.

Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.

40 years of quotes says otherwise...now with a few weeks to a GE he has had a road to Damascus conversion...about as believable as him supporting Remain in the Brexit vote.

Ishmael_Z said:

https://twitter.com/BBCVickiYoung/status/863006650239778816/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2017-39876374
Interesting mirror-image positions: TMay tries to hide existence of Conservative Party while Labour Party tries to hide existence of JCorbyn.

I had to look twice there, for a moment I though the bus had the slogan "Theresa May: For Remain"

F1: just checking second practice times, the gap's only 0.3s. Handy, but not a season-definer, if accurate.

Red Bull are narrowing the gap too.

paulyork64 said:

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

Given current events in the US, here's hoping that HMG finds ways of postponing/cancelling its state invite to Trump.

No !

I have backed this with Hills.

They best not.

I backed him to make his first state visit to canada. regretting it now tho. doesn't look like he wants to go anywhere.

He might fail the Extreme Vetting procedure on his return.

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.

Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.

Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.

It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?

That was a long long time ago for heaven's sake. When most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead, who cares? If someone tells me the Mail is a hotbed of extremist and offensive nonsense, that's relevant, but because is supported Osward Mosley? What does that have to do with anything today?

Surely they will ALL be dead. If we assume they must have been at least 25 to be making editorial decisions in the early 30s they would have to have been born before 1910 - round up all the 107 yr olds who once worked for the Daily Mail.

HurstLlama said:

In recent years, back into the enlightened days of the the last Labour government, there has been an attempt to get those who should not be registered as unfit for work back into the workforce; to unwind the inequities of the Thatcher years. This has, recently, been portrayed as the wicked Tories etc. etc. Boo, Hiss.

I think this is a bit of a misinterpretation of recent events.

There's no general objection from most opponents of the recent changes to the principle of people who are fit to work being deemed fit to work.

What appears to have happened is that contractors were brought in who were incentivised (or even required) to get a certain number off the list, and this was set up in a way that wholly outweighed the incentive to make the correct decision in the particular case.

Hence people who were properly eligible for sickness benefits; who were suffering and in many cases vulnerable, were cut from the list and sent all manner of threatening and worrying mail by - frankly - spivs who benefited directly from being as savage as possible whether justified or not. Any spurious excuse was used by too many assessors with little or no concern for the individual.

It is possible in politics to have the right policy objective but pursue it in an incompetent, cruel way.

@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.

Anorak said:

Ishmael_Z said:

https://twitter.com/BBCVickiYoung/status/863006650239778816/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2017-39876374
Interesting mirror-image positions: TMay tries to hide existence of Conservative Party while Labour Party tries to hide existence of JCorbyn.

I had to look twice there, for a moment I though the bus had the slogan "Theresa May: For Remain"

It may as well.

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.

Its clear Corbyn ain't going nowhere....

paulyork64 said:

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

Given current events in the US, here's hoping that HMG finds ways of postponing/cancelling its state invite to Trump.

No !

I have backed this with Hills.

They best not.

I backed him to make his first state visit to canada. regretting it now tho. doesn't look like he wants to go anywhere.

Listening to my son's views here in Vancouver it is unlikely Trump will be welcomed having put tariffs on lumber and talks of retaliation from Canada in the start of a trade war

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.

Sub 20%? Anyone care to baxter that?

Highly doubtful Labour will drop that low with UKIP's implosion in my opinion.

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.

Hate to think how many Labour seats would be lost on that figure. Safe to say he’s staying on

SquareRoot said:

There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.

Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.

Apparently, Mr Corbyn himself believes that he is not a pacifist, Mr Root. We should send help immediately.

F1: Bottas only 3.25 to win.

Markets clearly think Mercedes are in the driving seat. I do wonder if it's an over-reaction. Be nice if it were, as there'd be tasty value elsewhere.

Also, check the forecast before betting on qualifying. Early forecast (just doing the first bit of the pre-qualifying article now) is that showers/storms are possible for qualifying.

Pulpstar said:

SimonStClare said:

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.

Hate to think how many Labour seats would be lost on that figure. Safe to say he’s staying on

They'd still have seats in Central London and Liverpool, that'd probably be about it though.

SNP Official Opposition?

RobD said:

Anorak said:

justin124 said:

Disraeli said:

Why did you leave in 1996?
For me an electable Social Democratic Reformist party (without the taint of left-wing lunacy) and a credible opposition to the Tories was very attractive.

I had already seen through Blair - and later came to despise him more than Thatcher. She was never a war criminal whatever other criticisms that might be made of her

Tell that to the poor souls on the General Belgrano
/troll

I'm wondering what May did to deserve a polonium pill, given the apparent high bar!

Was that before or after the complications from Type 1 diabetes? One loses track...

Large scale cyberattack against several UK hospitals underway.

Very bad news

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.

Any odds on SDP2 forming by the end of this year?

They've got one shot to get everyone behind a sensible but heavyweight challenger, from whoever is left after the election. If the membership persist in backing the guy who just got smashed at an election, then those who wish to form a future government will need to find a different vehicle to do it.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

paulyork64 said:

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

Given current events in the US, here's hoping that HMG finds ways of postponing/cancelling its state invite to Trump.

No !

I have backed this with Hills.

They best not.

I backed him to make his first state visit to canada. regretting it now tho. doesn't look like he wants to go anywhere.

Listening to my son's views here in Vancouver it is unlikely Trump will be welcomed having put tariffs on lumber and talks of retaliation from Canada in the start of a trade war

no he's isn't doing a great job of making friends anywhere it seems, even at home. I reckon Japan might be his first port of call now. he has at least stood by them on the North Korean business and I'm not sure they're the egg-throwing types he probably wants to avoid.

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: Bottas only 3.25 to win.

Markets clearly think Mercedes are in the driving seat. I do wonder if it's an over-reaction. Be nice if it were, as there'd be tasty value elsewhere.

Also, check the forecast before betting on qualifying. Early forecast (just doing the first bit of the pre-qualifying article now) is that showers/storms are possible for qualifying.

Yes, I just saw the weather forecast. Might hold off the Q bets until after P3, really no point betting on a lottery.

Scott_P said:

Large scale cyberattack against several UK hospitals underway.

Very bad news

Get the minister for peace on the phone

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.

Its clear Corbyn ain't going nowhere....

It's clear his spinners want to create that impression. However:

1. It'll look different on June 9.
2. If he tries to stay on, it'd be the best thing he could do for Labour. The legitimacy that would come from him being defeated openly would be useful, and his candidacy would ensure that the next leader would come from Labour's mainstream.

bobajobPB said:

The Trumper really is an absolute tool.

Do any of the large PB Trumpton community still support this clown?

The animals looked from Dick to Don etc.

https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/863037186568073217

Corbyn is not going to say he will resign, even if he is planning to or wants to.
Same as Cameron in the run up to tge EU referendum.
Fairly simple political logic, or seems like it to me.
Thought I would log in to point this out.

Theuniondivvie said:

bobajobPB said:

The Trumper really is an absolute tool.

Do any of the large PB Trumpton community still support this clown?

The animals looked from Dick to Don etc.

https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/863037186568073217

Of course it was the tapes what done for him. The tapes and the little white lie.

bobajobPB said:

The Trumper really is an absolute tool.

Do any of the large PB Trumpton community still support this clown?

He's brillaint

you still dont get you are taking part in the biggest reality TV programme on the planet

F1: especially galling Mercedes have taken a step forward, because Raikkonen's been faster than Vettel in both sessions and if the Ferrari had stayed level/just ahead of the Mercedes he could've been on for a win (or top 2, certainly).

logical_song said:

Ishmael_Z said:

https://twitter.com/BBCVickiYoung/status/863006650239778816/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2017-39876374

Interesting mirror-image positions: TMay tries to hide existence of Conservative Party while Labour Party tries to hide existence of JCorbyn.

Shame someone's made an ugly scratch on the nice new bus.

I want to see more trains used by political parties

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.

If that isn't an incentive from Mr Corbyn to vote against his party, what is?

Prodicus said:

SquareRoot said:

There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.

Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.

Apparently, Mr Corbyn himself believes that he is not a pacifist, Mr Root. We should send help immediately.

It does, in fairness, depend on how one defines pacifism.

On one perfectly fair definition, it's an opposition to any pursuit of war, even in self defence. My reading of Corbyn's position is that he's not a pacifist by that measure - he would mobilise the armed forces in the event of enemy ships shelling Budleigh Salterton... which must be a tremendous comfort to the people of that town.

But it's very easy to get tied up in the semantics. However one defines pacifism, the question is whether he'd do anything at all to defend people, or British interests, overseas. He doesn't seem to have come up with a single example where he would. In Kosovo? In Sierra Leone? Or in an attempt to stop flagrant and ongoing use of chemical weapons on civilian populations?

There are a few areas where I have some sympathy for Corbyn, but his approach on this is woeful. He's had 30 years plus to think about this, and the sum total of his philosophy is "war is a terrible thing". That's a slogan, not a policy, or a strategy, or even a complete argument (a premise without a conclusion).

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: Former Corbyn aide Harry Fletcher tells @Emmabarnett that Corbyn doesn't plan to resign unless his #GE2017 vote share drop below 20%.

Sensible - it looks like they'll be closer to 30 in any case, but no harm in playing it safe.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Prodicus said:

SquareRoot said:

There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.

Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.

Apparently, Mr Corbyn himself believes that he is not a pacifist, Mr Root. We should send help immediately.

It does, in fairness, depend on how one defines pacifism.

On one perfectly fair definition, it's an opposition to any pursuit of war, even in self defence. My reading of Corbyn's position is that he's not a pacifist by that measure - he would mobilise the armed forces in the event of enemy ships shelling Budleigh Salterton... which must be a tremendous comfort to the people of that town.

But it's very easy to get tied up in the semantics. However one defines pacifism, the question is whether he'd do anything at all to defend people, or British interests, overseas. He doesn't seem to have come up with a single example where he would. In Kosovo? In Sierra Leone? Or in an attempt to stop flagrant and ongoing use of chemical weapons on civilian populations?

There are a few areas where I have some sympathy for Corbyn, but his approach on this is woeful. He's had 30 years plus to think about this, and the sum total of his philosophy is "war is a terrible thing". That's a slogan, not a policy, or a strategy, or even a complete argument (a premise without a conclusion).

Corbyn never thought war was a terrible thing when it was the IRA waging it.

Sandpit said:

MikeL said:

Sandpit said:

UKIP candidates up past half the seats - total now 332
List: https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/numbers/election/parl.2017-06-08/parties
Spreadsheet: https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/media/candidates-parl.2017-06-08.csv

Con + Unionist party listed twice - 622 + 7 = 629. Surely should be 631 (650-18-Speaker).

LDs - 620 - are they standing down in 12 seats?

Lab 580 + Co-Op 50 = 630.

The second "Conservative and Unionist Party" is in Northern Ireland.

AIUI the other one should end up on 631, so still nine seats to go. Outside NI they'll contest every seat except Buckingham - unless someone screwed up the paperwork.

Labour and Co-Op should be pretty much every seat outside NI too, I think the LDs have made a couple of tactical non-standing seats by arrangement with the Greens.

Ah OK - thanks.

FF43 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The animals looked from Dick to Don etc.

https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/863037186568073217

I'm guessing Trump's tweet was a joke?

I don't think so.

I mean it may not be true that he's secretly recorded conversations with Comey. But he certainly wants Comey to believe that Trump can and will respond in kind if Comey goes to the media about anything. It wasn't in any way a lighthearted or throwaway remark.

Jason said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Prodicus said:

SquareRoot said:

There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.

Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.

Apparently, Mr Corbyn himself believes that he is not a pacifist, Mr Root. We should send help immediately.

It does, in fairness, depend on how one defines pacifism.

On one perfectly fair definition, it's an opposition to any pursuit of war, even in self defence. My reading of Corbyn's position is that he's not a pacifist by that measure - he would mobilise the armed forces in the event of enemy ships shelling Budleigh Salterton... which must be a tremendous comfort to the people of that town.

But it's very easy to get tied up in the semantics. However one defines pacifism, the question is whether he'd do anything at all to defend people, or British interests, overseas. He doesn't seem to have come up with a single example where he would. In Kosovo? In Sierra Leone? Or in an attempt to stop flagrant and ongoing use of chemical weapons on civilian populations?

There are a few areas where I have some sympathy for Corbyn, but his approach on this is woeful. He's had 30 years plus to think about this, and the sum total of his philosophy is "war is a terrible thing". That's a slogan, not a policy, or a strategy, or even a complete argument (a premise without a conclusion).

Corbyn never thought war was a terrible thing when it was the IRA waging it.

Meet the 'Men of Peace"

kle4 said:

Cookie said:

On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399

The guy, and all LDs who backed him, should just join Labour - its odd that a LD of all people should be concerned with the idea of a vote for him being wasted, as if people who stand for the LDs usually think they are imminently to be in government or something. If defeating the Tories is the only thing that matters, you vote Labour or SNP if in Scotland.

I commented on this elsewhere. He has a right to stand in the seat if he gets the nominations and if he then chooses to do nothing and lose his deposit, that's also his right.

It's also my right as a LD voter to either vote LD even if that vote is "wasted" apart from counting toward the Party's national tally or to vote tactically. The LD candidate shouldn't advise or condone tactical voting - if his inactivity is viewed as a signal for potential LD voters to vote tactically that's an interpretation.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

I want to see more trains used by political parties

Theresa needs to borrow that cool armoured one from Tomorrow Never Dies Goldeneye.
https://cinetrains.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/my-name-is-bond-james-bond-british-rail-class-20-in-goldeneye/

Mr. Anorak, Goldeneye, surely?

stodge said:

kle4 said:

Cookie said:

On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399

The guy, and all LDs who backed him, should just join Labour - its odd that a LD of all people should be concerned with the idea of a vote for him being wasted, as if people who stand for the LDs usually think they are imminently to be in government or something. If defeating the Tories is the only thing that matters, you vote Labour or SNP if in Scotland.

I commented on this elsewhere. He has a right to stand in the seat if he gets the nominations and if he then chooses to do nothing and lose his deposit, that's also his right.

It's also my right as a LD voter to either vote LD even if that vote is "wasted" apart from counting toward the Party's national tally or to vote tactically. The LD candidate shouldn't advise or condone tactical voting - if his inactivity is viewed as a signal for potential LD voters to vote tactically that's an interpretation.

Can't disagree with either of you there really. But I'd also argue that when you get LDs in unwinnable seats taking this stance, under present circumstances, it harms the prospects of LDs in winnable seats. I don't think, strategically, it's very bright.

With Jeremy Corbyn in power, the LDs had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become the main party of the left - a necessary first step to being the main party of government, which is presumably a long-term ambition. I don't think it's an opportunity their grasping very cleverly.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Anorak, Goldeneye, surely?

Already corrected and referenced, Mr Smartypantaloons.

PClipp

'Tim Farron is a hundred times more impressive than most of your Tory Cabinet,'

In what way?

He comes across as a student union leader who has immatured with age.

walterw said:

PClipp

'Tim Farron is a hundred times more impressive than most of your Tory Cabinet,'

In what way?

He comes across as a student union leader who has immatured with age.

Duh, because he isn't a Tory.

Ceredigion - 7 candidates for what is usually a two horse race (Lib Dems and Plaid) even Monster Raving standing this time

Mr. Anorak, a man's pantaloons should always be smart.

Mr. Prodicus, too near Thaxted?

Is that some sort of euphemism of which I am blissfully unaware?

kle4 said:

Well I don't know how big an opportunity they had, really, but that it could harm LDs in winnable seats is I think the critical point. I want the LDs to recover and do well, I think more parties in parliament with significant numbers is important, but are they their own thing or not, is the people of Bury North suffering under a Tory a price worth paying for seeing if the LDs could improve there and one day challenge, even as a distant dream? The answer is apparently no. Which is problematic for areas where the LDs once won or came strong seconds but are currently well back. Look at the numbers and maybe people should assume a vote for them there is a wasted vote too.

There's a significant chance he could have saved his deposit with a bit of light Facebook campaigning, and urging everyone to go out and vote Liberal Democrat.
It's supposed to be the other parties that do the old squeeze message ffsake.

kle4 said:

Cookie said:

stodge said:

kle4 said:

Cookie said:

On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399

The guy, and all LDs who backed him, should just join Labour - its odd that a LD of all people should be concerned with the idea of a vote for him being wasted, as if people who stand for the LDs usually think they are imminently to be in government or something. If defeating the Tories is the only thing that matters, you vote Labour or SNP if in Scotland.

I commented on this elsewhere. He has a right to stand in the seat if he gets the nominations and if he then chooses to do nothing and lose his deposit, that's also his right.

It's also my right as a LD voter to either vote LD even if that vote is "wasted" apart from counting toward the Party's national tally or to vote tactically. The LD candidate shouldn't advise or condone tactical voting - if his inactivity is viewed as a signal for potential LD voters to vote tactically that's an interpretation.

Can't disagree with either of you there really. But I'd also argue that when you get LDs in unwinnable seats taking this stance, under present circumstances, it harms the prospects of LDs in winnable seats. I don't think, strategically, it's very bright.

With Jeremy Corbyn in power, the LDs had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become the main party of the left - a necessary first step to being the main party of government, which is presumably a long-term ambition. I don't think it's an opportunity their grasping very cleverly.

Well I don't know how big an opportunity they had, really, but that it could harm LDs in winnable seats is I think the critical point. I want the LDs to recover and do well, I think more parties in parliament with significant numbers is important, but are they their own thing or not, is the people of Bury North suffering under a Tory a price worth paying for seeing if the LDs could improve there and one day challenge, even as a distant dream? The answer is apparently no. Which is problematic for areas where the LDs once won or came strong seconds but are currently well back. Look at the numbers and maybe people should assume a vote for them there is a wasted vote too.

Yes, my point exactly, only more eloquently put!

Anorak said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sky news just had a cyber security guy on who said some nhs trusts are spending as little as £20k a year on cyber security ie one poorly qualified IT person .

That's not Evil Tory Cuts, that's gross mismanagement.

I bet they have spent more on catering for the religous needs of jedi's.

kle4 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Prodicus said:

SquareRoot said:

There was a Labour MP on 5 live this morning trying to defend Corbyn's defence strategy.

Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.

Apparently, Mr Corbyn himself believes that he is not a pacifist, Mr Root. We should send help immediately.

There are a few areas where I have some sympathy for Corbyn, but his approach on this is woeful. He's had 30 years plus to think about this, and the sum total of his philosophy is "war is a terrible thing". That's a slogan, not a policy, or a strategy, or even a complete argument (a premise without a conclusion).

That, I think, really does sum it up I think. That interview with a hypothetical droning of the ISIS leader was a case in point - he was making a whole lot of points many people would agree on about needing plans, and last resorts to intervention, and being sure action would help, but even after being presented with a scenario where we could kill the leader of ISIS (whom 'not being around anymore' was something he felt was a good thing for a peaceful settlement long term) he couldn't bring himself to say he'd do it, even in that 'no drawbacks' scenario (even acknowledging any real life choices would be tougher).

Yes. I'd actually respect him a lot more - though not agree with him - if he said, "I don't believe in killing people, and I'm not a utilitarian. I wouldn't order the drone strike, just as I wouldn't pull the lever to send the train down a different track where it would kill one man rather than five... even if the one man was a well known a***hole. I know that's a moral philosophy that can have bad consequences, and you can throw extreme examples at me all day. But I think there are real merits in having a clear, inflexible moral code, that transcends the fact that it can be inconvenient and even have bad results."

It's the endless skirting around it that riles me. It's like the people in philosophy classes who try to add in facts that aren't there to justify a gut position... just confront the issue!

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Scott_P said:

Large scale cyberattack against several UK hospitals underway.

Very bad news

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/12/hospitals-across-england-hit-by-large-scale-cyber-attack

Sh*t.

It'll be interesting to know if this is directly targeted, or whether the hackers just got in to a network and placed ransomware, unaware of the target.

Looks like several sites hit by ransomware set to go off today, and loads more sites are shutting down critical systems as a precautionary measure. Pleased I'm not the NHS's IT guy today!

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/12/nhs_hospital_shut_down_due_to_cyber_attack/

I hope that we have enough clever people in GCHQ to find and expose these bastards.

yes I wonder which part of Russia it originated from.

Cookie said:

kle4 said:

Cookie said:

stodge said:

kle4 said:

Cookie said:

On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399

The guy, and all LDs who backed him, should just join Labour - its odd that a LD of all people should be concerned with the idea of a vote for him being wasted, as if people who stand for the LDs usually think they are imminently to be in government or something. If defeating the Tories is the only thing that matters, you vote Labour or SNP if in Scotland.

I commented on this elsewhere. He has a right to stand in the seat if he gets the nominations and if he then chooses to do nothing and lose his deposit, that's also his right.

It's also my right as a LD voter to either vote LD even if that vote is "wasted" apart from counting toward the Party's national tally or to vote tactically. The LD candidate shouldn't advise or condone tactical voting - if his inactivity is viewed as a signal for potential LD voters to vote tactically that's an interpretation.

Can't.

Well I don't know how big an opportunity they had, really, but that it could harm LDs in winnable seats is I think the critical point. I want the LDs to recover and do well, I think more parties in parliament with significant numbers is important, but are they their own thing or not, is the people of Bury North suffering under a Tory a price worth paying for seeing if the LDs could improve there and one day challenge, even as a distant dream? The answer is apparently no. Which is problematic for areas where the LDs once won or came strong seconds but are currently well back. Look at the numbers and maybe people should assume a vote for them there is a wasted vote too.

Yes, my point exactly, only more eloquently put!

Eloquent is not usually my strong suit, so thanks!