politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Labour view of the party’s looming electoral disaster
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Labour view of the party’s looming electoral disaster
I have a soft spot for Lib Dem peer Dick Taverne even though I cut my teeth as a Labour Party press officer trying to end his political career.
Comments
-
Primus inter pares.0
-
Looming Electoral disaster? Not impressed by labours polling recovery, don?0
-
Third! Like Slab.....0
-
3rd like Farron, if his luck holds.0
-
John Major beat Kinnock and lost to Blair and Wilson ultimately lost to Heath and Campbell Bannerman won in 1906, all were centrist and moderate, nothing like how Corbyn Labour has now become0
-
FPT
Are you saying that slips of girls in Madeira packing an automatic cost a fortune to train?? Or the entire police force of France or Germany or wherever??dixiedean said:
Because they cost a fortune to train, and we have been told we need to cut the Police budget. As ever it is a political choice. One made partially by TMay in her 6 years as Home Secretary and year as PM. She was deriding Labour for wanting 10000 extra officers. It is a choice.TMA1 said:
Why should we not have more armed police as well as soldiers. The French have armed police, armed CRS poised in their barracks and armed soldiers on the street. You can go to nice quiet Madeira and see armed police women even.not_on_fire said:HYUFD said:
July 1945, WW2 did not end until August and the surrender of JapanPhilip_Thompson said:
When?TheScreamingEagles said:
They did.kle4 said:Didn't the americans hold a presidential election during the american civil war?
I've often wondered how free and fair a process it was.
We held a general election during the second world war.
But the 1940 GE was cancelled.HYUFD said:
July 1945, WW2 did not end until August and the surrender of JapanPhilip_Thompson said:
When?TheScreamingEagles said:
They did.kle4 said:Didn't the americans hold a presidential election during the american civil war?
I've often wondered how free and fair a process it was.
We held a general election during the second world war.
Putting my tinfoil hat on for a second, with no MPs and soldiers on the street, isn't this the perfect environment to launch a coup? Could we see Generalissimo May suspending democracy to keep us all safe?
In our case military personnel are being deployed to 'key sites' rather than 'on the streets'.
If you care to look we have been having armed soldiers guarding bases and dockyards and nuclear power stations for quite some time.
Sorry to disappoint but still no coup. 'Coup' being a much overused word these days.0 -
0
-
Yes. Are you suggesting we simply arm anyone who volunteers? And send then out with no training? Cos that is what you are suggesting within a falling budget. Or you are suggesting an increase in the Police budget. Or are you going to shake the "magic efficiency tree?" Also why are "slips of girls" at all relevant?TMA1 said:FPT
Are you saying that slips of girls in Madeira packing an automatic cost a fortune to train?? Or the entire police force of France or Germany or wherever??dixiedean said:
Because they cost a fortune to train, and we have been told we need to cut the Police budget. As ever it is a political choice. One made partially by TMay in her 6 years as Home Secretary and year as PM. She was deriding Labour for wanting 10000 extra officers. It is a choice.TMA1 said:
Why should we not have more armed police as well as soldiers. The French have armed police, armed CRS poised in their barracks and armed soldiers on the street. You can go to nice quiet Madeira and see armed police women even.not_on_fire said:HYUFD said:
July 1945, WW2 did not end until August and the surrender of JapanPhilip_Thompson said:
When?TheScreamingEagles said:
They did.kle4 said:Didn't the americans hold a presidential election during the american civil war?
I've often wondered how free and fair a process it was.
We held a general election during the second world war.
But the 1940 GE was cancelled.HYUFD said:
July 1945, WW2 did not end until August and the surrender of JapanPhilip_Thompson said:
When?TheScreamingEagles said:
They did.kle4 said:Didn't the americans hold a presidential election during the american civil war?
I've often wondered how free and fair a process it was.
We held a general election during the second world war.
Putting my tinfoil hat on for a second, with no MPs and soldiers on the street, isn't this the perfect environment to launch a coup? Could we see Generalissimo May suspending democracy to keep us all safe?
In our case military personnel are being deployed to 'key sites' rather than 'on the streets'.
If you care to look we have been having armed soldiers guarding bases and dockyards and nuclear power stations for quite some time.
Sorry to disappoint but still no coup. 'Coup' being a much overused word these days.0 -
Funny the landslide Mr Brind does not mention is 1945. Not sure how that would fit into his disjointed analysis.
Fortunately for Mrs May she, unlike Harold Wilson, does not have Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon to appease.
Mrs Beckett by the way lent her nomination to Corbyn didn't she? So that suggestion looks like turning out to be the worst thing he ever did for the Labour Party.0 -
Are you saying it 'costs a fortune'?dixiedean said:
Yes. Are you suggesting we simply arm anyone who volunteers? And send then out with no training? Cos that is what you are suggesting within a falling budget. Or you are suggesting an increase in the Police budget. Or are you going to shake the "magic efficiency tree?" Also why are "slips of girls" at all relevant?TMA1 said:FPT
Are you saying that slips of girls in Madeira packing an automatic cost a fortune to train?? Or the entire police force of France or Germany or wherever??dixiedean said:
Because they cost a fortune to train, and we have been told we need to cut the Police budget. As ever it is a political choice. One made partially by TMay in her 6 years as Home Secretary and year as PM. She was deriding Labour for wanting 10000 extra officers. It is a choice.TMA1 said:
snipnot_on_fire said:HYUFD said:
July 1945, WW2 did not end until August and the surrender of JapanPhilip_Thompson said:
When?TheScreamingEagles said:
They did.kle4 said:Didn't the americans hold a presidential election during the american civil war?
I've often wondered how free and fair a process it was.
We held a general election during the second world war.
But the 1940 GE was cancelled.HYUFD said:
July 1945, WW2 did not end until August and the surrender of JapanPhilip_Thompson said:
When?TheScreamingEagles said:
They did.kle4 said:Didn't the americans hold a presidential election during the american civil war?
I've often wondered how free and fair a process it was.
We held a general election during the second world war.
Putting my tinfoil hat on for a second, with no MPs and soldiers on the street, isn't this the perfect environment to launch a coup? Could we see Generalissimo May suspending democracy to keep us all safe?
How do other countries cope. Are these officers (men and women) all super efficiently trained? I suggest that we could manage. We choose not to, so its always a surprise when we see police guns on the streets whereas we never blink about it when we are overseas.
Anyway no more time. Have a good night.0 -
There was no election in 1902 by the way!0
-
11th like West Ham0
-
He means 1900.justin124 said:There was no election in 1902 by the way!
0 -
I agree with you, We could do it. We choose not to. We would need to spend less on other things, raise taxes, or ignore the deficit, It is a choice. Sleep well. Nice debating wit you.TMA1 said:
Are you saying it 'costs a fortune'?dixiedean said:
Yes. Are you suggesting we simply arm anyone who volunteers? And send then out with no training? Cos that is what you are suggesting within a falling budget. Or you are suggesting an increase in the Police budget. Or are you going to shake the "magic efficiency tree?" Also why are "slips of girls" at all relevant?TMA1 said:FPT
Are you saying that slips of girls in Madeira packing an automatic cost a fortune to train?? Or the entire police force of France or Germany or wherever??dixiedean said:
Because they cost a fortune to train, and we have been told we need to cut the Police budget. As ever it is a political choice. One made partially by TMay in her 6 years as Home Secretary and year as PM. She was deriding Labour for wanting 10000 extra officers. It is a choice.TMA1 said:
snipnot_on_fire said:HYUFD said:
July 1945, WW2 did not end until August and the surrender of JapanPhilip_Thompson said:
When?TheScreamingEagles said:
They did.kle4 said:Didn't the americans hold a presidential election during the american civil war?
I've often wondered how free and fair a process it was.
We held a general election during the second world war.
But the 1940 GE was cancelled.HYUFD said:
July 1945, WW2 did not end until August and the surrender of JapanPhilip_Thompson said:
When?TheScreamingEagles said:
They did.kle4 said:Didn't the americans hold a presidential election during the american civil war?
I've often wondered how free and fair a process it was.
We held a general election during the second world war.
Putting my tinfoil hat on for a second, with no MPs and soldiers on the street, isn't this the perfect environment to launch a coup? Could we see Generalissimo May suspending democracy to keep us all safe?
How do other countries cope. Are these officers (men and women) all super efficiently trained? I suggest that we could manage. We choose not to, so its always a surprise when we see police guns on the streets whereas we never blink about it when we are overseas.
Anyway no more time. Have a good night.0 -
I take it the Lib Dems will not be going big on "10,000 extra Syrian refugees per year" on the doorstep, once the campaign recommences?0
-
FPT
bobajobPB said:
"The PB Tories, and Sean, and - bizarrely - Cyclefree seem to have take leave of their senses today.
Corbyn is shite. He is a deluded old trot. But he has sod all to do with Manchester. Linking him with it because of the pro-IRA comments he has made in the distant past is utterly stupid, either from the media, or the Tory party itself.
May is going to win big anyway. Don't worry."
I have not linked Corbyn with Manchester.
I do question - and did so long before yesterday's tragedy - his judgment and, in particular, his judgment in thinking Abbott is fit to be Home Secretary.
I have said ever since he was a candidate for the Labour leadership that he lacks a moral compass. My views on him have not changed because of Manchester.
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.0 -
FPT
murali_s said:
RobD said:
bobajobPB said:
"For crying out loud. I am on here dissing the boring, entitled, anti-meritocratic monarchy as "Britain's richest welfare recipients", from time to time. I guess you want to strap on the jack boots Rob and march me to the scaffold (at the Tower, naturally) ?
That's fine, but Abbott is in the record wishing for the defeat of the British, and victory for the IRA.
FFS Does anyone take Abbott seriously? She's significantly out of her depth. Can't stand that woman!"
She is the official Opposition's candidate for Home Secretary, the person who would be in charge of those services charged with protecting us from events such as Manchester and Westminster and 7/7, agencies she has publicly sneered at.
I am not as sanguine as you are at that prospect, even if she is an idiot.
And it worries me that so many want to go soft on a party and its leader who think that this is at all acceptable. All this talk of good taste is cover for fear that the frankly childish and morally repulsive decisions made by the Labour party are going to have some light shed on them, not before time.0 -
It is not due to budgetary constraints that our routine officers aren't armed it is instead a deliberate policy. One I still agree with.dixiedean said:
I agree with you, We could do it. We choose not to. We would need to spend less on other things, raise taxes, or ignore the deficit, It is a choice. Sleep well. Nice debating wit you.0 -
FWIW, I think Theresa May is right to put Operation Temperer into force and to send in the army to protect some events. If I have any criticism, it's that it should be done on a bigger scale. Security staff in shopping centres, at football matches, etc., and maybe all staff on the railways, should be given training by the army. There are currently too many people with security responsibilities who don't understand what it's all about and who don't have a clue about how to relate to passengers, clubgoers, audience members, shoppers, pedestrians, etc. (Some specialise in being obnoxious, strutting about looking menacing, or selling drugs.) That is a serious failing, because people really do have to be vigilant and this need must NOT be viewed with the same cynicism as airline safety demonstrations and many "health and safety" talks often are. It is a well-known psychological fact that when someone is in trouble you can get a big crowd standing around doing nothing, whereas if a single person in the crowd actually takes the initiative to do something, or if the person who is in trouble picks someone and directly asks them to help, then people flock to help. There needs to be some kind of anti-terror mobilisation.
But then there's the general election. There should also be general agreement that neither the terror attack nor the government's welcome response to it should be allowed to influence the election result. Do not play party politics with the need to protect this country. What to do? What comes to mind is that Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron should be invited to join an inner cabinet with an anti-terror remit right now, on the understanding that they and Theresa May will stay members of it regardless of the election result.0 -
He's not really a Trot, even if did sign the hilarious early day motion in 1988 calling for the rehabilitation of Leon Trotsky. If he were, he'd be loyal to some Trot organisation. That's what entrism is all about.Cyclefree said:Corbyn is shite. He is a deluded old trot.
That is party politics. You are essentially saying that a third of the population are a security risk. And they aren't. Either that or that Corbyn is some kind of secret enemy agent which he clearly is not.Cyclefree said:It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
0 -
No, it's "politics" which in the middle of a GE campaign would appear to be entirely appropriate. To suggest that Corbyn is in some way responsible for Manchester's atrocity (unless the IRA or Hamas or.....were involved) would be entirely wrong - and the only suggestions I've read have been of May somehow wanting/doing this to distract from current difficulties - but none from a serious politician. But this suggestion that one third of the population should not have their choice's short comings pointed out to them on the grounds of "taste" or "appropriateness" is for the birds - and the squawking at it is happening shows they know they are on a hiding to nothing.Cyan said:
He's not really a Trot, even if did sign the hilarious early day motion in 1988 calling for the rehabilitation of Leon Trotsky. If he were, he'd be loyal to some Trot organisation. That's what entrism is all about.Cyclefree said:Corbyn is shite. He is a deluded old trot.
That is party politics. You are essentially saying that a third of the population are a security risk. And they aren't. Either that or that Corbyn is some kind of secret enemy agent which he clearly is not.Cyclefree said:It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Labour chose him knowing his historical support for terrorists - and however assiduously he tries to re-write history - that's not going away.0 -
Off topic - I highly recommend "A Very English Scandal" about the Thorpe affair. It is sympathetic to the POV of one of the key protagonists - Bissell - but few emerge well from it well, least of all Thorpe.0
-
Good Morning everyone. I saw Mrs May's lectern speech from 10 Downing St last night. Several people asked what she was made of. I think we have the answer. I was v impressed.0
-
Morning.SquareRoot said:Good Morning everyone. I saw Mrs May's lectern speech from 10 Downing St last night. Several people asked what she was made of. I think we have the answer. I was v impressed.
One could justifiably make the same point about Hollande, without convincing anyone that he was a useful leader in other respects.
Cyclefree does make some pertinent points about Corbyn/Abbott, though.
0 -
Just reading this morning's papers and reflecting on the cruelty of a parent having to bury a child.0
-
Don't put words in my mouth. I have not said that. I do think there are very serious questions to be asked of Corbyn, his Shadow Chancellor and his Shadow Home Secretary. It is legitimate to do so, in an election campaign above all.Cyan said:
He's not really a Trot, even if did sign the hilarious early day motion in 1988 calling for the rehabilitation of Leon Trotsky. If he were, he'd be loyal to some Trot organisation. That's what entrism is all about.Cyclefree said:Corbyn is shite. He is a deluded old trot.
.........You are essentially saying that a third of the population are a security risk.......Cyclefree said:It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
If only those who voted him their leader - twice - had listened to those who warned that having such people in the leadership would cause problems for what used to be a decent party. If only.0 -
As was being observed yesterday:
US leak of Manchester attacker's name strikes new blow to intelligence sharing
Naming of Salman Abedi by ‘US officials’ hours before it was announced by UK authorities is latest in series of leaks that may damage credibility with allies
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/23/trump-administration-manchester-bomber-name-leak
Although I'm not sure its demonstrated the Trump administration was directly leaking information, clearly some in the government believe its ok.....0 -
Not entirely unexpected:
"Abedi was known to the security services but was not part of any active investigation or regarded as a high risk..."0 -
SquareRoot said:
Good Morning everyone. I saw Mrs May's lectern speech from 10 Downing St last night. Several people asked what she was made of. I think we have the answer. I was v impressed.
So was the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/23/its-no-easy-job-to-capture-the-nations-mood-but-the-pm-did-it-well0 -
Morning all.
Cheers Don, up to your usual standard…0 -
Is Pence on manoeuvres ?
This reads a little odd.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/23/mike-pence-rally-louisiana-2387420 -
That's almost guaranteed, isn't it? 'Doing a reasonable job with finite resources'.....Nigelb said:Not entirely unexpected:
"Abedi was known to the security services but was not part of any active investigation or regarded as a high risk..."0 -
So was I. I was surprised and kept thinking at any moment she'd switch to full Churchillian but she didn't. Certainly the most impressive I've heard from her. I kept wondering who'd written it.CarlottaVance said:SquareRoot said:Good Morning everyone. I saw Mrs May's lectern speech from 10 Downing St last night. Several people asked what she was made of. I think we have the answer. I was v impressed.
So was the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/23/its-no-easy-job-to-capture-the-nations-mood-but-the-pm-did-it-well0 -
The election was 1900, not 1902, and the Prime Minister in 1905 (when the government resigned) was Balfour not Salisbury, who resigned in 1902 and died in 1903 I think (without checking). So it was hardly his triumph that turned sour.
The Tories won the 1959 election after Suez with a majority of nearly 100. Blair won in 2005 with a majority of over 60. Not one of his three successors has even come close to winning an election. That leaves Neville Chamberlain as the sole legitimate example - and it is worth pointing out that he still remained party leader until he died (or three weeks before, anyway). Ironically it was his father's Tariff Reform Campaign that destroyed the Unionists in 1906.
The real problem is that while disillusionment with May will quickly set in, it's hard to see many people turning back to the even more discredited and incompetent Labour Party. I think that's at the root of Brind's whistling to keep his spirits up.
Why couldn't SO have done something incisive and intelligent rather than OGH publishing this vacuous and unhelpful rubbish?0 -
Herotodus: "In peace, sons bury fathers. In war, fathers bury sons."Nigelb said:Just reading this morning's papers and reflecting on the cruelty of a parent having to bury a child.
The pain of the families must be unbearable. And there is so little consolation any of us can give them beyond the knowledge that all decent people of goodwill are thinking of them.0 -
I think we're going to need another threat level beyond CRITICAL. Perhaps SAVILLE.0
-
Morning all. A picture tells a thousand words...
https://twitter.com/tonysheps/status/8670975929325690890 -
One of the interesting things about this campaign is that Corbyn has been industriously ditching some of his principles. He has abandoned opposition to Trident, rowed back on his oft-repeated pacifism, and distanced himself from people he used to call friends. He has also consistently flip-flopped on Europe.Cyclefree said:
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.0 -
Just virtue signaling nonsenseSandpit said:Morning all. A picture tells a thousand words...
https://twitter.com/tonysheps/status/8670975929325690890 -
The point in the article is however very sound. The need for a government to explain its actions does not end at 10.00pm on election night. Mrs May certainly knows that herself - lets hope she only promotes MPs who do the same.0
-
The trident one is a shocking u turn and I suspect if closely questioned Corbyn will really struggle to say he wants to keep it/believes in it.ydoethur said:
One of the interesting things about this campaign is that Corbyn has been industriously ditching some of his principles. He has abandoned opposition to Trident, rowed back on his oft-repeated pacifism, and distanced himself from people he used to call friends. He has also consistently flip-flopped on Europe.Cyclefree said:
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.
Your other points... Not sure if he has ever said he is a pacifist? Do you have a link?
On Europe - definitely been a shift but he has moved from opposed to lukewarm support.
Sort of the opposite of TM who moved from lukewarm support to opposed.0 -
I know geography is often not among Americans' strongest suits......but......
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/22/trump_to_israelis_we_just_got_back_from_the_middle_east.html0 -
asjohnstone said:
Just virtue signaling nonsenseSandpit said:Morning all. A picture tells a thousand words...
https://twitter.com/tonysheps/status/867097592932569089
The UAE elite's support (funding, weapons, training) for very unpleasant groups in Libya, Syria etc makes the gesture rather cynical in my opinion0 -
There is this rather strange video from 2 years ago where he says it's 'hard to say' if he's a 'total pacifist'. Although that's not clear cut it's very different from the message he's been giving off recently.rkrkrk said:
The trident one is a shocking u turn and I suspect if closely questioned Corbyn will really struggle to say he wants to keep it/believes in it.ydoethur said:
One of the interesting things about this campaign is that Corbyn has been industriously ditching some of his principles. He has abandoned opposition to Trident, rowed back on his oft-repeated pacifism, and distanced himself from people he used to call friends. He has also consistently flip-flopped on Europe.Cyclefree said:
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.
Your other points... Not sure if he has ever said he is a pacifist? Do you have a link?
On Europe - definitely been a shift but he has moved from opposed to lukewarm support.
Sort of the opposite of TM who moved from lukewarm support to opposed.
http://news.sky.com/video/are-you-a-pacifist-labour-leader-speaks-to-sky-10345100-1 -
On topic, it seems that Labour is reduced to waiting tor 'events', while hoping that their electorate - which twice chose Corbyn, once against genuine leadership contenders and once against someone Don backed - can pick a leader which the public sees as a potential prime minister. Hence all the padding and guff about 'Tories are a bit rubbish, are't they?'. If you can't argue, dissemble.0
-
With a normal Labour leader, I could agree with your idea. But with Corbyn I judge it simply too much of a risk. It's bad enough that he, McDonnell and Abbott are privy counsellors and get some security briefings already.Cyan said:FWIW, I think Theresa May is right to put Operation Temperer into force and to send in the army to protect some events. If I have any criticism, it's that it should be done on a bigger scale. Security staff in shopping centres, at football matches, etc., and maybe all staff on the railways, should be given training by the army. There are currently too many people with security responsibilities who don't understand what it's all about and who don't have a clue about how to relate to passengers, clubgoers, audience members, shoppers, pedestrians, etc. (Some specialise in being obnoxious, strutting about looking menacing, or selling drugs.) That is a serious failing, because people really do have to be vigilant and this need must NOT be viewed with the same cynicism as airline safety demonstrations and many "health and safety" talks often are. It is a well-known psychological fact that when someone is in trouble you can get a big crowd standing around doing nothing, whereas if a single person in the crowd actually takes the initiative to do something, or if the person who is in trouble picks someone and directly asks them to help, then people flock to help. There needs to be some kind of anti-terror mobilisation.
But then there's the general election. There should also be general agreement that neither the terror attack nor the government's welcome response to it should be allowed to influence the election result. Do not play party politics with the need to protect this country. What to do? What comes to mind is that Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron should be invited to join an inner cabinet with an anti-terror remit right now, on the understanding that they and Theresa May will stay members of it regardless of the election result.
As to Farron he's irrelevant0 -
A good read Don but disappointingly bereft of your normal optimism. I'd like to believe you've thrown in the towel too early but after a pounding like this it's best to be realistic.0
-
Labour threw in the towel by electing Corbyn. Not that he is their only problem. Labour has been a troubled, divided and intellectually exhausted Party for years. It has also been struggling, with rare exceptions all under Blair, to attract significant levels of support. It has been driven back on a few isolated regions and is hanging on out of the strength of tribal loyalty, which can vanish suddenly (cf Scotland).Roger said:A good read Don but disappointingly bereft of your normal optimism. I'd like to believe you've thrown in the towel too early but after a pounding like this it's best to be realistic.
The big questions now are how many potential replacements will hang on, and whether they can do anything to correct the malaise or whether Brown will turn out to be a British Hollande.
(As for optimism, listing possible Labour gains sounds like extreme optimism to me!)0 -
The funniest change has been his support for wealthy pensioners keeping the Winter Fuel Allowance.ydoethur said:
One of the interesting things about this campaign is that Corbyn has been industriously ditching some of his principles. He has abandoned opposition to Trident, rowed back on his oft-repeated pacifism, and distanced himself from people he used to call friends. He has also consistently flip-flopped on Europe.Cyclefree said:
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.0 -
Well he is one himselfMarqueeMark said:
The funniest change has been his support for wealthy pensioners keeping the Winter Fuel Allowance.ydoethur said:
One of the interesting things about this campaign is that Corbyn has been industriously ditching some of his principles. He has abandoned opposition to Trident, rowed back on his oft-repeated pacifism, and distanced himself from people he used to call friends. He has also consistently flip-flopped on Europe.Cyclefree said:
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.0 -
There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
why am I seeing ads for ready mix concrete on pb..?0
-
Must be all those dodgy web sites you visit.SquareRoot said:why am I seeing ads for ready mix concrete on pb..?
0 -
It's the kind of thing I see,SquareRoot said:why am I seeing ads for ready mix concrete on pb..?
I do work in the construction industry though.
0 -
You mean hard coreDavidL said:
Must be all those dodgy web sites you visit.SquareRoot said:why am I seeing ads for ready mix concrete on pb..?
0 -
I can get you some nice C30 for £85/m3SquareRoot said:
You mean hard coreDavidL said:
Must be all those dodgy web sites you visit.SquareRoot said:why am I seeing ads for ready mix concrete on pb..?
0 -
Slightly circular in that with a competent and credible Labour leader we would not be having an election.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
I've got to say that if May does manage an increased mandate despite telling the public the bad news about social care during an election, then that will be admirable. I suppose this is probably the main benefit of Corbyn.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
0 -
So your expectation of the GE result is .....?DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
Here are 4 situations from history which may or may not have parallels with today but which I am going to use to imply that Theresa May is a warmongering fool.0
-
No; it would be entirely possible for the perpetrator not to have been known to the security services.CarlottaVance said:
That's almost guaranteed, isn't it? 'Doing a reasonable job with finite resources'.....Nigelb said:Not entirely unexpected:
"Abedi was known to the security services but was not part of any active investigation or regarded as a high risk..."0 -
+ 1.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
And middle class kids going to University who clearly need to be subsidised by those who don't. And the parents of kids who can afford to feed their own children properly rather than concentrating on those genuinely struggling. And public sector workers with final salary pension schemes worth nearly half their salary who are still allegedly underpaid. I am not entirely sure which way up the policy on benefits ended up but I think that they were considered less worthy.MarqueeMark said:
The funniest change has been his support for wealthy pensioners keeping the Winter Fuel Allowance.ydoethur said:
One of the interesting things about this campaign is that Corbyn has been industriously ditching some of his principles. He has abandoned opposition to Trident, rowed back on his oft-repeated pacifism, and distanced himself from people he used to call friends. He has also consistently flip-flopped on Europe.Cyclefree said:
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.
Labour is a sad parody of itself. A party of self interested middle class virtue signallers who claim to care about the poor but are focussed on as many middle class privileges and advantages as they can glean from the system, whatever the cost.0 -
Could you break up your sentences a bit. It's difficult for people with dyslexia.Cyan said:FWIW, I think Theresa May is right to put Operation Temperer into force and to send in the army to protect some events. If I have any criticism, it's that it should be done on a bigger scale. Security staff in shopping centres, at football matches, etc., and maybe all staff on the railways, should be given training by the army. There are currently too many people with security responsibilities who don't understand what it's all about and who don't have a clue about how to relate to passengers, clubgoers, audience members, shoppers, pedestrians, etc. (Some specialise in being obnoxious, strutting about looking menacing, or selling drugs.) That is a serious failing, because people really do have to be vigilant and this need must NOT be viewed with the same cynicism as airline safety demonstrations and many "health and safety" talks often are. It is a well-known psychological fact that when someone is in trouble you can get a big crowd standing around doing nothing, whereas if a single person in the crowd actually takes the initiative to do something, or if the person who is in trouble picks someone and directly asks them to help, then people flock to help. There needs to be some kind of anti-terror mobilisation.
But then there's the general election. There should also be general agreement that neither the terror attack nor the government's welcome response to it should be allowed to influence the election result. Do not play party politics with the need to protect this country. What to do? What comes to mind is that Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron should be invited to join an inner cabinet with an anti-terror remit right now, on the understanding that they and Theresa May will stay members of it regardless of the election result.
I'm stuggling to understand why you'd want Farron and Corbyn in an inner cabinet to defeat terrorism? If it's just to take away May's advantage brought about by the event in Manchester I can see some logic but I'm sure a better handicap system can be worked out. Wouldn't you have to invite Nuttall and Sturgeon and Wood and Adams too?0 -
What's the old line, "oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them" ...
well, I can't see the government losing this one.
In a couple of weeks, Theresa May is going to be asking the country to back her or sack her.
Her hard coalition of Brexiteers, 50+'s & C2DE's, combined with soft remainers voting for competence and the bloody-hell-not-Corbyn!stas may well mean she gets over 50%.
Even 60%+ isn't inconceivable.
After her fantastic speech yesterday morning, I bought Con seats on the spreads @ 388 & weighted my betfair positions in favour of a 150+ majority. As I did after the euref - some of the winnings (if there are any!) will get donated to charity.0 -
This is from during the labour leadership campaign. Labour people know what Corbyn is likeCarlottaVance said:
No, it's "politics" which in the middle of a GE campaign would appear to be entirely appropriate. To suggest that Corbyn is in some way responsible for Manchester's atrocity (unless the IRA or Hamas or.....were involved) would be entirely wrong - and the only suggestions I've read have been of May somehow wanting/doing this to distract from current difficulties - but none from a serious politician. But this suggestion that one third of the population should not have their choice's short comings pointed out to them on the grounds of "taste" or "appropriateness" is for the birds - and the squawking at it is happening shows they know they are on a hiding to nothing.Cyan said:
He's not really a Trot, even if did sign the hilarious early day motion in 1988 calling for the rehabilitation of Leon Trotsky. If he were, he'd be loyal to some Trot organisation. That's what entrism is all about.Cyclefree said:Corbyn is shite. He is a deluded old trot.
That is party politics. You are essentially saying that a third of the population are a security risk. And they aren't. Either that or that Corbyn is some kind of secret enemy agent which he clearly is not.Cyclefree said:It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Labour chose him knowing his historical support for terrorists - and however assiduously he tries to re-write history - that's not going away.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/
0 -
Tory majority of 60-70, which will be comfortable enough. Labour around the 200 level so wounded, but far from terminally.peter_from_putney said:
So your expectation of the GE result is .....?DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
I'm still inclined to think she will win by a landslide.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
@IanB2 – from 23/5 said this:-
"Spend time with today's Muslim schoolkids, as I have, and you'll find they are mostly very aware of the challenge their generation faces of reconciling the 'modern' western ideals they assimilate at school with the more 'traditional' values imported by their parents. As with other waves of immigrants our country has assimilated over the generations, the problem is not with the generality but with the particular socio-economic and geo-political reasons that allow radical islamism to appeal to a small minority of the disaffected."
An example of the muddle-headed thinking which so bedevils our efforts to prevent radicalisation. The parents of these youngsters, even the grandparents, are often British citizens born and brought up in this country so the questions to be asked are why it is that they are “importing” “traditional” values, what exactly what those values are and whether they are compatible with Western values.
The larger point is whether communities with a strong credal culture can happily co-exist in a secular society and democracy. See this - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/01/29/angels-and-fools-cyclefree-on-trumps-latest-executive-order/.
When that credal culture is one a significant part of which seems both aggressive and brittle, when there have been for the last 40 years at least, particularly so in the last decade, winds of an aggressive intolerant fundamentalism blowing through it, when there has been a culture of multiculturalism which has refused to contemplate the possibility that not all cultures may be equally worthwhile and has impeded the sort of integration necessary, when the countries where that credal culture originated and is predominant have largely been economic, social and political failures, it is not entirely surprising that radical islamism appeals to some. But the reasons are not just socio-economic or geo-political. Culture and religion also matter. Just because they don’t matter to us doesn’t mean that they don’t matter – a great deal – to others.
It must hugely pain decent Muslims that their religion is so often associated with violence. But, painful as it may be to hear this, there has not been a sufficient or a sufficiently strong firewall between peaceful non-aggressive Islam and the sort of Islam, apparently based on the Koran and the life of Mohammed and his early warriors (see the recent Tom Holland documentary on ISIS) which appears to animate the radicals. Some hard questions need to be asked by and of Muslims themselves about why this is so and what needs to be done to build a much more effective firewall. Saying that these terrorists don’t represent true Islam feels like saying what people would like to be true not what appears to be true, for some anyway. Something much more effective needs doing to strengthen the Muslim body against the virus which is harming it. And others, as we see all too often. Sadly.
0 -
DavidL - may I ask, what is your view on the size of the Con. majority?0
-
GroanSquareRoot said:
You mean hard coreDavidL said:
Must be all those dodgy web sites you visit.SquareRoot said:why am I seeing ads for ready mix concrete on pb..?
0 -
That IS funny!Nemtynakht said:
This is from during the labour leadership campaign. Labour people know what Corbyn is likeCarlottaVance said:
No, it's "politics" which in the middle of a GE campaign would appear to be entirely appropriate. To suggest that Corbyn is in some way responsible for Manchester's atrocity (unless the IRA or Hamas or.....were involved) would be entirely wrong - and the only suggestions I've read have been of May somehow wanting/doing this to distract from current difficulties - but none from a serious politician. But this suggestion that one third of the population should not have their choice's short comings pointed out to them on the grounds of "taste" or "appropriateness" is for the birds - and the squawking at it is happening shows they know they are on a hiding to nothing.Cyan said:
He's not really a Trot, even if did sign the hilarious early day motion in 1988 calling for the rehabilitation of Leon Trotsky. If he were, he'd be loyal to some Trot organisation. That's what entrism is all about.Cyclefree said:Corbyn is shite. He is a deluded old trot.
That is party politics. You are essentially saying that a third of the population are a security risk. And they aren't. Either that or that Corbyn is some kind of secret enemy agent which he clearly is not.Cyclefree said:It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Labour chose him knowing his historical support for terrorists - and however assiduously he tries to re-write history - that's not going away.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/0 -
Yes, in the medium run we will have a government who has a mandate to finally grasp this thistle. It is much needed. But I suspect the Green Paper, let alone the final proposals, will not look very similar to the Manifesto.Nemtynakht said:
I've got to say that if May does manage an increased mandate despite telling the public the bad news about social care during an election, then that will be admirable. I suppose this is probably the main benefit of Corbyn.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
In a choice between not very good and utterly hopeless, not very good wins by a landslide.Sean_F said:
I'm still inclined to think she will win by a landslide.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
So in terms of repeatedly saying he is a pacifist - you've got nothing?ydoethur said:
There is this rather strange video from 2 years ago where he says it's 'hard to say' if he's a 'total pacifist'. Although that's not clear cut it's very different from the message he's been giving off recently.rkrkrk said:
The trident one is a shocking u turn and I suspect if closely questioned Corbyn will really struggle to say he wants to keep it/believes in it.ydoethur said:
One of the interesting things about this campaign is that Corbyn has been industriously ditching some of his principles. He has abandoned opposition to Trident, rowed back on his oft-repeated pacifism, and distanced himself from people he used to call friends. He has also consistently flip-flopped on Europe.Cyclefree said:
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.
Your other points... Not sure if he has ever said he is a pacifist? Do you have a link?
On Europe - definitely been a shift but he has moved from opposed to lukewarm support.
Sort of the opposite of TM who moved from lukewarm support to opposed.
http://news.sky.com/video/are-you-a-pacifist-labour-leader-speaks-to-sky-10345100
IMO it's clear that Corbyn is pretty anti war and sets a much higher threshold for using military force than most other politicians. Now he is leader and subject to a lot more scrutiny he is belatedly realising it's his responsibility to try and shape how the media sees him rather than just answer questions as he would in a pub with old friends.
That interview is a great example of some philosophical musing that is hard for papers to summarise and report. But he has since been very clear that he thinks war can be justifiable.0 -
If Don Brand is cautiously optimistic that Labour will do better than expected, it's not clear why. The scenarios on offer are better-than-expected Vs not-better and keep-Corbyn Vs lose-Corbyn. I don't think Don wants to keep Corbyn. But it's hard to see how you get rid of Corbyn (or an annointed successor ) without doing very badly in the election.0
-
Perhaps, but other than in the intellectual abstract, are there examples, in his lifetime, of justifiable war which he has supported?rkrkrk said:
So in terms of repeatedly saying he is a pacifist - you've got nothing?ydoethur said:
There is this rather strange video from 2 years ago where he says it's 'hard to say' if he's a 'total pacifist'. Although that's not clear cut it's very different from the message he's been giving off recently.rkrkrk said:
The trident one is a shocking u turn and I suspect if closely questioned Corbyn will really struggle to say he wants to keep it/believes in it.ydoethur said:
One of the interesting things about this campaign is that Corbyn has been industriously ditching some of his principles. He has abandoned opposition to Trident, rowed back on his oft-repeated pacifism, and distanced himself from people he used to call friends. He has also consistently flip-flopped on Europe.Cyclefree said:
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.
Your other points... Not sure if he has ever said he is a pacifist? Do you have a link?
On Europe - definitely been a shift but he has moved from opposed to lukewarm support.
Sort of the opposite of TM who moved from lukewarm support to opposed.
http://news.sky.com/video/are-you-a-pacifist-labour-leader-speaks-to-sky-10345100
IMO it's clear that Corbyn is pretty anti war and sets a much higher threshold for using military force than most other politicians. Now he is leader and subject to a lot more scrutiny he is belatedly realising it's his responsibility to try and shape how the media sees him rather than just answer questions as he would in a pub with old friends.
That interview is a great example of some philosophical musing that is hard for papers to summarise and report. But he has since been very clear that he thinks war can be justifiable.0 -
This isn't the the time for OTT attacks on the Labour front bench, who are unlikely to be elected to government. They are not evil people.Cyclefree said:FPT
murali_s said:
RobD said:
bobajobPB said:
"For crying out loud. I am on here dissing the boring, entitled, anti-meritocratic monarchy as "Britain's richest welfare recipients", from time to time. I guess you want to strap on the jack boots Rob and march me to the scaffold (at the Tower, naturally) ?
That's fine, but Abbott is in the record wishing for the defeat of the British, and victory for the IRA.
FFS Does anyone take Abbott seriously? She's significantly out of her depth. Can't stand that woman!"
She is the official Opposition's candidate for Home Secretary, the person who would be in charge of those services charged with protecting us from events such as Manchester and Westminster and 7/7, agencies she has publicly sneered at.
I am not as sanguine as you are at that prospect, even if she is an idiot.
And it worries me that so many want to go soft on a party and its leader who think that this is at all acceptable. All this talk of good taste is cover for fear that the frankly childish and morally repulsive decisions made by the Labour party are going to have some light shed on them, not before time.
One thing to be noted about the perpetrator, like many terrorists in recent years - he was a cannabis user. The LD manifesto commitment to legalising marijuana is downright dangerous.0 -
The Tories don't need to go on about Corbyn's attitude towards the IRA. People will just look at Corbyn, Abbott, and McDonnell, and ask themselves whether they'd really like them in charge of the security services.AlastairMeeks said:
In a choice between not very good and utterly hopeless, not very good wins by a landslide.Sean_F said:
I'm still inclined to think she will win by a landslide.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
My current guess is similar to yours:DavidL said:
Tory majority of 60-70, which will be comfortable enough. Labour around the 200 level so wounded, but far from terminally.peter_from_putney said:
So your expectation of the GE result is .....?DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
Con ...... 371
Lab ....... 196
SNP ......... 49
LibDem ... 12
N.I. ......... 18
Plaid ......... 3
Greens ...... 1
Total ..... 650
Con Maj ... 92
We're clearly not going to have a prize money competition this time. Nevertheless it would be good if OGH were able to organise a contest to enable a consensus PB.com view of the outcome to be arrived at.0 -
I think landslide is a good bet.Pong said:What's the old line, "oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them" ...
well, I can't see the government losing this one.
In a couple of weeks, Theresa May is going to be asking the country to back her or sack her.
Her hard coalition of Brexiteers, 50+'s & C2DE's, combined with soft remainers voting for competence and the bloody-hell-not-Corbyn!stas may well mean she gets over 50%.
Even 60%+ isn't inconceivable.
After her fantastic speech yesterday morning, I bought Con seats on the spreads @ 388 & weighted my betfair positions in favour of a 150+ majority. As I did after the euref - some of the winnings (if there are any!) will get donated to charity.
We don't know how the extra Tory votes will stack up but we have a pretty good idea that Labour will do better in certain places like London.0 -
+1. Contests are fun!peter_from_putney said:
My current guess is similar to yours:DavidL said:
Tory majority of 60-70, which will be comfortable enough. Labour around the 200 level so wounded, but far from terminally.peter_from_putney said:
So your expectation of the GE result is .....?DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
Con ...... 371
Lab ....... 196
SNP ......... 49
LibDem ... 12
N.I. ......... 18
Plaid ......... 3
Greens ...... 1
Total ..... 650
Con Maj ... 92
We're clearly not going to have a prize money competition this time. Nevertheless it would be good if OGH were able to organise a contest to enable a consensus PB.com view of the outcome to be arrived at.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. F, surely the public will be reassured by having 300 million more police on the streets if Diane Abbott becomes Home Secretary?
On-topic: Mr. Brind, not heartened at all by Labour's surge in the polls?0 -
Where are the 12 libdem seats going to come from?peter_from_putney said:
My current guess is similar to yours:DavidL said:
Tory majority of 60-70, which will be comfortable enough. Labour around the 200 level so wounded, but far from terminally.peter_from_putney said:
So your expectation of the GE result is .....?DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
Con ...... 371
Lab ....... 196
SNP ......... 49
LibDem ... 12
N.I. ......... 18
Plaid ......... 3
Greens ...... 1
Total ..... 650
Con Maj ... 92
We're clearly not going to have a prize money competition this time. Nevertheless it would be good if OGH were able to organise a contest to enable a consensus PB.com view of the outcome to be arrived at.0 -
And let's ban alcohol - all that drink driving is killing people; it's just too dangerous to allow the plebs to have it.daodao said:
This isn't the the time for OTT attacks on the Labour front bench, who are unlikely to be elected to government. They are not evil people.Cyclefree said:FPT
murali_s said:
RobD said:
bobajobPB said:
"For crying out loud. I am on here dissing the boring, entitled, anti-meritocratic monarchy as "Britain's richest welfare recipients", from time to time. I guess you want to strap on the jack boots Rob and march me to the scaffold (at the Tower, naturally) ?
That's fine, but Abbott is in the record wishing for the defeat of the British, and victory for the IRA.
FFS Does anyone take Abbott seriously? She's significantly out of her depth. Can't stand that woman!"
She is the official Opposition's candidate for Home Secretary, the person who would be in charge of those services charged with protecting us from events such as Manchester and Westminster and 7/7, agencies she has publicly sneered at.
I am not as sanguine as you are at that prospect, even if she is an idiot.
.
One thing to be noted about the perpetrator, like many terrorists in recent years - he was a cannabis user. The LD manifesto commitment to legalising marijuana is downright dangerous.0 -
Matt Singh has an article in today's FT (haven't read it - paywall) suggesting the same it would appear - unless the 'Leadership rating model' is mistaken. I suspect a lot of Labour support is among historically non-voters while Conservative support is among pensioners. We know which are more likely to vote.Sean_F said:
I'm still inclined to think she will win by a landslide.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
Yes, pretty similar. I think your Lib Dems are a bit high though. Their campaign has made Theresa look good.peter_from_putney said:
My current guess is similar to yours:DavidL said:
Tory majority of 60-70, which will be comfortable enough. Labour around the 200 level so wounded, but far from terminally.peter_from_putney said:
So your expectation of the GE result is .....?DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
Con ...... 371
Lab ....... 196
SNP ......... 49
LibDem ... 12
N.I. ......... 18
Plaid ......... 3
Greens ...... 1
Total ..... 650
Con Maj ... 92
We're clearly not going to have a prize money competition this time. Nevertheless it would be good if OGH were able to organise a contest to enable a consensus PB.com view of the outcome to be arrived at.0 -
Interesting analysis, not sure about the penultimate paragraph though, it will take more than a few Green students turning red for Labour to gain Derby North, I think I can say with some certainty that seat will be a Conservative hold and a comfortable one as a marginal seat. In the East Midlands the Blues will do very well, consolidating the performance in 2015.0
-
Anyway, a break in campaigning means it's a lads nature trek on Dartmoor - and a pub lunch. Play nice, everybody.
0 -
Well, Stop the War, of which he was Chair for many years did once say in 2014 when Corbyn was still its chair that war should be fought against Israel. http://hurryupharry.org/2014/05/10/stop-the-war-coalition-supports-the-war-against-israels-legitimacy/rkrkrk said:
So in terms of repeatedly saying he is a pacifist - you've got nothing?ydoethur said:
There is this rather strange video from 2 years ago where he says it's 'hard to say' if he's a 'total pacifist'. Although that's not clear cut it's very different from the message he's been giving off recently.rkrkrk said:
The trident one is a shocking u turn and I suspect if closely questioned Corbyn will really struggle to say he wants to keep it/believes in it.ydoethur said:
One of the interesting things about this campaign is that Corbyn has been industriously ditching some of his principles. He has abandoned opposition to Trident, rowed back on his oft-repeated pacifism, and distanced himself from people he used to call friends. He has also consistently flip-flopped on Europe.Cyclefree said:
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.
Your other points... Not sure if he has ever said he is a pacifist? Do you have a link?
On Europe - definitely been a shift but he has moved from opposed to lukewarm support.
Sort of the opposite of TM who moved from lukewarm support to opposed.
http://news.sky.com/video/are-you-a-pacifist-labour-leader-speaks-to-sky-10345100
IMO it's clear that Corbyn is pretty anti war and sets a much higher threshold for using military force than most other politicians. Now he is leader and subject to a lot more scrutiny he is belatedly realising it's his responsibility to try and shape how the media sees him rather than just answer questions as he would in a pub with old friends.
That interview is a great example of some philosophical musing that is hard for papers to summarise and report. But he has since been very clear that he thinks war can be justifiable.
So clearly he's not a pacifist.0 -
May has an approval rating of 48-55%. Corbyn has one of 25-31%.CarlottaVance said:
Matt Singh has an article in today's FT (haven't read it - paywall) suggesting the same it would appear - unless the 'Leadership rating model' is mistaken. I suspect a lot of Labour support is among historically non-voters while Conservative support is among pensioners. We know which are more likely to vote.Sean_F said:
I'm still inclined to think she will win by a landslide.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
Legalising it allows it to be properly regulated as well as taxed. This would allow the trend for stronger and stronger marijuana strains to be reversed..daodao said:
This isn't the the time for OTT attacks on the Labour front bench, who are unlikely to be elected to government. They are not evil people.Cyclefree said:FPT
murali_s said:
RobD said:
bobajobPB said:
"For crying out loud. I am on here dissing the boring, entitled, anti-meritocratic monarchy as "Britain's richest welfare recipients", from time to time. I guess you want to strap on the jack boots Rob and march me to the scaffold (at the Tower, naturally) ?
That's fine, but Abbott is in the record wishing for the defeat of the British, and victory for the IRA.
FFS Does anyone take Abbott seriously? She's significantly out of her depth. Can't stand that woman!"
She is the official Opposition's candidate for Home Secretary, the person who would be in charge of those services charged with protecting us from events such as Manchester and Westminster and 7/7, agencies she has publicly sneered at.
I am not as sanguine as you are at that prospect, even if she is an idiot.
And it worries me that so many want to go soft on a party and its leader who think that this is at all acceptable. All this talk of good taste is cover for fear that the frankly childish and morally repulsive decisions made by the Labour party are going to have some light shed on them, not before time.
One thing to be noted about the perpetrator, like many terrorists in recent years - he was a cannabis user. The LD manifesto commitment to legalising marijuana is downright dangerous.0 -
People do appear to be confusing their own views with those of the voters:AlastairMeeks said:
In a choice between not very good and utterly hopeless, not very good wins by a landslide.Sean_F said:
I'm still inclined to think she will win by a landslide.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/24/theresa-may-better-prime-minister-david-cameron/0 -
A net gain of 3 seats, comprising 5 gains less 2 losses. The 5 gains, without being too specific are London+Suburbs 2, S.W. England 1, Scotland 1, Other 1. Hardly over-ambitious surely?timmo said:
Where are the 12 libdem seats going to come from?peter_from_putney said:
My current guess is similar to yours:DavidL said:
Tory majority of 60-70, which will be comfortable enough. Labour around the 200 level so wounded, but far from terminally.peter_from_putney said:
So your expectation of the GE result is .....?DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
Con ...... 371
Lab ....... 196
SNP ......... 49
LibDem ... 12
N.I. ......... 18
Plaid ......... 3
Greens ...... 1
Total ..... 650
Con Maj ... 92
We're clearly not going to have a prize money competition this time. Nevertheless it would be good if OGH were able to organise a contest to enable a consensus PB.com view of the outcome to be arrived at.0 -
Can't disagree with any of that except I think she will get her landslide. I think Corbyn is spooking more people than you are imagining.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.0 -
It seems that that her closest triends haven't yet accepted that the manifesto screeching u turn has seriously damaged her image of having fixity of purpose.CarlottaVance said:
People do appear to be confusing their own views with those of the voters:AlastairMeeks said:
In a choice between not very good and utterly hopeless, not very good wins by a landslide.Sean_F said:
I'm still inclined to think she will win by a landslide.DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/24/theresa-may-better-prime-minister-david-cameron/0 -
My favorite form of lunch.MarqueeMark said:Anyway, a break in campaigning means it's a lads nature trek on Dartmoor - and a pub lunch. Play nice, everybody.
My pub lunch will be in sunny Cheshunt though.
0 -
60% is (to put it mildly) a rather large push. From a quick check, the last time a party got over 60% of the vote was in 1868 (Gladstones Liberals, if anyone was wondering).Pong said:What's the old line, "oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them" ...
well, I can't see the government losing this one.
In a couple of weeks, Theresa May is going to be asking the country to back her or sack her.
Her hard coalition of Brexiteers, 50+'s & C2DE's, combined with soft remainers voting for competence and the bloody-hell-not-Corbyn!stas may well mean she gets over 50%.
Even 60%+ isn't inconceivable.
After her fantastic speech yesterday morning, I bought Con seats on the spreads @ 388 & weighted my betfair positions in favour of a 150+ majority. As I did after the euref - some of the winnings (if there are any!) will get donated to charity.0 -
I just think tbat this wilk be (in England) a return to 2 party politics and the lds could get hurt even more than at present.peter_from_putney said:
A net gain of 3 seats, comprising 5 gains less 2 losses. The 5 gains, without being too specific are London+Suburbs 2, S.W. England 1, Scotland 1, Other 1. Hardly over-ambitious surely?timmo said:
Where are the 12 libdem seats going to come from?peter_from_putney said:
My current guess is similar to yours:DavidL said:
Tory majority of 60-70, which will be comfortable enough. Labour around the 200 level so wounded, but far from terminally.peter_from_putney said:
So your expectation of the GE result is .....?DavidL said:There's not much more to say about this piece after @ydoethur's comprehensive demolition downthread but I will say this. May is not going to win a landslide. She has been shown in this campaign to have serious limitations as a politician, as a leader and as a PM. We have yet another leader who doesn't do the vision thing and who seems to have entered politics in the belief that she is a better manager than the other lot (which, of course, she is).
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
Con ...... 371
Lab ....... 196
SNP ......... 49
LibDem ... 12
N.I. ......... 18
Plaid ......... 3
Greens ...... 1
Total ..... 650
Con Maj ... 92
We're clearly not going to have a prize money competition this time. Nevertheless it would be good if OGH were able to organise a contest to enable a consensus PB.com view of the outcome to be arrived at.0 -
At Tesco's head office?Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
My favorite form of lunch.MarqueeMark said:Anyway, a break in campaigning means it's a lads nature trek on Dartmoor - and a pub lunch. Play nice, everybody.
My pub lunch will be in sunny Cheshunt though.0
