politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May was right, this election should be about Brexit
Comments
-
So the numbers argue that Britain should negotiate with Daesh.Y0kel said:Honest to good f**k, those looking for any party political partisan angle on Manchester, wise up. Political facts in a situation are not the same as seeing everything through your party colours.
Police resources: In NI, where active human and technical watch activity was less than 150 targets at most, there were around 8,500 regular police officers and about 4500-5000 reservists many of whom were full time. You 10's of thousands of UK military at peak, you had 6000 UDR. You had MI5 and to a smaller extent had MI6.
You had a quite widespread informant network that took about 10 years to build and grew into a monster.
Even with extensive resources and sources like that, far in excess of anything the UK government has to hand in proportion today, they had to rely heavily on informants as well as routine policing activities because they just didn't have enough to keep watch on all critical people in the way some people think you can.
You can't, get over it.
There are several hundred Abedis alone, travellers who raise suspicion. are seen in the wrong places, but don't have any firm action behind them on domestic soil. On top you have former fighters, proper grenade throwing, trigger pulling types, you have logistics support, facilitators, encouragers many of which might just decide to go to Allah even after you weed out those who won't do the pointy stick bit yet still may be of high interest. Several thousand then.
Although the IRA was never apocalypticist. But the guys at the top of Daesh probably aren't either.
0 -
Has this been done yet?SouthamObserver said:This gets close to being evil. Maybe it's fake, but if not WTF was the Mail thinking?
(old maids look away now)
'Who’s the real c*nt?
Andrew O’Hagan'
http://tinyurl.com/m74krjs
0 -
What a load of crap. You can't be both surprised and know his motives. If he disclosed his motives then you wouldn't be surprised it happened and if he never discussed it then you're just saying what you think not what he was thinking.TGOHF said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/salman-abedi-wanted-revenge-us-air-strikes-syriamanchester-bombers/
"The sister of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi believes her brother carried out the attack because he wanted revenge for US air strikes on Syria.
Jomana Abedi said in an interview her brother was kind and loving and that she was surprised by what he did on Monday.
At least 22 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when 22-year-old Abedi detonated a device as fans left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Ms Abedi said she thought he was driven by America's military attacks in the Middle East.
“I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge," she told the Wall Street Journal."0 -
Right. So they cannot complain when people focus on it and its failures and successes, disproportionately.TheScreamingEagles said:
It gets them name recognition and visibility for other clients.Sandpit said:
Given that it's a tiny part of their business, doesn't really make them any money from it, and the majority of the feedback in recent years has been negative, one wonders why they bother with political opinion polling at all?TheScreamingEagles said:
He's already got two public clients, and did you know political polling constitutes less 1% of the polling industry's revenue.eek said:
Sounds almost like a sales pitch - someone please commission a poll, please someone.....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?MarqueeMark said:
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?AlastairMeeks said:
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.0 -
The focus is not disproportionately on its failures and successes. We go over those - but for most people the focus is them being parroted almost as if they're the gospel truth. And even we who worry about their accuracy still spend most of our time lapping them up.kle4 said:
Right. So they cannot complain when people focus on it and its failures and successes, disproportionately.TheScreamingEagles said:
It gets them name recognition and visibility for other clients.Sandpit said:
Given that it's a tiny part of their business, doesn't really make them any money from it, and the majority of the feedback in recent years has been negative, one wonders why they bother with political opinion polling at all?TheScreamingEagles said:
He's already got two public clients, and did you know political polling constitutes less 1% of the polling industry's revenue.eek said:
Sounds almost like a sales pitch - someone please commission a poll, please someone.....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?MarqueeMark said:
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?AlastairMeeks said:
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.
Apart from Angus Reid.0 -
Mr. Cyan, they want a caliphate.
We should resolve this problem the way Alexander resolved the rebellion in Bactria and Sogdiana.0 -
So Callaghan went as leader of his own accord well before the next general election while Heath had to be toppled, thanks for confirmingjustin124 said:
Heath was toppled by Thatcher in February 1975 - just four months after the October 1974 election. Callaghan remained Labour leader for 18 months after losing in May 1979.HYUFD said:
Kinnock in 1992, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after 6 months), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and before them Foot in 1983, Callaghan in 1979, Home in 1964 all resigned following election defeat it was not just Major, Heath was eventually toppled by Thatcher in 1975 a year after losing in October 1974DecrepitJohnL said:
Was it John Major who started the recent trend for immediate post-election resignations?justin124 said:
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.dyedwoolie said:
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.bobajobPB said:
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?NickPalmer said:I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists.
Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Signal-and-Noise-Demos.pdf
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?0 -
If there is one thing that history should teach us about extremist cults, be they political or religious, it's that the guys at the top are always among the most extreme. Analysts in the 1930s and 1940s consistently believed that Hitler and Stalin were essentially pragmatic centrists within their movements (albeit that those movements were inherently extreme), acting under pressure from their extreme wings. Those at the top of Daesh are very likely little different.Cyan said:
So the numbers argue that Britain should negotiate with Daesh.Y0kel said:Honest to good f**k, those looking for any party political partisan angle on Manchester, wise up. Political facts in a situation are not the same as seeing everything through your party colours.
Police resources: In NI, where active human and technical watch activity was less than 150 targets at most, there were around 8,500 regular police officers and about 4500-5000 reservists many of whom were full time. You 10's of thousands of UK military at peak, you had 6000 UDR. You had MI5 and to a smaller extent had MI6.
You had a quite widespread informant network that took about 10 years to build and grew into a monster.
Even with extensive resources and sources like that, far in excess of anything the UK government has to hand in proportion today, they had to rely heavily on informants as well as routine policing activities because they just didn't have enough to keep watch on all critical people in the way some people think you can.
You can't, get over it.
There are several hundred Abedis alone, travellers who raise suspicion. are seen in the wrong places, but don't have any firm action behind them on domestic soil. On top you have former fighters, proper grenade throwing, trigger pulling types, you have logistics support, facilitators, encouragers many of which might just decide to go to Allah even after you weed out those who won't do the pointy stick bit yet still may be of high interest. Several thousand then.
Although the IRA was never apocalypticist. But the guys at the top of Daesh probably aren't either.0 -
Not sure about that. It wasn't what Frank Gardner was saying this morning, and I tend to trust Frank on these things.Cyan said:
So the numbers argue that Britain should negotiate with Daesh.Y0kel said:Honest to good f**k, those looking for any party political partisan angle on Manchester, wise up. Political facts in a situation are not the same as seeing everything through your party colours.
Police resources: In NI, where active human and technical watch activity was less than 150 targets at most, there were around 8,500 regular police officers and about 4500-5000 reservists many of whom were full time. You 10's of thousands of UK military at peak, you had 6000 UDR. You had MI5 and to a smaller extent had MI6.
You had a quite widespread informant network that took about 10 years to build and grew into a monster.
Even with extensive resources and sources like that, far in excess of anything the UK government has to hand in proportion today, they had to rely heavily on informants as well as routine policing activities because they just didn't have enough to keep watch on all critical people in the way some people think you can.
You can't, get over it.
There are several hundred Abedis alone, travellers who raise suspicion. are seen in the wrong places, but don't have any firm action behind them on domestic soil. On top you have former fighters, proper grenade throwing, trigger pulling types, you have logistics support, facilitators, encouragers many of which might just decide to go to Allah even after you weed out those who won't do the pointy stick bit yet still may be of high interest. Several thousand then.
Although the IRA was never apocalypticist. But the guys at the top of Daesh probably aren't either.
His view was that you couldn't negotiate with Daesh or its like, partly because there is no one authority to negotiate with, but more because their aims were unnegotiable.0 -
1977 was also the year Emanuel Macron was born (and that only just - he was nearly 1978).MTimT said:
I think PtP's information is out of date. (I wonder how old he is if he thinks of 1977 - the year NJ allowed gambling - as recentlyTheWhiteRabbit said:
Nevada, Nevada... if only there was somewhere to gamble there?Peter_the_Punter said:
Most, in fact. The exceptions I know of are Nevada and New Jersey (recently liberated!)TGOHF said:
They moved onto gambling - which is prohibited in many US states IIRC.Alice_Aforethought said:
. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.TGOHF said:
Including alcohol ?Cyan said:
Prohibition is the existing state of affairs and it is not proposed as a solution to a problem that it has clearly not solved.SeanT said:For the last time: I said he had a valid hypothesis - (my precise line was "that's actually a perfectly valid argument"). Because there is, all-too-often, a provable link between drug use and later radicalisation. Cannabis is particularly implicated.
The proposed solution: Prohibition, is certainly one possible approach. It is arguable. So the Daily Mail article was not bat-shit crazy as was being implied. Which, again, was the point I was making.
However, I think there are some other, possibly better solutions we should also consider. There. That's MY thesis. Now go and argue with some other shadow on the wall. I'm off for a long country walk. In the glorious sun.
As someone who values clear thought not just in myself but in others, I would like to see a much tougher clampdown on recreational drugs. That might be a solution.
).
Casino gambling exists in 36 States: https://www.casino.org/us/guide/
Betting on horses and the professional sports is also widespread.
The legal situation with online betting is, as I understand it, not clear as the courts have not yet decided if the 1961 Wire Act applies to the Internet.
https://www.legalgamblingandthelaw.com/us/legal-us-online-betting-sites0 -
Very interesting, thank you. I guess Ukip was a bit of an unknown last time which might have made the exit poll more difficult.TheWhiteRabbit said:
If you fancy a read:tlg86 said:
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. So the old adage of believing the exit poll - even if it looks wrong - should be adhered to.TheWhiteRabbit said:
It the same ones because exit polls focus on changes in the vote (they are like economists in this regard).RoyalBlue said:
On the contrary, I think they keep the polling stations they use the same each year. They are aiming for stations that exemplify different parts of Britain's electoral geography, rather than just marginals.tlg86 said:For the exit poll, they'll have to think carefully about where they focus their resources. Presumably not Nuneaton.
I'm sure someone better informed can correct me...
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/statistics/staff/academic-research/firth/exit-poll-explainer/0 -
Well, being generous perhaps she is merely speculating as to his motives, but it's still a load of crap.Philip_Thompson said:
What a load of crap. You can't be both surprised and know his motives. If he disclosed his motives then you wouldn't be surprised it happened and if he never discussed it then you're just saying what you think not what he was thinking.TGOHF said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/salman-abedi-wanted-revenge-us-air-strikes-syriamanchester-bombers/
"The sister of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi believes her brother carried out the attack because he wanted revenge for US air strikes on Syria.
Jomana Abedi said in an interview her brother was kind and loving and that she was surprised by what he did on Monday.
At least 22 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when 22-year-old Abedi detonated a device as fans left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Ms Abedi said she thought he was driven by America's military attacks in the Middle East.
“I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge," she told the Wall Street Journal."0 -
O_oCyan said:
So the numbers argue that Britain should negotiate with Daesh.Y0kel said:Honest to good f**k, those looking for any party political partisan angle on Manchester, wise up. Political facts in a situation are not the same as seeing everything through your party colours.
Police resources: In NI, where active human and technical watch activity was less than 150 targets at most, there were around 8,500 regular police officers and about 4500-5000 reservists many of whom were full time. You 10's of thousands of UK military at peak, you had 6000 UDR. You had MI5 and to a smaller extent had MI6.
You had a quite widespread informant network that took about 10 years to build and grew into a monster.
Even with extensive resources and sources like that, far in excess of anything the UK government has to hand in proportion today, they had to rely heavily on informants as well as routine policing activities because they just didn't have enough to keep watch on all critical people in the way some people think you can.
You can't, get over it.
There are several hundred Abedis alone, travellers who raise suspicion. are seen in the wrong places, but don't have any firm action behind them on domestic soil. On top you have former fighters, proper grenade throwing, trigger pulling types, you have logistics support, facilitators, encouragers many of which might just decide to go to Allah even after you weed out those who won't do the pointy stick bit yet still may be of high interest. Several thousand then.
Although the IRA was never apocalypticist. But the guys at the top of Daesh probably aren't either.
Against some competition, that may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on PB.0 -
Being blamed both for interventions (which as we know have often been disastrous) and not intervening certainly hits home.MTimT said:
Wow! What a wonderful piece.TGOHF said:A British Libyan writes:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-salman-abedi-grew-to-hate-us/198660 -
Yes, but that was because she and Tory MPs forced it, not because Heath stood down.HYUFD said:
Though Thatcher toppled Heath the following yeardavid_herdson said:
Heath in October 1974 as well - though both of those followed very short parliaments.justin124 said:
Heath in 1966 too.Cyan said:
I think the last time a leader of the opposition stayed put after a government increased its majority in a general election was Gaitskell in 1959. When was the last time they did that and stayed leader until the following election? Before WW2 I think.justin124 said:
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.dyedwoolie said:
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.bobajobPB said:
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?NickPalmer said:I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists.
Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Signal-and-Noise-Demos.pdf
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?0 -
True, but JohnL's point was about "immediate post-election resignations".HYUFD said:
Both were gone by the end of the following year though and it was their decision to godavid_herdson said:
Callaghan and Home both waited before resigning: neither were immediate (as per Brown, Miliband, Major, Hague etc), nor announced but deferred (as with Howard).HYUFD said:
Kinnock in 1992, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after 6 months), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and before them Foot in 1983, Callaghan in 1979, Home in 1964 all resigned following election defeats, Heath was eventually toppled by Thatcher in 1975 a year after losing in October 1974DecrepitJohnL said:
Was it John Major who started the recent trend for immediate post-election resignations?justin124 said:
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.dyedwoolie said:
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.bobajobPB said:
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?NickPalmer said:I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists.
Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Signal-and-Noise-Demos.pdf
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?0 -
Mr. kle4, invasion (Iraq) is wrong, intervention short of that (Libya) is wrong, not intervening at all (Syria) is wrong.
If people know the answer before they have to think about it, they're beyond persuasion because they're drunk on victimhood. And they think a god is on their side.
And they're aided by useful idiots in the media and politics.0 -
A hipster with you behind him might be a nervous hipster....AlastairMeeks said:
That's a policy we can all get behind.dyedwoolie said:0 -
That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
0 -
Looks like Andrew Neil's interview with Nicola Sturgeon is going ahead as palnned tonight as BBC Wales has a double bill of interviews before an audience with Leanne Wood and Neill Hamilton from 9pm0
-
Don't see how he can know what weekend polls that are sampling now will show. But we all think they'll be intersting.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?MarqueeMark said:
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?AlastairMeeks said:0 -
I'm a remainer who thinks the referendum should be blindly ignored because chavs, etc. and yet I'm a racist. It's hard work.JonCisBack said:Been a while since I was called a racist for voting leave. sheesh
Pointless re-re-re-running this argument surely?
I voted to leave an undemocratic, unaccountable more-than-embryonic political union. I did this in the full knowledge that it would involve short term economic pain (although not nearly as much as the ridiculously hyperbolic Remain campaign claimed, and in the long run economic gain is very much in our own hands)
I did not do it because I hate foreigners.
Love Europe, not the EU. No a hard concept. imagine a football fan who may - shock, horror, despite their love of the beautiful game, not have a high opinion of FIFA. It was a bit like that.
Nothing that has happened since has made me regret my decision, even though I admit my pencil did hover uncertainly for a second over the box in the voting booth. I knew it was a big decision.
Get over yourselves Remainers! Sanctimonious, superior and bitter is not a good look.0 -
That will be Justin's niece in the Gower, worried about her 75k inheritance.TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/8673450794883481600 -
Good ol' mass immigration.Scott_P said:@DannyShawBBC: BREAKING. Security officials say since 2013, 18 plots have been thwarted - including five since the Westminster attack in March.
0 -
Whether you resign the day after or a year after it does not make any difference to the fact you have decided not to lead your party into the next general election while following a defeat. I expect Corbyn will let the members decide and force a challenge to his leadership unless May gets an absolutely crushing windavid_herdson said:
True, but JohnL's point was about "immediate post-election resignations".HYUFD said:
Both were gone by the end of the following year though and it was their decision to godavid_herdson said:
Callaghan and Home both waited before resigning: neither were immediate (as per Brown, Miliband, Major, Hague etc), nor announced but deferred (as with Howard).HYUFD said:
Kinnock in 1992, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after 6 months), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and before them Foot in 1983, Callaghan in 1979, Home in 1964 all resigned following election defeats, Heath was eventually toppled by Thatcher in 1975 a year after losing in October 1974DecrepitJohnL said:
Was it John Major who started the recent trend for immediate post-election resignations?justin124 said:
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.dyedwoolie said:
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.bobajobPB said:
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?NickPalmer said:I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists.
Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Signal-and-Noise-Demos.pdf
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?0 -
So without the gender gap Labour would be 20 points ahead in Wales !!!TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/8673450794883481600 -
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.Alice_Aforethought said:
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.0 -
Right ... negotiations
IRA ... What do you want? A united Ireland What will you accept? A power-sharing agreement.
Daesh ... What do you want? To bring everyone under the IS banner and to accept our 'true' version of Islam under pain of death. What will you accept? See previous answer.
OK, negotiate away.0 -
Indeed, he was the only post war opposition leader who had to be forced out following a defeat and a failure to make any real progress and Corbyn is just as stubborn as Heath, indeed he may see 2017 as his 1966 and 2022 as his 1970david_herdson said:
Yes, but that was because she and Tory MPs forced it, not because Heath stood down.HYUFD said:
Though Thatcher toppled Heath the following yeardavid_herdson said:
Heath in October 1974 as well - though both of those followed very short parliaments.justin124 said:
Heath in 1966 too.Cyan said:
I think the last time a leader of the opposition stayed put after a government increased its majority in a general election was Gaitskell in 1959. When was the last time they did that and stayed leader until the following election? Before WW2 I think.justin124 said:
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.dyedwoolie said:
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.bobajobPB said:
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?NickPalmer said:I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists.
Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Signal-and-Noise-Demos.pdf
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?0 -
Or a point behindMarkSenior said:
So without the gender gap Labour would be 20 points ahead in Wales !!!TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/8673450794883481600 -
< genderstereotype >TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >0 -
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.Pong said:
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.0 -
Failure to control immigration...... - what's Labours plan - ohDecrepitJohnL said:
Disagree. I'm with Karl Rove (G W Bush's election guru) on this one. Labour needs to attack Tories' and specifically Theresa May's perceived strengths, and particularly here as May's roles as Prime Minister and Home Secretary are directly relevant. This means the cuts to police numbers, the failure to stop Abedi after multiple warnings from different sources, failure to monitor travel to and return from terrorist hotspots, threats to stop sharing intelligence as part of Brexit, and yes, failure to control non-EU immigration.YBarddCwsc said:
I am not sure the PM should close it down.LadyBucket said:I think the PM can close down this debate about police numbers before Labour really get going, by just saying there is going to be a "review" after the election.
It looks like a huge mistake by Labour to me, tantamount to trying to “blame” Theresa for the attack.
Labour need to get the focus off police & security asap, and onto anything else.
In short, Labour needs to attack and destroy any impression that Theresa May and a Conservative government make Britain safe.
Open door0 -
0
-
Certainly possible. Thatcher as well always seems to send male Tories misty-eyed more so than female ones.Pong said:
< genderstereotype >TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
Hillary Clinton was also known for being cold and 53% of white women actually preferred Trump.0 -
And yet something about it rings true to me - I wonder what the male/female breakdown of Thatcher's election victories was.TheScreamingEagles said:
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.Pong said:
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.0 -
If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.0
-
I have a stub of a theory, - men are not best placed to know what women are thinking.0
-
And this from someone who was always happy to ignore the 'posh boy' theory of Cameron and Osborne.TheScreamingEagles said:
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.Pong said:
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
I am a supporter of Cameron BTW, although sadly Osborne is making a prat of himself.0 -
Perhaps it was true, but she was significantly better than May so overcame it?TheScreamingEagles said:
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.Pong said:
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.0 -
Just come back from Accra.TheScreamingEagles said:If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
There's a chocolate bar called a Nosh.0 -
0
-
I doubt any PBers are THAT shelteredTheScreamingEagles said:If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
0 -
Slug & Lettuce's strapline used to be "Nibble, Nosh, Chew".....0
-
Beer is food.Ishmael_Z said:
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.Alice_Aforethought said:
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.0 -
Thatcher was a different woman in a different era.TheScreamingEagles said:
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.Pong said:
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
Forget the words/policy positions for a moment, just go on the vibe;
May isn't warm and relatable, in same the way as - say - leadsom or lucas is.
I think - for many men, that's irrelevant, or positive in a female PM.
For many women, it's a negative.
Kinda works the other way around with men / male politicians (eg, the usual *is he gay* shite wheeled out against any man who isn't alpha).
0 -
May is doing better than Thatcher with men but worse with women, until 1997 women were always more Tory than men especially when unions were stronger and more men had blue collar jobskle4 said:
Perhaps it was true, but she was significantly better than May so overcame it?TheScreamingEagles said:
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.Pong said:
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.0 -
I had a road trip today from Aber to Lampeter via Aberaeron so decided to count number of signs on sideo of road and peoples gardens for eachcandidate - from Aber to Aberaeron (16miles) there were 14 Plaid and 14 Lib Dems 0 for any other candidate BUT in the last 13 miles Aberaeron to Lampeter the total was 27 Plaid 14 Lib Dems and 0 other candidates - not very scientific but Ceredigion could be tight0
-
Ex-Labour MP Tom Harris has something sensible to say about motivations of Islamist terrorists in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/terrorists-bitter-pathetic-young-men-resent-women-islamism-offers/
I think Billy Connolly said it better in a video on YouTube some years ago but that has now been censored.0 -
That sounds like a Chinese law firm.KentRising said:Slug & Lettuce's strapline used to be "Nibble, Nosh, Chew".....
0 -
Miss Cyclefree is, she had no idea what change at Baker Street meant.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
I doubt any PBers are THAT shelteredTheScreamingEagles said:If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
When I meet her for lunch in the next few weeks, I shall have to be on my bestest behaviour.0 -
Yes, they have a real man problem.MarkSenior said:
So without the gender gap Labour would be 20 points ahead in Wales !!!TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/8673450794883481600 -
Mr. Llama, I saw a good video of that nature. The Big Yin did a sketch as a Jihadist instructor on suicide bombing.
"Right, lads, I'll only show you this once."
Self-promotion: episode 2 of Wandering Phoenix and Roaming Tiger came out today. Fast-paced fantasy, juicy plot twists and cunning characters abound (it's actually rather good, especially the ending):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B072335K32/-1 -
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"Pong said:
< genderstereotype >TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
0 -
Exactly. I WISH Labour were stupid enough to fight the rest of the campaign on security. There would be three results:Floater said:
Failure to control immigration...... - what's Labours plan - ohDecrepitJohnL said:
Disagree. I'm with Karl Rove (G W Bush's election guru) on this one. Labour needs to attack Tories' and specifically Theresa May's perceived strengths, and particularly here as May's roles as Prime Minister and Home Secretary are directly relevant. This means the cuts to police numbers, the failure to stop Abedi after multiple warnings from different sources, failure to monitor travel to and return from terrorist hotspots, threats to stop sharing intelligence as part of Brexit, and yes, failure to control non-EU immigration.YBarddCwsc said:
I am not sure the PM should close it down.LadyBucket said:I think the PM can close down this debate about police numbers before Labour really get going, by just saying there is going to be a "review" after the election.
It looks like a huge mistake by Labour to me, tantamount to trying to “blame” Theresa for the attack.
Labour need to get the focus off police & security asap, and onto anything else.
In short, Labour needs to attack and destroy any impression that Theresa May and a Conservative government make Britain safe.
Open door
1. The public would think 'Yeah, May and the Tories can be criticized for a few things, so let's look at what Labour is offering on the subject ... Diane Abbott? Corbyn? OH HELL NO!'
2. The Tories could take the gloves off completely in rebutting Labour's attacks with an expose of the Labour leadership's history on the subject.
3. Tory landslide.
Here's hoping!0 -
Changing at Baker Street is a tad more obscure than Nosh imoTheScreamingEagles said:
Miss Cyclefree is, she had no idea what change at Baker Street meant.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
I doubt any PBers are THAT shelteredTheScreamingEagles said:If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
When I meet her for lunch in the next few weeks, I shall have to be on my bestest behaviour.0 -
To be fair to May she lost both her parents by 30 and has no siblings so has had to be very self reliant from an early stage, she was also sadly unable to have children. The fact she still did the u turn and agreed to a care costs cap also showed she can listenMikeSmithson said:
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"Pong said:
< genderstereotype >TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >0 -
Quite.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Changing at Baker Street is a tad more obscure than Nosh imoTheScreamingEagles said:
Miss Cyclefree is, she had no idea what change at Baker Street meant.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
I doubt any PBers are THAT shelteredTheScreamingEagles said:If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
When I meet her for lunch in the next few weeks, I shall have to be on my bestest behaviour.
Thank god for the Urban Dictionary!0 -
You know Andrea Leadsom?MikeSmithson said:
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"Pong said:
< genderstereotype >TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >0 -
While the rest of the post was very good just to nitpick this is nearly but not quite true.Alice_Aforethought said:Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever
It is remarkable actually that almost every known human culture ever has indeed developed alcohol. There are only to my knowledge two exceptions - one of them being the Australian Aborigines who never discovered alcohol on their own and only had it introduced to them when English settlers arrived in Australia. Nowadays the Australian Aborigine community has a massive alcohol problem as they were not used to it and took to alcohol in a really very bad way.0 -
Pretty sure wanting the moon on a stick for free from the government isn't limited to the childless.MikeSmithson said:
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"Pong said:
< genderstereotype >TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >0 -
Correct. Pedantically, ethyl alcohol is a carbohydrate and "The USDA uses a figure of 6.93 kilocalories (29.0 kJ) per gram of alcohol (5.47 kcal (22.9 kJ) per ml) for calculating food energy" (wiki "alcoholic drink"). I cannot believe that anyone is charging money as a "nutritionist" for peddling gibberish of this kind, and making people think that wine won't give them cirrhosis and even if it did, it's reversible by stopping drinking. Truly outrageous.Chris said:
Beer is food.Ishmael_Z said:
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.Alice_Aforethought said:
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.0 -
Out of interest, what's the other exception? I can't think of another one offhand.Philip_Thompson said:
While the rest of the post was very good just to nitpick this is nearly but not quite true.Alice_Aforethought said:Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever
It is remarkable actually that almost every known human culture ever has indeed developed alcohol. There are only to my knowledge two exceptions - one of them being the Australian Aborigines who never discovered alcohol on their own and only had it introduced to them when English settlers arrived in Australia. Nowadays the Australian Aborigine community has a massive alcohol problem as they were not used to it and took to alcohol in a really very bad way.0 -
You never told me you knew Andrea Leadsom.MikeSmithson said:
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"Pong said:
< genderstereotype >TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
Does she post on PB, what's her screen name?0 -
She'd be better advised to understand the existing rules first, before cod psychoanalysis.MikeSmithson said:
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"Pong said:
< genderstereotype >TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >0 -
You discover it by accident when your fruit goes off. That explains wine - it is much less obvious that you can get beer from barley.Philip_Thompson said:
While the rest of the post was very good just to nitpick this is nearly but not quite true.Alice_Aforethought said:Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever
It is remarkable actually that almost every known human culture ever has indeed developed alcohol. There are only to my knowledge two exceptions - one of them being the Australian Aborigines who never discovered alcohol on their own and only had it introduced to them when English settlers arrived in Australia. Nowadays the Australian Aborigine community has a massive alcohol problem as they were not used to it and took to alcohol in a really very bad way.0 -
Its still a very demeaning splash from The Mail of something that should be a private family matter. I imagine quite hurtful to the parents.MonikerDiCanio said:
What a fraud you are, SO. You get a fit of the vapours when the gruesome reality upsets your agenda but fall over yourself to publicize atrocity hoaxes that you wish were true.SouthamObserver said:This gets close to being evil. Maybe it's fake, but if not WTF was the Mail thinking?
https://twitter.com/ejbrand/status/8676801467650949160 -
Osborne making a prat of himself is nothing new.TMA1 said:
And this from someone who was always happy to ignore the 'posh boy' theory of Cameron and Osborne.TheScreamingEagles said:
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.Pong said:
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
I am a supporter of Cameron BTW, although sadly Osborne is making a prat of himself.0 -
I'd never heard it before TSE used it, but I worked it out straight away (though only due to my experiences literally changing at the real Baker Street)...Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Changing at Baker Street is a tad more obscure than Nosh imoTheScreamingEagles said:
Miss Cyclefree is, she had no idea what change at Baker Street meant.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
I doubt any PBers are THAT shelteredTheScreamingEagles said:If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
When I meet her for lunch in the next few weeks, I shall have to be on my bestest behaviour.0 -
The mystery of SeanT's fourth pen name SOLVED.TheScreamingEagles said:
You never told me you knew Andrea Leadsom.MikeSmithson said:
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"Pong said:
< genderstereotype >TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >
Does she post on PB, what's her screen name?
0 -
Good afternoon, fellow PB Tories!
I guess we need to get back to the cut and thrust of politics - when are the next set of polls due?0 -
My (surgeon) father told me, when I was 15 and worried about drinking beer on an empty stomach, 'there's a pork pie in every pint'!Chris said:
Beer is food.Ishmael_Z said:
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.Alice_Aforethought said:
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.0 -
Too slow, TSETheScreamingEagles said:
You never told me you knew Andrea Leadsom.MikeSmithson said:
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"Pong said:
< genderstereotype >TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype > 0 -
Who is claiming any of that?Ishmael_Z said:
Correct. Pedantically, ethyl alcohol is a carbohydrate and "The USDA uses a figure of 6.93 kilocalories (29.0 kJ) per gram of alcohol (5.47 kcal (22.9 kJ) per ml) for calculating food energy" (wiki "alcoholic drink"). I cannot believe that anyone is charging money as a "nutritionist" for peddling gibberish of this kind, and making people think that wine won't give them cirrhosis and even if it did, it's reversible by stopping drinking. Truly outrageous.Chris said:
Beer is food.Ishmael_Z said:
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.Alice_Aforethought said:
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.0 -
Rugby players ....Carolus_Rex said:
Out of interest, what's the other exception? I can't think of another one offhand.Philip_Thompson said:
While the rest of the post was very good just to nitpick this is nearly but not quite true.Alice_Aforethought said:Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever
It is remarkable actually that almost every known human culture ever has indeed developed alcohol. There are only to my knowledge two exceptions - one of them being the Australian Aborigines who never discovered alcohol on their own and only had it introduced to them when English settlers arrived in Australia. Nowadays the Australian Aborigine community has a massive alcohol problem as they were not used to it and took to alcohol in a really very bad way.0 -
I knew a chap who had to go home half way through his first year at Uni with what turned out to be scurvy. He'd literally been living on nothing but pork pies and pints of beer for months.JonnyJimmy said:
My (surgeon) father told me, when I was 15 and worried about drinking beer on an empty stomach, 'there's a pork pie in every pint'!Chris said:
Beer is food.Ishmael_Z said:
What a lot of bollocks. I drink primarily to get drunk and so does everyone else I know, and wtf is a "recognised food group"? And if your "nutritionist" believes that beer and cider contain calories and other alcoholic drinks do not, and only cider contains sugar, and that spirits damage the liver but red wine does not, or that the liver automatically repairs itself in all cases when a drinker stops drinking, he needs prosecuting for endangering the health of his clients.Alice_Aforethought said:
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.0 -
Mr. S, good afternoon.
F1: early days, but Ferrari looking tasty. Mercedes haven't shown their speed yet. I suspect the Prancing Horse will be faster (I toyed with backing Vettel for pole at 2.87 but the chances of something going wrong are too high).0 -
He was the only leader who *was* forced out following a defeat and a failure to make any real progress. Two others faced elections but came through. Gaitskell was challenged in both 1960 and 1961, after Labour went backwards in the previous year's election but held on. Kinnock was also challenged by Benn in 1988 but saw him off easily (though Kinnock did make a small amount of progress).HYUFD said:
Indeed, he was the only post war opposition leader who had to be forced out following a defeat and a failure to make any real progress and Corbyn is just as stubborn as Heath, indeed he may see 2017 as his 1966 and 2022 as his 1970david_herdson said:
Yes, but that was because she and Tory MPs forced it, not because Heath stood down.HYUFD said:
Though Thatcher toppled Heath the following yeardavid_herdson said:
Heath in October 1974 as well - though both of those followed very short parliaments.justin124 said:
Heath in 1966 too.Cyan said:
I think the last time a leader of the opposition stayed put after a government increased its majority in a general election was Gaitskell in 1959. When was the last time they did that and stayed leader until the following election? Before WW2 I think.justin124 said:
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.dyedwoolie said:
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.bobajobPB said:
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?NickPalmer said:I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists.
Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Signal-and-Noise-Demos.pdf
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?0 -
Shoe envy. Only possible explanation.Pong said:
Thatcher was a different woman in a different era.TheScreamingEagles said:
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.Pong said:
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
Forget the words/policy positions for a moment, just go on the vibe;
May isn't warm and relatable, in same the way as - say - leadsom or lucas is.
I think - for many men, that's irrelevant, or positive in a female PM.
For many women, it's a negative.
Kinda works the other way around with men / male politicians (eg, the usual *is he gay* shite wheeled out against any man who isn't alpha).0 -
The discovery that has always fascinated me is that of "finings", the stuff that makes beer clear, rather than its natural cloudy state. Finings are added to the barrel at the conclusion of the brewing process and were originally made of dried fish guts. Now, how on earth did that discovery come about?Ishmael_Z said:
You discover it by accident when your fruit goes off. That explains wine - it is much less obvious that you can get beer from barley.Philip_Thompson said:
While the rest of the post was very good just to nitpick this is nearly but not quite true.Alice_Aforethought said:Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever
It is remarkable actually that almost every known human culture ever has indeed developed alcohol. There are only to my knowledge two exceptions - one of them being the Australian Aborigines who never discovered alcohol on their own and only had it introduced to them when English settlers arrived in Australia. Nowadays the Australian Aborigine community has a massive alcohol problem as they were not used to it and took to alcohol in a really very bad way.
"I am fed up with this cloudy beer, Harry, what say you we throw a handful of dried fish guts into the barrel? See if that solves it"0 -
Did Stop The War write that for her? It is the sort of nonsense they come out with.TGOHF said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/salman-abedi-wanted-revenge-us-air-strikes-syriamanchester-bombers/
"The sister of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi believes her brother carried out the attack because he wanted revenge for US air strikes on Syria.
Jomana Abedi said in an interview her brother was kind and loving and that she was surprised by what he did on Monday.
At least 22 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when 22-year-old Abedi detonated a device as fans left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Ms Abedi said she thought he was driven by America's military attacks in the Middle East.
“I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge," she told the Wall Street Journal."
It was interesting that Sky doorstepped the father of the man who is credited with recruiting all the lads around Manchester and he just laughed and said no no no that can't be true when the reporter said did you know this was the fact.
The reporter then shows him all the ISIS files and he leaves. There is no way that when his son was killed that the authorities won't have told him this was the case, but he clearly won't accept the fact.
0 -
Should give them head start with male votersTheScreamingEagles said:A bit of a blow for UKIP
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/8676971753079234560 -
There would have been a lot of shoe envy at the PB meet tomorrow had I been there.Anorak said:
Shoe envy. Only possible explanation.Pong said:
Thatcher was a different woman in a different era.TheScreamingEagles said:
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.Pong said:
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
Forget the words/policy positions for a moment, just go on the vibe;
May isn't warm and relatable, in same the way as - say - leadsom or lucas is.
I think - for many men, that's irrelevant, or positive in a female PM.
For many women, it's a negative.
Kinda works the other way around with men / male politicians (eg, the usual *is he gay* shite wheeled out against any man who isn't alpha).
I wanted to debut a new pair of shoes.0 -
Miss Cyclefree "Thanks for meeting me .... I managed a quick change at Baker Street but fancy a bit of nosh now ...."TheScreamingEagles said:
Miss Cyclefree is, she had no idea what change at Baker Street meant.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
I doubt any PBers are THAT shelteredTheScreamingEagles said:If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
When I meet her for lunch in the next few weeks, I shall have to be on my bestest behaviour.
TSE "I think you're mistaking me for SeanT ...."0 -
david_herdson said:
Heath also survived in 1966 but won in 1970. Gaitskill did survive but his death meant Wilson was leader of Labour in 1964. Kinnock increased both Labour's voteshare and seat total in 1987 and saw off the SDP/Alliance so had more of a case to stay onHYUFD said:
He was the only leader who *was* forced out following a defeat and a failure to make any real progress. Two others faced elections but came through. Gaitskell was challenged in both 1960 and 1961, after Labour went backwards in the previous year's election but held on. Kinnock was also challenged by Benn in 1988 but saw him off easily (though Kinnock did make a small amount of progress).david_herdson said:
Indeed, he was the only post war opposition leader who had to be forced out following a defeat and a failure to make any real progress and Corbyn is just as stubborn as Heath, indeed he may see 2017 as his 1966 and 2022 as his 1970HYUFD said:
Yes, but that was because she and Tory MPs forced it, not because Heath stood down.david_herdson said:
Though Thatcher toppled Heath the following yearjustin124 said:
Heath in October 1974 as well - though both of those followed very short parliaments.Cyan said:
Heath in 1966 too.justin124 said:
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats W2 I think.dyedwoolie said:
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.bobajobPB said:
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?NickPalmer said:I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists.
Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Signal-and-Noise-Demos.pdf
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?0 -
Jezza's favourite online read...peddling sick fake news.
https://order-order.com/2017/05/25/canarys-conspiracy-theory-suns-terror-front-page-batsht/0 -
LMAO, I was thinking that as well.ThreeQuidder said:
You know Andrea Leadsom?MikeSmithson said:
A woman I know blames TMay's social care U-turn on not being a parent. "If she'd had children she'd understanding the powerful desire to pass something on to them on your death"Pong said:
< genderstereotype >TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women.
They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
< / genderstereotype >0 -
Should have had the occasional G&T. The lemon would have prevented the scurvy without the risk of accidentally taking in any other essential nutrients.Carolus_Rex said:
I knew a chap who had to go home half way through his first year at Uni with what turned out to be scurvy. He'd literally been living on nothing but pork pies and pints of beer for months.JonnyJimmy said:
My (surgeon) father told me, when I was 15 and worried about drinking beer on an empty stomach, 'there's a pork pie in every pint'!Chris said:Beer is food.
0 -
It would be re-assuring to believe that when the Tories publish their re-hashed proposals setting out the capped limit for social care, those of us living in England & Wales will be treated entirely fairly by comparison with those living in Scotland, where the contributions from the recipients of such care is ABSOLUTELY ZERO.0
-
A blow job? I did google it - never heard of it. I suppose it suits some depraved people to pretend that everyone else is depraved so that they don't feel the need to have any qualms about their depravity...Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
I doubt any PBers are THAT shelteredTheScreamingEagles said:If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
0 -
I see what you did there.bigjohnowls said:
Should give them head start with male votersTheScreamingEagles said:A bit of a blow for UKIP
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/8676971753079234560 -
Absolute bollocks from start to finishPong said:
Yup. People like foreign care workers have thought *screw it* why should I deal with this unpleasantness. I'll go *home* or to X country, earn a little less, pay a lot less for my housing and make a life for myself there.AlastairMeeks said:I've been predicting for some time that immigration would fall by using the simple method of being so unpleasant to foreigners that they would get the message. Clearly that's working.
Our elderly must now pay much higher wages to (often) lower quality *British* careworkers - which will involve liquidating their housing assets en masse.
That's what they voted for.0 -
Are they the only people who count?SouthamObserver said:
How have the lives of pensioners living in low areas of immigration been ruined by mass immigration?isam said:
People whose lives were ruined by mass immigration don't need politicians to lie for them to vote against itAlastairMeeks said:
I'm sorry that it upsets you so much to be reminded that Brexit was secured through xenophobic lies, but it's the essential reason why Brexit is the enduring disaster of the age for the country.JonnyJimmy said:
It lacks the elegance of your method of ensuring Brexit by telling most Brits they're racist scum.AlastairMeeks said:I've been predicting for some time that immigration would fall by using the simple method of being so unpleasant to foreigners that they would get the message. Clearly that's working.
0 -
Trump tried to provoke North Korea; now he's provoking China. Does he want something?
"China Warned U.S. Warship Challenging Its South China Sea Claims".0 -
Zahid Hussain guilty of fairy lights bomb plot
A man who planned to target a railway line with a homemade bomb of fairy lights and a pressure cooker has been found guilty of preparing for an act of terrorism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-400467730 -
In days of yore it was possible to get Guinness on prescription.JonnyJimmy said:
My (surgeon) father told me, when I was 15 and worried about drinking beer on an empty stomach, 'there's a pork pie in every pint'!
When in the late seventies my grandmother fell and broke her hip all her grandchildren turned up at Putney Hospital with bottles, even cases, of Guinness for her and the staff raised no objection. The lady in the next bed preferred Sherry and her grandchildren duly obliged, again with no objection from the staff. Personally, I think the nurses just found it easier if a ward full of cantankerous old ladies were three parts-pissed most of the time.
Times change, medical fashions alter.0 -
You expect PB to swallow that ....Dadge said:
A blow job? I did google it - never heard of it. I suppose it suits some depraved people to pretend that everyone else is depraved so that they don't feel the need to have any qualms about their depravity...Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
I doubt any PBers are THAT shelteredTheScreamingEagles said:If you have no idea of what nosh(ing) means, don't google it.
Tsk ....0 -
My theory, as a woman, is that you are talking bollocks.Pong said:
Thatcher was a different woman in a different era.TheScreamingEagles said:
If that theory was true, Mrs Thatcher would have never won an election.Pong said:
I have a stub of a theory that TM rubs many women up the wrong way.TheScreamingEagles said:That YouGov Wales poll with Labour ahead, an explanation of why it might be an outlier.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/867348365939548162
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/867345079488348160
I think her occasionally cold, moralizing tone grates with a substantial proportion of women. They don't like being told what to do by a domineering mother-in-law type woman.
Many men are either ambivalent, or quite like it.
Forget the words/policy positions for a moment, just go on the vibe;
May isn't warm and relatable, in same the way as - say - leadsom or lucas is.
I think - for many men, that's irrelevant, or positive in a female PM.
For many women, it's a negative.
Kinda works the other way around with men / male politicians (eg, the usual *is he gay* shite wheeled out against any man who isn't alpha).
0 -
Can you explain your reasoning, please,Mr Floater? So far, you do not convince me.Floater said:
Absolute bollocks from start to finishPong said:
Yup. People like foreign care workers have thought *screw it* why should I deal with this unpleasantness. I'll go *home* or to X country, earn a little less, pay a lot less for my housing and make a life for myself there.AlastairMeeks said:I've been predicting for some time that immigration would fall by using the simple method of being so unpleasant to foreigners that they would get the message. Clearly that's working.
Our elderly must now pay much higher wages to (often) lower quality *British* careworkers - which will involve liquidating their housing assets en masse.
That's what they voted for.0
