politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Queen’s Speech timing: the product of what Lynton would ca
Options
Comments
-
Of course we do. But that is no excuse to make up stuff to fill in the gaps. As for Christianity teaching us we are useless on our own, that is because what it wants, in its post Imperial acceptance form, is for us to all blindly follow its teachings.CD13 said:Always remember that surveys have shown that people tend to have a higher view of their own IQ than is warranted; the same goes for their judgement,
This means they tend to look down on others when perhaps they shouldn't. That's a problem for politicians and political geeks too. Hence the nonsense about I've never kissed a Tory t-shirts, and that the other side is both wrong AND malevolent.
Christianity teaches that we're all pretty useless on our own. This is anathema (!) to those who have a an elevated opinion of themselves. They may be right, there may be no God, but it's not a very scientific view. You can never bank on proving a negative.
In 1900, we believed that all that was needed in physics then was to tweak the decimal places. Now we know that we know a lot less. Relativity, quantum theory, dark matter and energy were found. Dark stuff being 95% of our world - and we have no real idea what it is.
We always know a lot less than we think we do.
Be Pure, Be Vigilant, Behave.0 -
It looks to me like the Queens speech ultimatum, and CCHQ GE prep may be related.0
-
The DUP won't vote against the Queen's Speech imo, the Tory's need to call their bluff.0
-
Time to tell the DUP the games up!calum said:
Present the QS and see whether Parliament votes it down or not... My guess is the DUP will support it anyway because they won't want another election this Summer!0 -
Just fuck off, arsehole. You don't deserve a modicum of civility.Theuniondivvie said:
That 'all of us' is so telling.MarqueeMark said:
You could try getting back to all of us when you've stopped being a twat.Theuniondivvie said:
It's not funny. At all.MarqueeMark said:
Is that supposed to be funny?Theuniondivvie said:
Or maybe I'm just a little oversensitive, having seen that building at 7.00 am yesterday, still spewing out smoke.
I'll get back to you when I've worked how much your oversensitivity figures in the scheme of things.0 -
And including Mrs Thatcher's old seat does not give you pause that perhaps religion is not the primary factor you suppose? And if you look at my anecdote, it clearly says that Livingstone did give major offence -- but ironically by making the same claim that seems to underlie your question. Here's my hypothesis -- the average house price in a constituency is a better guide than its religious makeup.Alice_Aforethought said:
If a party is anti-Semitic then if there are more than x% of Jewish voters in any given seat that seat become unwinnable for that party.DecrepitJohnL said:
You beg the question; or rather two separate questions. Why should any percentage of any religion make a seat unwinnable for any party?Alice_Aforethought said:
How true is any of what? I merely wondered what percentage of Jewish voters it takes to make a constituency unwinnable for Labour.DecrepitJohnL said:
How true is any of this? Ilford North is Labour; Mrs Thatcher's old seat is Conservative. Anecdote alert: I asked some small-c conservative jews about Ken Livingstone earlier this year; they were not bothered about his views on Hitler but had been incandescent when Livingstone wrote off jews as a Tory bloc a couple of years back.Alice_Aforethought said:
Indeed. I can't be bothered to do it myself, but it would be interesting to look at geographical distribution of Jewish voters to see how many it takes per constituency for the seat to become unwinnable for Labour.
Your anecdote is just an anecdote. I have others. We have it from Labour MPs and other party officials that Labour tolerates anti-Semitism. When Emma Barnett twitted Corbyn on the radio, it took minutes for his supporters to point out that she is a Jew. In my previous post above I provided a few verbatim Livingstone quotes.
Which other party's supporters do this? About which other ethnicity would this be tolerated?
Such is the hypothesis. The evidence from Finchley, Hendon and Barnet supports it in London. Undermining it we have only anecdote.0 -
This from someone who loathes Corbyn,
Jane MerrickVerified account @janemerrick23
Why did Downing Street let Theresa May visit the fire scene in private rather than in public? Looks bad, shades of Bush after Katrina
0 -
You are wrong on both of your pointsRichard_Nabavi said:You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.
The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
The EU does not export more agricultural foodstuffs to the UK than it consumes internally. The "disruption" to the EU agriculture sector of not being able to buy from the UK, and maybe having some trouble selling to us will not materially affect them.
The Brexiteer belief in UK exceptionalism is one of the main drivers for the vote, and will be a key part of their undoing0 -
Correct. It's a good proxy measure of integration, actually, which is why it's so interesting that seats with small Conservative majorities but a higher than average number of Jewish voters in them did not fall to Corbyn's Labour party.Peter_the_Punter said:
There is no Jewish bloc vote. As a social group, I should say they are more difficult to pin down in their voting habits than most.DecrepitJohnL said:
How true is any of this? Ilford North is Labour; Mrs Thatcher's old seat is Conservative. Anecdote alert: I asked some small-c conservative jews about Ken Livingstone earlier this year; they were not bothered about his views on Hitler but had been incandescent when Livingstone wrote off jews as a Tory bloc a couple of years back.Alice_Aforethought said:
Indeed. I can't be bothered to do it myself, but it would be interesting to look at geographical distribution of Jewish voters to see how many it takes per constituency for the seat to become unwinnable for Labour.PeterC said:
You seem much exercised with the supposed bigotry of others. You support a party which has much answer concerning anti-semitic bigotry.Bobajob_PB said:
Old poll. Much chaos and backroom bargaining with a bunch of regionalist bigots has ensued since then.HYUFD said:
Survation had voters opposing another general election this autumn by 49% to 40% and Survation were closest to the final election resultlogical_song said:
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.Alistair said:
Turnout was up nationally.freetochoose said:
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.felix said:Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13
On another general election this autumn:
Support: 43%
Oppose: 38%
(via @YouGov / 09 - 10 Jun)
Call it.
Moats and beams.0 -
Only matters if labour offer it, which they're not. Until then it's just mumour.rottenborough said:
How long before the clamour to hold a 2nd referendum grows?Richard_Nabavi said:
All true, but don't forget that it works equally the other way, and the EU exports more food to us than we do to them. No deal is a bad deal for them as well as for us. That's no guarantee that it will all be sorted out, of course - unfortunately the great British public have just made it incomparably harder to get a deal.Scott_P said:0 -
Don't play the victim. I'm sure your little joke about incinerated Londoners would tickle your Nat pals but not here on PB.Theuniondivvie said:
That 'all of us' is so telling.MarqueeMark said:
You could try getting back to all of us when you've stopped being a twat.Theuniondivvie said:
It's not funny. At all.MarqueeMark said:
Is that supposed to be funny?Theuniondivvie said:
Or maybe I'm just a little oversensitive, having seen that building at 7.00 am yesterday, still spewing out smoke.
I'll get back to you when I've worked how much your oversensitivity figures in the scheme of things.0 -
The danger is that he could throw away his advantage. Marginalising the moderates and John McDonnell leading a march of the left to overthrow the Tories and their terrorists on 1st July is a good way to startOchEye said:
The Tories have a negligible majority, they have a leader which most of the PCP/Party members and supporters despise, the House of Lords does not have a Tory Majority - everything sent to it will be sent back - And whatever you may think about him, Corbyn has been in the house for 30 odd years and is well aware of all the techniques to screw a Government party. All he was able to do previously was protest, now that he has his hands on the levers....And the Men in Grey Suits are aware of all this!PeterC said:
True. There is no defensible case for an October election.HYUFD said:
Labour want one the Tories don't and as the Tories have more seats there won't be onePeterC said:
Assuming the QS i passed, what would be the reason advanced for an October election?HYUFD said:
No that poll was taken after the election result and it showed voters were just as opposed to a Labour SNP deal as a Tory DUP dealBobajob_PB said:
Old poll. Much chaos and backroom bargaining with a bunch of regionalist bigots has ensued since then.HYUFD said:
Survation had voters opposing another general election this autumn by 49% to 40% and Survation were closest to the final election resultlogical_song said:
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.Alistair said:
Turnout was up nationally.freetochoose said:
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.felix said:Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13
On another general election this autumn:
Support: 43%
Oppose: 38%
(via @YouGov / 09 - 10 Jun)
Call it.0 -
Tory bloated with sanctimony nears bursting point.MarqueeMark said:
Just fuck off, arsehole. You don't deserve a modicum of civility.Theuniondivvie said:
That 'all of us' is so telling.MarqueeMark said:
You could try getting back to all of us when you've stopped being a twat.Theuniondivvie said:
It's not funny. At all.MarqueeMark said:
Is that supposed to be funny?Theuniondivvie said:
Or maybe I'm just a little oversensitive, having seen that building at 7.00 am yesterday, still spewing out smoke.
I'll get back to you when I've worked how much your oversensitivity figures in the scheme of things.
Has this ever happened before?0 -
We would be pushing up our own food costs if we imposed the checks at our end. The opposite would not apply as it would just create greater demand within the EU for produce from EU member states.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.Scott_P said:No. it doesn't work "equally". That's the point.
Unless you are really claiming we will only import food into the UK through Rosyth
0 -
Mr. CD13, that's unsurprising. It's probably why people with above average IQs sometimes take it rather too seriously.0
-
Prepare for PM Corbyn guys.0
-
It does appear that announcing the QS is the government signalling to the DUP "Call my Bluff"0
-
What has Mrs Thatcher's old seat to do with it?DecrepitJohnL said:
And including Mrs Thatcher's old seat does not give you pause that perhaps religion is not the primary factor you suppose? And if you look at my anecdote, it clearly says that Livingstone did give major offence -- but ironically by making the same claim that seems to underlie your question. Here's my hypothesis -- the average house price in a constituency is a better guide than its religious makeup.Alice_Aforethought said:
If a party is anti-Semitic then if there are more than x% of Jewish voters in any given seat that seat become unwinnable for that party.DecrepitJohnL said:
You beg the question; or rather two separate questions. Why should any percentage of any religion make a seat unwinnable for any party?Alice_Aforethought said:
How true is any of what? I merely wondered what percentage of Jewish voters it takes to make a constituency unwinnable for Labour.DecrepitJohnL said:
How true is any of this? Ilford North is Labour; Mrs Thatcher's old seat is Conservative. Anecdote alert: I asked some small-c conservative jews about Ken Livingstone earlier this year; they were not bothered about his views on Hitler but had been incandescent when Livingstone wrote off jews as a Tory bloc a couple of years back.Alice_Aforethought said:
Indeed. I can't be bothered to do it myself, but it would be interesting to look at geographical distribution of Jewish voters to see how many it takes per constituency for the seat to become unwinnable for Labour.
Your anecdote is just an anecdote. I have others. We have it from Labour MPs and other party officials that Labour tolerates anti-Semitism. When Emma Barnett twitted Corbyn on the radio, it took minutes for his supporters to point out that she is a Jew. In my previous post above I provided a few verbatim Livingstone quotes.
Which other party's supporters do this? About which other ethnicity would this be tolerated?
Such is the hypothesis. The evidence from Finchley, Hendon and Barnet supports it in London. Undermining it we have only anecdote.
What relationship between house price and political affiliation do you propose? I am suggesting that if a seat has more than X% of Jewish voters in it an anti-Semitic party will not win it.
0 -
And the cladding is possibly part of modern building design to help combat that great left-wing religion of our age, "Climate Change" ...SeanT said:
Indeed. So much lefty drivel is being issued over this awful fire, they could probably have put it out with the drool.
It was the cladding which made the tower a death trap. Not cuts in fire prevention, not Tories shoving poor people in vertical jails, not the ghost of Thatcher sending lightning bolts. It was the cladding, which is used across the world and recently caused a very similar fire in Australia, that well known Fascist hellhole
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/cladding-in-2014-melbourne-high-rise-blaze-also-used-in-grenfell-tower
Still, won't stop the government getting it in the neck.0 -
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.SouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I had this debate, inconclusively, with Rochdale Pioneers a few weeks ago. He like you was adamant that the answer to some unforgivable social evil was to vote Labour. But the example he chose - people dying in filthy hospitals - was one that began and became commonplace under Labour at a time when money was being firehosed at hospitals.
Likewise you would like, it appears, to seize on this fire as evidence of the deep injustice of society. But the block has just had millions spent on it and the people who lived there are covered by the same regulations as those that govern all such buildings, including those built in Docklands or Paddington Basin and sold to private buyers. Do you think those developers build them any better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
0 -
Climate change may cause deaths in the future, but combating climate change is definitely causing them right now.GIN1138 said:
And the cladding is possibly part of modern building design to help combat that great left-wing religion of our age, "Climate Change" ...SeanT said:
Indeed. So much lefty drivel is being issued over this awful fire, they could probably have put it out with the drool.
It was the cladding which made the tower a death trap. Not cuts in fire prevention, not Tories shoving poor people in vertical jails, not the ghost of Thatcher sending lightning bolts. It was the cladding, which is used across the world and recently caused a very similar fire in Australia, that well known Fascist hellhole
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/cladding-in-2014-melbourne-high-rise-blaze-also-used-in-grenfell-tower
Still, won't stop the government getting it in the neck.0 -
Mike's holiday starts in a fortnight.
I'm hoping for a quiet three weeks.0 -
I don't think there's any malice in what Theresa is doing, or isn't doing.old_labour said:This from someone who loathes Corbyn,
Jane MerrickVerified account @janemerrick23
Why did Downing Street let Theresa May visit the fire scene in private rather than in public? Looks bad, shades of Bush after Katrina
It's probably that she just struggles to read the situation, politically, quickly enough to know what the right move to make is.
Of course, that poses its own problem.0 -
Our EU friends can't have it both ways. Either they want to continue with disruption-free trade in the agricultural sector or they don't. The article lists some difficulties they could make. Those difficulties are not mandated by heavenly intervention, they are 100% the invention of the EU. It is entirely up to them whether they do a deal which means the trade isn't disrupted; the UK has made it clear that we don't want it to be. If they play silly buggers, yes, it will be damaging to us, but we'll just have to buy our tomatoes from Morocco instead of Spain and Italy, and find new export markets for our small agricultural sector.Scott_P said:The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.0 -
You think that. They don't. That will drive their decision-making. Their objectives are to keep the rest of the EU together, move on and to ensure as much as possible of the inevitable Brexit damage falls on our side, not theirs.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.Scott_P said:No. it doesn't work "equally". That's the point.
Unless you are really claiming we will only import food into the UK through Rosyth
We have two non-car crash possibilities. Minimal change involving a permanent commitment to the EEA and other existing agreements. Or revoking Article 50. Neither is ideal from our point of view and agreement for them is far is from certain within the UK. It's not certain the EU will agree either.0 -
Well that's torn it. New GE nailed on then.TheScreamingEagles said:Mike's holiday starts in a fortnight.
I'm hoping for a quiet three weeks.0 -
Not sure if I'm the only one who fiddles with bets so much, but if you laid Swinson at 1.5 or thereabouts, you could back her now at 1.73. I think I overdid it a little, so backed her a bit to be roughly up the same if she gets the gig or not.0
-
If there is another election I expect Labour will offer in their manifesto a jobs, people, and economy first Brexit.
Which will be substantially vague enough for them to win, and allow for BINO0 -
I think the DUP will pass the Queens speech, but they'll bring the Gov't down when it is convienient to them.0
-
The Zoomers really do probe the absolute depths of sarcasm being the lowest form of wit.MarqueeMark said:
Just fuck off, arsehole. You don't deserve a modicum of civility.Theuniondivvie said:
That 'all of us' is so telling.MarqueeMark said:
You could try getting back to all of us when you've stopped being a twat.Theuniondivvie said:
It's not funny. At all.MarqueeMark said:
Is that supposed to be funny?Theuniondivvie said:
Or maybe I'm just a little oversensitive, having seen that building at 7.00 am yesterday, still spewing out smoke.
I'll get back to you when I've worked how much your oversensitivity figures in the scheme of things.0 -
Are you having a rethink?SeanT said:Prediction: if there is another GE in the summer, the next one WILL be about Brexit. It will have to be.
We might be on the verge of having a National Rethink.
I think there would need to be polls showing a large majority experiencing Bregret before it becomes even on the table as a possibility.0 -
Am I detecting a soupçon of Bregret creeping onto pb? How curious.0
-
Good God a million quid for a potential death trap. London is bonkers.SeanT said:
"Cramped housing for the working poor". FFS. Listen to yourself you dribbling idiot. This was a perfectly acceptable tower block recently renovated to the tune of ten million. If the council dwellers decided to sell these flats they could probably get £1m for a 3 bedroom apartment, given the location. There are identical private towers nearby.SouthamObserver said:
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smoSouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
This is not the Gorbals in 1950, or Gin Lane in 1790.
Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.0 -
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/john-mcdonnell/news/86715/john-mcdonnell-calls-1m-people-‘get
Predictable from John 'I love a good march' McDonnell0 -
I was thinking that.MonikerDiCanio said:
Khan better get a grip. London's taking a battering on his watch.EDW20000 said:Today's London under the Tories: Tower block housing that kills whole families and hospital staff attacked with acid -
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/moped-muggers-spray-acid-in-face-of-trainee-doctor-outside-hospital-a3565571.html
All this talk of Tory cuts being to blame, in reality all the major atrocities occured under a Labour mayor.
Now I think making that point is pretty pathetic, but then again I didn't start the mud slinging0 -
There's no "malice" in Theresa May at all (except when it comes to George Osborne) it's just that she's not a people person and is a terrible leader.Casino_Royale said:
I don't think there's any malice in what Theresa is doing, or isn't doing.old_labour said:This from someone who loathes Corbyn,
Jane MerrickVerified account @janemerrick23
Why did Downing Street let Theresa May visit the fire scene in private rather than in public? Looks bad, shades of Bush after Katrina
It's probably that she just struggles to read the situation, politically, quickly enough to know what the right move to make is.
Of course, that poses its own problem.
She needs to resign.0 -
Och, the wee boy's turned up again.Casino_Royale said:
The Zoomers really do probe the absolute depths of sarcasm being the lowest form of wit.MarqueeMark said:
Just fuck off, arsehole. You don't deserve a modicum of civility.Theuniondivvie said:
That 'all of us' is so telling.MarqueeMark said:
You could try getting back to all of us when you've stopped being a twat.Theuniondivvie said:
It's not funny. At all.MarqueeMark said:
Is that supposed to be funny?Theuniondivvie said:
Or maybe I'm just a little oversensitive, having seen that building at 7.00 am yesterday, still spewing out smoke.
I'll get back to you when I've worked how much your oversensitivity figures in the scheme of things.0 -
BINO?TheScreamingEagles said:If there is another election I expect Labour will offer in their manifesto a jobs, people, and economy first Brexit.
Which will be substantially vague enough for them to win, and allow for BINO0 -
Wrong againRichard_Nabavi said:Our EU friends can't have it both ways. Either they want to continue with disruption-free trade in the agricultural sector or they don't. The article lists some difficulties they could make. Those difficulties are not mandated by heavenly intervention, they are 100% the invention of the EU. It is entirely up to them whether they do a deal which means the trade isn't disrupted; the UK has made it clear that we don't want it to be. If they play silly buggers, yes, it will be damaging to us, but we'll just have to buy our tomatoes from Morocco instead of Spain and Italy, and find new export markets for our small agricultural sector.
What the article is describing is the existing situation for non-EU members.
Our "no deal" would be a disaster, and it's up to us if we walk away.0 -
But apart from that..GIN1138 said:it's just that she's not a people person and is a terrible leader.
0 -
I'd have a serious think in a 2nd referendum, it is not clear to me which way my future self will vote at this point.0
-
It's only really the Daily Mail comments section and the tattooed inmates of flat roofed workingmen's clubs in the North who are still hard Brexit true believers. The rest of Leave voters are now pretending they've always been in favour of a downy, soft Brexit.SeanT said:Prediction: if there is another GE in the summer, the next one WILL be about Brexit. It will have to be.
We might be on the verge of having a National Rethink.0 -
You seem to be asking the question to plant the idea that Labour is anti-semitic. Mrs Thatcher's old seat was voting Conservative decades ago, so there is no reason to assume religion is suddenly a factor. Class and wealth are more likely.Alice_Aforethought said:
What has Mrs Thatcher's old seat to do with it?DecrepitJohnL said:
And including Mrs Thatcher's old seat does not give you pause that perhaps religion is not the primary factor you suppose? And if you look at my anecdote, it clearly says that Livingstone did give major offence -- but ironically by making the same claim that seems to underlie your question. Here's my hypothesis -- the average house price in a constituency is a better guide than its religious makeup.Alice_Aforethought said:
If a party is anti-Semitic then if there are more than x% of Jewish voters in any given seat that seat become unwinnable for that party.DecrepitJohnL said:
You beg the question; or rather two separate questions. Why should any percentage of any religion make a seat unwinnable for any party?Alice_Aforethought said:
How true is any of what? I merely wondered what percentage of Jewish voters it takes to make a constituency unwinnable for Labour.DecrepitJohnL said:
How true is any of this? Ilford North is Labour; Mrs Thatcher's old seat is Conservative. Anecdote alert: I asked some small-c conservative jews about Ken Livingstone earlier this year; they were not bothered about his views on Hitler but had been incandescent when Livingstone wrote off jews as a Tory bloc a couple of years back.Alice_Aforethought said:
Indeed. I can't be bothered to do it myself, but it would be interesting to look at geographical distribution of Jewish voters to see how many it takes per constituency for the seat to become unwinnable for Labour.
Your anecdote is just an anecdote. I have others. We have it from Labour MPs and other party officials that Labour tolerates anti-Semitism. When Emma Barnett twitted Corbyn on the radio, it took minutes for his supporters to point out that she is a Jew. In my previous post above I provided a few verbatim Livingstone quotes.
Which other party's supporters do this? About which other ethnicity would this be tolerated?
Such is the hypothesis. The evidence from Finchley, Hendon and Barnet supports it in London. Undermining it we have only anecdote.
What relationship between house price and political affiliation do you propose? I am suggesting that if a seat has more than X% of Jewish voters in it an anti-Semitic party will not win it.0 -
No just SeanT having another one of his wobbles again I think...AlastairMeeks said:Am I detecting a soupçon of Bregret creeping onto pb? How curious.
0 -
"The UK has made it clear that we don't want [disrupted trade]." It absolutely is not making that clear. Theresa May explicitly ruled out the Single Market, which is the mechanism by which trade is not interrupted. We can argue in the abstract, but what you are arguing for in terms of real consequences is we drive our car into a brick wall. Do you really want that? We need to get real.Richard_Nabavi said:
Our EU friends can't have it both ways. Either they want to continue with disruption-free trade in the agricultural sector or they don't. The article lists some difficulties they could make. Those difficulties are not mandated by heavenly intervention, they are 100% the invention of the EU. It is entirely up to them whether they do a deal which means the trade isn't disrupted; the UK has made it clear that we don't want it to be. If they play silly buggers, yes, it will be damaging to us, but we'll just have to buy our tomatoes from Morocco instead of Spain and Italy, and find new export markets for our small agricultural sector.Scott_P said:The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
0 -
Nope.AlastairMeeks said:Am I detecting a soupçon of Bregret creeping onto pb? How curious.
0 -
SeanT rethinks about 43 times every day!Andy_Cooke said:
Are you having a rethink?SeanT said:Prediction: if there is another GE in the summer, the next one WILL be about Brexit. It will have to be.
We might be on the verge of having a National Rethink.
I think there would need to be polls showing a large majority experiencing Bregret before it becomes even on the table as a possibility.
0 -
-
You can play with the new swingometer now on Antony Wells site.TheScreamingEagles said:If there is another election I expect Labour will offer in their manifesto a jobs, people, and economy first Brexit.
Which will be substantially vague enough for them to win, and allow for BINO
I typed in Lab - 45% and Con - 36% for the next election, with LDs on about 12%, and I got a Labour majority of 28.0 -
Oh shit.TheScreamingEagles said:Mike's holiday starts in a fortnight.
I'm hoping for a quiet three weeks.0 -
Well, it clearly wasn't acceptable, was it?SeanT said:
"Cramped housing for the working poor". FFS. Listen to yourself you dribbling idiot. This was a perfectly acceptable tower block recently renovated to the tune of ten million. If the council dwellers decided to sell these flats they could probably get £1m for a 3 bedroom apartment, given the location. There are identical private towers nearby.SouthamObserver said:
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smoSouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
This is not the Gorbals in 1950, or Gin Lane in 1790.
Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.
If you do not see the symbolism, that is fine. I suspect many others will. There are reasons why Jeremy Corbyn's message resonated - especially in big cities and in London in particular.
0 -
"Don't adjust your set. Reality is at fault."AlastairMeeks said:Am I detecting a soupçon of Bregret creeping onto pb? How curious.
0 -
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?SouthamObserver said:
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.SouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I had this debate, inconclusively, with Rochdale Pioneers a few weeks ago. He like you was adamant that the answer to some unforgivable social evil was to vote Labour. But the example he chose - people dying in filthy hospitals - was one that began and became commonplace under Labour at a time when money was being firehosed at hospitals.
Likewise you would like, it appears, to seize on this fire as evidence of the deep injustice of society. But the block has just had millions spent on it and the people who lived there are covered by the same regulations as those that govern all such buildings, including those built in Docklands or Paddington Basin and sold to private buyers. Do you think those developers build them any better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.0 -
Yes, it is clear EEA/EFTA is the consensus option. I would like the full monty, but things have changed.SeanT said:
Not from me. See my prior comment. EEA/EFTA should always have been the goal. Perhaps this chaos will, paradoxically, produce the right outcome.AlastairMeeks said:Am I detecting a soupçon of Bregret creeping onto pb? How curious.
I am praying daily.
Remain, now, would mean chastening, national humiliation and signing up to whole project: no opt-outs, no rebate, EMU.. the whole works.0 -
Tbf he may have extensive experience of what sixteen year olds sound like.Beverley_C said:
I take it that your house lacks mirrors ....SeanT said:Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.
0 -
The Scottish National party’s new Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, has indicated thelikelihood of a second independence referendum is receding because there is now a greater chance of stopping a hard Brexit.
With a new Survation poll in the Daily Record showing 60% of Scottish voters opposed a second referendum and only 27% backed one, Blackford was asked on BBC Radio Scotland whether the SNP was “between a rock and a hard place”. It had to placate its core vote by keeping their independence hopes alive while not alienating the wider electorate, who opposed one.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/jun/15/theresa-may-northern-ireland-talks-dup-deal-delayed-politics-live?page=with:block-59425fdbe4b0240ef7614af5#block-59425fdbe4b0240ef7614af5
https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/8753008700989972480 -
Well, I guess I count as a "hard core remainer".Richard_Nabavi said:The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?0 -
Setting the date of the QS and accelerating election preparations should make it pretty clear to the DUP that time is up for mucking about.
Why can't they just agree 12.5% corporation tax for now? Has no Barnett consequentials and will help rebuild Tory links with business. The fiscal impact in the short term is manageable too.0 -
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.Alice_Aforethought said:
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?SouthamObserver said:
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.SouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
0 -
That is Philip K Dick's default plot deviceFF43 said:
"Don't adjust your set. Reality is at fault."AlastairMeeks said:Am I detecting a soupçon of Bregret creeping onto pb? How curious.
0 -
Careful you'll be getting @Scott_P "excited"...Casino_Royale said:
Remain, now, would mean chastening, national humiliation and signing up to whole project: no opt-outs, no rebate, EMU.. the whole works.
0 -
There is indeed an argument. Just as the UK would no longer be inside the EU's agricultural market, the same would apply to the EU no longer being in the UK agricultural market. We already know that in a number of areas, not least animal welfare, we have significantly stricter legislation than the EU and once we are outside, we would be in a position to make sure those standards are properly enforced. This is nothing to do with politics, simply ensuring our standards are applicable on imports.Scott_P said:
You are wrong on both of your pointsRichard_Nabavi said:You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.
The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
The EU does not export more agricultural foodstuffs to the UK than it consumes internally. The "disruption" to the EU agriculture sector of not being able to buy from the UK, and maybe having some trouble selling to us will not materially affect them.
The Brexiteer belief in UK exceptionalism is one of the main drivers for the vote, and will be a key part of their undoing0 -
Lab Gain WimbledonCasino_Royale said:
You can play with the new swingometer now on Antony Wells site.TheScreamingEagles said:If there is another election I expect Labour will offer in their manifesto a jobs, people, and economy first Brexit.
Which will be substantially vague enough for them to win, and allow for BINO
I typed in Lab - 45% and Con - 36% for the next election, with LDs on about 12%, and I got a Labour majority of 28.0 -
It shows just how easily no deal can happen when one side thinks the other has it over a barrel. It also shows Theresa can and will walk away.RoyalBlue said:Setting the date of the QS and accelerating election preparations should make it pretty clear to the DUP that time is up for mucking about.
Why can't they just agree 12.5% corporation tax for now? Has no Barnett consequentials and will help rebuild Tory links with business. The fiscal impact in the short term is manageable too.
I don't know what it says about negotiating skills on either side.0 -
Mrs C, if we're too embedded in the EU to leave, then how can the UK claim to be independent?
How can we be democratic if a vote of the electorate cannot prevent us being governed, at least in part, by unelected and unaccountable foreign bureaucrats?
Mr. Royale, if that happens, and it's a big if, it's potentially a great blessing in disguise.
Those on the fringes will be grumpy, those in the centre will be relieved. It *could* be a rather good way to go.
[Undecided myself. I do think there's a pretty broad range of acceptable outcomes, but it's important we get an extension, if possible, to negotiations].0 -
Quite. If there's no deal, and if our EU friends are so stupid as allow the 'existing situation for non-EU members' to apply to us, there will be massive disruption, which will be damaging to them, as well as to us. It's up to them.Scott_P said:What the article is describing is the existing situation for non-EU members.
A similar situation applies to the airline industry. With no deal, there's a risk that flights between the EU and UK would be very severely disrupted. That would be very bad news for our airlines ... but hang on, what about the knock-on effect of that on the French, Italian, Greek, Cypriot, Spanish, Portugese, and Maltese tourist industries?
In a sane world, both sides will be seeking a deal which minimises disruption. The UK certainly is, or at least was until the election threw an almighty wrecking bar into the machinery.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it won't be a catastrophe. But if it is, it will be a catastrophe for both sides. A worse catastrophe for us than for them, certainly, but I'm not sure that would be much consolation for them.
0 -
Not so. It works the same both ways. And of course we would be free to import from non EU countries on our own terms not those imposed by the EU.SouthamObserver said:
We would be pushing up our own food costs if we imposed the checks at our end. The opposite would not apply as it would just create greater demand within the EU for produce from EU member states.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.Scott_P said:No. it doesn't work "equally". That's the point.
Unless you are really claiming we will only import food into the UK through Rosyth0 -
It wasnt being in a minority government situation that trashed the Labour brand in the 70s, but dire economic problems and union militancy in the Winter of Discontent. We should not forget that only three Labour leaders have overthrown a Tory government since 1945, all were seen as very competent, and Jeremy Corbyn is not.0
-
One can always Leave, it's a question of the level of economic disruption you are willing to take for the political gains.Beverley_C said:
Well, I guess I count ashttps://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg a "hard core remainer".Richard_Nabavi said:The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?
We don't share a currency. We do share a tariff/non-tariff union in goods, to a limited extent in services, a slight one in capital, and a very free one in people, for less than half of our international trade.
Look at the pre-ref EEA/EFTA analysis from PwC, OpenEurope or NIESR - the disruption is minimal.0 -
Enforcing our higher welfare standards is good but will last only until some secretary of state or other signs a free-trade agreement with America which allows their far lower standards. FTAs are not an unwelcome blessing.Richard_Tyndall said:
There is indeed an argument. Just as the UK would no longer be inside the EU's agricultural market, the same would apply to the EU no longer being in the UK agricultural market. We already know that in a number of areas, not least animal welfare, we have significantly stricter legislation than the EU and once we are outside, we would be in a position to make sure those standards are properly enforced. This is nothing to do with politics, simply ensuring our standards are applicable on imports.Scott_P said:
You are wrong on both of your pointsRichard_Nabavi said:You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.
The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
The EU does not export more agricultural foodstuffs to the UK than it consumes internally. The "disruption" to the EU agriculture sector of not being able to buy from the UK, and maybe having some trouble selling to us will not materially affect them.
The Brexiteer belief in UK exceptionalism is one of the main drivers for the vote, and will be a key part of their undoing0 -
Clearly not the case as Jeffrey Donaldson and Nigel Dodds of the DUP and Dafydd Ellis-Thomas Dafydd Wigley and Elfyn Llywd of PC are Privy Counsellorsprh47bridge said:
I believe that is because the LibDems are not the third largest party in the Commons. That is the SNP, so Angus Robertson is a Privy Counsellor and presumably Ian Blackford, as the new leader of the SNP in the Commons, will also become one.JackW said:
There is one other interesting factor. Cable is a Privy Counsellor. Farron was never made one and to my knowledge is unique in not having had that status conferred on him as Liberal/LibDem leader. Grimond and Thorpe had that distinction despite having fewer MP's.Paristonda said:
Exactly why I am currently leaning to Cable despite Lamb being my preferred choice. I don't buy the age argument against him. Without offending any of our older posters here, I'm pretty sure that anyone over 60 in politics gets lumped into one 'old' basket. I really don't see much difference in Cable, Corbyn, or May leading their parties.JackW said:I think Lamb would be an ok choice. He's solid, is a reasonable media performer and well liked. However the LibDems need exposure and I think Lamb will get crowded out in the upcoming bun fights.
St. Vince of the Cable is a big hitter, former cabinet minister with gravitas. Difficult to ignore (like him or not). Age is an issue but Jezza, although younger, is hardly in the first flush of youth. The yellow peril need to be noticed - IMO Cable would do that.
Jo Swinson would make an admirable deputy - leader in waiting.
I think Swinson is very capable and a potential future leader, but I get the impression right now that she is being talked up more due to being a young and female MP, rather than due to any particular achievement.0 -
Thread header could have been from 2010.
0 -
It was Labour until 2010.DecrepitJohnL said:You seem to be asking the question to plant the idea that Labour is anti-semitic. Mrs Thatcher's old seat was voting Conservative decades ago, so there is no reason to assume religion is suddenly a factor. Class and wealth are more likely.
But we can explore your hypothesis that it's all about class, wealth, and as you previously suggested, house price.
Brent North, Brent Central, Hampstead and Kilburn, and Hornsey and Wood Green are all Labour and all abut Hendon, Finchley and Chipping Barnet. In what consistent way do your proposed factors of class, wealth and house price better explain the results than does my hypothesis that Jewish voters perceive Labour as anti-Semitic and in these seats are numerous enough to prevent a Labour win?0 -
The link is the obsession with the fraud of "global warming" .SeanT said:
It was perfectly acceptable, apart from the fact the council installed some dangerous cladding, a kind of cladding which - it turns out - has been used across the country (under Labour and Tories) and across the western world.SouthamObserver said:
Well, it clearly wasn't acceptable, was it?SeanT said:
"Cramped housing for the working poor". FFS. Listen to yourself you dribbling idiot. This was a perfectly acceptable tower block recently renovated to the tune of ten million. If the council dwellers decided to sell these flats they could probably get £1m for a 3 bedroom apartment, given the location. There are identical private towers nearby.SouthamObserver said:Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smoSouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
This is not the Gorbals in 1950, or Gin Lane in 1790.
Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.
If you do not see the symbolism, that is fine. I suspect many others will. There are reasons why Jeremy Corbyn's message resonated - especially in big cities and in London in particular.
This was a fault of fire regulation, and a global issue. Nothing specifically to do with EVIL TOREEEEES. The fact Corbyn seeks to exploit it that way tells us more about him than anything else.
Cheap nasty materials, forged in the far east by burning coal, shipped across the sea by oil burning boats and taken by diesel truck to Londons inner city just to tick a box so a quango landlord can claim a higher energy rating - no doubt to save a few quid.
Madness.0 -
So, having taken goats into consideration, when will the QS be finalised?0
-
I smell hubris.SouthamObserver said:
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.Alice_Aforethought said:
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?SouthamObserver said:
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.SouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
How many million votes did the Blue Meanies win, remind me, last week?
0 -
Yes this isn't one badly run down building that has been neglected for years, it is a newly refurbished building that uses the same materials, and in likely the same way, as many other buildings in the UK and overseas. If there is an inherent problem with the material or construction a huge amount of work will be needed to remedy it worldwide.SeanT said:It was perfectly acceptable, apart from the fact the council installed some dangerous cladding, a kind of cladding which - it turns out - has been used across the country (under Labour and Tories) and across the western world.
This was a fault of fire regulation, and a global issue. Nothing specifically to do with EVIL TOREEEEES. The fact Corbyn seeks to exploit it that way tells us more about him than anything else.
I think fire safety needs a rethink even if the cladding is not the problem, as staying in place only works if a fire is contained, as soon as fire starts to spread people need to get out.0 -
I am not sure that we can make that claim Mr Dancer, or at least to be totally independent. I think until we reached this point, the cliff-edge of Brexit, that fact was not readily apparent.Morris_Dancer said:Mrs C, if we're too embedded in the EU to leave, then how can the UK claim to be independent?
We had a nasty tendency to gold-plate EU directives. Other countries seemed to be much more laissez-faire, so I suspect we could have been less affected by EU directives than perhaps we were.Morris_Dancer said:How can we be democratic if a vote of the electorate cannot prevent us being governed, at least in part, by unelected and unaccountable foreign bureaucrats?
One factor that does seem to be occurring is that as the EU matures, the EU Parliament wants more power and the Commission's influence seems to be diminishing. It would be ironic if we left the undemocratic EU just at the inflexion point were democratic institutions are getting the upper hand.
0 -
Oh we fiddle, Morris, we all fiddle!Morris_Dancer said:Not sure if I'm the only one who fiddles with bets so much, but if you laid Swinson at 1.5 or thereabouts, you could back her now at 1.73. I think I overdid it a little, so backed her a bit to be roughly up the same if she gets the gig or not.
Not sure I would back her now if I were starting with a blank sheet but if I'd layed at 1.5 I would definitely hedge.0 -
I suspect the Queen will not be amused that the Queen's speech clashes with the middle of Ascot.0
-
I am not blaming the Tories for this fire or for the society we have developed into. I would blame them for not seeing that what we have now is a serious problem. The fire specifically is horrific, but given where it occurred many will see a wider symbolism in it . You don't. That's fine.SeanT said:
It was perfectly acceptable, apart from the fact the council installed some dangerous cladding, a kind of cladding which - it turns out - has been used across the country (under Labour and Tories) and across the western world.SouthamObserver said:
Well, it clearly wasn't acceptable, was it?SeanT said:
"Cramped nearby.SouthamObserver said:
It's live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smoSouthamObserver said:
I just struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
This is not the Gorbals in 1950, or Gin Lane in 1790.
Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.
If you do not see the symbolism, that is fine. I suspect many others will. There are reasons why Jeremy Corbyn's message resonated - especially in big cities and in London in particular.
This was a fault of fire regulation, and a global issue. Nothing specifically to do with EVIL TOREEEEES. The fact Corbyn seeks to exploit it that way tells us more about him than anything else.
Corbyn, of course, won millions of extra votes and secured huge majorities for Labour across London before the fire occurred, but at a time when people were already deciding that something has gone seriously wrong with our society.
0 -
Solutions? You just said he wasn't offering any.SouthamObserver said:
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.Alice_Aforethought said:
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?SouthamObserver said:
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.SouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.0 -
Under Labour , fire deaths would be kinder and fairer no doubt.Alice_Aforethought said:
Solutions? You just said he wasn't offering any.SouthamObserver said:
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.Alice_Aforethought said:
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?SouthamObserver said:
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.SouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
0 -
Nope - I said I do not think his solutions are sustainable.Alice_Aforethought said:
Solutions? You just said he wasn't offering any.SouthamObserver said:
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.Alice_Aforethought said:
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?SouthamObserver said:
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.SouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
0 -
the tattooed inmates of flat roofed workingmen's clubs in the North
Really?
Is that all the Europhiles will ever have, insults for their own countrymen with different political viewpoints to their own?
0 -
Should get the Lord Chancellor to do it.TheScreamingEagles said:I suspect the Queen will not be amused that the Queen's speech clashes with the middle of Ascot.
0 -
Especially as it looks like she will only have about three lines to read out. Wasting a whole morning of racing for five minutes.TheScreamingEagles said:I suspect the Queen will not be amused that the Queen's speech clashes with the middle of Ascot.
0 -
And what are his unsustainable solutions?SouthamObserver said:
Nope - I said I do not think his solutions are sustainable.Alice_Aforethought said:
Solutions? You just said he wasn't offering any.SouthamObserver said:
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.Alice_Aforethought said:
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?SouthamObserver said:
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.SouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.0 -
I bet I know the answer to that.SeanT said:
If we have another election, and Labour have a polling lead, implying a likely Corbyn majority, would you still vote for them, knowing what you know about him and McDonnell and Milne?SouthamObserver said:
Nope - I said I do not think his solutions are sustainable.Alice_Aforethought said:
Solutions? You just said he wasn't offering any.SouthamObserver said:
He is idy feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.Alice_Aforethought said:
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?SouthamObserver said:
It's not realns out not to be safe to live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
TheSouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.0 -
Mr. Punter, well, I backed her at 3.5, then got a hedge matched at 1.3, hedged a bit more at 1.5, then backed a little at 1.73
Only, it's only for peanuts, but still nice to be green.
Mrs C, there's no demos in the EU. If you believe that Greeks, Slovenians, Italians and Britons can and should be fellow citizens, then fair enough. Personally, I think culture, history, economic and demographic differences are too substantially to be reasonably bridged.0 -
I remember when I was going through my decision-making process pre-referendum that I dismissed the analyses based on exitting EEA/EFTA as total scaremongering as it was completely obvious that we'd stay in the EEA/EFTA.Casino_Royale said:
One can always Leave, it's a question of the level of economic disruption you are willing to take for the political gains.Beverley_C said:
Well, I guess I count ashttps://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg a "hard core remainer".Richard_Nabavi said:The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?
We don't share a currency. We do share a tariff/non-tariff union in goods, to a limited extent in services, a slight one in capital, and a very free one in people, for less than half of our international trade.
Look at the pre-ref EEA/EFTA analysis from PwC, OpenEurope or NIESR - the disruption is minimal.
It was the insistence of both sides, as well as the massive importance given to controlling immigration that finally decided me that I couldn't assume that any more and I (reluctantly) cast my vote for Remain.
Looking back, I'm glad I did, as the way my vote would have been taken - as endorsement of leaving EEA/EFTA as well as the EU - would have completely pissed me off.0 -
Jersey stakes at 2:30. What time does Liz do her lines for Tessy ?rottenborough said:
Especially as it looks like she will only have about three lines to read out. Wasting a whole morning of racing for five minutes.TheScreamingEagles said:I suspect the Queen will not be amused that the Queen's speech clashes with the middle of Ascot.
0 -
Too many people in the EU want to make an example of the UK for that, I fear.Richard_Nabavi said:
Quite. If there's no deal, and if our EU friends are so stupid as allow the 'existing situation for non-EU members' to apply to us, there will be massive disruption, which will be damaging to them, as well as to us. It's up to them.Scott_P said:What the article is describing is the existing situation for non-EU members.
A similar situation applies to the airline industry. With no deal, there's a risk that flights between the EU and UK would be very severely disrupted. That would be very bad news for our airlines ... but hang on, what about the knock-on effect of that on the French, Italian, Greek, Cypriot, Spanish, Portugese, and Maltese tourist industries?
In a sane world, both sides will be seeking a deal which minimises disruption. The UK certainly is, or at least was until the election threw an almighty wrecking bar into the machinery.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it won't be a catastrophe. But if it is, it will be a catastrophe for both sides. A worse catastrophe for us than for them, certainly, but I'm not sure that would be much consolation for them.0 -
We've had to put up with that kind of class snobbery on here for a year unfortunately...trawl said:the tattooed inmates of flat roofed workingmen's clubs in the North
Really?
Is that all the Europhiles will ever have, insults for their own countrymen with different political viewpoints to their own?
0
This discussion has been closed.