politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first full poll after Swinson’s Brexit gamble sees the LDs
Options
Comments
-
Nice one, Malc. He is, of course, right. Are we really saying that we would prefer parents with the means to spend their money on Range Rovers, fancy holidays, etc, rather than on their children's education. Seriously? Ban private schools but keep Lamborghini ownership legal?Nigelb said:
A nuanced response, malcolm.malcolmg said:
Away you jealous halfwit, if someone wants to send their children to private school for whatever reason that is their choice. Arseholes like you should not be able to tell people what to do with their money. Get a job and get your own kids a better education than you appear to have had.AllyPally_Rob said:
Can somebody please give me a moral reasoning for the existence of private schools?DecrepitJohnL said:This is good for Jo Swinson but (depending on the dates) might be more about being on telly at the conference than the policy: Bollocks to Brexit was not coined last week. Labour's attack on private schools might also be a factor. Let us see if it outlasts the conference season.
Boris, Cummings and CCHQ will no doubt be commissioning more detailed private polls to work out where the LibDem resurgence threatens Tory or Labour constituencies. This might be crucial in a snap election.
They seem to be the polar opposite of meritocratic, same as inheritance tax I guess.0 -
0
-
Who knows. Flavible has them taking it, for all that any seat predictor has any value these days. Flavible does at least seem to put some effort into demographics and attitudes, which Electoral Calculus really doesn't. But you might as well pin a tail on a donkey.dyedwoolie said:
LDs got 8% in 2017. Canterbury is not a winnable search for themEl_Capitano said:
I'll defer to your greater knowledge! But nonetheless the point stands - everything could change until the forms go in.NickPalmer said:
I'm not going by a tweet and I know the LibDems involved - they certainly think they're standing and there are no negotiations that they're aware of.El_Capitano said:Prospective Parliamentary Candidates.
They have not "decided to stand candidates" until the form goes in. It's a fluid situation and negotations are going on. Selecting a PPC means they're prepared if the negotiations don't bear fruit... but doesn't necessarily mean they'll actually fight the seat.
(Or even afterwards: locally the LDs put up a candidate for county council and then said "actually, vote Green" on the first day of campaigning, which got them some column inches. Still didn't get the seat, mind, but the Labour victor is a top bloke and not far off the social democrat wing of the LDs so no harm done.)
Slightly OT, but I wonder if the much-discussed tweet about Lib Dems cancelling their Canterbury selection was not to do with the Labour incumbent defecting, but rather finding a winnable seat for Sam Gyimah?0 -
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.CarlottaVance said:
You mean this one? Where he identifies himself?SouthamObserver said:
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!Benpointer said:
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?148grss said:
Like the lefty attacks from such people as... well know legal writer for the Financial TimesTGOHF said:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1174409107681492992
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318249460281346?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318564397985793?s=200 -
We’ve got two new ones on here todayEl_Capitano said:
Who knows. Flavible has them taking it, for all that any seat predictor has any value these days. But you might as well pin a tail on a donkey.dyedwoolie said:
LDs got 8% in 2017. Canterbury is not a winnable search for themEl_Capitano said:
I'll defer to your greater knowledge! But nonetheless the point stands - everything could change until the forms go in.NickPalmer said:
I'm not going by a tweet and I know the LibDems involved - they certainly think they're standing and there are no negotiations that they're aware of.El_Capitano said:Prospective Parliamentary Candidates.
They have not "decided to stand candidates" until the form goes in. It's a fluid situation and negotations are going on. Selecting a PPC means they're prepared if the negotiations don't bear fruit... but doesn't necessarily mean they'll actually fight the seat.
(Or even afterwards: locally the LDs put up a candidate for county council and then said "actually, vote Green" on the first day of campaigning, which got them some column inches. Still didn't get the seat, mind, but the Labour victor is a top bloke and not far off the social democrat wing of the LDs so no harm done.)
Slightly OT, but I wonder if the much-discussed tweet about Lib Dems cancelling their Canterbury selection was not to do with the Labour incumbent defecting, but rather finding a winnable seat for Sam Gyimah?1 -
I think this is all true, but at the same time people with 1,000,000+ followers on Twitter need to consider that every time they directly @ someone they are potentially aiming a large cannon of abuse at that individual. She could have said all of the above without specifically calling out the individual in question who right now must be going through an extremely stressful time as it is having a young child in hospital with (by all accounts) an extremely serious condition.Wulfrun_Phil said:
I am generally no fan of Kuenssberg. However in this case I think her actions were proper taken as a whole. She tweeted the opinion of the person who angrily confronted Johnson at a hospital in the news story of the day. She tweeted her observation (which I think most will share) to the effect that Johnson didn't know how to respond. When it came to light that the person was a Corbyn-supporting Labour activist, she tweeted that too.CarlottaVance said:
I would wish to know all of those facts before forming an opinion on the matter so I think she has done a reasonable job of reporting them.
The fact that someone may have shared their experience with their own small circle of followers doesn’t mean that they have consented to you bringing down a river of shit on their heads.0 -
Did LK and the other journalists do the identifying - or did someone tell them? I find it really hard to believe that their instinctive reaction to the exchange was to go to Twitter to try to find out who Omar was. But I can see why the instinctive reaction of others would have been to do just that and to then have let journalists know.Theuniondivvie said:
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?tlg86 said:I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
0 -
Both the Tories and labour are in the mid 40s, LD would need a 20% swing against both parties, any model showing it as a LD gain can and should be binned.El_Capitano said:
Who knows. Flavible has them taking it, for all that any seat predictor has any value these days. Flavible does at least seem to put some effort into demographics and attitudes, which Electoral Calculus really doesn't. But you might as well pin a tail on a donkey.dyedwoolie said:
LDs got 8% in 2017. Canterbury is not a winnable search for themEl_Capitano said:
I'll defer to your greater knowledge! But nonetheless the point stands - everything could change until the forms go in.NickPalmer said:
I'm not going by a tweet and I know the LibDems involved - they certainly think they're standing and there are no negotiations that they're aware of.El_Capitano said:Prospective Parliamentary Candidates.
They have not "decided to stand candidates" until the form goes in. It's a fluid situation and negotations are going on. Selecting a PPC means they're prepared if the negotiations don't bear fruit... but doesn't necessarily mean they'll actually fight the seat.
(Or even afterwards: locally the LDs put up a candidate for county council and then said "actually, vote Green" on the first day of campaigning, which got them some column inches. Still didn't get the seat, mind, but the Labour victor is a top bloke and not far off the social democrat wing of the LDs so no harm done.)
Slightly OT, but I wonder if the much-discussed tweet about Lib Dems cancelling their Canterbury selection was not to do with the Labour incumbent defecting, but rather finding a winnable seat for Sam Gyimah?0 -
Whose?BannedInParis said:
research.SouthamObserver said:
I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place.CarlottaVance said:
You mean this one? Where he identifies himself?SouthamObserver said:
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!Benpointer said:
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?148grss said:
Like the lefty attacks from such people as... well know legal writer for the Financial TimesTGOHF said:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1174409107681492992
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318249460281346?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318564397985793?s=20
0 -
Pretty sure if someone starts an angry rant at the PM then they know they will be in the papers tomorrow. Most normal folk are not on twitter, let alone have 13k followers. It seems fair the public know who this person is and I'm glad journalists are giving the public transparency in this case.Phil said:
I think this is all true, but at the same time people with 1,000,000+ followers on Twitter need to consider that every time they directly @ someone they are potentially aiming a large cannon of abuse at that individual. She could have said all of the above without specifically calling out the individual in question who right now must be going through an extremely stressful time as it is having a young child in hospital with (by all accounts) an extremely serious condition.Wulfrun_Phil said:
I am generally no fan of Kuenssberg. However in this case I think her actions were proper taken as a whole. She tweeted the opinion of the person who angrily confronted Johnson at a hospital in the news story of the day. She tweeted her observation (which I think most will share) to the effect that Johnson didn't know how to respond. When it came to light that the person was a Corbyn-supporting Labour activist, she tweeted that too.CarlottaVance said:
I would wish to know all of those facts before forming an opinion on the matter so I think she has done a reasonable job of reporting them.
The fact that someone may have shared their experience with their own small circle of followers doesn’t mean that they have consented to you bringing down a river of shit on their heads.0 -
Boris has made a career of ducking questions, as Mayor, as candidate for the Conservative leadership, and proroguing parliament means he has ducked PMQs as well. His problem is that answering awkward questions is a learned skill and he's never bothered to learn it, hence yesterday's nonsense.Phil said:
NB. If you go to Twitter itself, you can full-screen the video & get a very clear image. I really cannot see anything on his belt.DecrepitJohnL said:
Right at the end when the chap is being led away with his back to the camera, is he wearing a mic pack on his belt, or is that just his belt?Phil said:Here’s a reasonably high-res video of the Labour activist who confronted (& was lied to his face by) Johnson yesterday. Can anyone show me this supposed microphone (with a link to the actual product please)? Because I’m not seeing it. https://twitter.com/gully_burrows/status/1174283589040713728
btw this is all a distraction from whether the PM blatantly lied for no apparent reason.
As others have said, this smells like a smokescreen of chaff put up in order to distract from the fact that Johnson lied like a rug when confronted. It’s bizarre behaviour & suggests that he falls apart under scrutiny - can’t possibly bode well for any election campaign.
I imagine the campaign team will be desperate to keep Jonson away from any kind of hard questioning during the forthcoming election, but keeping that up for an entire campaign seems like a tall order.
No doubt the next election will be like the last one with the PM hiding away and refusing debates and interviews, with the odd speech to carefully screened Tory activists behind locked doors.0 -
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.Theuniondivvie said:
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?tlg86 said:I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
As for Laura K identifying him, perhaps she should have thought twice about it, though as @Brom points out, he himself did Tweet about it so I'd suggest that makes it fair game.
Having said that, I do think those people/organisations with a lot of followers should think carefully about their actions. In November 2017, Arsenal Tweeted journalist Adam Crafton after they defeated Spurs 2-0. When asked to pick a combined Arsenal/Spurs team in the week before the game, Crafton had picked the Spurs XI (I would have done too!). He received a lot of abuse after this. I don't use Twitter myself, and I guess it's easy to block abusive posters, but he was inundated with it after this and that must have been annoying if not distressing:
https://twitter.com/Arsenal/status/931895814720548864/photo/10 -
Not to pick your discussion in particular, but putting the discussion re LK's tweet stuff into context ...SouthamObserver said:
Did LK and the other journalists do the identifying - or did someone tell them? I find it really hard to believe that their instinctive reaction to the exchange was to go to Twitter to try to find out who Omar was. But I can see why the instinctive reaction of others would have been to do just that and to then have let journalists know.Theuniondivvie said:
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?tlg86 said:I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/18/the-harsh-reality-of-underfunding-at-my-hospital-swept-away-for-johnson-visit0 -
He is so obviously faker than a three bob bit.Noo said:
Trudeau deserves to be attacked for this, but oh my. Trudeau is to the right what Kuenssberg is to the left. Utterly irrational levels of fury for people who otherwise don't give two hoots about Canadian politics.Nigelb said:
Hypocrisy or not (and I tend to your view on that), the apology at the very least recognises blackface as wrong and unacceptable.dyedwoolie said:
If it were simply a case of a little moral growth then sure, but it's not. It's the usual hypocrisy and the oh so earnest apology when they get caught. And his 'we know better now' shtick is so much bilge, the world's moral centre doesn't evolve with St Justin.Foxy said:
His apology seems to show that at the time he was in a pre-woke state of unaware ness. A bit like Harry was. Some personal moral growth is a good thing surely?dyedwoolie said:Trudeau. Lol. I think by the millennium we knew the black and white minstrels were racist bucko. I wonder if he put on a funny accent too, the naughty little noodle.
I love it when these super woke pricks turn out to be full of wind and piss
Not all superheroes wear capes, but none of them brown up.
And I doubt many in the UK hold Trudeau as a saint. I certainly don't.
I have never understood why he winds them up so much.0 -
Cackhandedness from the hapless Laura K – nothing more. As I keep saying, she's just a bit crap.0
-
I think you might be overrating our Laura!!Brom said:
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.CarlottaVance said:
You mean this one? Where he identifies himself?SouthamObserver said:
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!Benpointer said:
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?148grss said:
Like the lefty attacks from such people as... well know legal writer for the Financial TimesTGOHF said:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1174409107681492992
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318249460281346?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318564397985793?s=20
0 -
Looks like the EU has a replacement ready..
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1173967781504671745?s=210 -
The journalists who, according to Boris, weren't there, could easily have asked him. And twitter research is a journalistic staple these days: slow news day, see what's trending. Television programme the proprietor dislikes, search its hashtag on twitter and quote any complaints you find (there are always some).SouthamObserver said:
Did LK and the other journalists do the identifying - or did someone tell them? I find it really hard to believe that their instinctive reaction to the exchange was to go to Twitter to try to find out who Omar was. But I can see why the instinctive reaction of others would have been to do just that and to then have let journalists know.Theuniondivvie said:
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?tlg86 said:I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?0 -
https://twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1174594704433917953?s=20Brom said:
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.CarlottaVance said:
You mean this one? Where he identifies himself?SouthamObserver said:
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!Benpointer said:
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?148grss said:
Like the lefty attacks from such people as... well know legal writer for the Financial TimesTGOHF said:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1174409107681492992
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318249460281346?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318564397985793?s=200 -
I'm sorry that she's not up to the high journalistic standards you've come to expect at The New EuropeanAnabobazina said:
I think you might be overrating our Laura!!Brom said:
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.CarlottaVance said:
You mean this one? Where he identifies himself?SouthamObserver said:
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!Benpointer said:
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?148grss said:
Like the lefty attacks from such people as... well know legal writer for the Financial TimesTGOHF said:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1174409107681492992
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318249460281346?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318564397985793?s=20
0 -
As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.0 -
This is very illuminating and speaks volumes about the twitter attack dogs.CarlottaVance said:
https://twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1174594704433917953?s=20Brom said:
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.CarlottaVance said:
You mean this one? Where he identifies himself?SouthamObserver said:
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!Benpointer said:
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?148grss said:
Like the lefty attacks from such people as... well know legal writer for the Financial TimesTGOHF said:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1174409107681492992
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318249460281346?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318564397985793?s=200 -
Nigel, A Fiver would be enough for those griftersNigelb said:
If anyone wants to for a government with Lib Der support, that is also likely true.Streeter said:
Once Labour realises it can never win again under FPTP, PR is inevitable.tottenhamWC said:
Which should also lead to PR as that outcome would be pretty outrageous vis a vis relative voting share.ukelect said:According to the latest UK-Elect Beta version (taking account of Brexit-based local conditions, tactical voting etc.) that YouGov poll would lead to another hung parliament: Con 305, Lab 185, LibDem 82, SNP 51
I don't think they would be fobbed off with a few ministerial cars and a referendum on AV next time around.0 -
You keep the notion of current contituencies but aglommerate neighbouring constituencies into blocks of 4s, making 162 Blocks. The speaker and deputy speaker's contituencies would be in blocks of 5 constituencies. This solves the problem of citizens in the Speaker's constituency not getting an effective vote.nichomar said:
150 four member constituencies elected by STV the only issue is to sort out the boundaries.edmundintokyo said:
No need to overthink it, just pick a Scandanavian country and use their system, they're all pretty goodNoo said:
It can't be done in a hurry. Decisions need to be made, such as the mechanism for making it proportional... open lists? Regions a la Holyrood? Does the electoral commission need to be involved?
It's urgent, but it should be done well, which means taking our time about it. Start now though.
If and when the Speaker and Deputy Speaker change then a few of the blocks would have boundary changes but still observing the constituency boundaries.
The block assignment could be done in no time at all, then there might be a couple of practical problems with the initial assignment which needs to be tweaked. Sorted before lunch.
We then spend the next six months arguing over a nicer name for "block".0 -
On the basis of UNS , the Tories would gain 39 seats from Labour but lose 19 to the LDs and circa 10 to the SNP to give a total of 327 - ie a bare majority of 4 and smaller than Cameron managed in 2015. Labour would also lose 5 to the LDs and 6 to SNP to leave them with 212. The LDs would end up on 36 - 38 seats - though some of the gains projected from Labour appear unlikely given that Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland are not standing again.
0 -
The barrister speaking atm at the SC hearing seems to have taken Enoch Powell's idea about giving a speech on a full bladder too seriously.0
-
Aren't the Swedes still trying to figure out how to set up their ballot system so no-one can tell who you've voted for?edmundintokyo said:
No need to overthink it, just pick a Scandanavian country and use their system, they're all pretty goodNoo said:
It can't be done in a hurry. Decisions need to be made, such as the mechanism for making it proportional... open lists? Regions a la Holyrood? Does the electoral commission need to be involved?
It's urgent, but it should be done well, which means taking our time about it. Start now though.
While I agree that's not strictly integral to the voting system (albeit the number of ballot papers they need to print off is staggering), I would argue that it's incompatible with a categorisation of "pretty good".0 -
I agree that people with large twitter followings should be careful on who they direct their tweets at (J.K.Rowling is a case in point). Perhaps the real take away from this is that higher profile journos now see twitter as a platform for news reporting rather than a resource/accessory to it.tlg86 said:
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.Theuniondivvie said:
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?tlg86 said:I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?
As for Laura K identifying him, perhaps she should have thought twice about it, though as @Brom points out, he himself did Tweet about it so I'd suggest that makes it fair game.
Having said that, I do think those people/organisations with a lot of followers should think carefully about their actions. In November 2017, Arsenal Tweeted journalist Adam Crafton after they defeated Spurs 2-0. When asked to pick a combined Arsenal/Spurs team in the week before the game, Crafton had picked the Spurs XI (I would have done too!). He received a lot of abuse after this. I don't use Twitter myself, and I guess it's easy to block abusive posters, but he was inundated with it after this and that must have been annoying if not distressing:
https://twitter.com/Arsenal/status/931895814720548864/photo/10 -
I think there is doubt. Given that he included the hospital in his tweet, anyone searching for tweets related to the hospital would have found his tweet - generally the point of twitter is that it is a public platform.tlg86 said:
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.Theuniondivvie said:
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?tlg86 said:I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?0 -
White shoes after Labor Day ?TGOHF said:Looks like the EU has a replacement ready..
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1173967781504671745?s=210 -
Maybe they think she's Jewish because of the "berg", or confused her with Rachel RileyBrom said:
Particularly if you are tweeting about it yourself and wish to put yourself above the parapet. Surely the fact he has worked for Thornberry and is a Labour activist is relevant, people are capable of making their own judgements based on the information and I'm sure he has many grievances with the NHS.tlg86 said:I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
It's just very sad that the usual extreme nutjobs like Rachel Swindon, James Felton etc do what they do best and create outrage over Laura K's perfectly normal tweet. These people just won't be happy until all journalists parrot their own views. Dangerous times.0 -
Well, even less of an issue if it was he himself who gave it away.OblitusSumMe said:
I think there is doubt. Given that he included the hospital in his tweet, anyone searching for tweets related to the hospital would have found his tweet - generally the point of twitter is that it is a public platform.tlg86 said:
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.Theuniondivvie said:
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?tlg86 said:I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?0 -
I think it's a long term strategic error, possibly a game-losing one. It's probably excellent short term strategy, though. Given where the Lib Dems are now, it's probably worth a gamble.Morris_Dancer said:As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.0 -
There is, of course, the point that journalists with many thousands of followers are far more aware of the ramifications of being in the public gaze on Twitter than some bloke with a handful of followers.OblitusSumMe said:
I think there is doubt. Given that he included the hospital in his tweet, anyone searching for tweets related to the hospital would have found his tweet - generally the point of twitter is that it is a public platform.tlg86 said:
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.Theuniondivvie said:
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?tlg86 said:I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?0 -
That statement is quite a dangerous one, because it implies Europe (the continent) is at the moment is unsafe and will be until Bosnia joins the EU.TGOHF said:Looks like the EU has a replacement ready..
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1173967781504671745?s=210 -
Fantastic!CarlottaVance said:
https://twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1174594704433917953?s=20Brom said:
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.CarlottaVance said:
You mean this one? Where he identifies himself?SouthamObserver said:
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!Benpointer said:
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?148grss said:
Like the lefty attacks from such people as... well know legal writer for the Financial TimesTGOHF said:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1174409107681492992
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318249460281346?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318564397985793?s=20
But the people tweeting abuse to Laura Kuenssberg have already admitted on here they are biased, so of course they treat the same behaviour differently depending on who did it and the side they're on1 -
How about ‘constituency’?eristdoof said:
You keep the notion of current contituencies but aglommerate neighbouring constituencies into blocks of 4s, making 162 Blocks. The speaker and deputy speaker's contituencies would be in blocks of 5 constituencies. This solves the problem of citizens in the Speaker's constituency not getting an effective vote.nichomar said:
150 four member constituencies elected by STV the only issue is to sort out the boundaries.edmundintokyo said:
No need to overthink it, just pick a Scandanavian country and use their system, they're all pretty goodNoo said:
It can't be done in a hurry. Decisions need to be made, such as the mechanism for making it proportional... open lists? Regions a la Holyrood? Does the electoral commission need to be involved?
It's urgent, but it should be done well, which means taking our time about it. Start now though.
If and when the Speaker and Deputy Speaker change then a few of the blocks would have boundary changes but still observing the constituency boundaries.
The block assignment could be done in no time at all, then there might be a couple of practical problems with the initial assignment which needs to be tweaked. Sorted before lunch.
We then spend the next six months arguing over a nicer name for "block".0 -
We might get the chance to find out.malcolmg said:
Nigel, A Fiver would be enough for those griftersNigelb said:
If anyone wants to for a government with Lib Der support, that is also likely true.Streeter said:
Once Labour realises it can never win again under FPTP, PR is inevitable.tottenhamWC said:
Which should also lead to PR as that outcome would be pretty outrageous vis a vis relative voting share.ukelect said:According to the latest UK-Elect Beta version (taking account of Brexit-based local conditions, tactical voting etc.) that YouGov poll would lead to another hung parliament: Con 305, Lab 185, LibDem 82, SNP 51
I don't think they would be fobbed off with a few ministerial cars and a referendum on AV next time around.0 -
If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.1 -
Interesting to see the longer clip for more context.Mr Salem isn't making an explicitly partisan point. He talks about disarray in the hospital. It's clearly meant. Johnson's problem is that the message is incompatible with his propaganda visit, where he wants grateful patients to burnish his NHS credentials.Phil said:Here’s a reasonably high-res video of the Labour activist who confronted (& was lied to his face by) Johnson yesterday. Can anyone show me this supposed microphone (with a link to the actual product please)? Because I’m not seeing it. https://twitter.com/gully_burrows/status/1174283589040713728
My key takeaway is that hospitals should ban politicians from making press visits. Royalty is maybe OK.
Psychology of a bureaucracy. Nurse goes away to fetch the boss when things get tricky for Johnson and so the high hied-yins rush over to form a slightly intimidating phalanx surrounding the person making the complaint.
Edit Of course the bureaucrats failed in their duty. Their job was to make sure Johnson got nowhere near a patient with a mind of their own.0 -
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1174611660897738753?s=20Nigelb said:
There is, of course, the point that journalists with many thousands of followers are far more aware of the ramifications of being in the public gaze on Twitter than some bloke with a handful of followers.OblitusSumMe said:
I think there is doubt. Given that he included the hospital in his tweet, anyone searching for tweets related to the hospital would have found his tweet - generally the point of twitter is that it is a public platform.tlg86 said:
No doubt it was one of his followers that alerted the press to who he was. So by definition the more you have the more likely you are to be identified. No one is forced to have an online social media presence.Theuniondivvie said:
Is there a particular number threshold for not being identified?tlg86 said:I think if you have 13,500 followers on Twitter, you should expect to be identified if you confront the PM.
More to the point, should someone with 1.1m followers be the one doing the identifying?1 -
What's much more dangerous here is the Albanian Prime Ministers choice of footwear.eristdoof said:
That statement is quite a dangerous one, because it implies Europe (the continent) is at the moment is unsafe and will be until Bosnia joins the EU.TGOHF said:Looks like the EU has a replacement ready..
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1173967781504671745?s=210 -
FWIW, I think the abuse directed at both her and the dad/activist is abhorrent.OblitusSumMe said:If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.0 -
He tweeted it because he wanted publicity, and he got it! I would have thought he and his fellow Labour activists/employees/employers think it has turned out brilliantlyOblitusSumMe said:If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
Now he can focus on his daughter0 -
Have PBers caught on to the fact that there is no conspiracy here, and that Laura K is just, well, a bit crap?0
-
Labour activists are also members of the general public. If the prime minister wants to do a public visit he has to be prepared to meet people with differing opinion. Being able to respond appropriately with "akward" members of the public should be a basic competence of all MPs, not just cabinet members.Wulfrun_Phil said:
I am generally no fan of Kuenssberg. However in this case I think her actions were proper taken as a whole. She tweeted the opinion of the person who angrily confronted Johnson at a hospital in the news story of the day. She tweeted her observation (which I think most will share) to the effect that Johnson didn't know how to respond. When it came to light that the person was a Corbyn-supporting Labour activist, she tweeted that too.CarlottaVance said:
I would wish to know all of those facts before forming an opinion on the matter so I think she has done a reasonable job of reporting them.
Sadly Brown, May and Johnson are/were left wanting in this respect.0 -
-
I've encountered more skilled story-getters on school papersBrom said:
I'm sorry that she's not up to the high journalistic standards you've come to expect at The New EuropeanAnabobazina said:
I think you might be overrating our Laura!!Brom said:
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.CarlottaVance said:
You mean this one? Where he identifies himself?SouthamObserver said:
I think the Tweet that most objected to was the follow-up in which LK actually identified the bloke's Twitter account and, in doing so, invited a pile on. That was the one that got me. I just didn't see any reason for it. But we all view things in different ways. For me, the story was not the fact that the parent with the child that almost died was a Labour activist, it was that the PM's first reaction to being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!Benpointer said:
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?148grss said:
Like the lefty attacks from such people as... well know legal writer for the Financial TimesTGOHF said:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1174409107681492992
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318249460281346?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318564397985793?s=200 -
Has abuse been directed at the father - beyond pointing out his political affiliation?Nigelb said:
FWIW, I think the abuse directed at both her and the dad/activist is abhorrent.OblitusSumMe said:If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.0 -
The first rule of conspiracy theories: "There is no conspiracy"Anabobazina said:Have PBers caught on to the fact that there is no conspiracy here, and that Laura K is just, well, a bit crap?
0 -
Please explain? There are 48% of people who voted against Brexit. There is a probable higher number who now think it is a mistake. A large number of these would like to give those responsible for promoting it a kicking, or at least withdraw support from them.Morris_Dancer said:As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.
The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's). I think it will work well for them. The policy is very unlikely to be implemented. I will vote for them as they are in the "sensible middle"even though I think us remaining in Europe is no longer practicable or desirable0 -
That's reserved for the 650 existing constituencies whose boundaries will be kept.nichomar said:
How about ‘constituency’?eristdoof said:
You keep the notion of current contituencies but aglommerate neighbouring constituencies into blocks of 4s, making 162 Blocks. The speaker and deputy speaker's contituencies would be in blocks of 5 constituencies. This solves the problem of citizens in the Speaker's constituency not getting an effective vote.nichomar said:
150 four member constituencies elected by STV the only issue is to sort out the boundaries.edmundintokyo said:
No need to overthink it, just pick a Scandanavian country and use their system, they're all pretty goodNoo said:
It can't be done in a hurry. Decisions need to be made, such as the mechanism for making it proportional... open lists? Regions a la Holyrood? Does the electoral commission need to be involved?
It's urgent, but it should be done well, which means taking our time about it. Start now though.
If and when the Speaker and Deputy Speaker change then a few of the blocks would have boundary changes but still observing the constituency boundaries.
The block assignment could be done in no time at all, then there might be a couple of practical problems with the initial assignment which needs to be tweaked. Sorted before lunch.
We then spend the next six months arguing over a nicer name for "block".0 -
They do say that "shoes complete the outfit", so the gentleman in question is obviously incomplete just like the total integration of Europe. Perhaps he is making a deeper statement than you appreciateozymandias said:
What's much more dangerous here is the Albanian Prime Ministers choice of footwear.eristdoof said:
That statement is quite a dangerous one, because it implies Europe (the continent) is at the moment is unsafe and will be until Bosnia joins the EU.TGOHF said:Looks like the EU has a replacement ready..
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1173967781504671745?s=21
1 -
Abuse is pushing it! But, yes, I had not seen the other tweets, only LK's. As I say, I did not have a big problem withthe first Tweet she did, I did have a problem with the second one, identified above. Inviting a pile on is not a good look. It's clear now that a number of journalists did the same, seeing the political affiliaiton of the anxious father as being a bigger deal than the fact that the PM lied to him. It does none of them any credit. But I am biased. Others see it differently. Maybe they are biased too.isam said:
Fantastic!CarlottaVance said:
https://twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1174594704433917953?s=20Brom said:
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.CarlottaVance said:
You mean this one? Where he identifies himself?SouthamObserver said:
I think being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!Benpointer said:
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?148grss said:
Like the lefty attacks from such people as... well know legal writer for the Financial TimesTGOHF said:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1174409107681492992
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318249460281346?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318564397985793?s=20
But the people tweeting abuse to Laura Kuenssberg have already admitted on here they are biased, so of course they treat the same behaviour differently depending on who did it and the side they're on
0 -
Oh dear, more unreliable conference polling.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Think of the VAT revenue this is costing the govt. Legalise now.
https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/1174607611121025025?s=210 -
The Yougov poll carried out 23/24th July had LDs on 23% and Labour on 19%.0
-
they warrant a jail sentence for sureozymandias said:
What's much more dangerous here is the Albanian Prime Ministers choice of footwear.eristdoof said:
That statement is quite a dangerous one, because it implies Europe (the continent) is at the moment is unsafe and will be until Bosnia joins the EU.TGOHF said:Looks like the EU has a replacement ready..
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1173967781504671745?s=210 -
Hmmm... maybe we should get DExEU on it. They have experience in negotiating the easiest deals in the world. Apparently.....eristdoof said:The block assignment could be done in no time at all, then there might be a couple of practical problems with the initial assignment which needs to be tweaked. Sorted before lunch.
0 -
Ah. The old metaphorical use of plimsolls trick. It's obvious when you think about it.Beibheirli_C said:
They do say that "shoes complete the outfit", so the gentleman in question is obviously incomplete just like the total integration of Europe. Perhaps he is making a deeper statement than you appreciateozymandias said:
What's much more dangerous here is the Albanian Prime Ministers choice of footwear.eristdoof said:
That statement is quite a dangerous one, because it implies Europe (the continent) is at the moment is unsafe and will be until Bosnia joins the EU.TGOHF said:Looks like the EU has a replacement ready..
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1173967781504671745?s=210 -
The problem is that the LDs have made themselves a single issue party. If they manage to stop Brexit then they will have outlived their usefulness (see UKIP). If Brexit happens then they can continue as a vehicle for rejoin but this will be a lot harder (particularly if we somehow leave with a deal).Nigel_Foremain said:
Please explain? There are 48% of people who voted against Brexit. There is a probable higher number who now think it is a mistake. A large number of these would like to give those responsible for promoting it a kicking, or at least withdraw support from them.Morris_Dancer said:As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.
The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's). I think it will work well for them. The policy is very unlikely to be implemented. I will vote for them as they are in the "sensible middle"even though I think us remaining in Europe is no longer practicable or desirable
They have also completely alienated Brexit voters (some who previously voted for them in places like Torbay)0 -
Is "pseudonymous" a word? It is quite a clever Portmanteu.OblitusSumMe said:If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.0 -
Just get on with angrily tweeting the othersSouthamObserver said:
Abuse is pushing it! But, yes, I had not seen the other tweets, only LK's. As I say, I did not have a big problem withthe first Tweet she did, I did have a problem with the second one, identified above. Inviting a pile on is not a good look. It's clear now that a number of journalists did the same, seeing the political affiliaiton of the anxious father as being a bigger deal than the fact that the PM lied to him. It does none of them any credit. But I am biased. Others see it differently. Maybe they are biased too.isam said:
Fantastic!CarlottaVance said:
https://twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1174594704433917953?s=20Brom said:
Bloody hell. She's a journalist, of course she'll find out. Particularly if he's there with another film crew.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, that one. I am biased, I know, but I just did not get why that was the thing to follow-up on rather than the PM lying. I also wondered how LK found out who Omar was in the first place. Who told her - and why. That said, it's all a storm in a teacup.CarlottaVance said:
You mean this one? Where he identifies himself?SouthamObserver said:
I think being confronted was to lie. I found it bizarre that LK focused on the former, not the latter. But I am biased!Benpointer said:
This is the tweet that many are objecting to. The fact that it's subsequently been removed from LK's current twitter timeline tells you all you need to know.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes absolutely. You think David Allen Green is anything more than extreme partisan hack who hates Brexit and the government?148grss said:
Like the lefty attacks from such people as... well know legal writer for the Financial TimesTGOHF said:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1174409107681492992
The father Tweeted his POV and LauraK quoted and retweeted what he had to say. To call that irresponsible is bizarre. LauraK didn't "out" the father he put it out himself!
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318249460281346?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174318564397985793?s=20
But the people tweeting abuse to Laura Kuenssberg have already admitted on here they are biased, so of course they treat the same behaviour differently depending on who did it and the side they're on0 -
148grss said:
John Major, hypocrite yes, still presenting some seriously concerning arguments for why prorogation should not be unlimited.
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1174609484695646208
Surely at any point parliament can legislate to set a limit on the amount of the the executive can prorogue Parliament for if they wish?0 -
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
0 -
The fact he is a labour activist or whatever is irrelevant, he was there due to his 7 day old daughter being gravely ill. He was not thinking oh good chance to get one in for labour here when he saw Johnson. He just thought you lying git in here for a photo op with shedloads of cameras and surrounded by toadying medical staff when his daughter had little to no staff for medical care. All the big buffoon could say is where are the press????????CarlottaVance said:
Has abuse been directed at the father - beyond pointing out his political affiliation?Nigelb said:
FWIW, I think the abuse directed at both her and the dad/activist is abhorrent.OblitusSumMe said:If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
Typical Tories trying to smear the little guy0 -
Does Michael Gove still favour the Albanian model?TGOHF said:Looks like the EU has a replacement ready..
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1173967781504671745?s=210 -
The conspiracy is that the story needs to move onto Laura Kuenssberg and other journalists being victims of a witch hunt, now that maximum juice has been extracted from the "parent with sick child" is actually a "Labour activist luring Johnson into an ambush" angleAnabobazina said:Have PBers caught on to the fact that there is no conspiracy here, and that Laura K is just, well, a bit crap?
0 -
The kiss of death, Piers saying you are great is the final nail in the coffinTGOHF said:0 -
Not if the executive keeps proroguing to forestall it.GIN1138 said:148grss said:John Major, hypocrite yes, still presenting some seriously concerning arguments for why prorogation should not be unlimited.
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1174609484695646208
Surely at any point parliament can legislate to set a limit on the amount of the the executive can prorogue Parliament for if they wish?1 -
Yes I agree. Voters want resolution to this one way or another.Mysticrose said:One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.0 -
I doubt that is true. Remain and Leave are very much part of a much wider culture war - and that will not end post-Brexit. It is likely to intensify. Both the LDs and the Tories have recognised this. Labour is the odd one out and still believes class is the defining factor in how people vote.GarethoftheVale2 said:
The problem is that the LDs have made themselves a single issue party. If they manage to stop Brexit then they will have outlived their usefulness (see UKIP). If Brexit happens then they can continue as a vehicle for rejoin but this will be a lot harder (particularly if we somehow leave with a deal).Nigel_Foremain said:
Please explain? There are 48% of people who voted against Brexit. There is a probable higher number who now think it is a mistake. A large number of these would like to give those responsible for promoting it a kicking, or at least withdraw support from them.Morris_Dancer said:As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.
The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's). I think it will work well for them. The policy is very unlikely to be implemented. I will vote for them as they are in the "sensible middle"even though I think us remaining in Europe is no longer practicable or desirable
They have also completely alienated Brexit voters (some who previously voted for them in places like Torbay)
1 -
It's a fairly cogent argument to make that increased ecstasy use is a net health benefit to society, as it tends to correlate with a decrease in alcohol usage. Ecstasy is much less toxic than alcohol (indeed it's one of the least toxic recreational drugs) so there could be a case for legalisation.TGOHF said:
Think of the VAT revenue this is costing the govt. Legalise now.
https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/1174607611121025025?s=210 -
Yeah, also legislating away the prerogative power needs royal assent, which is based on advice from the PM. If you have a PM who wants to prorogue and the Parliament attempts to legislate that power away, it sits with the PM to allow that. Obviously that leaves the PM checking their own power.AlastairMeeks said:
Not if the executive keeps proroguing to forestall it.GIN1138 said:148grss said:John Major, hypocrite yes, still presenting some seriously concerning arguments for why prorogation should not be unlimited.
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1174609484695646208
Surely at any point parliament can legislate to set a limit on the amount of the the executive can prorogue Parliament for if they wish?0 -
No, but it might now appeal to TSE ?williamglenn said:
Does Michael Gove still favour the Albanian model?TGOHF said:Looks like the EU has a replacement ready..
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1173967781504671745?s=210 -
Any views on a minimum price, or would that cripple the nascent crack house and opium den sector?TGOHF said:
Think of the VAT revenue this is costing the govt. Legalise now.
https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/1174607611121025025?s=210 -
So what does a "Diehard Remainer" do in a Con/Lab constituency where the LDs are in a distant 3rd place? There are a lot of such constituencies.Mysticrose said:One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.0 -
Or just a storm in several teacups.malcolmg said:
The fact he is a labour activist or whatever is irrelevant, he was there due to his 7 day old daughter being gravely ill. He was not thinking oh good chance to get one in for labour here when he saw Johnson. He just thought you lying git in here for a photo op with shedloads of cameras and surrounded by toadying medical staff when his daughter had little to no staff for medical care. All the big buffoon could say is where are the press????????CarlottaVance said:
Has abuse been directed at the father - beyond pointing out his political affiliation?Nigelb said:
FWIW, I think the abuse directed at both her and the dad/activist is abhorrent.OblitusSumMe said:If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
Typical Tories trying to smear the little guy0 -
I do research with hospital records, which are pseudonymised - not entirely anonymous as it's important to be able to link e.g. separate hospitalisations for the same person, but with a random set of letters/numbers rather than NHS number or name (for obvious reasons!).eristdoof said:
Is "pseudonymous" a word? It is quite a clever Portmanteu.OblitusSumMe said:If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
(You also need to convince the data providers that you really need everything you ask for, have the security arrangements for holding the data vetted, verifiably destroy the data once the research is done and obey rules on what detail of results you can publish).0 -
Well yes as it currently stands the executive could actually do that legally (IMO) but if they did we'd probably end up with riots and maybe even a civil war before long so I doubt any executive would wish to go down that route for too long.AlastairMeeks said:
Not if the executive keeps proroguing to forestall it.GIN1138 said:148grss said:John Major, hypocrite yes, still presenting some seriously concerning arguments for why prorogation should not be unlimited.
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1174609484695646208
Surely at any point parliament can legislate to set a limit on the amount of the the executive can prorogue Parliament for if they wish?
I do think when the current crisis is over Parliament should legislate to define the terms of proroguation legally though (and the 2004 civil contingencies act needs revisiting as a lot of people said at the time)
0 -
I'm not sure people do want resolution, or if they do they are not thinking it through. Resolution comes through consensus being reached. Only Labour are trying to reach consensus and they are not being rewarded for it.Mysticrose said:One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.0 -
Yes; has the SC considered this?GIN1138 said:148grss said:John Major, hypocrite yes, still presenting some seriously concerning arguments for why prorogation should not be unlimited.
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1174609484695646208
Surely at any point parliament can legislate to set a limit on the amount of the the executive can prorogue Parliament for if they wish?
0 -
OT. The tables for the YouGov poll are now available and show Lab 2017 vote share going to the Liberals increasing from 18% to 26% following Swinson's announcement.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dcvjryxlw9/TheTimes_190918_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
What should worry Labour is not only the fact that Labour is back down to 21% (-2), but that this time the Greens are on only 4% (-3). Previously, Labour supporters here would argue that the Greens' vote share would be squeezed at a GE and come back to Labour, so low Labour vote shares with YouGov were an anomaly. There was something in that argument while YouGov consistently had the Greens at 7% as opposed to 3%-4% with other polling companies. Now there is precious little Green vote left to squeeze for the Remain parties (and it is hardly a given that the Green vote will fall further to the 2% they achieved in 2017 as opposed to staying at 4% as achieved in 2015). In addition, with the Libs surging as the Green and Labour vote falls, why should we assume that Labour will be the sole beneficiary of any further squeeze on the Greens?
By contrast, the Tories on 32% still have plenty of scope to squeeze the Brexit Party's vote share, which is holding up at 14%.0 -
Apparently he sang Day-O, while in that blackface. ReallyFoxy said:
His apology seems to show that at the time he was in a pre-woke state of unaware ness. A bit like Harry was. Some personal moral growth is a good thing surely?dyedwoolie said:Trudeau. Lol. I think by the millennium we knew the black and white minstrels were racist bucko. I wonder if he put on a funny accent too, the naughty little noodle.
I love it when these super woke pricks turn out to be full of wind and piss
Which somewhat puts it over the line.0 -
Minimum pricing does raise revenue - but doesn’t improve health.Theuniondivvie said:
Any views on a minimum price, or would that cripple the nascent crack house and opium den sector?TGOHF said:
Think of the VAT revenue this is costing the govt. Legalise now.
https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/1174607611121025025?s=21
https://twitter.com/iealondon/status/1174603793461403648?s=210 -
They can and should but given that they have not it is not unreasonable for the courts to have an opinion.GIN1138 said:148grss said:John Major, hypocrite yes, still presenting some seriously concerning arguments for why prorogation should not be unlimited.
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1174609484695646208
Surely at any point parliament can legislate to set a limit on the amount of the the executive can prorogue Parliament for if they wish?0 -
The Albanian PM and TSE seem to have similar taste in shoes.Nigelb said:
No, but it might now appeal to TSE ?williamglenn said:
Does Michael Gove still favour the Albanian model?TGOHF said:Looks like the EU has a replacement ready..
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1173967781504671745?s=210 -
Dont think this NI guy is impressing their honours0
-
Six by elections today only one obvious lib dem gain so interesting to see how vote share moves.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
To be fair, the people who "just want to get on with it" think that changing the facts on the ground is a quicker way to reach consensus. Of course the same applies for revoking Article 50. Perhaps after revocation, Brexit will not be a subject anyone wants to talk about.FF43 said:
I'm not sure people do want resolution, or if they do they are not thinking it through. Resolution comes through consensus being reached. Only Labour are trying to reach consensus and they are not being rewarded for it.Mysticrose said:One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.0 -
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?TGOHF said:
Minimum pricing does raise revenue - but doesn’t improve health.Theuniondivvie said:
Any views on a minimum price, or would that cripple the nascent crack house and opium den sector?TGOHF said:
Think of the VAT revenue this is costing the govt. Legalise now.
https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/1174607611121025025?s=21
https://twitter.com/iealondon/status/1174603793461403648?s=210 -
True, although much depends on how far the message is got across that the Johnson/Farage line does NOT "resolve Brexit one way or another". No deal is merely the absence of a deal - and it means continuing to negotiate for a deal from the outside and with a backdrop of economic effects and problems in the supply of certain foods and medicines. I think a lot of people wrongly think it's a ticket to move on.Mysticrose said:One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.0 -
Mr. Foremain, prior to the policy shift from referendum to revocation via Parliament, the Lib Dems had pretty much the whole Remain playground to themselves.
Moving away from a referendum to a revocation means they lose soft Remainers and those who think that, just perhaps, a sustainable position is better than one that deepens already entrenched division and bitterness. The principle that a General Election can override a referendum result (itself endorsed by Parliament) is certainly grist to the SNP mill.
The super pro-Remain types are not going to vote twice for the Lib Dems, so they've lost rather than gained potential support. And if their numbers are currently rising that doesn't dispel the fact that they've put a ceiling on that support by deciding a referendum result should be ignored in favour of an electoral result, which could be won by 35% support from the electorate.
On top of that, winning a referendum is likely far easier for Remain than getting a Lib Dem majority. So they've put off soft Remain and uncertain floating voters for a purity policy unlikely to ever be delivered, and done so by abandoning a more sensible approach that was far more achievable. Oh, and they broke their nascent 'Remain alliance'.
It's a triumph of ideology over pragmatism.0 -
Interesting, thank you, but it is a different usage to the social media pseudonym meant here.Selebian said:
I do research with hospital records, which are pseudonymised - not entirely anonymous as it's important to be able to link e.g. separate hospitalisations for the same person, but with a random set of letters/numbers rather than NHS number or name (for obvious reasons!).eristdoof said:
Is "pseudonymous" a word? It is quite a clever Portmanteu.OblitusSumMe said:If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
(You also need to convince the data providers that you really need everything you ask for, have the security arrangements for holding the data vetted, verifiably destroy the data once the research is done and obey rules on what detail of results you can publish).
The "pseudonymised" hospital records you are talking about are really just a Unique-ID designed to be difficult for a human to interpret.0 -
Lib Dems should adopt the slogan 'Tough on Brexit, Tough on the causes of Brexit'.SouthamObserver said:
I doubt that is true. Remain and Leave are very much part of a much wider culture war - and that will not end post-Brexit. It is likely to intensify. Both the LDs and the Tories have recognised this. Labour is the odd one out and still believes class is the defining factor in how people vote.GarethoftheVale2 said:
The problem is that the LDs have made themselves a single issue party. If they manage to stop Brexit then they will have outlived their usefulness (see UKIP). If Brexit happens then they can continue as a vehicle for rejoin but this will be a lot harder (particularly if we somehow leave with a deal).Nigel_Foremain said:
Please explain? There are 48% of people who voted against Brexit. There is a probable higher number who now think it is a mistake. A large number of these would like to give those responsible for promoting it a kicking, or at least withdraw support from them.Morris_Dancer said:As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.
The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's). I think it will work well for them. The policy is very unlikely to be implemented. I will vote for them as they are in the "sensible middle"even though I think us remaining in Europe is no longer practicable or desirable
They have also completely alienated Brexit voters (some who previously voted for them in places like Torbay)
Economically they should help the 'left behind', follow on from the raising of the tax threshhold.
As for other policies, fighting Climate Change and constitutional reform will do for starters.1 -
Id recommend they follow the actions below in order.eristdoof said:
So what does a "Diehard Remainer" do in a Con/Lab constituency where the LDs are in a distant 3rd place? There are a lot of such constituencies.Mysticrose said:One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
1. Check Brexit voting record of existing MP if standing again. If favourable stick with.
2. Check neither candidate is an ERG/Momentum nutter, if both are vote LD/Green/Ind/Other, if one is vote for their opponent.
3. If seat isnt at all marginal then vote LD/Green/Ind/Other
4. If opinion polls are still pointing to a small tory majority, vote Labour. If somehow Labour get ahead vote LD/Green/Other.1
This discussion has been closed.