politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Going postal: Could a Democrat victory end up lost in the post
Options
Comments
-
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/12947120023220142110 -
Certainly and many would have done worse if they had taken their exams in June.Fysics_Teacher said:
Most pupils would do worse than their predictions and probably worse than the algorithm given that most will not have looked at the subjects since March.another_richard said:
That's an easy one to solve.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Everyone takes their GCSEs next term.
Then we compare grades to predictions.
And wont that be interesting.
So we have:
1) Pupils who have got better grades than they would have
2) Pupils who have got the grades they would have without the risk and work in taking the exams
3) Pupils who have received worse grades than they would have expected but who will have an risk free opportunity to take exams if they want to improve their grades
4) Pupils who have received worse grades than they might have got but don't really care because the marks are still good enough
Its a situation I would have happily accepted throughout all the exams I've ever taken.0 -
Hopefully as wife works at phe at porton down, lots of rebadging i.e same people but reorganised...alex_ said:
Twitter screen grab says "scrapped and replaced". But then says "Covid 19 work to be merged with NHS test and trace". Covid-19 may have been PHE's biggest test. But it's hardly the only thing it's responsible for.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Merged as far as I readalex_ said:
Abolished, or having responsibility for Covid-19 removed? I doubt it could be abolished completely in a month!Big_G_NorthWales said:0 -
I didn't mean quite that. What I'm getting at is that jovial lack of introspection with which the upper classes blunder about their business. Perhaps you don't pick it up as I do or see it as I do in Johnson.moonshine said:
Yes saluting a veteran is just like being a racist. Jeez...kinabalu said:
It's crass. Like greeting a black guy with jazz hands.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/TheTweetofShaun/status/1294702067030863873
Is this correct? I am afraid I am ignorant of such customs, I feel very ashamed
Different example - not giving a shit if your fly is undone.
I know what I mean anyway.0 -
May be “cover” but not justification.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Actually Covid-19 might provide cover for restrictions on in-person voting, and even in the best years there can be hours-long queues.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
The new Trump-appointed USPS boss is actively reducing capacity. That's the problem.
There was one case a while back someone posted of a single county representing around 20% of a states population with 1 polling station. That’s just not right (and unhelpful in Covid)
The USPS boss is trying to make the organisation break even rather than losing $20bn a year.0 -
And hopefully we never will be again. He'll be calling her a dusky maiden next. Silly old fart.kle4 said:
I'm not familiar with the expression 'tawny skinned' before.rottenborough said:0 -
Managed to happen upon one of Catania's Michelin star restaurants without a booking tonight. €40 per person including wine and 3 courses of incredible food. London this isn't.0
-
Voting by mail is necessary in some cases (illness, infirmity, etc)kamski said:
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
But it should be for people who are unable to make it to the polling station in person.
Not available on demand.
I don’t get your final point though as I explicitly criticised restrictions on numbers of polling stations0 -
Watson should be in the Lords. An excellent move by Starmer, designed to promote party unity. How could Corbynites ever object given that their man had nominated him?CorrectHorseBattery said:For what it's worth, I reckon Watson should not be in the Lords but I just am watching the Corbynite response to this with popcorn
0 -
It's generally thought that Denis Macshane was a regular contributor, and when I was in the Commons I often met MPs who followed PB. We've got several councillors, I think. It has its hazards, like all internet posting under your own name - a lady who used to post here (now sadly deceased) tried to get me into trouble in Broxtowe because of some opinion that I'd posted. Broxtowe voters tend to take their politics on a low flame and I was never too worried, and expressing one's opinion has always seemed to me part of the job.Black_Rook said:
AFAIK he's our leading politician. The bloke who won Newcastle-under-Lyme for the Tories last year used to post here regularly, but left when he won his seat.CorrectHorseBattery said:Wait, we have this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Palmer, as a member here
0 -
blimey. does italy have a minimum wage?MaxPB said:Managed to happen upon one of Catania's Michelin star restaurants without a booking tonight. €40 per person including wine and 3 courses of incredible food. London this isn't.
0 -
Fair enough. But I personally didn't feel offended. It's more of a shuddery sensation.Andy_JS said:
IMO people need to stop taking offence so easily, especially "on behalf" of other people who probably don't agree with them anyway.moonshine said:
Yes saluting a veteran is just like being a racist. Jeez...kinabalu said:
It's crass. Like greeting a black guy with jazz hands.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/TheTweetofShaun/status/1294702067030863873
Is this correct? I am afraid I am ignorant of such customs, I feel very ashamed0 -
I still think someone made a mistake adding up my O-level French mark: I was expecting to fail as I had got -60 out of 20 on one of the mock papers (did a bit better on the others) but ended up with a B.another_richard said:
Certainly and many would have done worse if they had taken their exams in June.Fysics_Teacher said:
Most pupils would do worse than their predictions and probably worse than the algorithm given that most will not have looked at the subjects since March.another_richard said:
That's an easy one to solve.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Everyone takes their GCSEs next term.
Then we compare grades to predictions.
And wont that be interesting.
So we have:
1) Pupils who have got better grades than they would have
2) Pupils who have got the grades they would have without the risk and work in taking the exams
3) Pupils who have received worse grades than they would have expected but who will have an risk free opportunity to take exams if they want to improve their grades
4) Pupils who have received worse grades than they might have got but don't really care because the marks are still good enough
Its a situation I would have happily accepted throughout all the exams I've ever taken.
0 -
Corbyn sure is living rent free in a lot of heads0
-
-
Roseate faced middle aged blokes everywhere will miss all those people taking offence on their behalf.Andy_JS said:
IMO people need to stop taking offence so easily, especially "on behalf" of other people who probably don't agree with them anyway.moonshine said:
Yes saluting a veteran is just like being a racist. Jeez...kinabalu said:
It's crass. Like greeting a black guy with jazz hands.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/TheTweetofShaun/status/1294702067030863873
Is this correct? I am afraid I am ignorant of such customs, I feel very ashamed0 -
Yes ok. But have I managed to articulate what I mean even if iyo it doesn't apply here? Because it's one of those things that's quite hard to describe. Least for me it is. Others could probably nail it better.Fysics_Teacher said:
The context was a minute or so of chat between a nonagenarian veteran of the war against Japan and the PM. I don’t remember this one being shown, but the one they did show looked fine (Prince Charles was getting a lot more air time).kinabalu said:
It's like everything. Case by case. Just depends. The context. The atmosphere. The saluter and the salutee. In this case I think a smile and a bow - and possibly an elbow bump - would have been better.Yokes said:
No, unless you are jumped up arsehole who takes yourself too seriously. Civvies have saluted uniforms forever. That the military personnel might find them a bit of a dick isn't the same thing as being them being disrespectful by saluting.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/TheTweetofShaun/status/1294702067030863873
Is this correct? I am afraid I am ignorant of such customs, I feel very ashamed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-537866100 -
I’m fairly sure that was actually the couriers of the Persian empire being referred to in that line...rottenborough said:0 -
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/12947120023220142110 -
-
Trump giving the world his College Football scouting report at his presser.0
-
I agreeNickPalmer said:
I remember a local council election where the (LibDem) town council decided to move some of the polling stations AND "save money" by not sending out polling cards or informing residents of where they'd moved the stations to. People were supposed to read the announcement in modest print affixed to a notice outside the town hall, or read the leaflets put out by parties. On the day, we had to put tellers at the "wrong" stations to redirect voters. It was a safe LD seat and they felt that other parties contesting it was an offensive waste of time and money.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
Because it was a town council election and a safe seat, opponents were only midly outraged, and even amused at the effrontery. We teased the LDs about it for years, though. That sort of thing at the level of the US Presidency is less entertaining.0 -
Smearing people by quoting what they've written, a novel interpretation. No doubt the weasel phrase 'out of context' crops up, but if anything is guaranteed to stop me from reading further, it's having to take a subscription to the Speccie to read a Big Bren article.moonshine said:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-and-the-piccaninny-smearTheuniondivvie said:
Probably right, 'piccanninies' and 'water melons smiles' is more like being a racist.moonshine said:
Yes saluting a veteran is just like being a racist. Jeez...kinabalu said:
It's crass. Like greeting a black guy with jazz hands.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/TheTweetofShaun/status/1294702067030863873
Is this correct? I am afraid I am ignorant of such customs, I feel very ashamed0 -
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/12947120023220142110 -
Yes, being on the side of the winner matters more than who it is. Belarus will want good relations with Moscow.rottenborough said:0 -
-
Sometimes one is taken aback by just how orange he is. He's orange.rottenborough said:0 -
Not really I think. He did more than smile and nod or bow, he had a bit of a chat with him. I would think getting that personal attention meant more than any silly salutes he may have made could take away, but now I’m projecting in the opposite direction.kinabalu said:
Yes ok. But have I managed to articulate what I mean even if iyo it doesn't apply here? Because it's one of those things that's quite hard to describe. Least for me it is. Others could probably nail it better.Fysics_Teacher said:
The context was a minute or so of chat between a nonagenarian veteran of the war against Japan and the PM. I don’t remember this one being shown, but the one they did show looked fine (Prince Charles was getting a lot more air time).kinabalu said:
It's like everything. Case by case. Just depends. The context. The atmosphere. The saluter and the salutee. In this case I think a smile and a bow - and possibly an elbow bump - would have been better.Yokes said:
No, unless you are jumped up arsehole who takes yourself too seriously. Civvies have saluted uniforms forever. That the military personnel might find them a bit of a dick isn't the same thing as being them being disrespectful by saluting.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/TheTweetofShaun/status/1294702067030863873
Is this correct? I am afraid I am ignorant of such customs, I feel very ashamed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53786610
The main thing I would say is withhold judgment on this case until you have seen the video (which I haven’t either). If he is being stupid in that then fair enough.
Remember the photo of Obama apparently staring at the rear of a woman on the stairs in front of him? When you saw the video it showed it in a completely different light.0 -
True, but unlike them , the USPS is still (for now) operating, and its their motto too:Fysics_Teacher said:
I’m fairly sure that was actually the couriers of the Persian empire being referred to in that line...rottenborough said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service_creed0 -
And here’s a thing...
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/12946638742691389450 -
Lol, Andra making a compliment about someone else into a massive bit of self praise.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1294753230304485377?s=200 -
To be fair it was the usual excuse used for Jeremy as wellTheuniondivvie said:
Smearing people by quoting what they've written, a novel interpretation. No doubt the weasel phrase 'out of context' crops up, but if anything is guaranteed to stop me from reading further, it's having to take a subscription to the Speccie to read a Big Bren article.moonshine said:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-and-the-piccaninny-smearTheuniondivvie said:
Probably right, 'piccanninies' and 'water melons smiles' is more like being a racist.moonshine said:
Yes saluting a veteran is just like being a racist. Jeez...kinabalu said:
It's crass. Like greeting a black guy with jazz hands.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/TheTweetofShaun/status/1294702067030863873
Is this correct? I am afraid I am ignorant of such customs, I feel very ashamed0 -
So you think postal voting here in the UK should be subject to doctor's note or equivalent?Charles said:
Voting by mail is necessary in some cases (illness, infirmity, etc)kamski said:
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
But it should be for people who are unable to make it to the polling station in person.
Not available on demand.
I don’t get your final point though as I explicitly criticised restrictions on numbers of polling stations0 -
So voting should be made more difficult for those who can’t easily take the day off work in your view ?Charles said:
Voting by mail is necessary in some cases (illness, infirmity, etc)kamski said:
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
But it should be for people who are unable to make it to the polling station in person.
Not available on demand.
I don’t get your final point though as I explicitly criticised restrictions on numbers of polling stations
The majority of US states allow voting by mail on demand, and a tenth of them have mail only voting.0 -
What's interesting is that Republicans have a higher opinion of state agencies than Democrats.Nigelb said:And here’s a thing...
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1294663874269138945
Whereas Republicans are supposed to be anti-state/socialism capitalists and libertarians.0 -
And to get us back on to the title of the thread:Nigelb said:
True, but unlike them , the USPS is still (for now) operating, and its their motto too:Fysics_Teacher said:
I’m fairly sure that was actually the couriers of the Persian empire being referred to in that line...rottenborough said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service_creed
“NEITHER RAIN NOR SNOW NOR GLOM OF NIT CAN STAY THESE MESENGERS ABOT THEIR DUTY”
Comes from Going Postal!0 -
How did you get -60 ?Fysics_Teacher said:
I still think someone made a mistake adding up my O-level French mark: I was expecting to fail as I had got -60 out of 20 on one of the mock papers (did a bit better on the others) but ended up with a B.another_richard said:
Certainly and many would have done worse if they had taken their exams in June.Fysics_Teacher said:
Most pupils would do worse than their predictions and probably worse than the algorithm given that most will not have looked at the subjects since March.another_richard said:
That's an easy one to solve.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Everyone takes their GCSEs next term.
Then we compare grades to predictions.
And wont that be interesting.
So we have:
1) Pupils who have got better grades than they would have
2) Pupils who have got the grades they would have without the risk and work in taking the exams
3) Pupils who have received worse grades than they would have expected but who will have an risk free opportunity to take exams if they want to improve their grades
4) Pupils who have received worse grades than they might have got but don't really care because the marks are still good enough
Its a situation I would have happily accepted throughout all the exams I've ever taken.0 -
While there are significant advantages to postal voting, don’t forget that it also gets away from being a secret ballot.
When you vote at a polling station you can vote for who you want as no one can see you (which reduces coercion) and you can’t prove to anyone which way you voted (reducing the chance of vote buying). Neither of those is true with postal votes, though I don’t think there is any evidence yet that either of the problems I’ve mentioned is happening on a wide scale, in the UK at least.1 -
There is that - but look for instance at who’s been running the DOJ, and what they’ve been up to.another_richard said:
What's interesting is that Republicans have a higher opinion of state agencies than Democrats.Nigelb said:And here’s a thing...
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1294663874269138945
Whereas Republicans are supposed to be anti-state/socialism capitalists and libertarians.
And as for the bunch of sociopaths and criminals who constitute ICE...1 -
Penalised for fluent obscenities ?another_richard said:
How did you get -60 ?Fysics_Teacher said:
I still think someone made a mistake adding up my O-level French mark: I was expecting to fail as I had got -60 out of 20 on one of the mock papers (did a bit better on the others) but ended up with a B.another_richard said:
Certainly and many would have done worse if they had taken their exams in June.Fysics_Teacher said:
Most pupils would do worse than their predictions and probably worse than the algorithm given that most will not have looked at the subjects since March.another_richard said:
That's an easy one to solve.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Everyone takes their GCSEs next term.
Then we compare grades to predictions.
And wont that be interesting.
So we have:
1) Pupils who have got better grades than they would have
2) Pupils who have got the grades they would have without the risk and work in taking the exams
3) Pupils who have received worse grades than they would have expected but who will have an risk free opportunity to take exams if they want to improve their grades
4) Pupils who have received worse grades than they might have got but don't really care because the marks are still good enough
Its a situation I would have happily accepted throughout all the exams I've ever taken.
Or perhaps a Tory education secretary was doing the marking.0 -
French dictation. Lose one mark per spelling mistake (and the wrong accent counts).another_richard said:
How did you get -60 ?Fysics_Teacher said:
I still think someone made a mistake adding up my O-level French mark: I was expecting to fail as I had got -60 out of 20 on one of the mock papers (did a bit better on the others) but ended up with a B.another_richard said:
Certainly and many would have done worse if they had taken their exams in June.Fysics_Teacher said:
Most pupils would do worse than their predictions and probably worse than the algorithm given that most will not have looked at the subjects since March.another_richard said:
That's an easy one to solve.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Everyone takes their GCSEs next term.
Then we compare grades to predictions.
And wont that be interesting.
So we have:
1) Pupils who have got better grades than they would have
2) Pupils who have got the grades they would have without the risk and work in taking the exams
3) Pupils who have received worse grades than they would have expected but who will have an risk free opportunity to take exams if they want to improve their grades
4) Pupils who have received worse grades than they might have got but don't really care because the marks are still good enough
Its a situation I would have happily accepted throughout all the exams I've ever taken.1 -
Stills can be very misleading this is true. We're talking "Boris" here though - hence one has to assume the worst. But I do wish it were otherwise. I'm quite keen to see some positives. 2024 is a long long time.Fysics_Teacher said:
Not really I think. He did more than smile and nod or bow, he had a bit of a chat with him. I would think getting that personal attention meant more than any silly salutes he may have made could take away, but now I’m projecting in the opposite direction.kinabalu said:
Yes ok. But have I managed to articulate what I mean even if iyo it doesn't apply here? Because it's one of those things that's quite hard to describe. Least for me it is. Others could probably nail it better.Fysics_Teacher said:
The context was a minute or so of chat between a nonagenarian veteran of the war against Japan and the PM. I don’t remember this one being shown, but the one they did show looked fine (Prince Charles was getting a lot more air time).kinabalu said:
It's like everything. Case by case. Just depends. The context. The atmosphere. The saluter and the salutee. In this case I think a smile and a bow - and possibly an elbow bump - would have been better.Yokes said:
No, unless you are jumped up arsehole who takes yourself too seriously. Civvies have saluted uniforms forever. That the military personnel might find them a bit of a dick isn't the same thing as being them being disrespectful by saluting.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/TheTweetofShaun/status/1294702067030863873
Is this correct? I am afraid I am ignorant of such customs, I feel very ashamed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53786610
The main thing I would say is withhold judgment on this case until you have seen the video (which I haven’t either). If he is being stupid in that then fair enough.
Remember the photo of Obama apparently staring at the rear of a woman on the stairs in front of him? When you saw the video it showed it in a completely different light.0 -
How many allow early voting, and how soon does that start?Nigelb said:
So voting should be made more difficult for those who can’t easily take the day off work in your view ?Charles said:
Voting by mail is necessary in some cases (illness, infirmity, etc)kamski said:
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
But it should be for people who are unable to make it to the polling station in person.
Not available on demand.
I don’t get your final point though as I explicitly criticised restrictions on numbers of polling stations
The majority of US states allow voting by mail on demand, and a tenth of them have mail only voting.0 -
Although they do record the serial number of the ballot paper they give you. So, theoretically someone involved in the count could cross check.Fysics_Teacher said:While there are significant advantages to postal voting, don’t forget that it also gets away from being a secret ballot.
When you vote at a polling station you can vote for who you want as no one can see you (which reduces coercion) and you can’t prove to anyone which way you voted (reducing the chance of vote buying). Neither of those is true with postal votes, though I don’t think there is any evidence yet that either of the problems I’ve mentioned is happening on a wide scale, in the UK at least.
Admittedly that would not be easy.0 -
No. It’s not disrespectful at all.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/TheTweetofShaun/status/1294702067030863873
Is this correct? I am afraid I am ignorant of such customs, I feel very ashamed
It’s anachronistic - based on lots of films with POTUS saluting soldiers but ignoring the fact that POTUS is the commander in chief, while in the U.K. the Queen is head of the armed forces not the PM.0 -
Striking thing there is that small government Republicans are much keener on government agencies than Democrats are.Nigelb said:And here’s a thing...
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/12946638742691389450 -
If you have the time watch this morning’s commemoration: it’s on iPlayer. Boris was on his best behaviour in the parts I saw.kinabalu said:
Stills can be very misleading this is true. We're talking "Boris" here though - hence one has to assume the worst. But I do wish it were otherwise. I'm quite keen to see some positives. 2024 is a long long time.Fysics_Teacher said:
Not really I think. He did more than smile and nod or bow, he had a bit of a chat with him. I would think getting that personal attention meant more than any silly salutes he may have made could take away, but now I’m projecting in the opposite direction.kinabalu said:
Yes ok. But have I managed to articulate what I mean even if iyo it doesn't apply here? Because it's one of those things that's quite hard to describe. Least for me it is. Others could probably nail it better.Fysics_Teacher said:
The context was a minute or so of chat between a nonagenarian veteran of the war against Japan and the PM. I don’t remember this one being shown, but the one they did show looked fine (Prince Charles was getting a lot more air time).kinabalu said:
It's like everything. Case by case. Just depends. The context. The atmosphere. The saluter and the salutee. In this case I think a smile and a bow - and possibly an elbow bump - would have been better.Yokes said:
No, unless you are jumped up arsehole who takes yourself too seriously. Civvies have saluted uniforms forever. That the military personnel might find them a bit of a dick isn't the same thing as being them being disrespectful by saluting.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/TheTweetofShaun/status/1294702067030863873
Is this correct? I am afraid I am ignorant of such customs, I feel very ashamed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53786610
The main thing I would say is withhold judgment on this case until you have seen the video (which I haven’t either). If he is being stupid in that then fair enough.
Remember the photo of Obama apparently staring at the rear of a woman on the stairs in front of him? When you saw the video it showed it in a completely different light.
There are an awful lot of things he does to get annoyed over: I just don’t think this one is worth it.2 -
I thought Langley was in the Letwin group - quite bright but utterly useless on practical matters.rottenborough said:Wasn't PHE set up by Lansley? Another Grayling-level fool.
Grayling is just a common grade fool0 -
-
It would if there's evidence he engaged in antisemitism. But poor management or a failure of leadership on the issue would not suffice.CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/12947120023220142110 -
I think it would require either a court order or major corruption at the count, and if the latter why bother? Just make up the numbers you want.dixiedean said:
Although they do record the serial number of the ballot paper they give you. So, theoretically someone involved in the count could cross check.Fysics_Teacher said:While there are significant advantages to postal voting, don’t forget that it also gets away from being a secret ballot.
When you vote at a polling station you can vote for who you want as no one can see you (which reduces coercion) and you can’t prove to anyone which way you voted (reducing the chance of vote buying). Neither of those is true with postal votes, though I don’t think there is any evidence yet that either of the problems I’ve mentioned is happening on a wide scale, in the UK at least.
Admittedly that would not be easy.0 -
We will see soon.kinabalu said:
It would if there's evidence he engaged in antisemitism. But poor management or a failure of leadership on the issue would not suffice.CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/12947120023220142111 -
The first point is some people have to work for a living, for example.Charles said:
Voting by mail is necessary in some cases (illness, infirmity, etc)kamski said:
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
But it should be for people who are unable to make it to the polling station in person.
Not available on demand.
I don’t get your final point though as I explicitly criticised restrictions on numbers of polling stations
The final point is that someone could just as easily say "having a local polling station isn't an inalienable democratic right"
I know people like to say "Democrats want to increase turnout because it improves their chances, and Republicans want to decrease turnout because it improves their chances, therefore they are both playing the same game"
But increasing turnout is a good thing, irrespective of which party benefits, and trying to reduce turnout is a bad thing. There is no equivalence.
Republicans trying to stop postal votes during a pandemic because they think it might help them win is really not a grey area. It is antidemocratic, and continues their antidemocratic tradition of trying to prevent people from voting. Apologists for this are not democrats at all.3 -
Unless people knew they would need to retake the exam and started preparing months ago the odds of getting a better grade in the October exams is probably zero.another_richard said:
Certainly and many would have done worse if they had taken their exams in June.Fysics_Teacher said:
Most pupils would do worse than their predictions and probably worse than the algorithm given that most will not have looked at the subjects since March.another_richard said:
That's an easy one to solve.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Everyone takes their GCSEs next term.
Then we compare grades to predictions.
And wont that be interesting.
So we have:
1) Pupils who have got better grades than they would have
2) Pupils who have got the grades they would have without the risk and work in taking the exams
3) Pupils who have received worse grades than they would have expected but who will have an risk free opportunity to take exams if they want to improve their grades
4) Pupils who have received worse grades than they might have got but don't really care because the marks are still good enough
Its a situation I would have happily accepted throughout all the exams I've ever taken.
We looked at it as an option and the school said the chances of it working out are zero ...1 -
Singapore has 55,600 confirmed cases. And just 27 deaths. There are only 83 confirmed cases still in hospital and “most are stable or improving and none is in ICU”.Nigelb said:
So the Singapore CFR looks to be below 0.1%.
Is there something unique to Singapore (or APAC more generally, given the experience of Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan etc...)? If so what, let’s have a bit of that please.
Or is the CFR actually very very low and we’ve missed this fact because we’ve hugely over counted the fatalities combined with flaws in antibody testing that mean most people in the UK that can catch it already have done?
0 -
Polling 3% or 4% in key seats such a party could do serious damage to Labour prospects.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/12947120023220142111 -
Good night everyone. Sleep tight.3
-
Does it mention his bone spurs?dixiedean said:Trump giving the world his College Football scouting report at his presser.
1 -
I’d roll it back to where it was before the expansion to on demand postal voting (I think under Blair).kinabalu said:
So you think postal voting here in the UK should be subject to doctor's note or equivalent?Charles said:
Voting by mail is necessary in some cases (illness, infirmity, etc)kamski said:
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
But it should be for people who are unable to make it to the polling station in person.
Not available on demand.
I don’t get your final point though as I explicitly criticised restrictions on numbers of polling stations0 -
.
33, and it varies.Foxy said:
How many allow early voting, and how soon does that start?Nigelb said:
So voting should be made more difficult for those who can’t easily take the day off work in your view ?Charles said:
Voting by mail is necessary in some cases (illness, infirmity, etc)kamski said:
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
But it should be for people who are unable to make it to the polling station in person.
Not available on demand.
I don’t get your final point though as I explicitly criticised restrictions on numbers of polling stations
The majority of US states allow voting by mail on demand, and a tenth of them have mail only voting.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx
And...
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/early-voting-in-state-elections.aspx0 -
I would have many more polling stations to reduce the queuing time.Nigelb said:
So voting should be made more difficult for those who can’t easily take the day off work in your view ?Charles said:
Voting by mail is necessary in some cases (illness, infirmity, etc)kamski said:
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
But it should be for people who are unable to make it to the polling station in person.
Not available on demand.
I don’t get your final point though as I explicitly criticised restrictions on numbers of polling stations
The majority of US states allow voting by mail on demand, and a tenth of them have mail only voting.0 -
Pretty great ratings there for the IRSanother_richard said:
What's interesting is that Republicans have a higher opinion of state agencies than Democrats.Nigelb said:And here’s a thing...
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1294663874269138945
Whereas Republicans are supposed to be anti-state/socialism capitalists and libertarians.0 -
This used to be true but nowadays everybody is carrying a little camera, and it's impractical to stop someone concealing one, so I don't think it works any more.Fysics_Teacher said:While there are significant advantages to postal voting, don’t forget that it also gets away from being a secret ballot.
When you vote at a polling station you can vote for who you want as no one can see you (which reduces coercion) and you can’t prove to anyone which way you voted (reducing the chance of vote buying).0 -
Momentum is very big in London, I highly doubt it impacts Labour very much.justin124 said:
Polling 3% or 4% in key seats such a party could do serious damage to Labour prospects.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/12947120023220142110 -
It’s very much up to individual states what they do.Charles said:
I would have many more polling stations to reduce the queuing time.Nigelb said:
So voting should be made more difficult for those who can’t easily take the day off work in your view ?Charles said:
Voting by mail is necessary in some cases (illness, infirmity, etc)kamski said:
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
But it should be for people who are unable to make it to the polling station in person.
Not available on demand.
I don’t get your final point though as I explicitly criticised restrictions on numbers of polling stations
The majority of US states allow voting by mail on demand, and a tenth of them have mail only voting.
If you mean that, as president, you would try to provide extra funding to facilitate such a thing, then you would be acting in quite the opposite manner to the current incumbent.0 -
CHB, do you not think that your desire to purge the party of Corbyn, and Momentum, is a bit of a mirror image of the left's desire to get rid of the 'Blairites'? You really should relax a bit. If Corbyn is found 'guilty' by the EHRC, he'll be off; if not, he'll hang around just as he has for thirty years or so. The Momentum lot will either leave of their own accord, or go with the Starmer flow - no need to purge, as they will not be a significant force in the future. There have always been internal pressure groups, of both left and right, in the LP. It's a broad church, you know.CorrectHorseBattery said:
We will see soon.kinabalu said:
It would if there's evidence he engaged in antisemitism. But poor management or a failure of leadership on the issue would not suffice.CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/12947120023220142110 -
Catania is in Sicily, so will be inexpensive versus (say) Milan.rottenborough said:
blimey. does italy have a minimum wage?MaxPB said:Managed to happen upon one of Catania's Michelin star restaurants without a booking tonight. €40 per person including wine and 3 courses of incredible food. London this isn't.
To hang some numbers on that, Lomardy's GRP is EUR38,000, while Sicily's is EUR17,500. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_regions_by_GRP_per_capita)
That's a pretty massive difference.0 -
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/12947120023220142110 -
If Corbyn is implicated in the EHRC he deserves to be expelled.Northern_Al said:
CHB, do you not think that your desire to purge the party of Corbyn, and Momentum, is a bit of a mirror image of the left's desire to get rid of the 'Blairites'? You really should relax a bit. If Corbyn is found 'guilty' by the EHRC, he'll be off; if not, he'll hang around just as he has for thirty years or so. The Momentum lot will either leave of their own accord, or go with the Starmer flow - no need to purge, as they will not be a significant force in the future. There have always been internal pressure groups, of both left and right, in the LP. It's a broad church, you know.CorrectHorseBattery said:
We will see soon.kinabalu said:
It would if there's evidence he engaged in antisemitism. But poor management or a failure of leadership on the issue would not suffice.CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/1294712002322014211
You're right I should calm down on Momentum but Corbyn and Momentum have really pissed me off recently because they implied people that support Starmer aren't real lefties and we deserve to be kicked out.0 -
-
Well that was the position until the 1990s - unless a voter had a job likely to result in their not being able to vote in person on election day.kinabalu said:
So you think postal voting here in the UK should be subject to doctor's note or equivalent?Charles said:
Voting by mail is necessary in some cases (illness, infirmity, etc)kamski said:
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
But it should be for people who are unable to make it to the polling station in person.
Not available on demand.
I don’t get your final point though as I explicitly criticised restrictions on numbers of polling stations0 -
I'm not interested in what the Tory Party does, I am interested in what my party does.justin124 said:
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/12947120023220142110 -
Is the Indy trolling SKS by spelling his name wrong, or are they just a bit shite?CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
Corbyn did not support those advocating expulsion of Blair for his activities as a war criminal whilst in office!CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm not interested in what the Tory Party does, I am interested in what my party does.justin124 said:
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/12947120023220142110 -
If Corbyn is implicated and he is not expelled, Labour will not be winning the next general election, no way.justin124 said:
Corbyn did not support those advocating expulsion of Blair for his activities as a war criminal whilst in office!CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm not interested in what the Tory Party does, I am interested in what my party does.justin124 said:
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/1294712002322014211
Do we want to win or not, I do.0 -
Part of the problem, of course, is that US states tend to have much shorter voting hours than (for example) the UK.Charles said:
I would have many more polling stations to reduce the queuing time.Nigelb said:
So voting should be made more difficult for those who can’t easily take the day off work in your view ?Charles said:
Voting by mail is necessary in some cases (illness, infirmity, etc)kamski said:
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.Charles said:Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
But it should be for people who are unable to make it to the polling station in person.
Not available on demand.
I don’t get your final point though as I explicitly criticised restrictions on numbers of polling stations
The majority of US states allow voting by mail on demand, and a tenth of them have mail only voting.
In Kentucky, for example, the polls close at 6pm, and most other states close at 7pm. This makes it much more difficult for average working joes to vote than in places where polling booths stay open until 10pm.0 -
I seriously question your judgement - that really is a 'non sequitur'. Someone who has lurched from being a strong advocate of Corbyn to now being ultra critical is not likely to be blessed with a very balanced view on this issue.CorrectHorseBattery said:
If Corbyn is implicated and he is not expelled, Labour will not be winning the next general election, no way.justin124 said:
Corbyn did not support those advocating expulsion of Blair for his activities as a war criminal whilst in office!CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm not interested in what the Tory Party does, I am interested in what my party does.justin124 said:
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/1294712002322014211
Do we want to win or not, I do.0 -
It does indeed look as if the dog has eaten Qfqual's homework on the appeals system. The guidance has been withdrawn tonight. Sloppy work, must do better, says Dom. Gavin will be in detention, if not expelled.1
-
A good thrashing surely!Northern_Al said:It does indeed look as if the dog has eaten Qfqual's homework on the appeals system. The guidance has been withdrawn tonight. Sloppy work, must do better, says Dom. Gavin will be in detention, if not expelled.
1 -
I'm critical because I'm pissed off with his remaining fan club that attacks people like me for supporting Keir Starmer. And the fact he won't sod off and be quiet, instead choosing to attack the leadership.justin124 said:
I seriously question your judgement - that really is a 'non sequitur'. Someone who has lurched from being a strong advocate of Corbyn to now being ultra critical is not likely to be blessed with a very balanced view on this issue.CorrectHorseBattery said:
If Corbyn is implicated and he is not expelled, Labour will not be winning the next general election, no way.justin124 said:
Corbyn did not support those advocating expulsion of Blair for his activities as a war criminal whilst in office!CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm not interested in what the Tory Party does, I am interested in what my party does.justin124 said:
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/1294712002322014211
Do we want to win or not, I do.
My opinion on him has changed, I am not afraid to say that.
If he isn't found guilty by the EHRC, then that's fine. I want him gone but I accept there are no grounds to do so. And the same for Momentum.0 -
My point was that Momentum and Corbyn I'm afraid, are electoral poison for Labour and it would be better if they weren't in the party. I also accept that we can't just boot people out for no reason.0
-
Patel says migrants see France as racist0
-
That would be on a par with Corbyn removing all Blairites from the party following his election in 2015 - or Thatcher getting rid of the 'Wets' post 1979. Far too destructive and divisive.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm critical because I'm pissed off with his remaining fan club that attacks people like me for supporting Keir Starmer. And the fact he won't sod off and be quiet, instead choosing to attack the leadership.justin124 said:
I seriously question your judgement - that really is a 'non sequitur'. Someone who has lurched from being a strong advocate of Corbyn to now being ultra critical is not likely to be blessed with a very balanced view on this issue.CorrectHorseBattery said:
If Corbyn is implicated and he is not expelled, Labour will not be winning the next general election, no way.justin124 said:
Corbyn did not support those advocating expulsion of Blair for his activities as a war criminal whilst in office!CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm not interested in what the Tory Party does, I am interested in what my party does.justin124 said:
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/1294712002322014211
Do we want to win or not, I do.
My opinion on him has changed, I am not afraid to say that.
If he isn't found guilty by the EHRC, then that's fine. I want him gone but I accept there are no grounds to do so. And the same for Momentum.0 -
And if there are not grounds to do so, I accept that. That's fine.justin124 said:
That would be on a par with Corbyn removing all Blairites from the party following his election in 2015 - or Thatcher getting red of the 'Wets' post 1979. Far too destructive and divisive.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm critical because I'm pissed off with his remaining fan club that attacks people like me for supporting Keir Starmer. And the fact he won't sod off and be quiet, instead choosing to attack the leadership.justin124 said:
I seriously question your judgement - that really is a 'non sequitur'. Someone who has lurched from being a strong advocate of Corbyn to now being ultra critical is not likely to be blessed with a very balanced view on this issue.CorrectHorseBattery said:
If Corbyn is implicated and he is not expelled, Labour will not be winning the next general election, no way.justin124 said:
Corbyn did not support those advocating expulsion of Blair for his activities as a war criminal whilst in office!CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm not interested in what the Tory Party does, I am interested in what my party does.justin124 said:
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/1294712002322014211
Do we want to win or not, I do.
My opinion on him has changed, I am not afraid to say that.
If he isn't found guilty by the EHRC, then that's fine. I want him gone but I accept there are no grounds to do so. And the same for Momentum.
I don't think it makes me any less wrong about their hurting Labour's electoral chances, though.0 -
How do you explain 2017 GE result?CorrectHorseBattery said:My point was that Momentum and Corbyn I'm afraid, are electoral poison for Labour and it would be better if they weren't in the party. I also accept that we can't just boot people out for no reason.
0 -
Silly boyCorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm critical because I'm pissed off with his remaining fan club that attacks people like me for supporting Keir Starmer. And the fact he won't sod off and be quiet, instead choosing to attack the leadership.justin124 said:
I seriously question your judgement - that really is a 'non sequitur'. Someone who has lurched from being a strong advocate of Corbyn to now being ultra critical is not likely to be blessed with a very balanced view on this issue.CorrectHorseBattery said:
If Corbyn is implicated and he is not expelled, Labour will not be winning the next general election, no way.justin124 said:
Corbyn did not support those advocating expulsion of Blair for his activities as a war criminal whilst in office!CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm not interested in what the Tory Party does, I am interested in what my party does.justin124 said:
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/1294712002322014211
Do we want to win or not, I do.
My opinion on him has changed, I am not afraid to say that.
If he isn't found guilty by the EHRC, then that's fine. I want him gone but I accept there are no grounds to do so. And the same for Momentum.0 -
I believe you are very wrong . Corbyn will be a very peripheral figure by 2024 - indeed many believe he already is - in the same way that Ted Heath was in the Tory party in the 1980s.CorrectHorseBattery said:
And if there are not grounds to do so, I accept that. That's fine.justin124 said:
That would be on a par with Corbyn removing all Blairites from the party following his election in 2015 - or Thatcher getting red of the 'Wets' post 1979. Far too destructive and divisive.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm critical because I'm pissed off with his remaining fan club that attacks people like me for supporting Keir Starmer. And the fact he won't sod off and be quiet, instead choosing to attack the leadership.justin124 said:
I seriously question your judgement - that really is a 'non sequitur'. Someone who has lurched from being a strong advocate of Corbyn to now being ultra critical is not likely to be blessed with a very balanced view on this issue.CorrectHorseBattery said:
If Corbyn is implicated and he is not expelled, Labour will not be winning the next general election, no way.justin124 said:
Corbyn did not support those advocating expulsion of Blair for his activities as a war criminal whilst in office!CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm not interested in what the Tory Party does, I am interested in what my party does.justin124 said:
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/1294712002322014211
Do we want to win or not, I do.
My opinion on him has changed, I am not afraid to say that.
If he isn't found guilty by the EHRC, then that's fine. I want him gone but I accept there are no grounds to do so. And the same for Momentum.
I don't think it makes me any less wrong about their hurting Labour's electoral chances, though.1 -
We offered a broadly soft-left manifesto and our leader then wasn't polling -60.bigjohnowls said:
How do you explain 2017 GE result?CorrectHorseBattery said:My point was that Momentum and Corbyn I'm afraid, are electoral poison for Labour and it would be better if they weren't in the party. I also accept that we can't just boot people out for no reason.
In 2019 we went into nutty territory with an unpopular leader.
Now we have a popular leader and will have a 2017-lite manifesto. Seems like a sensible step to me.0 -
"When I am wrong, I change my mind."bigjohnowls said:
Silly boyCorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm critical because I'm pissed off with his remaining fan club that attacks people like me for supporting Keir Starmer. And the fact he won't sod off and be quiet, instead choosing to attack the leadership.justin124 said:
I seriously question your judgement - that really is a 'non sequitur'. Someone who has lurched from being a strong advocate of Corbyn to now being ultra critical is not likely to be blessed with a very balanced view on this issue.CorrectHorseBattery said:
If Corbyn is implicated and he is not expelled, Labour will not be winning the next general election, no way.justin124 said:
Corbyn did not support those advocating expulsion of Blair for his activities as a war criminal whilst in office!CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm not interested in what the Tory Party does, I am interested in what my party does.justin124 said:
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/1294712002322014211
Do we want to win or not, I do.
My opinion on him has changed, I am not afraid to say that.
If he isn't found guilty by the EHRC, then that's fine. I want him gone but I accept there are no grounds to do so. And the same for Momentum.
John Maynard Keynes0 -
"Priti Patel in racist French storm: Home Secretary enrages Paris by telling Tory MPs migrants want to cross Channel to escape prejudice
The Home Secratary claimed crossing migrants are escaping 'racist' France
Her comments game in a private meeting with Tory MPs, sparking the row
Row comes after Europe’s top judges condemned France for ‘degrading and inhumane’ treatment of asylum seekers by forcing them to sleep rough"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8631389/Home-Secretary-enrages-Paris-telling-Tory-MPs-migrants-want-cross-Channel-escape-prejudice.html0 -
For the British crowd this, no doubt it goes down wellAndy_JS said:"Priti Patel in racist French storm: Home Secretary enrages Paris by telling Tory MPs migrants want to cross Channel to escape prejudice
The Home Secratary claimed crossing migrants are escaping 'racist' France
Her comments game in a private meeting with Tory MPs, sparking the row
Row comes after Europe’s top judges condemned France for ‘degrading and inhumane’ treatment of asylum seekers by forcing them to sleep rough"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8631389/Home-Secretary-enrages-Paris-telling-Tory-MPs-migrants-want-cross-Channel-escape-prejudice.html
0 -
I expect it is true.CorrectHorseBattery said:Patel says migrants see France as racist
Difficult to prove because they make a point of not collating information on ethnicity or religion in official stats
0 -
PHE has always failed since well before c19CorrectHorseBattery said:
Hancock as SoS is responsible for PHE whatever their successes or failures.0 -
Ah hem, he saidCorrectHorseBattery said:
"When I am wrong, I change my mind."bigjohnowls said:
Silly boyCorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm critical because I'm pissed off with his remaining fan club that attacks people like me for supporting Keir Starmer. And the fact he won't sod off and be quiet, instead choosing to attack the leadership.justin124 said:
I seriously question your judgement - that really is a 'non sequitur'. Someone who has lurched from being a strong advocate of Corbyn to now being ultra critical is not likely to be blessed with a very balanced view on this issue.CorrectHorseBattery said:
If Corbyn is implicated and he is not expelled, Labour will not be winning the next general election, no way.justin124 said:
Corbyn did not support those advocating expulsion of Blair for his activities as a war criminal whilst in office!CorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm not interested in what the Tory Party does, I am interested in what my party does.justin124 said:
How many Tory MPs were expelled for their support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia regime or for being openly sympathetic to Apartheid South Africa? Terry Dicks advocated hanging Nelson Mandela - did he suffer any penalty for airing such views?CorrectHorseBattery said:
EHRC surely gives grounds if Corbyn is implicatedkinabalu said:
This expulsion of Corbyn is not happening, Nick, is it? I have it down as wild rumour created by the heatwave.NickPalmer said:
An anonymous "Labour insider" who talks about CowardlyKeir? A likely story.Yokes said:
This is perhaps not as high risk a move as meets the eye. The two big UK political parties are broad churches, its just about the idealogues not being in charge so in that way its not so good if Labour can't encompass the hard left, even if it is effectively muzzled. On the risk of a breakaway party, I'm not sure in electoral terms how much damage it would really do to Labour IF Starmer can connect with the public on a personal level whilst steering a don't frighten the horses Social Democrat path. Those hard left Labour types prepared to die in a ditch vs getting the Conservatives out may be surprisingly small.rottenborough said:
Are you referring to this?CorrectHorseBattery said:We simply must expel Momentum, if we are to move forward
https://twitter.com/Labour_Insider/status/1294712002322014211
Do we want to win or not, I do.
My opinion on him has changed, I am not afraid to say that.
If he isn't found guilty by the EHRC, then that's fine. I want him gone but I accept there are no grounds to do so. And the same for Momentum.
John Maynard Keynes
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"0
This discussion has been closed.