politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Are manufactured public spats in both coalition partners’ i

Given that for the longest period Liberal and then LD MPs had zero prospects of attaining any political power and prestige, I would have guessed it was more likely they were full of members who cared more about policies than power to a larger degree than the others, or else they would have tried joining a party with an easier route to power. Now they've tasted power perhaps less so, but I'm wary of criticising them for simply wanting power and not having much of an idea of what to do with it, or at least I find it impossible to condemn such standard behaviour as though it were a LD trait, especially as the current PM and the LOTO are both accused of just being professional politicos who want power with little idea of what to do with it, just that they'll figure something out.

Luckyguy1983 said:

In a rare lucid moment, Joe Biden has admitted that the US' policy on Syria has been a complete farce:

'“Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria,” he said, explaining that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were “so determined to take down Assad,” that in a sense they started a “proxy Sunni-Shia war” by pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons” towards anyone who would fight against Assad.

“And we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them,” said Biden, thus disassociating the US from unleashing the civil war in Syria.'

Basically, with the key difference that Biden absolves the US of all blame, this is exactly what those of us with sense have been saying the entire time -against the furious denials of many in this very thread.

http://rt.com/news/192880-biden-isis-us-allies/

Please also bear in mind that the US has just agreed with Saudi Arabia to flood Syria with even more of these militants.

It's not just America that has done that mistake:

http://www.channel4.com/news/begg-mi5-gave-the-green-light-to-go-to-syria

Though Britain probably took orders to do so.

We also have to consider the case that the LDs are heading towards losing a significant percentage of their current constituencies. They have to consider whether they, in a situation where they have lost say 40-50% of their MPs, have any mandate for seeking to contribute to a future government.

We are heading into uncharted territory in many, many ways.

Speedy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

In a rare lucid moment, Joe Biden has admitted that the US' policy on Syria has been a complete farce:

'“Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria,” he said, explaining that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were “so determined to take down Assad,” that in a sense they started a “proxy Sunni-Shia war” by pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons” towards anyone who would fight against Assad.

“And we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them,” said Biden, thus disassociating the US from unleashing the civil war in Syria.'

Basically, with the key difference that Biden absolves the US of all blame, this is exactly what those of us with sense have been saying the entire time -against the furious denials of many in this very thread.

http://rt.com/news/192880-biden-isis-us-allies/

Please also bear in mind that the US has just agreed with Saudi Arabia to flood Syria with even more of these militants.

It's not just America that has done that mistake:

http://www.channel4.com/news/begg-mi5-gave-the-green-light-to-go-to-syria

Though Britain probably took orders to do so.

Of course we did. Cameron and Co. are up to their neck in US caca. Utterly compromised, and a danger to the country as long as he remains in power.

Miss Plato, I won't go into specifics (for fear of spoilers) but in season 3 of Game of Thrones they overdid the torture. More repetition than anything else, which both diminishes the impact and makes it a little boring [still loved the programme overall, mind].

Mr. kle4, after watching the first season, at your suggestion after I almost stopped, here are my thoughts on The 100:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-100-first-season-review.html

I'm not sure the Lib Dems are that unsure what to do with power. I think the central problem is a disconnect between the leadership and many of the members who feel the party has been taken over by a group of professional politicians who don't really share their values.

antifrank said:

One of my work colleagues lives in Frinton, so I picked his brains about the by-election. He told me that David Cameron had visited yesterday on the campaign trail, which was news to me and most surprising, given the apparently inevitable result, but it's true:

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/politics/pm-upbeat-about-clacton-contest-1.607847

Even so, my colleague sees it as a very clear UKIP win, it will surprise no one to hear.

So the Conservatives are not just giving this a token effort. Are they road-testing ideas?

Apart from anything else, they presumably want a clear message that no defectors will get an easy ride.

MarkHopkins said:

antifrank said:

One of my work colleagues lives in Frinton, so I picked his brains about the by-election. He told me that David Cameron had visited yesterday on the campaign trail, which was news to me and most surprising, given the apparently inevitable result, but it's true:

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/politics/pm-upbeat-about-clacton-contest-1.607847

Even so, my colleague sees it as a very clear UKIP win, it will surprise no one to hear.

So the Conservatives are not just giving this a token effort. Are they road-testing ideas?

Apart from anything else, they presumably want a clear message that no defectors will get an easy ride.

Or that Cameron's presence doesn't deliver victory.

Seeing as Salmond has decreed an amnesty to tax dodgers, he should in all fairness offer a rebate to all honest Scottish tax payers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11137393/Alex-Salmond-attacked-for-creating-tax-dodgers-charter.html

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, I won't go into specifics (for fear of spoilers) but in season 3 of Game of Thrones they overdid the torture. More repetition than anything else, which both diminishes the impact and makes it a little boring [still loved the programme overall, mind].

Mr. kle4, after watching the first season, at your suggestion after I almost stopped, here are my thoughts on The 100:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-100-first-season-review.html

Yay - my opinion counted for something somewhere. More than happens with my vote at GE time, that (edit: counted in the sense of had an impact, I'm not alleging electoral irregularities here!).

With the normal TV system of outlawing ugly people (particularly women), I thought Falling Skies, another post apocalyptic show, seemed to respond to such criticism in its second season in a slight way which was interesting. Obviously everyone was still good looking, but they were definitely grimier in the second season, with people with dyed hair having their darker roots showing through in a way that looked like they had just run out of dye or something. Nothing enough to detract from the Models of the apocalypse of course, but it felt like an effort had been made.

Agree on GoT S3 - I think it was a problem where certain actors were good and or popular and were kept on screen and plots stretched out where there wasn't enough to prevent it getting repetitive. And hell, they even cut down on the Sexposition in the latest season.

@Plato What struck me about S2 was that they added Felicity to the main cast list, and Laurel seemed to have almost nothing to do - I think they know which character is more interesting and better portrayed.

FrankBooth said:

I think the central problem is a disconnect between the leadership and many of the members who feel the party has been taken over by a group of professional politicians who don't really share their values.

I can see that, to some extent. A common refrain across many parties, but the leadership does seem to have been harder, more willing to compromise and adapt, than perhaps the membership thought was appropriate. I never hear a good word about the leadership from the local LDs in my area, and these are the ones still sticking with the party

anotherDave said:

MikeK said:

I know that Peter Hitchins is not everyones cuppa, but what he has written below is well worth a peruse.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/10/david-camerons-birmingham-speech-re-examined.html

That is good. I liked the 'tory ukip pact' piece too.

The WW2 thoughts in the piece intrigued me quite a bit and made some sense. Also, Their hypocrisy drives me mad. Our hypocrisy doesn’t' is a good line and often true, even if it applies to pundits just as much most of the time.

oxfordsimon said:

manofkent2014 said:

Dadge said:

anotherDave said:

Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?

Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.

If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.

Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to

I can't see it being acceptable for the LDs to switch from one party to another in order to form a new coalition.

What on earth does that say about their priorities? It means they put power ahead of principles. If they had any trust left, it would evaporate overnight.

The LDs can, at most, offer a confidence and supply agreement with Labour - anything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.

Are you talking about how it would look, or your own opinion of it?

In terms of the priorities, same as they've always been. Same as every party. To try and push our vision of Britain (which we naturally think is the best one). So we work with other parties where necessary to try to achieve that.

Whether it's trying to pull Labour or the Tories closer to our principles doesn't make much difference, we do what we can.

Morris_Dancer said:

Supermodels of SHIELD

That sounds like a great show. Is there dialogue too?

Peter_the_Punter said:

AndyJS said:

Betfair, Rochester & Strood:

UKIP 1.91
Con 2.52
Lab 10
Other 150

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.115707446

WillHill still going 6/5 UKIP.

Bless you, Sidney.

Bloody Hell, just got a ton on at 6-5 !

Plato said:

I'll give it another go. I can always find time to squeeze another one in.

Is it on S3 now?

anotherDave said:

Plato said:

I loved Grimm, but it's gone off the boil. I did like the stunt with the baby/plane.

Colin Ferguson isn't my cup of tea. He was great in Eureka!, but hmm in Haven, and now he's turned up as himself again in The Vampire Diaries as some sort of vigilante type to challenge Sheriff Forbes authority... Speaking of TVD, I don't really rate The Originals much. It was bad enough when this spin off took over most of S3/4 of TVD - the characters are too Scooby Dooish.

OUAT lost me about 18 shows in. After the Peter Pan thingy [a great bit of acting], I just stopped caring. And Snow and Charming are so DULL. I only want to watch Rumplestiltskin and Captain Hook.

I couldn't get into Continuum - I keep being told it's great. I'll have to try again during the Christmas Hellatus.

LOVE Justified. Arrow is filler for me - Stephen Amell is glorious, but I want him and Felicity to just get together. It reminds me a lot of Smallville. I can't stand Laurel. The actress that plays her Nicki Aycocks is much better as Ruby v1.0 in Supernatural.

kle4 said:

I thought the 100 was surprisingly awesome and nowhere near as bland or cliche ridden as I thought it would be. Similar thing with Arrow. Sleepy Hollow seems like it would have a problem with longevity, but it started with a promising first season. Haven I used to love, but I couldn't stand Colin Ferguson in the last season. Grimm is a weird show that seems to have split into 2 barely connected shows and which has forgotten what it's instigating plot was. Once Upon a Time is incorporating elements from Frozen of all things, and it so confusing and nonsensical I'm sure that fits somehow. Though one of the best shows out there is that canadian show, Continnuum. Pure awesome. Last season of Justified too I think, even if that show's lost much of its quality.

OK, back to politics

oxfordsimon said:

Fenman said:

The Lib Dems will follow whatever the electorate have decided.

But 'the electorate' doesn't decide anything - our system delivers a result that can, and will, be interpreted in a number of ways.

The most likely thing that the 'electorate' will say is that we don't want so many LD MPs...

True enough, but if we somehow end up with a situation where the LDs hold the balance of power again, I don't think anyone can complain if they pick the option they think gives them the greatest advantage. By electing that proportion, the public implicitly accepts that horsetrading will occur.

+1 for Continuum. Super programme.

S3 finished. No news on S4.

The Lib Dems major problem is that they are essentially a mini-Labour. We've seen their ministers, MPs and supporters are more comfortable criticising the Tories that they are actually in government with rather than the complete and utter balls up Labour made which they are trying to clear up.

We've already got a big state left-wing party that mindlessly hates the Tories, what exactly do we need another one for? What exactly are they selling that you can't get from Labour?

Plato said:

I haven't seen Falling Skies - what's the gist?

I forgot to mention Agents of SHEILD - that's just getting into its stride IMO - glad it got renewed. ABC have spent a fortune on the production values/SFX.

And of course Person of Interest is back on again now too for S4.

Falling Skies - Aliens destroyed most of the world, group of a few hundred struggling to survive and fight back. Other aliens get involved. Toward the grimmer end of the genre.

Person of Interest is a terrifying show, and also amazing in how it pretended to be a fairly standard procedural crime show that transformed into the type of plot it now has.

oxfordsimon said:

corporeal said:

oxfordsimon said:

manofkent2014 said:

Dadge said:

anotherDave said:

Will you b

If Labour arm in that area is unlikely to

I cnything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.

Are you talke can.

But that isn't what coalition has done. The Tories have not moved closer to LD principles in the slightest. It has been a case of horse-trading. It has worked at times and not worked at others.

Works for me. This one has been fairly disappointing, but I don't personally have an issue with it as a style. Better unfulfilling horse trading than unconstrained power in a large majority.

oxfordsimon said:

corporeal said:

oxfordsimon said:

manofkent2014 said:

Dadge said:

anotherDave said:

Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?

he House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to

I

Are yoe can.

Having spent 5 years saying 'We need to do this to clear up the mess Labour left' and then jumping ship to joining Labour - it would be a very strange journey to suddenly cosy up to Balls and Miliband, two of the key members of Brown's economic team that created the problem.

That would show how few principles the LDs actually have.

Someone how Miliband avoids too much criticism despite being at the heart of the previous government as adviser then Minister. And it would indeed be strange. But they could say that the LDs have helped fix the worst of the Labour years, and with them in coalition with Labour they can ensure they don't ruin it. Self serving argument, and likely to enrage many (but may be more popular with the LD base), but it could work.

oxfordsimon said:

corporeal said:

oxfordsimon said:

manofkent2014 said:

Dadge said:

anotherDave said:

Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?

If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.

Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to

I can't see it being acceptable for the LDs to switch from one party to another in order to form a new coalition.

What on earth does that say about their priorities? It means they put power ahead of principles. If they had any trust left, it would evaporate overnight.

The LDs can, at most, offer a confidence and supply agreement with Labour - anything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.

Are you talking about how it would look, or your own opinion of it?

In terms of the priorities, same as they've always been. Same as every party. To try and push our vision of Britain (which we naturally think is the best one). So we work with other parties where necessary to try to achieve that.

Whether it's trying to pull Labour or the Tories closer to our principles doesn't make much difference, we do what we can.

But that isn't what coalition has done. The Tories have not moved closer to LD principles in the slightest. It has been a case of horse-trading. It has worked at times and not worked at others.

Having spent 5 years saying 'We need to do this to clear up the mess Labour left' and then jumping ship to joining Labour - it would be a very strange journey to suddenly cosy up to Balls and Miliband, two of the key members of Brown's economic team that created the problem.

That would show how few principles the LDs actually have.

Yes, horse trading. So the aggregate position the coalition has followed has been somewhere between the two parties centre of gravity on the political spectrum.

Nonsense. That would show that the Lib Dems are using what influence they have to get their policies (which they of course think are the best ones for the country, as every party does) followed as much as possible.

That's politics.

Miss Plato, didn't realise it had already started. For some reason, Batman doesn't really do it for me (although I liked the original TV series).

CopperSulphate said:

The Lib Dems major problem is that they are essentially a mini-Labour. We've seen their ministers, MPs and supporters are more comfortable criticising the Tories that they are actually in government with rather than the complete and utter balls up Labour made which they are trying to clear up.

We've already got a big state left-wing party that mindlessly hates the Tories, what exactly do we need another one for? What exactly are they selling that you can't get from Labour?

This just isn't true.

Corporeal - you demonstrate what is so wrong with the Lib Dems. You talk about horse trading and negotiations as if it's 50/50. Until the Lib Dems acknowledge publicly that it is 80/20 they just look silly. It's pretty obvious that most of what the government does is Tory inspired and if the Lib Dems claim they're equal partners the public is left wondering why the government looks so Tory. Must be because the Lib Dems are Tory-lite.

FrankBooth said:

Corporeal - you demonstrate what is so wrong with the Lib Dems. You talk about horse trading and negotiations as if it's 50/50. Until the Lib Dems acknowledge publicly that it is 80/20 they just look silly. It's pretty obvious that most of what the government does is Tory inspired and if the Lib Dems claim they're equal partners the public is left wondering why the government looks so Tory. Must be because the Lib Dems are Tory-lite.

I don't think the LDs claim they get 50/50 from the coalition. I think they argue they've managed more than their mere numbers would suggest should be expected (remember Clegg awhile back talking about how much they've done with only 5 cabinet members '6 if you include ken clarke'), and that they've managed to curtail the worst excesses of the Tories. People may or may not agree with that - funnily enough it's the Tory right who seem to complain about how much the LD have influence more than anyone else - but it's not an unreasonable claim to stake out.

CopperSulphate said:

The Lib Dems major problem is that they are essentially a mini-Labour. We've seen their ministers, MPs and supporters are more comfortable criticising the Tories that they are actually in government with rather than the complete and utter balls up Labour made which they are trying to clear up.

We've already got a big state left-wing party that mindlessly hates the Tories, what exactly do we need another one for? What exactly are they selling that you can't get from Labour?

That is simply not true. For every Vince Cable there is a Danny Alexander or Norman Lamb who has been supportive of the government. At least as much criticism of the coalition has come from Tory frothers of the tory right.

kle4 said:

Plato said:

Oh, well that's me told.

I'm surprised, I thought Soft Porn Masquerading As Drama was a market HBO had largely cornered.

MaxPB said:

Plato said:

Perhaps we can have a whip round and get the LDs the boxset of Masters Of Sex from HBO?

Michael Sheen is very good in it. I think S2 has just finished. I must catch up with that one - I'm getting overrun with the Fall new seasons/discussions.

Or perhaps HBO's Tell Me You Love Me would be more appropriate given their terrible poll ratings?! That was an oddly compelling series - like the shrink bit of Sopranos crossed with awkward single camera porn crossed with drama.

It's got a load of well known actors in it. I fell about laughing when I saw the guy who plays Peter [the FBI bloke from White Collar] sat on a sex therapist's couch discussing his issues. It was so weird and he did a very good job of looki,ng really uncomfortable. If it's on sometime - give it a go.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Grandiose said:

Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.

Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.

Education in good sex!

Pedant alert.

Masters of Sex is Sony Pictures TV.

I thought that was Showtime.

Apparently there's some medieval set musical comedy show airing this Fall. Sounds atrocious.

Showtime don't make TV shows, they just commission and licence them from production companies. Only Fox, HBO, Starz and ABC are vertically integrated in the US, everyone else licences shows from production companies.

rcs1000 said:

manofkent2014 said:

Dadge said:

anotherDave said:

Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?

Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.

If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.

Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to

While I agree that Labour would bitterly oppose PR, I think the LibDems would support it. Don't forget, they're likely to have 3% or so of the seats after the next election, on 10-12% of the votes. Their desire for more MPs, and the chance to be in government from time to time will more than outweigh their dislike of UKIP.

We've been supporting electoral reform to a more proportional basis for close to a century, since before Labour had ever formed a government and we were one of the 'big two'. We'd support it, and you couldn't just put it down to short term political calculations.

corporeal said:

FrankBooth said:

Corporeal - you demonstrate what is so wrong with the Lib Dems. You talk about horse trading and negotiations as if it's 50/50. Until the Lib Dems acknowledge publicly that it is 80/20 they just look silly. It's pretty obvious that most of what the government does is Tory inspired and if the Lib Dems claim they're equal partners the public is left wondering why the government looks so Tory. Must be because the Lib Dems are Tory-lite.

*shrugs* We do the best we can, I think we'd acknowledge that it's not equal due to the disparity of MPs, although naturally any party tries to play up the influence it has. Given how much of the talk comes out is about moderating the Tories (which implies a junior partnership) I'm not sure how justified your claim is.

Why play up the influence you have? Vanity? You're making a rod for your own back. By giving the impression you have lots more influence than you do, people are left wondering why the results look so Tory-like. The assumption is that the Lib Dems don't really disagree rather than being overwhelmed by numbers.

BBC report ISIS have killed again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29485405

HYUFD said:

CopperSulphate Clegg is trying to position the LDs between the 2, hence they back the cut of the 50p rate to 45p against Labour opposition, as well as austerity while being pro EU, socially liberal and pro immigration to differentiate them from the Tories, unfortunately, they have ended up with the most unpopular parts of both parties agendas

The only reason Labour brought in the 50% rate was to spite the Tories when they had to cut it again and look unpopular. They never would have done it if they thought they were going to win the 2010 election.

Labour are just as pro EU and pro immigration as the Lib Dems as well.

You could claim the Lib Dems are liberal, but I'd argue a massive all powerful nannying state is pretty much the opposite of that.

FrankBooth said:

corporeal said:

FrankBooth said:

Corporeal - you demonstrate what is so wrong with the Lib Dems. You talk about horse trading and negotiations as if it's 50/50. Until the Lib Dems acknowledge publicly that it is 80/20 they just look silly. It's pretty obvious that most of what the government does is Tory inspired and if the Lib Dems claim they're equal partners the public is left wondering why the government looks so Tory. Must be because the Lib Dems are Tory-lite.

*shrugs* We do the best we can, I think we'd acknowledge that it's not equal due to the disparity of MPs, although naturally any party tries to play up the influence it has. Given how much of the talk comes out is about moderating the Tories (which implies a junior partnership) I'm not sure how justified your claim is.

Why play up the influence you have? Vanity? You're making a rod for your own back. By giving the impression you have lots more influence than you do, people are left wondering why the results look so Tory-like. The assumption is that the Lib Dems don't really disagree rather than being overwhelmed by numbers.

"This is what we've achieved" is better than "we haven't managed to do much at all".

dr_spyn said:

BBC report ISIS have killed again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29485405

I really don't know how we defeat a group like this - but we have to find a way.

Horrific - utterly horrific

Mr. Simon, choke off the funds, kill them on the battlefield. A caliphate with no land is no caliphate at all.

Of course, bloody easy to write that sat at a desk tapping away at a keyboard.

oxfordsimon said:

rcs1000 said:

oxfordsimon said:

We also have to consider the case that the LDs are heading towards losing a significant percentage of their current constituencies. They have to consider whether they, in a situation where they have lost say 40-50% of their MPs, have any mandate for seeking to contribute to a future government.

We are heading into uncharted territory in many, many ways.

Goodness, you do talk a lot of tosh, don't you.

On that basis, if you went from 600 seats in the House of Commons to 400, because you'd lost a significant percentage you wouldn't have a mandate to govern.

If you did go from 600 seats to 400, then your mandate would have shrunk - that is obvious. You would have lost a significant percentage of support in the country.

Just as it is perfectly clear that if and when the LDs see their number of MPs shrink, so will their mandate to demand anything.

But they are still able to demand things, even if they have less weight behind them to ask for as much as they want. Political realities will see that they get what they can, regardless of how many seats they have - did they have more of a mandate to ask for things in 2005 when they had the most seats they've ever had, but had no ability to ask for anything because there was no hung parliament. This mandate talk is confusing me. In the unlikely event they can impact the make up of the next government they are free to ask for anything they want, and they will get a lot less than they want due to how many MPs they have to bargain with. There's no moral or any other problem with that behaviour as far as I can see.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Simon, choke off the funds, kill them on the battlefield. A caliphate with no land is no caliphate at all.

Of course, bloody easy to write that sat at a desk tapping away at a keyboard.

But they aren't on a battlefield in any conventional sense which makes their defeat even harder to engineer. We certainly can't defeat them via a battle of ideas.

manofkent2014 said:

Fenman said:

I think the let's not do PR because it will give seats to UKIP is a nonsense. If UKIP have won the votes then they should get the seats.

However, I suspect that with PR, people would realise that their vote is now serious and stop playing silly games....

So you think people who vote UKIP are playing silly games do you? And they wonder why so many people are turning their back on the establishment parties!

Now now, the big two have essentially made the same argument about the LDs as well, that people are throwing their vote away on a protest, even when they have held 10% of the seats in the Commons.

Copper Sulphate Except Labour is now committed to restoring the 50% tax rate

More evidence that the Conservatives have a particular target audience in their sights:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzDK_BeIIAIbDyQ.jpg:large

OSimon Continue the air strikes and provide support for the Kurds on the ground and if need be bring Iran and Turkey in too, RIP Alan Henning a decent man brutally murdered, but I think we should also now put in a blanket ban on all travel to Syria and Iraq