politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three local by-elections tonight – won last time by UKIP, L
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three local by-elections tonight – won last time by UKIP, LAB & CON
Camborne, Pendarves on Cornwall (UKIP defence)
Result of council at last election (2013): Independents 37, Liberal Democrats 36, Conservatives 31, Labour 8, United Kingdom Independence Party 6, Mebyon Kernow 4, Green Party 1 (No Overall Control, Independents short by 25)
Result of ward at last election (2013):
Comments
-
1st.
With bonus video about Tinfoil Hats, and the importance of wearing one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNO2sSW-mU0 -
2nd.0
-
Con gain from UKIP, that's it for tonight.0
-
No of 21 yr old mixed race female posters on PB
0-0.0000010 -
Corbyn supporters probably think this video really does feature Tony Blair in 1994:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcxzBr-Wihg0 -
I'm glad I'm always in your thoughtsisam said:No of 21 yr old mixed race female posters on PB
0-0.000001
0 -
http://labourlist.org/2015/08/for-supporters-of-jeremy-corbyn-diane-abbott-is-the-logical-choice-for-mayor-of-london/
In an LBC debate on August 13 with London’s prospective Labour mayoral candidates, the host Iain Dale asked all the candidates their views on Jeremy Corbyn and his leadership bid. Diane Abbott was the only one to say that she supports Jeremy and believes he will be the next Prime Minister – she even made a £20 bet on it with Iain Dale! Fellow candidate Sadiq Khan said he would probably not serve in a Corbyn-led Shadow Cabinet, while David Lammy voiced his concerns on Corbyn being electable.
I heard most of the debate (well, whilst doing other things!) and the Corbyn card was one of not many Abbott had in her deck, but she played it well enough.0 -
For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/0 -
In tonight's Evening Standard Cooper has said that "Nobody in the Labour Party is going to want to be associated with someone who has pushed very extremist and homophobic and anti-Semitic views so I'm sure Jeremy will want to respond to those questions."
My question to Cooper would be, is it okay for Corbyn to have such links as a backbench MP but not okay if he were leader? Surely she should be calling for him to be kicked out of the party altogether. It's not like this stuff wasn't known three months ago.0 -
Good evening everyone.
Re the Labour Purge.
Has anyone explained how they're going to pull the votes of anyone that has already voted?
0 -
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)0 -
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.0 -
Easy. If you vote for Corbyn, then it gets rejected. Or something.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:Good evening everyone.
Re the Labour Purge.
Has anyone explained how they're going to pull the votes of anyone that has already voted?
They may be getting desperate now.
0 -
I've only seen references to those who got a postal ballot so far.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Good evening everyone.
Re the Labour Purge.
Has anyone explained how they're going to pull the votes of anyone that has already voted?0 -
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.0 -
Is that the same Biden who plagiarised Neil Kinnock?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign,_1988MTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.0 -
0
-
Ken Livingstone happily associated with such people and the Labour Party was happy for him to represent them.tlg86 said:In tonight's Evening Standard Cooper has said that "Nobody in the Labour Party is going to want to be associated with someone who has pushed very extremist and homophobic and anti-Semitic views so I'm sure Jeremy will want to respond to those questions."
My question to Cooper would be, is it okay for Corbyn to have such links as a backbench MP but not okay if he were leader? Surely she should be calling for him to be kicked out of the party altogether. It's not like this stuff wasn't known three months ago.0 -
Quite energised, but lots of cliches and sloganeering and bugger all content.David_Evershed said:
Corbyn now speaking at Nottingham rally and being broadcast on
http://www.ng-digital.co.uk/0 -
Sci Fi fans... whats the name of Boba Fett's last appearance in a Star Wars story?0
-
Real movement on Betfair.
Corbyn 1.48/1.49.
News imminent?0 -
Why did Ken get kicked out? I know Tony only took him back because Labour looked stupid with him winning the MayoraltySean_F said:
Ken Livingstone happily associated with such people and the Labour Party was happy for him to represent them.tlg86 said:In tonight's Evening Standard Cooper has said that "Nobody in the Labour Party is going to want to be associated with someone who has pushed very extremist and homophobic and anti-Semitic views so I'm sure Jeremy will want to respond to those questions."
My question to Cooper would be, is it okay for Corbyn to have such links as a backbench MP but not okay if he were leader? Surely she should be calling for him to be kicked out of the party altogether. It's not like this stuff wasn't known three months ago.0 -
Same here.Plato said:I've only seen references to those who got a postal ballot so far.
Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:Good evening everyone.
Re the Labour Purge.
Has anyone explained how they're going to pull the votes of anyone that has already voted?
The envelope for postal ballots is addressed to the ERS.
Are some party apparatchiks really going to sift through them prior to handing over for counting?
It really is turning into the most epic dogs breakfast.
0 -
Neil who?Plato said:Is that the same Biden who plagiarised Neil Kinnock?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign,_1988MTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.
0 -
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.0 -
I only got an online vote. Still no blurb from Yvette, Kendall or any other DL candidates bar Watson.
Piss poor stuff.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Same here.Plato said:I've only seen references to those who got a postal ballot so far.
Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:Good evening everyone.
Re the Labour Purge.
Has anyone explained how they're going to pull the votes of anyone that has already voted?
The envelope for postal ballots is addressed to the ERS.
Are some party apparatchiks really going to sift through them prior to handing over for counting?
It really is turning into the most epic dogs breakfast.0 -
Did he get kicked out? I thought he (effectively) quit when he stood as an Independent against Frank Dobson in 2000?Plato said:Why did Ken get kicked out? I know Tony only took him back because Labour looked stupid with him winning the Mayoralty
Sean_F said:
Ken Livingstone happily associated with such people and the Labour Party was happy for him to represent them.tlg86 said:In tonight's Evening Standard Cooper has said that "Nobody in the Labour Party is going to want to be associated with someone who has pushed very extremist and homophobic and anti-Semitic views so I'm sure Jeremy will want to respond to those questions."
My question to Cooper would be, is it okay for Corbyn to have such links as a backbench MP but not okay if he were leader? Surely she should be calling for him to be kicked out of the party altogether. It's not like this stuff wasn't known three months ago.
0 -
I signed up by text - automated response saying we'll call you & nothing since...Plato said:I only got an online vote. Still no blurb from Yvette, Kendall or any other DL candidates bar Watson.
Piss poor stuff.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Same here.Plato said:I've only seen references to those who got a postal ballot so far.
Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:Good evening everyone.
Re the Labour Purge.
Has anyone explained how they're going to pull the votes of anyone that has already voted?
The envelope for postal ballots is addressed to the ERS.
Are some party apparatchiks really going to sift through them prior to handing over for counting?
It really is turning into the most epic dogs breakfast.0 -
Have you not had emails from these candidates?Plato said:I only got an online vote. Still no blurb from Yvette, Kendall or any other DL candidates bar Watson.
Piss poor stuff.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Same here.Plato said:I've only seen references to those who got a postal ballot so far.
Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:Good evening everyone.
Re the Labour Purge.
Has anyone explained how they're going to pull the votes of anyone that has already voted?
The envelope for postal ballots is addressed to the ERS.
Are some party apparatchiks really going to sift through them prior to handing over for counting?
It really is turning into the most epic dogs breakfast.0 -
Jeremy is telling me it's time to vote, but the Blair witches might be burning my ballot !!0
-
I understand that for those who have taken the highly dodgy / not dodgy (delete as appropriate) step to become become Registered Supporters that they will send you a paper form as well, but that you can vote online with the id codes in your email. I would expect the email to also come from the Electoral Reform Society.Charles said:
I signed up by text - automated response saying we'll call you & nothing since...Plato said:I only got an online vote. Still no blurb from Yvette, Kendall or any other DL candidates bar Watson.
Piss poor stuff.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Same here.Plato said:I've only seen references to those who got a postal ballot so far.
Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:Good evening everyone.
Re the Labour Purge.
Has anyone explained how they're going to pull the votes of anyone that has already voted?
The envelope for postal ballots is addressed to the ERS.
Are some party apparatchiks really going to sift through them prior to handing over for counting?
It really is turning into the most epic dogs breakfast.
For whoever asked, the independent ballot runner can probably identify the voters from the ID codes.
0 -
Does the content matter?Plato said:Quite energised, but lots of cliches and sloganeering and bugger all content.
David_Evershed said:Corbyn now speaking at Nottingham rally and being broadcast on
http://www.ng-digital.co.uk/
Will you be voting for Corbyn?0 -
I think he should have received a five year ban from the party for doing that; but they let him back in for the 2004 election.alex. said:
Did he get kicked out? I thought he (effectively) quit when he stood as an Independent against Frank Dobson in 2000?Plato said:Why did Ken get kicked out? I know Tony only took him back because Labour looked stupid with him winning the Mayoralty
Sean_F said:
Ken Livingstone happily associated with such people and the Labour Party was happy for him to represent them.tlg86 said:In tonight's Evening Standard Cooper has said that "Nobody in the Labour Party is going to want to be associated with someone who has pushed very extremist and homophobic and anti-Semitic views so I'm sure Jeremy will want to respond to those questions."
My question to Cooper would be, is it okay for Corbyn to have such links as a backbench MP but not okay if he were leader? Surely she should be calling for him to be kicked out of the party altogether. It's not like this stuff wasn't known three months ago.0 -
Nope, every poll has shown Hillary comfortably beating Trump, emails or no emails (and Trump himself has a whole wardrobe of skeletons). However, she is tied with Jeb and RubioMTimT said:
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.0 -
Three from Watson only plus JezzaDavid_Evershed said:
Have you not had emails from these candidates?Plato said:I only got an online vote. Still no blurb from Yvette, Kendall or any other DL candidates bar Watson.
Piss poor stuff.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Same here.Plato said:I've only seen references to those who got a postal ballot so far.
Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:Good evening everyone.
Re the Labour Purge.
Has anyone explained how they're going to pull the votes of anyone that has already voted?
The envelope for postal ballots is addressed to the ERS.
Are some party apparatchiks really going to sift through them prior to handing over for counting?
It really is turning into the most epic dogs breakfast.0 -
I thought £3ers only got online voteMattW said:
I understand that for those who have taken the highly dodgy / not dodgy (delete as appropriate) step to become become Registered Supporters that they will send you a paper form as well, but that you can vote online with the id codes in your email. I would expect the email to also come from the Electoral Reform Society.Charles said:
I signed up by text - automated response saying we'll call you & nothing since...Plato said:I only got an online vote. Still no blurb from Yvette, Kendall or any other DL candidates bar Watson.
Piss poor stuff.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Same here.Plato said:I've only seen references to those who got a postal ballot so far.
Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:Good evening everyone.
Re the Labour Purge.
Has anyone explained how they're going to pull the votes of anyone that has already voted?
The envelope for postal ballots is addressed to the ERS.
Are some party apparatchiks really going to sift through them prior to handing over for counting?
It really is turning into the most epic dogs breakfast.
For whoever asked, the independent ballot runner can probably identify the voters from the ID codes.0 -
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.HYUFD said:
Nope, every poll has shown Hillary comfortably beating Trump, emails or no emails (and Trump himself has a whole wardrobe of skeletons). However, she is tied with Jeb and RubioMTimT said:
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.0 -
-
Well at the moment Trump is ahead in Iowa, Trump is ahead in New Hampshire, Trump is ahead nationally and he is the favourite to be GOP nominee and if he is not nominee and runs 3rd party that could hand the election to Hillary anyway. Hillary is vulnerable in a straight fight with a moderate Republican, however Trump is now making that less likelyMTimT said:
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.HYUFD said:
Nope, every poll has shown Hillary comfortably beating Trump, emails or no emails (and Trump himself has a whole wardrobe of skeletons). However, she is tied with Jeb and RubioMTimT said:
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.0 -
FPT
I think this both is and isn't true. I'm not sure that the Labour Party was created to combat poverty. In fact part of the problem that they have is that too many people in the party think that that is their guiding mission (when as you say, "poverty" by and large is a relative term as far as the vast majority of this country is concerned). Fundamentally the Labour Party was created because the Unions believed (largely correctly) that the interests of the workers were better protected as part of a national movement which sought to impose national standards upon employers. Because only through the imposition of national/universal standards would good employers be protected against being undercut by the truly exploitative. The problem in the 1970s was that they lost sight of their historic mission to provide a fair deal for their members, and tried to use their power to simply get the best deal they could. Of course that is why nationalised industry was important to them, because ultimately they knew that a nationalised industry would always be forced to meet their demands. (the remnants of this are seen today with the Tube Drivers.) Whereas a privatised business/industry could never meet any demand that made the business/industry unviable.John_M said:Evening all. I think Labour's fundamental issue is that many of the issues it was created to be solved have...been solved.
We still talk about poverty, but compared to the 50s and 60s, we're collectively incredibly wealthy. I was _poor_ as a child. Outside loo, hiding from the rent man, hand-me-down clothes, not barefoot, but certainly threadbare and run down etc. We weren't the poorest in our village either.
I know this is shades of the four Yorkshireman sketch, but think how far we've progressed in every single sphere since then; single mothers, LGBT rights, workers' rights, housing quality and so on and so forth.
I find it disconcerting that many on the left still use language that harks back to the slums and rookeries of the early twentieth century. That immoderate language just makes them seem mad or at least, unbalanced.
Today the fundamental problem is globalisation which has made the once hard won drive for universal standards a near pipedream. For a long time the EU seemed to provide the answer by imposing universal labour standards within the single market, but even that is not enough when competing with the Far East and China. Imposing universal Labour laws across the world just seems too big (or too long term) a mission for many, so they have retreated to their comfort blanket of shouting the same old slogans in the UK without acknowledging the context of the globalised world in which Governments are having to make policy.0 -
For a more reasoned assessment (than HYUFD's slavish because today's polls tell us line of argument) of why Hillary should still be the Dem favorite, see Sean Trende:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/20/could_hillary_clinton_lose_the_nomination_127833.html
I largely agree with his analysis save his point three. I don't think it will necessarily take some other candidate to shave off the minority voters from her coalition for sufficient insiders in the Dem leadership to come to the conclusion that she can no longer win the GE and hence that they need to find an alternative candidate.0 -
That's why I'm going to stop debating you. In 2013 you were 100% Christie was going to be the nominee because that what the polls said then. Then last year you were 100% certain Jeb was the nominee, because that is what the polls said then. Now you are 100% on Trump, because he is ahead in a 17-horse race. You may have amnesia about your past certitudes, but I do not.HYUFD said:
Well at the moment Trump is ahead in Iowa, Trump is ahead in New Hampshire, Trump is ahead nationally and he is the favourite to be GOP nominee and if he is not nominee and runs 3rd party that could hand the election to Hillary anyway. Hillary is vulnerable in a straight fight with a moderate Republican, however Trump is now making that less likelyMTimT said:
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.HYUFD said:
Nope, every poll has shown Hillary comfortably beating Trump, emails or no emails (and Trump himself has a whole wardrobe of skeletons). However, she is tied with Jeb and RubioMTimT said:
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.
You show no knowledge of US politics nor of how to read polls at the different stages of the electoral cycle.0 -
I wonder if Reince Priebus is sleeping well these days?MTimT said:
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.HYUFD said:
Nope, every poll has shown Hillary comfortably beating Trump, emails or no emails (and Trump himself has a whole wardrobe of skeletons). However, she is tied with Jeb and RubioMTimT said:
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.0 -
Matthew Parris argues (convincingly IMHO) that Labour saw its mission originally to advance the interests of the "respectable" working classes and lower middle classes. They shared the view that the poor were essentially feckless.alex. said:FPT
I think this both is and isn't true. I'm not sure that the Labour Party was created to combat poverty. In fact part of the problem that they have is that too many people in the party think that that is their guiding mission (when as you say, "poverty" by and large is a relative term as far as the vast majority of this country is concerned). Fundamentally the Labour Party was created because the Unions believed (largely correctly) that the interests of the workers were better protected as part of a national movement which sought to impose national standards upon employers. Because only through the imposition of national/universal standards would good employers be protected against being undercut by the truly exploitative. The problem in the 1970s was that they lost sight of their historic mission to provide a fair deal for their members, and tried to use their power to simply get the best deal they could. Of course that is why nationalised industry was important to them, because ultimately they knew that a nationalised industry would always be forced to meet their demands. (the remnants of this are seen today with the Tube Drivers.) Whereas a privatised business/industry could never meet any demand that made the business/industry unviable.John_M said:Evening all. I think Labour's fundamental issue is that many of the issues it was created to be solved have...been solved.
We still talk about poverty, but compared to the 50s and 60s, we're collectively incredibly wealthy. I was _poor_ as a child. Outside loo, h
I know this is shades of the four Yorkshireman sketch, but think how far we've progressed in every single sphere since then; single mothers, LGBT rights, workers' rights, housing quality and so on and so forth.
I find it disconcerting that many on the left still use language that harks back to the slums and rookeries of the early twentieth century. That immoderate language just makes them seem mad or at least, unbalanced.
Today the fundamental problem is globalisation which has made the once hard won drive for universal standards a near pipedream. For a long time the EU seemed to provide the answer by imposing universal labour standards within the single market, but even that is not enough when competing with the Far East and China. Imposing universal Labour laws across the world just seems too big (or too long term) a mission for many, so they have retreated to their comfort blanket of shouting the same old slogans in the UK without acknowledging the context of the globalised world in which Governments are having to make policy.
0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-apologise-iraq-war-behalf-labour-leader
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?0 -
Has this been posted?
They seem to have started reinstating people incorrectly chucked out of the ballot, and apologising.
https://twitter.com/robert_a_sharpe/status/634383601619046400
https://twitter.com/rosieatlarge/status/634367868885442560
0 -
-
Interesting yougov poll, while today's students are more leftwing than the national average on immigration, climate change, tuition fees, capital punishment and the EU. However on mainly economic issues like a 50% top tax rate, nationalisation of key utilities, the minimum wage and euthanasia they are to the right of the public
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/18/students-profile/0 -
I'm glad I've never voted, and never will vote for this nutter. J H Christ.alex. said:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-apologise-iraq-war-behalf-labour-leader
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
Yesterday, I visited some family friends who also support Labour and are very anti-Tory. They were incidentally, quite critical of Corbyn, and the unions' endorsement of him for that matter.0 -
Ed Miliband has grown a beard, clearly catching Corbynmania
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/milibeard-ed-miliband-fires-fandom-new-salt-pepper-summer-beard-15163330 -
I like the wording - they 'unearthed' footage that is only a year old.The_Apocalypse said:
I'm glad I've never voted, and never will vote for this nutter. J H Christ.alex. said:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-apologise-iraq-war-behalf-labour-leader
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
Yesterday, I visited some family friends who also support Labour and are very anti-Tory. They were incidentally, quite critical of Corbyn, and the unions' endorsement of him for that matter.0 -
I should think he is quite happy with the Hillary saga and how well the main GOP candidates are doing in the head to head, especially in the marginals, at this stage.Tim_B said:
I wonder if Reince Priebus is sleeping well these days?MTimT said:
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.HYUFD said:
Nope, every poll has shown Hillary comfortably beating Trump, emails or no emails (and Trump himself has a whole wardrobe of skeletons). However, she is tied with Jeb and RubioMTimT said:
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.
Remember, the party with a Presumptive Nominee polling numbers are normally exaggerated in relation to those of the party still with many candidates in the race, until the issues are decided and both parties' conference bump has subsided.0 -
Sam?SeanT said:Apols. Updated list of politicians knows as "uncle":
1. Joseph Stalin
2. Pol Pot
3. Jeremy Corbyn
4. ROBERT MUGABE
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7899057.stm
0 -
What the USA did in Fallujah was not in any comparable way appalling. There was street fighting where US Marines expelled well entrenched enemy soldiers who were guerilla soldiers acting outside the Geneva Convention.The_Apocalypse said:
I'm glad I've never voted, and never will vote for this nutter. J H Christ.alex. said:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-apologise-iraq-war-behalf-labour-leader
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
Yesterday, I visited some family friends who also support Labour and are very anti-Tory. They were incidentally, quite critical of Corbyn, and the unions' endorsement of him for that matter.
Where is there the surprise in Corbyn's remarks. He is and always has been a vicious bigoted anti american anti capitalist anti western pro communist running dog sock puppet lackey.0 -
Well argued.
alex. said:FPT
I think this both is and isn't true. I'm not sure that the Labour Party was created to combat poverty. In fact part of the problem that they have is that too many people in the party think that that is their guiding mission (when as you say, "poverty" by and large is a relative term as far as the vast majority of this country is concerned). Fundamentally the Labour Party was created because the Unions believed (largely correctly) that the interests of the workers were better protected as part of a national movement which sought to impose national standards upon employers. Because only through the imposition of national/universal standards would good employers be protected against being undercut by the truly exploitative. The problem in the 1970s was that they lost sight of their historic mission to provide a fair deal for their members, and tried to use their power to simply get the best deal they could. Of course that is why nationalised industry was important to them, because ultimately they knew that a nationalised industry would always be forced to meet their demands. (the remnants of this are seen today with the Tube Drivers.) Whereas a privatised business/industry could never meet any demand that made the business/industry unviable.John_M said:Evening all. I think Labour's fundamental issue is that many of the issues it was created to be solved have...been solved.
We still talk about poverty, but compared to the 50s and 60s, we're collectively incredibly wealthy. I was _poor_ as a child. Outside loo, hiding from the rent man, hand-me-down clothes, not barefoot, but certainly threadbare and run down etc. We weren't the poorest in our village either.
I know this is shades of the four Yorkshireman sketch, but think how far we've progressed in every single sphere since then; single mothers, LGBT rights, workers' rights, housing quality and so on and so forth.
I find it disconcerting that many on the left still use language that harks back to the slums and rookeries of the early twentieth century. That immoderate language just makes them seem mad or at least, unbalanced.
Today the fundamental problem is globalisation which has made the once hard won drive for universal standards a near pipedream. For a long time the EU seemed to provide the answer by imposing universal labour standards within the single market, but even that is not enough when competing with the Far East and China. Imposing universal Labour laws across the world just seems too big (or too long term) a mission for many, so they have retreated to their comfort blanket of shouting the same old slogans in the UK without acknowledging the context of the globalised world in which Governments are having to make policy.0 -
Well I am not going to stop debating you. I said Christie was the most likely nominee if Jeb did not run, he did run (and is still Trump's closest rival). However, the Trump phenomona did catch me by surprise, but it does seem that after picking moderates in the last 2 elections many Republicans are attracted by his populist rhetoric and tough line on immigration. If Jeb stops him in New Hampshire he will still be candidate in all likelihood, if Trump wins Iowa and NH then he becomes unstoppable and at the moment the momentum is with himMTimT said:
Now you are 100% on Trump, because he is ahead in a 17-horse race. You may have amnesia about your past certitudes, but I do not.HYUFD said:
Hillary is vulnerable in a straight fight with a moderate Republican, however Trump is now making that less likelyMTimT said:
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.HYUFD said:
Nope, every poll has shown Hillary comfortably beating Trump, emails or no emails (and Trump himself has a whole wardrobe of skeletons). However, she is tied with Jeb and RubioMTimT said:
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.
You show no knowledge of US politics nor of how to read polls at the different stages of the electoral cycle.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics and the GOP does historically tend to pick the frontrunner0 -
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue. Typically, people become more conservative when they get their own physical stake in society. Once you have your own house, you want to protect property rights, you participate in local community and want to make sure its cohesive, you want law & order maintained, and you want the system to be preserved. Generation Rent threatens to upturn all this. It will be people going into their 30s and 40s whose main concern is the government protects them from the capitalist landlord class.SeanT said:
Fascinating. Given that this cohort will, inevitably, drift right on all these issues over time, it shows that THE position to be, politically, is economically quite hard right, yet socially fairly soft liberal. Which is precisely where Cameron's Tory party has positioned itself.HYUFD said:Interesting yougov poll, while today's students are more leftwing than the national average on immigration, climate change, tuition fees, capital punishment and the EU. However on mainly economic issues like a 50% top tax rate, nationalisation of key utilities, the minimum wage and euthanasia they are to the right of the public
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/18/students-profile/
Gay marriage + low taxes.
Thatcher knew it well when creating a property-owning democracy:
'Economics are the method: the object is to change the soul'.0 -
Have you voted for him yet, though ?SeanT said:
I am coming to the conclusion that Corbyn is not stupid, or, at least, not just stupid. He is a nasty, cocksucking prick. A real piece of work.flightpath01 said:
What the USA did in Fallujah was not in any comparable way appalling. There was street fighting where US Marines expelled well entrenched enemy soldiers who were guerilla soldiers acting outside the Geneva Convention.The_Apocalypse said:
I'm glad I've never voted, and never will vote for this nutter. J H Christ.alex. said:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-apologise-iraq-war-behalf-labour-leader
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
Yesterday, I visited some family friends who also support Labour and are very anti-Tory. They were incidentally, quite critical of Corbyn, and the unions' endorsement of him for that matter.
Where is there the surprise in Corbyn's remarks. He is and always has been a vicious bigoted anti american anti capitalist anti western pro communist running dog sock puppet lackey.0 -
3 timesPulpstar said:
Have you voted for him yet, though ?SeanT said:
I am coming to the conclusion that Corbyn is not stupid, or, at least, not just stupid. He is a nasty, cocksucking prick. A real piece of work.flightpath01 said:
What the USA did in Fallujah was not in any comparable way appalling. There was street fighting where US Marines expelled well entrenched enemy soldiers who were guerilla soldiers acting outside the Geneva Convention.The_Apocalypse said:
I'm glad I've never voted, and never will vote for this nutter. J H Christ.alex. said:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-apologise-iraq-war-behalf-labour-leader
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
Yesterday, I visited some family friends who also support Labour and are very anti-Tory. They were incidentally, quite critical of Corbyn, and the unions' endorsement of him for that matter.
Where is there the surprise in Corbyn's remarks. He is and always has been a vicious bigoted anti american anti capitalist anti western pro communist running dog sock puppet lackey.
0 -
Ooooh, look who Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots voted for: a man who hangs out with people who relishes the deaths of British soldiers and then lies about it. Shameful. Nick, you've helped to kill the Labour party. Congratulations.0
-
breaking: Corbyn to apologize on behalf of the Labour Party for the Iraq War, if elected leader.
Also not ruling out legal action re purged voters...0 -
ISTM that once large problems are fixed, far smaller or more specialised problems need to be magnified to maintain the profile of the people who obtained their profile by being outraged.John_M said:Evening all. I think Labour's fundamental issue is that many of the issues it was created to be solved have...been solved.
We still talk about poverty, but compared to the 50s and 60s, we're collectively incredibly wealthy. I was _poor_ as a child. Outside loo, hiding from the rent man, hand-me-down clothes, not barefoot, but certainly threadbare and run down etc. We weren't the poorest in our village either.
I know this is shades of the four Yorkshireman sketch, but think how far we've progressed in every single sphere since then; single mothers, LGBT rights, workers' rights, housing quality and so on and so forth.
I find it disconcerting that many on the left still use language that harks back to the slums and rookeries of the early twentieth century. That immoderate language just makes them seem mad or at least, unbalanced.
Hence the evidence-free outrage about Page 3 (but curiously nothing about the insidious Cosmopolitan) and the LBGTIQXYZ civil wars, and - for example - a consequent verbal assault on Helen Lewis of the New Statesman of all people.
Separate gender lavatories in British Universities suddenly become a crucial form of global oppression for everyone when the current fashionable outrage is about the rather small transsexual population.
There is also a wry amusement at some activists who have vanished up their own fundament:
https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/629479000684019713
That's an example of an indirect apology. JVG is happy abusing men, but when her method of abusing men is offensive to another group, it suddenly becomes unacceptable.0 -
Trump has led in more recent Iowa and NH polls in the last few weeks than Hillary ( she trailed Sanders in NH in one poll)MTimT said:
I should think he is quite happy with the Hillary saga and how well the main GOP candidates are doing in the head to head, especially in the marginals, at this stage.Tim_B said:
I wonder if Reince Priebus is sleeping well these days?MTimT said:
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.HYUFD said:
Nope, every poll has shown Hillary comfortably beating Trump, emails or no emails (and Trump himself has a whole wardrobe of skeletons). However, she is tied with Jeb and RubioMTimT said:
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
The issue as I see it TimT is how far Clinton can bend before she breaks - not whether the issue will damage her prospects, but rather if it will hit critical mass.MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.
Remember, the party with a Presumptive Nominee polling numbers are normally exaggerated in relation to those of the party still with many candidates in the race, until the issues are decided and both parties' conference bump has subsided.0 -
Just out of interest, does anyone know what the official Iraqi government position on the Iraq War is these days? Presumably they, at least, aren't demanding apologies for the ousting of Saddam?
We know who Corbyn proposes to apologise on behalf of, but who precisely is he going to apologise to?0 -
So even now, his campaign just repeats the criticism of ISIS and doesn't take back the comparison with the US? It's just like that IRA interview, where every bad thing the IRA does is brought up and he compares it to the British.alex. said:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-apologise-iraq-war-behalf-labour-leader
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?0 -
Well I am not going to stop debating you.HYUFD said:
Well I am not going to stop debating you. I said Christie was the most likely nominee if Jeb did not run, he did run (and is still Trump's closest rival). However, the Trump phenomona did catch me by surprise, but it does seem that after picking moderates in the last 2 elections many Republicans are attracted by his populist rhetoric and tough line on immigration. If Jeb stops him in New Hampshire he will still be candidate in all likelihood, if Trump wins Iowa and NH then he becomes unstoppable and at the moment the momentum is with himMTimT said:
Now you are 100% on Trump, because he is ahead in a 17-horse race. You may have amnesia about your past certitudes, but I do not.HYUFD said:
Hillary is vulnerable in a straight fight with a moderate Republican, however Trump is now making that less likelyMTimT said:
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.HYUFD said:
Nope, every poll has shown Hillary comfortably beating Trump, emails or no emails (and Trump himself has a whole wardrobe of skeletons). However, she is tied with Jeb and RubioMTimT said:
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.
You show no knowledge of US politics nor of how to read polls at the different stages of the electoral cycle.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics and the GOP does historically tend to pick the frontrunner
You're not 'debating' anyone - you merely quote polls. We covered this before.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics
Bugger all actually. We covered this before too.0 -
Southam- really comrade, you have to row back from your personal abuse at Nick. It is unpleasant.
Nick has been actively involved in London Labour politics for decades. He is hardly going to come onto a public forum and lay into the next leader of the Labour party. You are expecting too much.SouthamObserver said:Ooooh, look who Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots voted for: a man who hangs out with people who relishes the deaths of British soldiers and then lies about it. Shameful. Nick, you've helped to kill the Labour party. Congratulations.
0 -
In the main yes, though students are more conservative on euthanasia and more leftwing on tuition fees. However, bear in mind most students are middle class and the middle classes as a whole tend to be slightly more economically conservative than average and more socially liberalSeanT said:
Fascinating. Given that this cohort will, inevitably, drift right on all these issues over time, it shows that THE position to be, politically, is economically quite hard right, yet socially fairly soft liberal. Which is precisely where Cameron's Tory party has positioned itself.HYUFD said:Interesting yougov poll, while today's students are more leftwing than the national average on immigration, climate change, tuition fees, capital punishment and the EU. However on mainly economic issues like a 50% top tax rate, nationalisation of key utilities, the minimum wage and euthanasia they are to the right of the public
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/18/students-profile/
Gay marriage + low taxes.0 -
Drift hard right over time? I don't know about that. These students aren't really that out-step with public opinion as whole, which naturally with an aging population will represent more older voters:SeanT said:
Fascinating. Given that this cohort will, inevitably, drift right on all these issues over time, it shows that THE position to be, politically, is economically quite hard right, yet socially fairly soft liberal. Which is precisely where Cameron's Tory party has positioned itself.HYUFD said:Interesting yougov poll, while today's students are more leftwing than the national average on immigration, climate change, tuition fees, capital punishment and the EU. However on mainly economic issues like a 50% top tax rate, nationalisation of key utilities, the minimum wage and euthanasia they are to the right of the public
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/18/students-profile/
Gay marriage + low taxes.
On all of the core economic issues – taxes for the wealthy, nationalisation, redistribution, wages and the role of the government in the economy – the average student is actually to the right of the general public.
This doesn't mean they tend to fall on the right-wing side of the debate, but simply that they fall on the left-wing side to a lesser extent. For example, 45% of students say the top rate of tax should be 50p or more compared to 56% of the public. And 47% of students support the nationalisation of utilities, but among the general public support is at 57%
0 -
Still haven't had my e-ballot yet...0
-
Bob?SeanT said:Apols. Updated list of politicians knows as "uncle":
1. Joseph Stalin
2. Pol Pot
3. Jeremy Corbyn
4. ROBERT MUGABE
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7899057.stm0 -
Indeed, very well put case.Plato said:Well argued.
alex. said:FPT
I think this both is and isn't true. I'm not sure that the Labour Party was created to combat poverty. In fact part of the problem that they have is that too many people in the party think that that is their guiding mission (when as you say, "poverty" by and large is a relative term as far as the vast majority of this country is concerned). Fundamentally the Labour Party was created because the Unions believed (largely correctly) that the interests of the workers were better protected as part of a national movement which sought to impose national standards upon employers. Because only through the imposition of national/universal standards would good employers be protected against being undercut by the truly exploitative. The problem in the 1970s was that they lost sight of their historic mission to provide a fair deal for their members, and tried to use their power to simply get the best deal they could. Of course that is why nationalised industry was important to them, because ultimately they knew that a nationalised industry would always be forced to meet their demands. (the remnants of this are seen today with the Tube Drivers.) Whereas a privatised business/industry could never meet any demand that made the business/industry unviable.John_M said:Evening all. I think Labour's fundamental issue is that many of the issues it was created to be solved have...been solved.
We still talk about poverty, but compared to the 50s and 60s, we're collectively incredibly wealthy. I was _poor_ as a child. Outside loo, hiding from the rent man, hand-me-down clothes, not barefoot, but certainly threadbare and run down etc. We weren't the poorest in our village either.
I know this is shades of the four Yorkshireman sketch, but think how far we've progressed in every single sphere since then; single mothers, LGBT rights, workers' rights, housing quality and so on and so forth.
I find it disconcerting that many on the left still use language that harks back to the slums and rookeries of the early twentieth century. That immoderate language just makes them seem mad or at least, unbalanced.
Today the fundamental problem is globalisation which has made the once hard won drive for universal standards a near pipedream. For a long time the EU seemed to provide the answer by imposing universal labour standards within the single market, but even that is not enough when competing with the Far East and China. Imposing universal Labour laws across the world just seems too big (or too long term) a mission for many, so they have retreated to their comfort blanket of shouting the same old slogans in the UK without acknowledging the context of the globalised world in which Governments are having to make policy.0 -
I'd be interested to compare students/graduates with people who did not go to university aged between 18 and 34. I bet the latter are well to the right of the former.SeanT said:
Fascinating. Given that this cohort will, inevitably, drift right on all these issues over time, it shows that THE position to be, politically, is economically quite hard right, yet socially fairly soft liberal. Which is precisely where Cameron's Tory party has positioned itself.HYUFD said:Interesting yougov poll, while today's students are more leftwing than the national average on immigration, climate change, tuition fees, capital punishment and the EU. However on mainly economic issues like a 50% top tax rate, nationalisation of key utilities, the minimum wage and euthanasia they are to the right of the public
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/18/students-profile/
Gay marriage + low taxes.
50 years ago, you'd assume a thirty year old professional from a wealthy home who went to a good university was right wing, while a thirty year old plumber who left school at 16 was left-wing. Now, you'd assume the reverse.
That is indeed the worry. Fortunately, UKIP now provides an alternative for people who are disaffected but don't want to vote left.JEO said:
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue. Typically, people become more conservative when they get their own physical stake in society. Once you have your own house, you want to protect property rights, you participate in local community and want to make sure its cohesive, you want law & order maintained, and you want the system to be preserved. Generation Rent threatens to upturn all this. It will be people going into their 30s and 40s whose main concern is the government protects them from the capitalist landlord class.
Thatcher knew it well when creating a property-owning democracy:
'Economics are the method: the object is to change the soul'.0 -
Exactly. Given that young people are hardly right-wing economically, but just less left-wing that the public on certain issues, as soon as my generation find it difficult to have a stake in society, is when they will swing even more to the left economically. More graduates are having to take non-graduate jobs, especially given how competitive grad schemes are. I know as a graduate I'll most likely be going into a non-graduate job if I'm lucky, and that it'll be great if I even get to earn an average salary one day, let alone get a mortgage (if it can happen).JEO said:
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue. Typically, people become more conservative when they get their own physical stake in society. Once you have your own house, you want to protect property rights, you participate in local community and want to make sure its cohesive, you want law & order maintained, and you want the system to be preserved. Generation Rent threatens to upturn all this. It will be people going into their 30s and 40s whose main concern is the government protects them from the capitalist landlord class.SeanT said:
Fascinating. Given that this cohort will, inevitably, drift right on all these issues over time, it shows that THE position to be, politically, is economically quite hard right, yet socially fairly soft liberal. Which is precisely where Cameron's Tory party has positioned itself.HYUFD said:Interesting yougov poll, while today's students are more leftwing than the national average on immigration, climate change, tuition fees, capital punishment and the EU. However on mainly economic issues like a 50% top tax rate, nationalisation of key utilities, the minimum wage and euthanasia they are to the right of the public
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/18/students-profile/
Gay marriage + low taxes.
Thatcher knew it well when creating a property-owning democracy:
'Economics are the method: the object is to change the soul'.0 -
One of the Labour councillors that I rather liked told me that if the underclass had not managed to clamber out of poverty, at this time, after generations of universal education, govt interventions, benefits et al. we were essentially dealing with folk who would never rise up.
Matthew Parris argues (convincingly IMHO) that Labour saw its mission originally to advance the interests of the "respectable" working classes and lower middle classes. They shared the view that the poor were essentially feckless.
0 -
Agree.
Whats important is that these people overseas are moved out of poverty into democracy and consumerism so we can sell them stuff. But we will lose the race for that if Citizen Corbyn cripples the economy with unaffordable welfare spending that turns people of working age into couch potatoes.0 -
Would anyone be able to enlighten me on why the Independent Greeks are going to take a battering at the next election?0
-
Perhaps then you would debate me, I was throwing cold water on Christie and Jeb being the nominee even when the polls were more favourable for them, because I don't read just the polls, I also see their record (by record I don't mean their CV) and how they perform on TV.MTimT said:
That's why I'm going to stop debating you. In 2013 you were 100% Christie was going to be the nominee because that what the polls said then. Then last year you were 100% certain Jeb was the nominee, because that is what the polls said then. Now you are 100% on Trump, because he is ahead in a 17-horse race. You may have amnesia about your past certitudes, but I do not.HYUFD said:
WlyMTimT said:
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.HYUFD said:
RubioMTimT said:
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
emailsMTimT said:
Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.TheWhiteRabbit said:MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)
You show no knowledge of US politics nor of how to read polls at the different stages of the electoral cycle.
Christie was never going to be the nominee because he ditched Romney for Obama in the last days of the 2012 election and it showed in the polls as he was and still is the most unpopular republican, way before the corruption scandals and the collapse of New Jersey's finances.
Bush was also never the favourite in my opinion, because republicans had a bad experience with the Bush family, the Tea Party was born partly as a reaction to Bush W's economic policies (the nationalizations, the bailouts ect) and party as a racist thing against Obama, and Jeb Bush loves immigration which is anathema to republicans, not to mention that now he looks to be even more stupid than his brother.
And I went on the Trump bandwagon in May, at the time when many said that he wasn't even running at all, because I know that a TV obsessed audience can be seduced by Trump, he's in the TV business for 30 years and he's done all kinds of shows and he has the money and celebrity to snatch every vote from the audience, and americans love TV.0 -
The trouble with UKIP, is that they don't really provide a solution to the housing problem. So I can't see many of my generation turning to them.0
-
In this year's election, Labour did better with people who'd gone to university than people who had stopped education after school.Sean_F said:
I'd be interested to compare students/graduates with people who did not go to university aged between 18 and 34. I bet the latter are well to the right of the former.SeanT said:
Fascinating. Given that this cohort will, inevitably, drift right on all these issues over time, it shows that THE position to be, politically, is economically quite hard right, yet socially fairly soft liberal. Which is precisely where Cameron's Tory party has positioned itself.HYUFD said:Interesting yougov poll, while today's students are more leftwing than the national average on immigration, climate change, tuition fees, capital punishment and the EU. However on mainly economic issues like a 50% top tax rate, nationalisation of key utilities, the minimum wage and euthanasia they are to the right of the public
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/18/students-profile/
Gay marriage + low taxes.
50 years ago, you'd assume a thirty year old professional from a wealthy home who went to a good university was right wing, while a thirty year old plumber who left school at 16 was left-wing. Now, you'd assume the reverse.
That is indeed the worry. Fortunately, UKIP now provides an alternative for people who are disaffected but don't want to vote left.JEO said:
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue. Typically, people become more conservative when they get their own physical stake in society. Once you have your own house, you want to protect property rights, you participate in local community and want to make sure its cohesive, you want law & order maintained, and you want the system to be preserved. Generation Rent threatens to upturn all this. It will be people going into their 30s and 40s whose main concern is the government protects them from the capitalist landlord class.
Thatcher knew it well when creating a property-owning democracy:
'Economics are the method: the object is to change the soul'.
0 -
JEO said:
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue.
Excellent post. You are right to bang that particular drum.
Regardless of party politics, the UK needs to rebalance the housing market.
The Tories need to take action because by not doing so, they are giving their opponents the makings of a powerful weapon against them.0 -
Can I take it that you don't particularly like himSeanT said:
I am coming to the conclusion that Corbyn is not stupid, or, at least, not just stupid. He is a nasty, cocksucking prick. A real piece of work.flightpath01 said:
What the USA did in Fallujah was not in any comparable way appalling. There was street fighting where US Marines expelled well entrenched enemy soldiers who were guerilla soldiers acting outside the Geneva Convention.The_Apocalypse said:
I'm glad I've never voted, and never will vote for this nutter. J H Christ.alex. said:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-apologise-iraq-war-behalf-labour-leader
"Channel Four News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.
Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”
Any thoughts on how he proposes to stop them?
Yesterday, I visited some family friends who also support Labour and are very anti-Tory. They were incidentally, quite critical of Corbyn, and the unions' endorsement of him for that matter.
Where is there the surprise in Corbyn's remarks. He is and always has been a vicious bigoted anti american anti capitalist anti western pro communist running dog sock puppet lackey.0 -
I, too, know London Labour politics pretty well and like Nick I know exactly who JC has been hanging out with for the last 40 years. I understand that back in the day you didn't get to be a Labour MP in Camden or Islington without supporting a united Ireland, but JC has gone way beyond that time and agsin. It defies belief Nick and so many others could have decided this man should be Labour's leader and the party's candidate for PM. I am doing them a favour describing them as idiots. The alternative is that they are perfectly relaxed about an spologist for murder and terrorism being in charge.tyson said:Southam- really comrade, you have to row back from your personal abuse at Nick. It is unpleasant.
Nick has been actively involved in London Labour politics for decades. He is hardly going to come onto a public forum and lay into the next leader of the Labour party. You are expecting too much.SouthamObserver said:Ooooh, look who Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots voted for: a man who hangs out with people who relishes the deaths of British soldiers and then lies about it. Shameful. Nick, you've helped to kill the Labour party. Congratulations.
0 -
@MattW
'I understand that for those who have taken the highly dodgy / not dodgy (delete as appropriate) step to become become Registered Supporters that they will send you a paper form as well, but that you can vote online with the id codes in your email. I would expect the email to also come from the Electoral Reform Society.'
The email came direct from the Labour party with online voting instructions and no mention of any paper form.0 -
Education qualification, YouGov, 2015 election
GCSE or lower: Tories 38%, Labour 30%, UKIP 20%, Lib Dems 5%, Greens 2%
A Level: Tories 37%, Labour 31%, UKIP 11%, Lib Dems 8%, Greens 5%
University: Tories 35%, Labour 34%, Lib Dems 11%, UKIP 6%, Greens 6%0 -
I think that many of the things that generate outrage among pressure groups are essentially rich peoples' problems. The Sun is read by working class people. Hence, showing a pair of tits is evil. Cosmopolitan is read by middle class women. Hence, in-depth discussions about anal sex are empowering.MattW said:
ISTM that once large problems are fixed, far smaller or more specialised problems need to be magnified to maintain the profile of the people who obtained their profile by being outraged.John_M said:Evening all. I think Labour's fundamental issue is that many of the issues it was created to be solved have...been solved.
We still talk about poverty, but compared to the 50s and 60s, we're collectively incredibly wealthy. I was _poor_ as a child. Outside loo, hiding from the rent man, hand-me-down clothes, not barefoot, but certainly threadbare and run down etc. We weren't the poorest in our village either.
I know this is shades of the four Yorkshireman sketch, but think how far we've progressed in every single sphere since then; single mothers, LGBT rights, workers' rights, housing quality and so on and so forth.
I find it disconcerting that many on the left still use language that harks back to the slums and rookeries of the early twentieth century. That immoderate language just makes them seem mad or at least, unbalanced.
Hence the evidence-free outrage about Page 3 (but curiously nothing about the insidious Cosmopolitan) and the LBGTIQXYZ civil wars, and - for example - a consequent verbal assault on Helen Lewis of the New Statesman of all people.
Separate gender lavatories in British Universities suddenly become a crucial form of global oppression for everyone when the current fashionable outrage is about the rather small transsexual population.
There is also a wry amusement at some activists who have vanished up their own fundament:
https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/629479000684019713
That's an example of an indirect apology. JVG is happy abusing men, but when her method of abusing men is offensive to another group, it suddenly becomes unacceptable.0 -
The problem is that everyone really knows that something has to be done about Housing, the problem is that nobody, and i mean nobody, has a clue what that something might be...Disraeli said:JEO said:
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue.
Excellent post. You are right to bang that particular drum.
Regardless of party politics, the UK needs to rebalance the housing market.
The Tories need to take action because by not doing so, they are giving their opponents the makings of a powerful weapon against them.
0 -
Mine looked like it came from Labour - but the address resolved to ERS.john_zims said:
@MattW
'I understand that for those who have taken the highly dodgy / not dodgy (delete as appropriate) step to become become Registered Supporters that they will send you a paper form as well, but that you can vote online with the id codes in your email. I would expect the email to also come from the Electoral Reform Society.'
The email came direct from the Labour party with online voting instructions and no mention of any paper form.0 -
Well because they were created as a fanatical anti-bailout party when they originally split from ND, the only reason their mostly conservative voters tolerated a coalition with what was then a radical left Syriza was the common anti-bailout policies.MP_SE said:Would anyone be able to enlighten me on why the Independent Greeks are going to take a battering at the next election?
Now that they have followed Tsipras into a u-turn, basically they have no reason to exist, a bit like the LD after they entered the coalition.
They will probably lose 2/3 of their voters and fall bellow the 3% threshold to enter parliament.0 -
-
-
As opposed to your continued insistence that Hillary was dead in the water because of her emails with no polling evidence to support itTim_B said:
Well I am not going to stop debating you.HYUFD said:
Well I am not going to stop debating you.MTimT said:
Now you are 100% on Trump, because he is ahead in a 17-horse race. You may have amnesia about your past certitudes, but I do not.HYUFD said:
Hillary is vulnerable in a straight fight with a moderate Republican, however Trump is now making that less likelyMTimT said:
Not bollocks that she would beat Trump. I'd vote for her over Trump. Bollocks that that will ever be the choice.HYUFD said:
Nope, every poll has shown Hillary comfortably beating Trump, emails or no emails (and Trump himself has a whole wardrobe of skeletons). However, she is tied with Jeb and RubioMTimT said:
Bollocks.HYUFD said:
Hillary's chances are more linked to whether she faces Donald Trump or not than her emailsMTimT said:
Absolutely agree. I think the breaking point will be if Biden jumps in. Then all the shrinking violets will jump off the Good Ship Hillary - not necessarily to Biden, but to ABC(linton).TheWhiteRabbit said:
(Why use one metaphor when two will do?)MTimT said:For those who are not convinced that the email scandal is having any real effect on Hillary's chances, I recommend you take a gander at the charts towards the end of this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/
Personally, I don't see how this can continue on this trajectory for another 2 months. Something, surely, has to break by then unless Hillary turns it around.
You show no knowledge of US politics nor of how to read polls at the different stages of the electoral cycle.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics and the GOP does historically tend to pick the frontrunner
You're not 'debating' anyone - you merely quote polls. We covered this before.
I show plenty of knowledge of US politics
Bugger all actually. We covered this before too.
The fact I do not bow down and lick your boots at every opinion you come out with is no evidence at all for you to come out with a totally baseless statement like that!!0 -
Increasing taxes on empty homes. Increasing taxes on second homes. Getting rid of stamp duty (which discourages people moving into smaller homes. Getting rid of the inheritance incentive to keep your money in a big residence. A steeply progressive land tax, encouraging people to build up. A better compensation scheme for those badly affected by new housing. Getting rid of excessive skyline protections in London. Limiting immigration.alex. said:
The problem is that everyone really knows that something has to be done about Housing, the problem is that nobody, and i mean nobody, has a clue what that something might be...Disraeli said:JEO said:
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue.
Excellent post. You are right to bang that particular drum.
Regardless of party politics, the UK needs to rebalance the housing market.
The Tories need to take action because by not doing so, they are giving their opponents the makings of a powerful weapon against them.0 -
I don't think it's about a pair of tits being evil, but more about female objectification.Sean_F said:
I think that many of the things that generate outrage among pressure groups are essentially rich peoples' problems. The Sun is read by working class people. Hence, showing a pair of tits is evil. Cosmopolitan is read by middle class women. Hence, in-depth discussions about anal sex are empowering.MattW said:
ISTM that once large problems are fixed, far smaller or more specialised problems need to be magnified to maintain the profile of the people who obtained their profile by being outraged.John_M said:Evening all. I think Labour's fundamental issue is that many of the issues it was created to be solved have...been solved.
We still talk about poverty, but compared to the 50s and 60s, we're collectively incredibly wealthy. I was _poor_ as a child. Outside loo, hiding from the rent man, hand-me-down clothes, not barefoot, but certainly threadbare and run down etc. We weren't the poorest in our village either.
I know this is shades of the four Yorkshireman sketch, but think how far we've progressed in every single sphere since then; single mothers, LGBT rights, workers' rights, housing quality and so on and so forth.
I find it disconcerting that many on the left still use language that harks back to the slums and rookeries of the early twentieth century. That immoderate language just makes them seem mad or at least, unbalanced.
Hence the evidence-free outrage about Page 3 (but curiously nothing about the insidious Cosmopolitan) and the LBGTIQXYZ civil wars, and - for example - a consequent verbal assault on Helen Lewis of the New Statesman of all people.
Separate gender lavatories in British Universities suddenly become a crucial form of global oppression for everyone when the current fashionable outrage is about the rather small transsexual population.
There is also a wry amusement at some activists who have vanished up their own fundament:
https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/629479000684019713
That's an example of an indirect apology. JVG is happy abusing men, but when her method of abusing men is offensive to another group, it suddenly becomes unacceptable.
On transsexuals, given that many transsexuals suffer discrimination and aren't rich, it certainly isn't rich peoples' problems. Sometimes, we have to care about things that don't interest Sun readers. Otherwise, we may as well let them run the country, and we'll find out how bad things get after that.0 -
They need to double their staff.Plato said:0 -
The problem is not that something has to be done about housing, but many things. There are many problems, and people generally talk only of the issue that annoys or troubles them.alex. said:
The problem is that everyone really knows that something has to be done about Housing, the problem is that nobody, and i mean nobody, has a clue what that something might be...Disraeli said:JEO said:
My worry is that they may not drift right. The problem is on the whole housing issue.
Excellent post. You are right to bang that particular drum.
Regardless of party politics, the UK needs to rebalance the housing market.
The Tories need to take action because by not doing so, they are giving their opponents the makings of a powerful weapon against them.
It is like squeezing a balloon: fixing one problem can (and will) accentuate problems other people have.
What is needed is a holistic look at housing and all the related problems, and to try and work out a structure that best fits our needs as a country and as individuals.
The only problem is that such changes and he resultant structure will p*ss just about everyone off. So we will just keep on squeezing at that old, tired balloon.0 -
So far the only generally popular stance (outside of Labour too) that Corbyn will take.Plato said:0 -
It seemed to me that Nick lost a lot of credibility on here as a result of his postings in the lead up to the election, and his subsequent post-result admission that he his apparent confidence had all been a big pretence as the election neared and it became apparent to him what was really happening on the ground. Before that, whilst many on here were often in disagreement with him on certain issues, and were somewhat sceptical that every contentious political issue was quite the storm in a teacup that he generally made it out to be, i think there was usually a perception that he was giving his honest opinion, even if it was misguided. Now it is genuinely impossible to know what he really thinks.SouthamObserver said:
I, too, know London Labour politics pretty well and like Nick I know exactly who JC has been hanging out with for the last 40 years. I understand that back in the day you didn't get to be a Labour MP in Camden or Islington without supporting a united Ireland, but JC has gone way beyond that time and agsin. It defies belief Nick and so many others could have decided this man should be Labour's leader and the party's candidate for PM. I am doing them a favour describing them as idiots. The alternative is that they are perfectly relaxed about an spologist for murder and terrorism being in charge.tyson said:Southam- really comrade, you have to row back from your personal abuse at Nick. It is unpleasant.
Nick has been actively involved in London Labour politics for decades. He is hardly going to come onto a public forum and lay into the next leader of the Labour party. You are expecting too much.SouthamObserver said:Ooooh, look who Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots voted for: a man who hangs out with people who relishes the deaths of British soldiers and then lies about it. Shameful. Nick, you've helped to kill the Labour party. Congratulations.
0
