Although Kendall's run a bad campaign, she's was never a big favourite for the role - only a dark horse very early on. Meanwhile Burnham has now run two leadership campaigns, this one in which he was the big favourite and has been active in frontline politics for years. That someone of his exprience has run such a flop leadership campaign, means his rubbish campaign trumps Kendall's as the most terrible leadership campaign in recent times.
Actually Chuka Umunna was the big favourite and it was only once he withdrew Burnham became the next most likely option
Portillo didn't campaign properly in 2001 because he'd already lost confidence in the Thatcherite agenda most of his potential supporters believed in. Burnham doesn't have any such excuse for doing poorly.
Burnham has never been a socialist in the Corbyn mould either, he was a Blairite when Tony was PM. Cooper was and is a Brownite
Wait for the explosion when benefits and housing are given to these newcomers over native born British. Of course the present British population is noted for it's apathy, but even that shows sign of strain.
I'm still waiting for your 102 UKIP MPs
If we get any immigration plans from some of the lefty idiots I've seen put into action,you just might see the 102 UKIP MP's.
If that is true then I am horribly disturbed by all those pictures and videos I have been looking at for the last decade or more. Maybe I need to reconsider my sexuality...
I distinctly remember hearing her on Radio 4's Any Questions in the run up to the GE, acknowledging that there was a massive shortfall in the amount of housing in this country, and discussing how many extra houses we needed to build to cope with existing requirements.
Although Kendall's run a bad campaign, she's was never a big favourite for the role - only a dark horse very early on. Meanwhile Burnham has now run two leadership campaigns, this one in which he was the big favourite and has been active in frontline politics for years. That someone of his exprience has run such a flop leadership campaign, means his rubbish campaign trumps Kendall's as the most terrible leadership campaign in recent times.
Actually Chuka Umunna was the big favourite and it was only once he withdrew Burnham became the next most likely option
Umunna the favourite?
Really?
Yes, initial polling and betting had Umunna top then Burnham, it was only once Umunna withdrew that Burnham took top spot
The UK taking in a few thousand Syrian refugees would be supported by most people I think. Cameron's idea of picking them up directly from the Middle-East in order to discourage the dangerous journey to Europe is a good one, which other European leaders should take note of.
Cameron's policy is like glimmers of pragmatism and common sense over a churning ocean of stupidity that is the rest of European leadership.
Yet Burnham still ran Corbyn significantly closer than Cooper in the final round with yougov so a Cooper Corbyn final would almost certainly see Corbyn triumph as more of Burnham's backers will put Corbyn in their top 3 than Cooper's voters. It should also be stated Twitter has reported some Corbyn voters moving to Burnham at the last minute which could offset any slight increase in Kendall voters preferencing Cooper
Bless, you're
i) Using a month old poll, things have moved on such as his woman leader comments
ii) Twitter, if twitter was accurate barometer, we wouldn't be having a Labour leadership election because Ed Miliband would be Prime Minister right now
Firstly none of that changes my overall conclusion that Burnham has an outside chance of beating Corbyn Cooper has next to No chance due to the Burnham voters who will preference Corbyn. Second I never felt Twitter was pro Miliband in the way it was pro SNP however it is pro Corbyn which explains his rise in the polls. Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners
I remember when you used to tell us Kendall's second preferences will favour Burnham over Cooper.
'Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners'
Nope,the only thing it signifies is a lot of loud mouths.
If Twitter was half way right then Labour were going to win the GE easily.
Really? There was enthusiasm for the SNP on Twitter, there was some enthusiasm for UKIP on Twitter, despite using Twitter most evenings during the election campaign I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour and certainly not for Ed Miliband
Can you imagine what a Labour-SNP government right now would be doing in response to this mass migration? Full open-door policy no doubt. This is the sort of horror that drove the English & Welsh to vote Tory.
The UK taking in a few thousand Syrian refugees would be supported by most people I think. Cameron's idea of picking them up directly from the Middle-East in order to discourage the dangerous journey to Europe is a good one, which other European leaders should take note of.
Cameron's policy is like glimmers of pragmatism and common sense over a churning ocean of stupidity that is the rest of European leadership.
Yep. He has shown a lot of sense and courage not to just cave to the infantile chattering of the 'something must be done' brigade. I think he needs to look perhaps at more than just 4000 and we should be concentrating on taking out of the camps those who are in the most danger. That in itself may well entail additional cost if we are dealing with people with medical needs or vulnerable children but if we, as a country, are going to do this we need to do it right.
'Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners'
Nope,the only thing it signifies is a lot of loud mouths.
If Twitter was half way right then Labour were going to win the GE easily.
Really? There was enthusiasm for the SNP on Twitter, there was some enthusiasm for UKIP on Twitter, despite using Twitter most evenings during the election campaign I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour and certainly not for Ed Miliband
Yet Burnham still ran Corbyn significantly closer than Cooper in the final round with yougov so a Cooper Corbyn final would almost certainly see Corbyn triumph as more of Burnham's backers will put Corbyn in their top 3 than Cooper's voters. It should also be stated Twitter has reported some Corbyn voters moving to Burnham at the last minute which could offset any slight increase in Kendall voters preferencing Cooper
Bless, you're
i) Using a month old poll, things have moved on such as his woman leader comments
ii) Twitter, if twitter was accurate barometer, we wouldn't be having a Labour leadership election because Ed Miliband would be Prime Minister right now
Firstly none of that changes my overall conclusion that Burnham has an outside chance of beating Corbyn Cooper has next to No chance due to the Burnham voters who will preference Corbyn. Second I never felt Twitter was pro Miliband in the way it was pro SNP however it is pro Corbyn which explains his rise in the polls. Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners
I remember when you used to tell us Kendall's second preferences will favour Burnham over Cooper.
Some still will although it is clear that the voters who have voted for a woman on their first preference are voting for a woman as their second too
'Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners'
Nope,the only thing it signifies is a lot of loud mouths.
If Twitter was half way right then Labour were going to win the GE easily.
Really? There was enthusiasm for the SNP on Twitter, there was some enthusiasm for UKIP on Twitter, despite using Twitter most evenings during the election campaign I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour and certainly not for Ed Miliband
Then you have an utterly false memory.
Well show me some contrary evidence, the only mild support from Twitter for Miliband was from leftwingers seeing him as a slightly better alternative than Cameron (preferably under the thumb of the SNP and the Greens), there were few enthusiastic tweets for Ed Miliband as PM at all!
@JEO When you're a bit overwhelmed, sometimes it's difficult to notice the reasonable ones. Only you, @Disraeli (although I don't know if he sees himself as right-wing), @another_richard (and I'm unaware he identifies as a right winger), @kle4 (I think he's a centrist though he can confirm whether I'm right/wrong) @MattW were okay.
I'd say I'm a centrist, if political predictors can be believed policy wise there's not usually too much between all the main parties and my own views, and I detest partisanship, but I do think I lean more conservative than Labour instinctively (though I've never voted either), which I attribute to growing up a) in the SW, where even a lot of the Labour supporters seem pretty Blue, and b) during the time of Blair, who I thought was a smarmy, offputting man.
Really I'm just indecisive - I often use the username 'dedicatedfencesitter' on these interwebs, and my avatar is an ideal I try to live up to
You're certainly more thoughtful than many on here! Not one I automatically skim past, if that's not damnation with faint praise....
I'm very anti conservative - in the sense that the conservatives are anti progressive. That is, opposing suffrage at every step of the way, supporting a total f*cking anachronism like the HoL, supporting dubious rightwing regimes and dictators who are perceived to represent our interests etc. If it was the 19C I'd be a chartist. That said, I'm not a fan of the handwringing tendency of the left either. So hey ho.. Maybe I'm just a trot.
'Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners'
Nope,the only thing it signifies is a lot of loud mouths.
If Twitter was half way right then Labour were going to win the GE easily.
Really? There was enthusiasm for the SNP on Twitter, there was some enthusiasm for UKIP on Twitter, despite using Twitter most evenings during the election campaign I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour and certainly not for Ed Miliband
Then you have an utterly false memory.
Well show me some contrary evidence, the only mild support from Twitter for Miliband was from leftwingers seeing him as a slightly better alternative than Cameron (preferably under the thumb of the SNP and the Greens), there were few enthusiastic tweets for Ed Miliband as PM at all!
Was the Milifandom not real or representative then? The internet lied to me!
'Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners'
Nope,the only thing it signifies is a lot of loud mouths.
If Twitter was half way right then Labour were going to win the GE easily.
Really? There was enthusiasm for the SNP on Twitter, there was some enthusiasm for UKIP on Twitter, despite using Twitter most evenings during the election campaign I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour and certainly not for Ed Miliband
Then you have an utterly false memory.
Well show me some contrary evidence, the only mild support from Twitter for Miliband was from leftwingers seeing him as a slightly better alternative than Cameron (preferably under the thumb of the SNP and the Greens), there were few enthusiastic tweets for Ed Miliband as PM at all!
Was the Milifandom not real or representative then? The internet lied to me!
@JEO When you're a bit overwhelmed, sometimes it's difficult to notice the reasonable ones. Only you, @Disraeli (although I don't know if he sees himself as right-wing), @another_richard (and I'm unaware he identifies as a right winger), @kle4 (I think he's a centrist though he can confirm whether I'm right/wrong) @MattW were okay.
I'd say I'm a centrist, if political predictors can be believed policy wise there's not usually too much between all the main parties and my own views, and I detest partisanship, but I do think I lean more conservative than Labour instinctively (though I've never voted either), which I attribute to growing up a) in the SW, where even a lot of the Labour supporters seem pretty Blue, and b) during the time of Blair, who I thought was a smarmy, offputting man.
Really I'm just indecisive - I often use the username 'dedicatedfencesitter' on these interwebs, and my avatar is an ideal I try to live up to
You're certainly more thoughtful than many on here! Not one I automatically skim past, if that's not damnation with faint praise....
I'm very anti conservative - in the sense that the conservatives are anti progressive. That is, opposing suffrage at every step of the way, supporting a total f*cking anachronism like the HoL, supporting dubious rightwing regimes and dictators who are perceived to represent our interests etc. If it was the 19C I'd be a chartist. That said, I'm not a fan of the handwringing tendency of the left either. So hey ho.. Maybe I'm just a trot.
The UK taking in a few thousand Syrian refugees would be supported by most people I think. Cameron's idea of picking them up directly from the Middle-East in order to discourage the dangerous journey to Europe is a good one, which other European leaders should take note of.
Cameron's policy is like glimmers of pragmatism and common sense over a churning ocean of stupidity that is the rest of European leadership.
Yep. He has shown a lot of sense and courage not to just cave to the infantile chattering of the 'something must be done' brigade. I think he needs to look perhaps at more than just 4000 and we should be concentrating on taking out of the camps those who are in the most danger. That in itself may well entail additional cost if we are dealing with people with medical needs or vulnerable children but if we, as a country, are going to do this we need to do it right.
Suppose it were 40,000? I think integrating that number would be tough - but it would be achievable.
What I object to is the idea of taking an indeterminate proportion of an ever-increasing number. I think Gemany and Sweden's policy of come one come all is stupid, and fuels trafficking.
The UK taking in a few thousand Syrian refugees would be supported by most people I think. Cameron's idea of picking them up directly from the Middle-East in order to discourage the dangerous journey to Europe is a good one, which other European leaders should take note of.
Cameron's policy is like glimmers of pragmatism and common sense over a churning ocean of stupidity that is the rest of European leadership.
Yep. He has shown a lot of sense and courage not to just cave to the infantile chattering of the 'something must be done' brigade. I think he needs to look perhaps at more than just 4000 and we should be concentrating on taking out of the camps those who are in the most danger. That in itself may well entail additional cost if we are dealing with people with medical needs or vulnerable children but if we, as a country, are going to do this we need to do it right.
Suppose it were 40,000? I think integrating that number would be tough - but it would be achievable.
What I object to is the idea of taking an indeterminate proportion of an ever-increasing number. I think Gemany and Sweden's policy of come one come all is stupid, and fuels trafficking.
I've said this a lot, but I'd like it if we took those from the groups most likely to face genocide: the Yazidis, the Ismaelis, the Christians.
I just re-read Kieran Pedley's essay from the last topic, about his US trip. He clearly doesn't have a complete understanding of the Hillary email scandal or the breadth of the American political scene, but in a week, he did well.
A couple of passages stick out......
I have been struck by just how much trouble Hillary Clinton is in.
Watching from this side of the Atlantic, it would be easy to underestimate just how much Hillary Clinton is struggling. The ongoing scandal over her alleged use of private email servers to send classified information does not look like going away.
Worryingly for Hillary, this now shows in her poll numbers too
Some Democrats are now openly wondering whether further scandal (or even an indictment) could kill her campaign stone dead.
I have been saying this stuff for months, and every time I do, someone will quote a poll saying it ain't so. This has been an existential threat to her campaign since the Benghazi committee found out she had a private server back at the beginning of the year.
This is the frustrating thing about US based posters reading what UK based folks say about the US elections. Living here and following the news it is obvious to all that her campaign is sputtering, partly because of the email scandal. There is an item on the email scandal at least 3 days a week on the news.
UK posters on here focus almost exclusively on polls. Reading the polls until recently didn't reflect that even though it was obvious to observers here. Polls are a lagging indicator. If you wish to comment on the US election please make an effort to understand the political environment here and follow the news closely. Polls don't reflect the complex interplay between several of the GOP candidates for example. If you keep up with the news you will know.
Merely quoting polls doesn't help the discussion at all.
The UK taking in a few thousand Syrian refugees would be supported by most people I think. Cameron's idea of picking them up directly from the Middle-East in order to discourage the dangerous journey to Europe is a good one, which other European leaders should take note of.
Cameron's policy is like glimmers of pragmatism and common sense over a churning ocean of stupidity that is the rest of European leadership.
Yep. He has shown a lot of sense and courage not to just cave to the infantile chattering of the 'something must be done' brigade. I think he needs to look perhaps at more than just 4000 and we should be concentrating on taking out of the camps those who are in the most danger. That in itself may well entail additional cost if we are dealing with people with medical needs or vulnerable children but if we, as a country, are going to do this we need to do it right.
Suppose it were 40,000? I think integrating that number would be tough - but it would be achievable.
What I object to is the idea of taking an indeterminate proportion of an ever-increasing number. I think Gemany and Sweden's policy of come one come all is stupid, and fuels trafficking.
I've said this a lot, but I'd like it if we took those from the groups most likely to face genocide: the Yazidis, the Ismaelis, the Christians.
Agreed. I've said this too. These groups should be the priority.
I just re-read Kieran Pedley's essay from the last topic, about his US trip. He clearly doesn't have a complete understanding of the Hillary email scandal or the breadth of the American political scene, but in a week, he did well.
A couple of passages stick out......
I have been struck by just how much trouble Hillary Clinton is in.
Watching from this side of the Atlantic, it would be easy to underestimate just how much Hillary Clinton is struggling. The ongoing scandal over her alleged use of private email servers to send classified information does not look like going away.
Worryingly for Hillary, this now shows in her poll numbers too
Some Democrats are now openly wondering whether further scandal (or even an indictment) could kill her campaign stone dead.
I have been saying this stuff for months, and every time I do, someone will quote a poll saying it ain't so. This has been an existential threat to her campaign since the Benghazi committee found out she had a private server back at the beginning of the year.
This is the frustrating thing about US based posters reading what UK based folks say about the US elections. Living here and following the news it is obvious to all that her campaign is sputtering, partly because of the email scandal. There is an item on the email scandal at least 3 days a week on the news.
UK posters on here focus almost exclusively on polls. Reading the polls until recently didn't reflect that even though it was obvious to observers here. Polls are a lagging indicator. If you wish to comment on the US election please make an effort to understand the political environment here and follow the news closely. Polls don't reflect the complex interplay between several of the GOP candidates for example. If you keep up with the news you will know.
Merely quoting polls doesn't help the discussion at all.
Hillary still leads all the GOP contendors in today's PPP poll though, except for Carson with whom she is tied. Yet it may actually now be better for the Democrats if Biden is the nominee, as he led all the GOP top tier by more than Hillary did. Indeed a Biden-Warren ticket (as many liberals are now pushing for) would be more 'progressive' than a Clinton one!
I just re-read Kieran Pedley's essay from the last topic, about his US trip. He clearly doesn't have a complete understanding of the Hillary email scandal or the breadth of the American political scene, but in a week, he did well.
A couple of passages stick out......
I have been struck by just how much trouble Hillary Clinton is in.
Watching from this side of the Atlantic, it would be easy to underestimate just how much Hillary Clinton is struggling. The ongoing scandal over her alleged use of private email servers to send classified information does not look like going away.
Worryingly for Hillary, this now shows in her poll numbers too
Some Democrats are now openly wondering whether further scandal (or even an indictment) could kill her campaign stone dead.
I have been saying this stuff for months, and every time I do, someone will quote a poll saying it ain't so. This has been an existential threat to her campaign since the Benghazi committee found out she had a private server back at the beginning of the year.
This is the frustrating thing about US based posters reading what UK based folks say about the US elections. Living here and following the news it is obvious to all that her campaign is sputtering, partly because of the email scandal. There is an item on the email scandal at least 3 days a week on the news.
UK posters on here focus almost exclusively on polls. Reading the polls until recently didn't reflect that even though it was obvious to observers here. Polls are a lagging indicator. If you wish to comment on the US election please make an effort to understand the political environment here and follow the news closely. Polls don't reflect the complex interplay between several of the GOP candidates for example. If you keep up with the news you will know.
Merely quoting polls doesn't help the discussion at all.
Hillary still leads all the GOP contendors in today's PPP poll though, except for Carson with whom she is tied. Yet it may actually now be better for the Democrats if Biden is the nominee, as he led all the GOP top tier by more than Hillary did. Indeed a Biden-Warren ticket (as many liberals are now pushing for) would be more 'progressive' than a Clinton one!
Right on Q he pops up with nothing to contribute to the discussion - actually it was yesterday's poll....
Also it is a national poll which does not reflect reality on the ground with state by state elections.'
Nothing to point out except the uncomfortable truth you may get rid of Hillary only to end up with a Biden-Warren presidency. There is almost no distinction between state elections and national elections, if you win the national vote you win the electoral college, the one exception in recent decades, 2000, saw Gore win the popular vote by less than 1% and lose Florida by 500 votes and a few hanging chads in an electorate of 100 million
Also it is a national poll which does not reflect reality on the ground with state by state elections.'
Nothing to point out except the uncomfortable truth you may get rid of Hillary only to end up with a Biden-Warren presidency. There is almost no distinction between state elections and national elections, if you win the national vote you win the electoral college, the one exception in recent decades, 2000, saw Gore win the popular vote by less than 1% and lose Florida by 500 votes and a few hanging chads in an electorate of 100 million
You have been told before by other US posters than just me, that we are not going to get into this with you because of your lack of understanding of the US political scene, on what it takes to organize a POTUS campaign, and the time limits involved, filing dates, among other things.
FOR GOD'S SAKE LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE BUTTON AND HOW TO FORMAT YOUR POST TO MAKE IT READABLE!!!!
Also it is a national poll which does not reflect reality on the ground with state by state elections.'
Nothing to point out except the uncomfortable truth you may get rid of Hillary only to end up with a Biden-Warren presidency. There is almost no distinction between state elections and national elections, if you win the national vote you win the electoral college, the one exception in recent decades, 2000, saw Gore win the popular vote by less than 1% and lose Florida by 500 votes and a few hanging chads in an electorate of 100 million
You have been told before by other US posters than just me, that we are not going to get into this with you because of your lack of understanding of the US political scene, on what it takes to organize a POTUS campaign, and the time limits involved, filing dates, among other things.
Also it is a national poll which does not reflect reality on the ground with state by state elections.'
Nothing to point out except the uncomfortable truth you may get rid of Hillary only to end up with a Biden-Warren presidency
You have been told before by other US posters than'
I have been told by ONE other poster, TimT, (who is probably your identical twin brother) and I do find it amusing that whenever the facts get in the way of your argument you patronisingly dismiss it as my 'lack of knowledge of the US political scene'. Joe Biden is the VP of the United States he could wait right up until next year to launch a campaign and easily fund it, what a ridiculous argument, indeed Hubert Humprey in 1968 did not enter the scene until the lead up to the Democratic convention and ended up as nominee
Can you imagine what a Labour-SNP government right now would be doing in response to this mass migration? Full open-door policy no doubt. This is the sort of horror that drove the English & Welsh to vote Tory.
Quite. Well that and Ed's economic illiteracy. I think Cameron's done well enough so far on this. Pragmatic and head driven ( which will save lives ) rather than the bonkers policies of Merkel ( or those proposing we take in 200k - what happens when no 200001 arrives I ask myself?)
Also it is a national poll which does not reflect reality on the ground with state by state elections.'
Nothing to point out except the uncomfortable truth you may get rid of Hillary only to end up with a Biden-Warren presidency. There is almost no distinction between state elections and national elections, if you win the national vote you win the electoral college, the one exception in recent decades, 2000, saw Gore win the popular vote by less than 1% and lose Florida by 500 votes and a few hanging chads in an electorate of 100 million
You have been told before by other US posters than just me, that we are not going to get into this with you because of your lack of understanding of the US political scene, on what it takes to organize a POTUS campaign, and the time limits involved, filing dates, among other things.
FOR GOD'S SAKE LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE BUTTON AND HOW TO FORMAT YOUR POST TO MAKE IT READABLE!!!! '
Says he who has failed to use the quote button correctly himself, inevitably once a post is large enough previous parts have to be cut
'Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners'
Nope,the only thing it signifies is a lot of loud mouths.
If Twitter was half way right then Labour were going to win the GE easily.
Really? There was enthusiasm for the SNP on Twitter, there was some enthusiasm for UKIP on Twitter, despite using Twitter most evenings during the election campaign I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour and certainly not for Ed Miliband
Then you have an utterly false memory.
Well show me some contrary evidence, the only mild support from Twitter for Miliband was from leftwingers seeing him as a slightly better alternative than Cameron (preferably under the thumb of the SNP and the Greens), there were few enthusiastic tweets for Ed Miliband as PM at all!
WRT unpleasant comments, on another site, I've been compared to a Nazi leader for defending the government's policy.
I can top that - I was called a paedophile for having the temerity to defend Margaret Thatcher from the charge that she caused the death of Blair Peach. The post of mine which finally tipped the lefty into an apoplexy of bile and hatred was when I gently questioned how this could be, given that Blair Peach died when Callaghan was Prime Minister.
It was very interesting, and very instructive, to see the full pathology of irrational anti-Tory hatred laid out so clearly.
'Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners'
Nope,the only thing it signifies is a lot of loud mouths.
If Twitter was half way right then Labour were going to win the GE easily.
Really? There was enthusiasm for the SNP on Twitter, there was some enthusiasm for UKIP on Twitter, despite using Twitter most evenings during the election campaign I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour and certainly not for Ed Miliband
Then you have an utterly false memory.
Well show me some contrary evidence, the only mild support from Twitter for Miliband was from leftwingers seeing him as a slightly better alternative than Cameron (preferably under the thumb of the SNP and the Greens), there were few enthusiastic tweets for Ed Miliband as PM at all!
Mentioning a party is nothing like the same as actively and enthusiastically promoting it, and even on your graph the Tories and UKIP combined had over 40k tweets so slightly above the Labour total.
Been saying it for a while on here. It is time to punt against Clinton. Only source of value out there. Shes just plain divisive.
As regards the Labour leadership, just wondering of somehow there is a non voter phenomenon going on, as unlikely as it seems i.e. plenty of people say they will vote for Corbyn but don't bother sending the ballot. A month or so ago I said that it wouldn't take too much for Corbyn to find his position very tricky indeed. A smallish fall in 1st preferences, hitting just below the 40% mark, assuming he was transfer repellent, could finish him.
+++ EXCLUSIVE: REFUGEES - EU PLANS NEW FORCE TO POLICE ITS BORDERS. Tomorrow's @Independent front page +++ pic.twitter.com/RhyzIXV2x3
Laughable.
Whilst the EU fails at most things it attempts, you can always depend on them to take advantage of a bad situation and snatch more powers from member countries.
I have just watched the Sky interview where a relative of Aylan Kurdi explained that he didn't just want any old teeth, he wanted dental implants. A relative had to pay privately for dental implants at a cost of £3,000 per tooth. There were significantly cheaper options available. I think most people make do with dentures. You have to wonder where the migrants are getting these ideas that Europe is the land of milk and honey from.
'Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners'
Nope,the only thing it signifies is a lot of loud mouths.
If Twitter was half way right then Labour were going to win the GE easily.
Really? There was enthusiasm for the SNP on Twitter, there was some enthusiasm for UKIP on Twitter, despite using Twitter most evenings during the election campaign I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour and certainly not for Ed Miliband
Then you have an utterly false memory.
Well show me some contrary evidence, the only mild support from Twitter for Miliband was from leftwingers seeing him as a slightly better alternative than Cameron (preferably under the thumb of the SNP and the Greens), there were few enthusiastic tweets for Ed Miliband as PM at all!
Mentioning a party is nothing like the same as actively and enthusiastically promoting it, and even on your graph the Tories and UKIP combined had over 40k tweets so slightly above the Labour total.
That's just silly. If you're going to combine Tories and UKIP then why not combine Labour and the Greens? Labour are more than double the Tories and nearly as much as the Tories and UKIP combined; Labour and Greens are much more than Tories and UKIP combined.
You couldn't spin your way out of a wet paper bag on this one.
+++ EXCLUSIVE: REFUGEES - EU PLANS NEW FORCE TO POLICE ITS BORDERS. Tomorrow's @Independent front page +++ pic.twitter.com/RhyzIXV2x3
Laughable.
Too late. Merkel's fired the starting gun.
Interesting that it's an EU Force - aren't individual countries responsible for their own borders?!
Another great example of Europe failing to see that Schengen and the Euro required much profounder integration than their elites let on and now the chickens are coming home to roost. I'm sure Mr Orban and his mates will relish German border guards on his southern frontier (!). John Major - history is bearing you out.
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · Historian Simon Schama on #Newsnight: "Europe is entering a kind of meltdown, it's entering an extraordinary moment of disintegration."
Been saying it for a while on here. It is time to punt against Clinton. Only source of value out there. Shes just plain divisive.
As regards the Labour leadership, just wondering of somehow there is a non voter phenomenon going on, as unlikely as it seems i.e. plenty of people say they will vote for Corbyn but don't bother sending the ballot. A month or so ago I said that it wouldn't take too much for Corbyn to find his position very tricky indeed. A smallish fall in 1st preferences, hitting just below the 40% mark, assuming he was transfer repellent, could finish him.
Still stands.
Poor turnout in the Labour leadership election could mean one of two things: failure of the Corbyn vote to materialise, or lack of enthusiasm for the other candidates among less engaged party members.
I'm just guessing really, but given other recent pieces of evidence for sustained enthusiasm for Corbyn (5,000 attendees at rallies in 3 Northern cities last Saturday; gigantic lead in Sky News straw poll yesterday) I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be the latter.
Another factor is of course failure of some ballots to arrive on schedule - the degree to which this is an issue will become clearer in the coming days.
The UK taking in a few thousand Syrian refugees would be supported by most people I think. Cameron's idea of picking them up directly from the Middle-East in order to discourage the dangerous journey to Europe is a good one, which other European leaders should take note of.
Cameron's policy is like glimmers of pragmatism and common sense over a churning ocean of stupidity that is the rest of European leadership.
What I object to is the idea of taking an indeterminate proportion of an ever-increasing number. I think Gemany and Sweden's policy of come one come all is stupid, and fuels trafficking.
I've said this a lot, but I'd like it if we took those from the groups most likely to face genocide: the Yazidis, the Ismaelis, the Christians.
Yes it's curious how the photos of Yazidis stuck on the top of a mountain while being surrounded by ISIS didn't elicit the same degree of sympathy as the recent images.
Mentioning a party is nothing like the same as actively and enthusiastically promoting it, and even on your graph the Tories and UKIP combined had over 40k tweets so slightly above the Labour total.
That's just silly. If you're going to combine Tories and UKIP then why not combine Labour and the Greens? Labour are more than double the Tories and nearly as much as the Tories and UKIP combined; Labour and Greens are much more than Tories and UKIP combined.
You couldn't spin your way out of a wet paper bag on this one.
Labour may have won a plurality of votes on twitter, so what, it does not change anything to do with my original point, there was virtually no enthusiastic support for an Ed Miliband Premiership on Twitter at all, and most of those who did back him were doing so as the least worst option not with any degree of passion. Compare the passionate tweets of a typical SNP, UKIP or Green supporter in the election to those of an almost apologetic Labour supporter and you will see the point
The passion shown by Twitter supporters for the SNP was reflected in their high score in Scotland and UKIP and the Greens also increased their share, Labour's share rose by just 1%
The UK taking in a few thousand Syrian refugees would be supported by most people I think. Cameron's idea of picking them up directly from the Middle-East in order to discourage the dangerous journey to Europe is a good one, which other European leaders should take note of.
Cameron's policy is like glimmers of pragmatism and common sense over a churning ocean of stupidity that is the rest of European leadership.
Yep. He has shown a lot of sense and courage not to just cave to the infantile chattering of the 'something must be done' brigade. I think he needs to look perhaps at more than just 4000 and we should be concentrating on taking out of the camps those who are in the most danger. That in itself may well entail additional cost if we are dealing with people with medical needs or vulnerable children but if we, as a country, are going to do this we need to do it right.
Suppose it were 40,000? I think integrating that number would be tough - but it would be achievable.
What I object to is the idea of taking an indeterminate proportion of an ever-increasing number. I think Gemany and Sweden's policy of come one come all is stupid, and fuels trafficking.
I agree entirely. Cameron's position - so long as he sticks to it properly and isn't pushed around by the twitterati and the media - seems very sensible and practical and will hopefully help a lot of people. Merkel's position seems entirely knee jerk and ill considered and I think it will cause real long term harm and result in a huge number of unnecessary deaths.
40,000? I have no idea if that is too many or too few. I would prefer to see as few as is necessary because I do believe we have a lot of problems with too many people here. Personally I think there are probably a few hundred thousand British born and bred wasters right now who I would happily swap for the same number of genuinely needy but well educated and motivated Syrians with their families.
I think the best way to do this would be to start with several thousand and then build up as we see how the whole thing works.
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · Historian Simon Schama on #Newsnight: "Europe is entering a kind of meltdown, it's entering an extraordinary moment of disintegration."
+++ EXCLUSIVE: REFUGEES - EU PLANS NEW FORCE TO POLICE ITS BORDERS. Tomorrow's @Independent front page +++ pic.twitter.com/RhyzIXV2x3
Laughable.
Whilst the EU fails at most things it attempts, you can always depend on them to take advantage of a bad situation and snatch more powers from member countries.
I have just watched the Sky interview where a relative of Aylan Kurdi explained that he didn't just want any old teeth, he wanted dental implants. A relative had to pay privately for dental implants at a cost of £3,000 per tooth. There were significantly cheaper options available. I think most people make do with dentures. You have to wonder where the migrants are getting these ideas that Europe is the land of milk and honey from.
Should have gone to Slovakia. Superb treatment, at only £891 a peg...
Oops, does that make me an economic migrant? (^_-)
The UK taking in a few thousand Syrian refugees would be supported by most people I think. Cameron's idea of picking them up directly from the Middle-East in order to discourage the dangerous journey to Europe is a good one, which other European leaders should take note of.
Cameron's policy is like glimmers of pragmatism and common sense over a churning ocean of stupidity that is the rest of European leadership.
Yep. He has shown a lot of sense and courage not to just cave to the infantile chattering of the 'something must be done' brigade. I think he needs to look perhaps at more than just 4000 and we should be concentrating on taking out of the camps those who are in the most danger. That in itself may well entail additional cost if we are dealing with people with medical needs or vulnerable children but if we, as a country, are going to do this we need to do it right.
Suppose it were 40,000? I think integrating that number would be tough - but it would be achievable.
What I object to is the idea of taking an indeterminate proportion of an ever-increasing number. I think Gemany and Sweden's policy of come one come all is stupid, and fuels trafficking.
I agree entirely. Cameron's position - so long as he sticks to it properly and isn't pushed around by the twitterati and the media - seems very sensible and practical and will hopefully help a lot of people. Merkel's position seems entirely knee jerk and ill considered and I think it will cause real long term harm and result in a huge number of unnecessary deaths.
40,000? I have no idea if that is too many or too few. I would prefer to see as few as is necessary because I do believe we have a lot of problems with too many people here. Personally I think there are probably a few hundred thousand British born and bred wasters right now who I would happily swap for the same number of genuinely needy but well educated and motivated Syrians with their families.
I think the best way to do this would be to start with several thousand and then build up as we see how the whole thing works.
Totally agree. Didn't lose all you brain cells in the Dyfed I'm pleased to say!
'Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners'
Nope,the only thing it signifies is a lot of loud mouths.
If Twitter was half way right then Labour were going to win the GE easily.
Really? There was enthusiasm for the SNP on Twitter, there was some enthusiasm for UKIP on Twitter, despite using Twitter most evenings during the election campaign I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour and certainly not for Ed Miliband
Then you have an utterly false memory.
Well show me some contrary evidence, the only mild support from Twitter for Miliband was from leftwingers seeing him as a slightly better alternative than Cameron (preferably under the thumb of the SNP and the Greens), there were few enthusiastic tweets for Ed Miliband as PM at all!
Mentioning a party is nothing like the same as actively and enthusiastically promoting it, and even on your graph the Tories and UKIP combined had over 40k tweets so slightly above the Labour total.
That's just silly. If you're going to combine Tories and UKIP then why not combine Labour and the Greens? Labour are more than double the Tories and nearly as much as the Tories and UKIP combined; Labour and Greens are much more than Tories and UKIP combined.
You couldn't spin your way out of a wet paper bag on this one.
Labour may have won a plurality of votes on twitter, so what, it does not change anything to do with my original point, there was virtually no enthusiastic support for an Ed Miliband Premiership on Twitter at all, and most of those who did back him were doing so as the least worst option not with any degree of passion. Compare the passionate tweets of a typical SNP, UKIP or Green supporter in the election to those of an almost apologetic Labour supporter and you will see the point
You said "I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour ... ]or] Ed Miliband" originally actually. Quite clearly Twitter was overwhelmingly far more enthusiastic for Labour than for the Tories. But Twitter is representative of absolutely nothing, which is the original point.
I have been told by ONE other poster, TimT, (who is probably your identical twin brother) and I do find it amusing that whenever the facts get in the way of your argument you patronisingly dismiss it as my 'lack of knowledge of the US political scene'. Joe Biden is the VP of the United States he could wait right up until next year to launch a campaign and easily fund it, what a ridiculous argument, indeed Hubert Humprey (sic) in 1968 did not enter the scene until the lead up to the Democratic convention and ended up as nominee
Actually we're not related - though we do know each other - and we live 500 miles apart.
OK, let's untangle this mangled nonsense paragraph, and discuss some 'facts'.
The fact Biden is VP has nothing to do with his running schedule. The days when a candidate is drafted and wins at the Convention are long gone. In those days there were very few primaries. Primary delegates today are committed based on the primary result.
If Biden wants to run in all the primaries he has at most a month to decide, because filing deadlines for primaries start in November. It isn't simply a case of filing like you do for a UK parliamentary seat. States vary greatly in filing requirements, and some are very complex, expensive and time consuming. He has to get organized in all 50 states plus a couple of US territories, organize committees and staffs in every one, and start raising money. Only 2 days ago he told a meeting that he wasn't sure he had the emotional strength following the death of his son to run.
Then there's the money. Until Clinton falters she has the money men, and she is clearly the party's favored candidate. If she doesn't falter soon, Biden is not going to run. Remember he's run and not done well twice. But if it looks like her campaign is imploding then he may well.
Warren has said time and again she is not running. I don't think she has any groundwork done at all, so it's probably too late for her to run. A veep nomination at the convention could be possible though.
Here's a homework assignment for you - which is the state with the earliest filing deadline
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · Historian Simon Schama on #Newsnight: "Europe is entering a kind of meltdown, it's entering an extraordinary moment of disintegration."
Schama said that? FH.
He also said -
BBC Newsnight @BBCNewsnight · "Germany is the Jerusalem" for many refugees, says @simon_schama #newsnight
The UK taking in a few thousand Syrian refugees would be supported by most people I think. Cameron's idea of picking them up directly from the Middle-East in order to discourage the dangerous journey to Europe is a good one, which other European leaders should take note of.
Cameron's policy is like glimmers of pragmatism and common sense over a churning ocean of stupidity that is the rest of European leadership.
Yep. He has shown a lot of sense and courage not to just cave to the infantile chattering of the 'something must be done' brigade. I think he needs to look perhaps at more than just 4000 and we should be concentrating on taking out of the camps those who are in the most danger. That in itself may well entail additional cost if we are dealing with people with medical needs or vulnerable children but if we, as a country, are going to do this we need to do it right.
Suppose it were 40,000? I think integrating that number would be tough - but it would be achievable.
What I object to is the idea of taking an indeterminate proportion of an ever-increasing number. I think Gemany and Sweden's policy of come one come all is stupid, and fuels trafficking.
I agree entirely. Cameron's position - so long as he sticks to it properly and isn't pushed around by the twitterati and the media - seems very sensible and practical and will hopefully help a lot of people. Merkel's position seems entirely knee jerk and ill considered and I think it will cause real long term harm and result in a huge number of unnecessary deaths.
40,000? I have no idea if that is too many or too few. I would prefer to see as few as is necessary because I do believe we have a lot of problems with too many people here. Personally I think there are probably a few hundred thousand British born and bred wasters right now who I would happily swap for the same number of genuinely needy but well educated and motivated Syrians with their families.
I think the best way to do this would be to start with several thousand and then build up as we see how the whole thing works.
Totally agree. Didn't lose all you brain cells in the Dyfed I'm pleased to say!
I think I lost them then grew a few new ones :-) Though my wife might claim they were transplanted from my gonads.
Been saying it for a while on here. It is time to punt against Clinton. Only source of value out there. Shes just plain divisive.
As regards the Labour leadership, just wondering of somehow there is a non voter phenomenon going on, as unlikely as it seems i.e. plenty of people say they will vote for Corbyn but don't bother sending the ballot. A month or so ago I said that it wouldn't take too much for Corbyn to find his position very tricky indeed. A smallish fall in 1st preferences, hitting just below the 40% mark, assuming he was transfer repellent, could finish him.
Still stands.
Poor turnout in the Labour leadership election could mean one of two things: failure of the Corbyn vote to materialise, or lack of enthusiasm for the other candidates among less engaged party members.
I'm just guessing really, but given other recent pieces of evidence for sustained enthusiasm for Corbyn (5,000 attendees at rallies in 3 Northern cities last Saturday; gigantic lead in Sky News straw poll yesterday) I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be the latter.
Another factor is of course failure of some ballots to arrive on schedule - the degree to which this is an issue will become clearer in the coming days.
That sounds a fairly logical conclusion.
I have an issue betting favourites in politics as much as anything else and I'm always looking for something that could suggest weakness in their position. My assumption about the Labour vote is that the newbies in particular didn't join in not to use their vote, but you just never know.
I note the BBC correspondent said Cameron was "found himself behind the curve of public opinion" on the migration crisis. Really? Is there any evidence for this, other than the very left wing Twitter?
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · Historian Simon Schama on #Newsnight: "Europe is entering a kind of meltdown, it's entering an extraordinary moment of disintegration."
Schama said that? FH.
He's probably right.
The Europroject is likely to tear itself to pieces, once the 8 million plus that Merkel's invited to join the party, sweep over the borders.
I wonder if the EU will even exist in it's current form by the time we have a referendum.
Been saying it for a while on here. It is time to punt against Clinton. Only source of value out there. Shes just plain divisive.
As regards the Labour leadership, just wondering of somehow there is a non voter phenomenon going on, as unlikely as it seems i.e. plenty of people say they will vote for Corbyn but don't bother sending the ballot. A month or so ago I said that it wouldn't take too much for Corbyn to find his position very tricky indeed. A smallish fall in 1st preferences, hitting just below the 40% mark, assuming he was transfer repellent, could finish him.
Still stands.
Poor turnout in the Labour leadership election could mean one of two things: failure of the Corbyn vote to materialise, or lack of enthusiasm for the other candidates among less engaged party members.
I'm just guessing really, but given other recent pieces of evidence for sustained enthusiasm for Corbyn (5,000 attendees at rallies in 3 Northern cities last Saturday; gigantic lead in Sky News straw poll yesterday) I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be the latter.
Another factor is of course failure of some ballots to arrive on schedule - the degree to which this is an issue will become clearer in the coming days.
Straws in the wind? But maybe Cooper will emerge as winner through all this. To me Corbyn votes are beginning to have the feel of the 'yeh, yeh, yeh, I'm definitely going to... going to post something on twitter', and then...?
I note the BBC correspondent said Cameron was "found himself behind the curve of public opinion" on the migration crisis. Really? Is there any evidence for this, other than the very left wing Twitter?
The UK taking in a few thousand Syrian refugees would be supported by most people I think. Cameron's idea of picking them up directly from the Middle-East in order to discourage the dangerous journey to Europe is a good one, which other European leaders should take note of.
Cameron's policy is like glimmers of pragmatism and common sense over a churning ocean of stupidity that is the rest of European leadership.
Yep. He has shown a lot of sense and courage not to just cave to the infantile chattering of the 'something must be done' brigade. I think he needs to look perhaps at more than just 4000 and we should be concentrating on taking out of the camps those who are in the most danger. That in itself may well entail additional cost if we are dealing with people with medical needs or vulnerable children but if we, as a country, are going to do this we need to do it right.
Suppose it were 40,000? I think integrating that number would be tough - but it would be achievable.
What I object to is the idea of taking an indeterminate proportion of an ever-increasing number. I think Gemany and Sweden's policy of come one come all is stupid, and fuels trafficking.
I agree entirely. Cameron's position - so long as he sticks to it properly and isn't pushed around by the twitterati and the media - seems very sensible and practical and will hopefully help a lot of people. Merkel's position seems entirely knee jerk and ill considered and I think it will cause real long term harm and result in a huge number of unnecessary deaths.
40,000? I have no idea if that is too many or too few. I would prefer to see as few as is necessary because I do believe we have a lot of problems with too many people here. Personally I think there are probably a few hundred thousand British born and bred wasters right now who I would happily swap for the same number of genuinely needy but well educated and motivated Syrians with their families.
I think the best way to do this would be to start with several thousand and then build up as we see how the whole thing works.
The problem is that Cameron's sensible and compassionate stance all this will all be for nought if we don't get restrictions on free movement in the EU. If Germany takes 800,000, then a six figure sum will move to the UK once they get EU passports.
+++ EXCLUSIVE: REFUGEES - EU PLANS NEW FORCE TO POLICE ITS BORDERS. Tomorrow's @Independent front page +++ pic.twitter.com/RhyzIXV2x3
Laughable.
Too late. Merkel's fired the starting gun.
Interesting that it's an EU Force - aren't individual countries responsible for their own borders?!
Another great example of Europe failing to see that Schengen and the Euro required much profounder integration than their elites let on and now the chickens are coming home to roost. I'm sure Mr Orban and his mates will relish German border guards on his southern frontier (!). John Major - history is bearing you out.
John Major also got us our social chapter opt-out, which the current government may have given up on even trying to get back.
He is, after all, easily experienced enough to know exactly what running for president entails. Knowing that, you'd only do it if you were supremely self-confident, vigorous, and up for the fight. He doesn't seem to be any of those.
I note the BBC correspondent said Cameron was "found himself behind the curve of public opinion" on the migration crisis. Really? Is there any evidence for this, other than the very left wing Twitter?
Wave of changing tone from newspapers across the political spectrum in the day or two preceding his announcement? I agree we don't have polling, but I think there is some evidence.
I note the BBC correspondent said Cameron was "found himself behind the curve of public opinion" on the migration crisis. Really? Is there any evidence for this, other than the very left wing Twitter?
BBC and C4 have been God awful. Hand wringing, bleeding heart, and sod the real consequences for the migrants of blindly praising Germany taking leave of its senses.
"As for the bookies, Paddy Power doesn’t have a hotline to the hearts of Labour Party members… When people are sitting there with the ballot paper in front them I hope they think not just about how to feel good right now, but also how to do good in five years time.”
I note the BBC correspondent said Cameron was "found himself behind the curve of public opinion" on the migration crisis. Really? Is there any evidence for this, other than the very left wing Twitter?
Not really. Even the Tory media has seemed more accepting of accepting refugees than some might have expected, but if he's behind the curve, I don't think it's by much, as I am very sure if people are asked if they want the country to accept people but be cautious about how many, how and if focus should also be on other measures, they would probably agree.
The problem is that Cameron's sensible and compassionate stance all this will all be for nought if we don't get restrictions on free movement in the EU. If Germany takes 800,000, then a six figure sum will move to the UK once they get EU passports.
Extremely unlikely. How many Turks have obtained German nationality and then used that to come to the UK?
He is, after all, easily experienced enough to know exactly what running for president entails. Knowing that, you'd only do it if you were supremely self-confident, vigorous, and up for the fight. He doesn't seem to be any of those.
I watched coverage of his speech here in Atlanta - he looked tired, strained and like he was really not up to it.
After what he's been though I understand his feeling.
He is, after all, easily experienced enough to know exactly what running for president entails. Knowing that, you'd only do it if you were supremely self-confident, vigorous, and up for the fight. He doesn't seem to be any of those.
I think he's genuinely torn - looks like lots of emotions in play. But as far as pure political strategy is concerned - he's biding his time. Will Hillary look even more wounded by email stuff by October?
I'm sorry to sound harsh but this sort of PC talk from politicians is only going to make things worse.
Bojan Pancevski @bopanc · Austrian IntMin Mikl-Leitner: won't forcibly stop #refugees trying to get to Germany, we are fighting smugglers not families #RefugeeMarch
"Vladimir Putin confirms Russian military involvement in Syria's civil war
Russian president talks of desire for "international coalition" to fight terrorism and extremism and does not rule out possibility of direct military intervention in Syria"
I have been told by ONE other poster, TimT, (who is probably your identical twin brother) and I do find it amusing that whenever the facts get in the way of your argument you patronisingly dismiss it as my 'lack of knowledge of the US political scene'.
Actually we're not related - though we do know each other - and we live 500 miles apart.
OK, let's untangle this mangled nonsense paragraph, and discuss some 'facts'.
Then there's the money. Until Clinton falters she has the money men, and she is clearly the party's favored candidate. If she doesn't falter soon, Biden is not going to run. Remember he's run and not done well twice. But if it looks like her campaign is imploding then he may well.
Warren has said time and again she is not running. I don't think she has any groundwork done at all, so it's probably too late for her to run. A veep nomination at the convention could be possible though.
Here's a homework assignment for you - which is the state with the earliest filing deadline
November is still 2 months away (Arkansas being the first filing state), Biden has won twice before and as a result already has the basis of a campaign infrastructure in place in states across the US. 29 states have filing dates for Democratic primaries in 2016, 15 in 2015 http://ballotpedia.org/Important_dates_in_the_2016_presidential_race. Even if Clinton stayed in until the Convention if she was forced to withdraw before her nomination was confirmed because of some new development Biden could still get the nomination If Clinton were ever to start trailing the GOP while Biden kept his lead over the GOP, the money men and establishment support would switch to Biden in a heartbeat. Warren has said she is not running but that does not mean she could not accept a VP spot and she has already met Biden behind the scenes to discuss a scenario with Biden announcing he serves only 1 term and then hands over to Biden.
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · Historian Simon Schama on #Newsnight: "Europe is entering a kind of meltdown, it's entering an extraordinary moment of disintegration."
Schama said that? FH.
He's probably right.
The Europroject is likely to tear itself to pieces, once the 8 million plus that Merkel's invited to join the party, sweep over the borders.
I wonder if the EU will even exist in it's current form by the time we have a referendum.
It is to be deeply hoped that when Germany and France present their fait accompli on sharing out migrants the rest of Europe roundly tells them to eff off and some sense might begin to prevail. Sadly I'm not holding my breath.
"Vladimir Putin confirms Russian military involvement in Syria's civil war
Russian president talks of desire for "international coalition" to fight terrorism and extremism and does not rule out possibility of direct military intervention in Syria"
I notice lefties are whipping themselves up into an indignant frenzy over this migrant thing...
Is this still all a reflection of their trauma at losing the election?
Yeah it's only the lefties doing that.
The Sun, and even the likes of the Times, and Mail have expressed sympathy with the refugees - with The Sun even calling for us to welcome refugees here in it's editorial some days ago.
People from wide spectrum want us to do something, and feel that we should.
"Vladimir Putin confirms Russian military involvement in Syria's civil war
Russian president talks of desire for "international coalition" to fight terrorism and extremism and does not rule out possibility of direct military intervention in Syria"
'Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners'
Nope,the only thing it signifies is a lot of loud mouths.
If Twitter was half way right then Labour were going to win the GE easily.
Really? There was enthusiasm for the SNP on Twitter, there was some enthusiasm for UKIP on Twitter, despite using Twitter most evenings during the election campaign I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour and certainly not for Ed Miliband
Then you have an utterly false memory.
Well show me some contrary evidence, the only mild support from Twitter for Miliband was from leftwingers seeing him as a slightly better alternative than Cameron (preferably under the thumb of the SNP and the Greens), there were few enthusiastic tweets for Ed Miliband as PM at all!
That's just silly. If you're going to combine Tories and UKIP then why not combine Labour and the Greens? Labour are more than double the Tories and nearly as much as the Tories and UKIP combined; Labour and Greens are much more than Tories and UKIP combined.
You couldn't spin your way out of a wet paper bag on this one.
Labour may have won a plurality of votes on twitter, so what, it does not change anything to do with my original po
You said "I do not remember much real enthusiasm for Labour ... ]or] Ed Miliband" originally actually. Quite clearly Twitter was overwhelmingly far more enthusiastic for Labour than for the Tories. But Twitter is representative of absolutely nothing, which is the original point.
If you want a balanced sample, Twitter is not it.
Yes and nothing you have said has shown any evidence at all of enthusiasm on Twitter for Ed Miliband other than as a least worst option. As I said, Twitter is evidence of momentum not necessarily winners, hence it signified momentum for Yes in indyref and the SNP in the general election through the passion of the nationalists' tweets, and momentum for UKIP in the Euro elections in a similar way and now for Corbyn in the Labour leadership race. Scientific polls are of course a better, albeit not perfect, predictor, but Twitter does at least signify energy for a campaign
The problem is that Cameron's sensible and compassionate stance all this will all be for nought if we don't get restrictions on free movement in the EU. If Germany takes 800,000, then a six figure sum will move to the UK once they get EU passports.
Extremely unlikely. How many Turks have obtained German nationality and then used that to come to the UK?
Exactly. If you're in Germany, why are you then going to go and up sticks to the UK? People in countries which can offer a high standard of living aren't going to come here.
He is, after all, easily experienced enough to know exactly what running for president entails. Knowing that, you'd only do it if you were supremely self-confident, vigorous, and up for the fight. He doesn't seem to be any of those.
I think he's genuinely torn - looks like lots of emotions in play. But as far as pure political strategy is concerned - he's biding his time. Will Hillary look even more wounded by email stuff by October?
Yes she will, and in October she is testifying in public before the Benghazi committee. Her chief of staff Cheryl Mills gave a 9 hour classified deposition to that committee yesterday. The key question is how wounded? The ultimate question is will the FBI indict?
Biden doesn't have much time to bide - the primary filing deadline calendar is coming up quickly. So he can't be long Biden his time (sorry).
If that is true then I am horribly disturbed by all those pictures and videos I have been looking at for the last decade or more. Maybe I need to reconsider my sexuality...
If the West is going to evacuate a large proportion of the population of the Syria the only sensible way to do it is to spread them fairly evenly over at least 50 countries, including the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Spain, Portugal, etc. Having them concentrated in Germany, Sweden and Austria will be disastrous.
The problem is that Cameron's sensible and compassionate stance all this will all be for nought if we don't get restrictions on free movement in the EU. If Germany takes 800,000, then a six figure sum will move to the UK once they get EU passports.
Is Germany offering full citizenship, rather than temporary asylum, to them?
Newspaper comments can't be taken as too representative, especially in a country of 85 million people. CIF, DM, and Telegraph comments' sections don't really represent the UK afterall. Most people here aren't paranoid everyone who doesn't agree with Corbyn is a Tory (CIF) most people aren't permanently outraged (DM) and most people aren't racist or misogynistic (Telegraph).
If the West is going to evacuate a large proportion of the population of the Syria the only sensible way to do it is to spread them fairly evenly over at least 50 countries, including the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Spain, Portugal, etc. Having them concentrated in Germany, Sweden and Austria will be disastrous.
I am sure Japan can improve upon the 17 asylum seekers they have taken in two years.
Comments
Really?
I distinctly remember hearing her on Radio 4's Any Questions in the run up to the GE, acknowledging that there was a massive shortfall in the amount of housing in this country, and discussing how many extra houses we needed to build to cope with existing requirements.
Probably just another sign of why shy Tory syndrome exists.
'Twitter signifies momentum though not necessarily winners'
Nope,the only thing it signifies is a lot of loud mouths.
If Twitter was half way right then Labour were going to win the GE easily.
I'm very anti conservative - in the sense that the conservatives are anti progressive. That is, opposing suffrage at every step of the way, supporting a total f*cking anachronism like the HoL, supporting dubious rightwing regimes and dictators who are perceived to represent our interests etc. If it was the 19C I'd be a chartist. That said, I'm not a fan of the handwringing tendency of the left either. So hey ho.. Maybe I'm just a trot.
What I object to is the idea of taking an indeterminate proportion of an ever-increasing number. I think Gemany and Sweden's policy of come one come all is stupid, and fuels trafficking.
A couple of passages stick out......
I have been struck by just how much trouble Hillary Clinton is in.
Watching from this side of the Atlantic, it would be easy to underestimate just how much Hillary Clinton is struggling. The ongoing scandal over her alleged use of private email servers to send classified information does not look like going away.
Worryingly for Hillary, this now shows in her poll numbers too
Some Democrats are now openly wondering whether further scandal (or even an indictment) could kill her campaign stone dead.
I have been saying this stuff for months, and every time I do, someone will quote a poll saying it ain't so. This has been an existential threat to her campaign since the Benghazi committee found out she had a private server back at the beginning of the year.
This is the frustrating thing about US based posters reading what UK based folks say about the US elections. Living here and following the news it is obvious to all that her campaign is sputtering, partly because of the email scandal. There is an item on the email scandal at least 3 days a week on the news.
UK posters on here focus almost exclusively on polls. Reading the polls until recently didn't reflect that even though it was obvious to observers here. Polls are a lagging indicator. If you wish to comment on the US election please make an effort to understand the political environment here and follow the news closely. Polls don't reflect the complex interplay between several of the GOP candidates for example. If you keep up with the news you will know.
Merely quoting polls doesn't help the discussion at all.
Agreed. I've said this too. These groups should be the priority.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90315.pdf
Also it is a national poll which does not reflect reality on the ground with state by state elections.
'A couple of passages stick out......
I have bee
Merely quoting polls doesn't help the discussion at all.
Hillary still leads all the GOP contendors in today's PPP poll though, except for Carson with whom she is tied.
Right on Q he pops up with nothing to contribute to the discussion - actually it was yesterday's poll....
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90315.pdf
Also it is a national poll which does not reflect reality on the ground with state by state elections.'
Nothing to point out except the uncomfortable truth you may get rid of Hillary only to end up with a Biden-Warren presidency. There is almost no distinction between state elections and national elections, if you win the national vote you win the electoral college, the one exception in recent decades, 2000, saw Gore win the popular vote by less than 1% and lose Florida by 500 votes and a few hanging chads in an electorate of 100 million
Right on Q he pops up with nothing to contribute to the discussion - actually it was yesterday's poll....
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90315.pdf
Also it is a national poll which does not reflect reality on the ground with state by state elections.'
Nothing to point out except the uncomfortable truth you may get rid of Hillary only to end up with a Biden-Warren presidency. There is almost no distinction between state elections and national elections, if you win the national vote you win the electoral college, the one exception in recent decades, 2000, saw Gore win the popular vote by less than 1% and lose Florida by 500 votes and a few hanging chads in an electorate of 100 million
You have been told before by other US posters than just me, that we are not going to get into this with you because of your lack of understanding of the US political scene, on what it takes to organize a POTUS campaign, and the time limits involved, filing dates, among other things.
FOR GOD'S SAKE LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE BUTTON AND HOW TO FORMAT YOUR POST TO MAKE IT READABLE!!!!
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90315.pdf
Also it is a national poll which does not reflect reality on the ground with state by state elections.'
Nothing to point out except the uncomfortable truth you may get rid of Hillary only to end up with a Biden-Warren presidency. There is almost no distinction between state elections and national elections, if you win the national vote you win the electoral college, the one exception in recent decades, 2000, saw Gore win the popular vote by less than 1% and lose Florida by 500 votes and a few hanging chads in an electorate of 100 million
You have been told before by other US posters than just me, that we are not going to get into this with you because of your lack of understanding of the US political scene, on what it takes to organize a POTUS campaign, and the time limits involved, filing dates, among other things. Right on Q he pops up with nothing to contribute to the discussion - actually it was yesterday's poll....
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90315.pdf
Also it is a national poll which does not reflect reality on the ground with state by state elections.'
Nothing to point out except the uncomfortable truth you may get rid of Hillary only to end up with a Biden-Warren presidency
You have been told before by other US posters than'
I have been told by ONE other poster, TimT, (who is probably your identical twin brother) and I do find it amusing that whenever the facts get in the way of your argument you patronisingly dismiss it as my 'lack of knowledge of the US political scene'. Joe Biden is the VP of the United States he could wait right up until next year to launch a campaign and easily fund it, what a ridiculous argument, indeed Hubert Humprey in 1968 did not enter the scene until the lead up to the Democratic convention and ended up as nominee
+++ EXCLUSIVE: REFUGEES - EU PLANS NEW FORCE TO POLICE ITS BORDERS. Tomorrow's @Independent front page +++ pic.twitter.com/RhyzIXV2x3
Laughable.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90315.pdf
Also it is a national poll which does not reflect reality on the ground with state by state elections.'
Nothing to point out except the uncomfortable truth you may get rid of Hillary only to end up with a Biden-Warren presidency. There is almost no distinction between state elections and national elections, if you win the national vote you win the electoral college, the one exception in recent decades, 2000, saw Gore win the popular vote by less than 1% and lose Florida by 500 votes and a few hanging chads in an electorate of 100 million
You have been told before by other US posters than just me, that we are not going to get into this with you because of your lack of understanding of the US political scene, on what it takes to organize a POTUS campaign, and the time limits involved, filing dates, among other things.
FOR GOD'S SAKE LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE BUTTON AND HOW TO FORMAT YOUR POST TO MAKE IT READABLE!!!! '
Says he who has failed to use the quote button correctly himself, inevitably once a post is large enough previous parts have to be cut
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11590772/Who-won-the-Twitter-campaign-battle.html
It was very interesting, and very instructive, to see the full pathology of irrational anti-Tory hatred laid out so clearly.
As regards the Labour leadership, just wondering of somehow there is a non voter phenomenon going on, as unlikely as it seems i.e. plenty of people say they will vote for Corbyn but don't bother sending the ballot. A month or so ago I said that it wouldn't take too much for Corbyn to find his position very tricky indeed. A smallish fall in 1st preferences, hitting just below the 40% mark, assuming he was transfer repellent, could finish him.
Still stands.
I have just watched the Sky interview where a relative of Aylan Kurdi explained that he didn't just want any old teeth, he wanted dental implants. A relative had to pay privately for dental implants at a cost of £3,000 per tooth. There were significantly cheaper options available. I think most people make do with dentures. You have to wonder where the migrants are getting these ideas that Europe is the land of milk and honey from.
Interesting that it's an EU Force - aren't individual countries responsible for their own borders?!
You couldn't spin your way out of a wet paper bag on this one.
And those crossing the borders will likely have access to better and more powerful weaponry.
Historian Simon Schama on #Newsnight: "Europe is entering a kind of meltdown, it's entering an extraordinary moment of disintegration."
I'm just guessing really, but given other recent pieces of evidence for sustained enthusiasm for Corbyn (5,000 attendees at rallies in 3 Northern cities last Saturday; gigantic lead in Sky News straw poll yesterday) I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be the latter.
Another factor is of course failure of some ballots to arrive on schedule - the degree to which this is an issue will become clearer in the coming days.
The passion shown by Twitter supporters for the SNP was reflected in their high score in Scotland and UKIP and the Greens also increased their share, Labour's share rose by just 1%
40,000? I have no idea if that is too many or too few. I would prefer to see as few as is necessary because I do believe we have a lot of problems with too many people here. Personally I think there are probably a few hundred thousand British born and bred wasters right now who I would happily swap for the same number of genuinely needy but well educated and motivated Syrians with their families.
I think the best way to do this would be to start with several thousand and then build up as we see how the whole thing works.
Oops, does that make me an economic migrant? (^_-)
If you want a balanced sample, Twitter is not it.
I have been told by ONE other poster, TimT, (who is probably your identical twin brother) and I do find it amusing that whenever the facts get in the way of your argument you patronisingly dismiss it as my 'lack of knowledge of the US political scene'. Joe Biden is the VP of the United States he could wait right up until next year to launch a campaign and easily fund it, what a ridiculous argument, indeed Hubert Humprey (sic) in 1968 did not enter the scene until the lead up to the Democratic convention and ended up as nominee
Actually we're not related - though we do know each other - and we live 500 miles apart.
OK, let's untangle this mangled nonsense paragraph, and discuss some 'facts'.
The fact Biden is VP has nothing to do with his running schedule. The days when a candidate is drafted and wins at the Convention are long gone. In those days there were very few primaries. Primary delegates today are committed based on the primary result.
If Biden wants to run in all the primaries he has at most a month to decide, because filing deadlines for primaries start in November. It isn't simply a case of filing like you do for a UK parliamentary seat. States vary greatly in filing requirements, and some are very complex, expensive and time consuming. He has to get organized in all 50 states plus a couple of US territories, organize committees and staffs in every one, and start raising money. Only 2 days ago he told a meeting that he wasn't sure he had the emotional strength following the death of his son to run.
Then there's the money. Until Clinton falters she has the money men, and she is clearly the party's favored candidate. If she doesn't falter soon, Biden is not going to run. Remember he's run and not done well twice. But if it looks like her campaign is imploding then he may well.
Warren has said time and again she is not running. I don't think she has any groundwork done at all, so it's probably too late for her to run. A veep nomination at the convention could be possible though.
Here's a homework assignment for you - which is the state with the earliest filing deadline
BBC Newsnight @BBCNewsnight ·
"Germany is the Jerusalem" for many refugees, says @simon_schama #newsnight
I have an issue betting favourites in politics as much as anything else and I'm always looking for something that could suggest weakness in their position. My assumption about the Labour vote is that the newbies in particular didn't join in not to use their vote, but you just never know.
The Europroject is likely to tear itself to pieces, once the 8 million plus that Merkel's invited to join the party, sweep over the borders.
I wonder if the EU will even exist in it's current form by the time we have a referendum.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/04/joe-biden-talks-2016-i-just-don-t-know.html
He is, after all, easily experienced enough to know exactly what running for president entails. Knowing that, you'd only do it if you were supremely self-confident, vigorous, and up for the fight. He doesn't seem to be any of those.
"As for the bookies, Paddy Power doesn’t have a hotline to the hearts of Labour Party members… When people are sitting there with the ballot paper in front them I hope they think not just about how to feel good right now, but also how to do good in five years time.”
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/labour-leadership-will-shy-cooper-voters-defeat-corbyn
Good night all.
Is this still all a reflection of their trauma at losing the election?
After what he's been though I understand his feeling.
Bojan Pancevski @bopanc ·
Austrian IntMin Mikl-Leitner: won't forcibly stop #refugees trying to get to Germany, we are fighting smugglers not families #RefugeeMarch
"Vladimir Putin confirms Russian military involvement in Syria's civil war
Russian president talks of desire for "international coalition" to fight terrorism and extremism and does not rule out possibility of direct military intervention in Syria"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11845635/Vladimir-Putin-confirms-Russian-military-involvement-in-Syrias-civil-war.html
Even if Clinton stayed in until the Convention if she was forced to withdraw before her nomination was confirmed because of some new development Biden could still get the nomination
If Clinton were ever to start trailing the GOP while Biden kept his lead over the GOP, the money men and establishment support would switch to Biden in a heartbeat. Warren has said she is not running but that does not mean she could not accept a VP spot and she has already met Biden behind the scenes to discuss a scenario with Biden announcing he serves only 1 term and then hands over to Biden.
The Sun, and even the likes of the Times, and Mail have expressed sympathy with the refugees - with The Sun even calling for us to welcome refugees here in it's editorial some days ago.
People from wide spectrum want us to do something, and feel that we should.
If the Russkies want to take on ISIL, let them.
http://www.dw.com/en/alarmed-but-willing-to-help-how-germans-feel-about-the-surge-of-refugees/a-18693591
Biden doesn't have much time to bide - the primary filing deadline calendar is coming up quickly. So he can't be long Biden his time (sorry).