politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New large sample poll finds just 43% of GE2015 LAB voters s

isam said:

https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/671279645854167040

Not a fan of Labour but I see women sat next to men in the second row so not segregated. Who knows why groups are as they are but this is dishonest.

rottenborough said:

Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.

I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.

You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.

Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.

He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.

HurstLlama said:

slade said:

Is Jeremy Corbyn the George Lansbury of our day? After a dreadful General Election in 1931 the Labour party had few leading figures left and Lansbury assumed the leadership. He had a pacifist background and was able to re-enthuse the party and rebuild its membership. However politics became increasingly dominated by foreign affairs. When sanctions were proposed against Italy Lansbury opposed them despite the wishes of the party. Eventually Ernie Bevin accused him of 'hawking his conscience' around the country. Lansbury resigned. Who is the new Ernie Bevin?

If Labour or any party had a politician of the stature of Bevin they would be elected by a massive landslide and would retain power for as long as that politician lived. He was a giant even in an age of giants and compared to him our current crop of political leaders are a bunch of limp-wristed, shallow weaklings who seek power only for power's sake.

If memory serves someone once asked Cameron why he wanted to be Prime Minister and he replied, "I think I'd be rather good at it". Can you imagine Bevin ever giving such a self-centred wishy-washy answer?

Edited extra bit: TSE suggests that Alan Johnson is a politician in the Bevin mould, well only as much a domestic house cat can be compared to a full grown Bengal Tiger. They are both cats in the same way that Johnson and Bevin were both trade-unionists there the equivalence ends.

What's wrong with being good at it?

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/671279645854167040

Not a fan of Labour but I see women sat next to men in the second row so not segregated. Who knows why groups are as they are but this is dishonest.

Yes it seems it's just Muslim women that are segregated

EPG said:

isam said:

https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/671279645854167040

There are obviously women sitting in all areas of that room
The front is just a row of men sitting together like you would see in Eton or White's
But Asian so Kippers can have all the angry feels

Also I empathise with the man second left in front row. If I had to listen to a Labour Party meeting I would end up adopting his coping mechanism

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

Er, the Open University?

What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).

isam said:

https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/671279645854167040

I was just about to ask, "What is Paul Nuttall doing these days." It strikes me that if there truly is a Corbyn Opportunity for UKIP, Nuttall is the man to seize it.

isam said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it

He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...

It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong

Because he was. We don't have those.

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

Er, the Open University?

What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).

Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/671279645854167040

Not a fan of Labour but I see women sat next to men in the second row so not segregated. Who knows why groups are as they are but this is dishonest.

Yes it seems it's just Muslim women that are segregated

Or they're not segregated but rather grouped for another reason. Who knows? Clearly neither you not Nutall.

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

If there are still people around who remember it, it isn't history in my book.

When one of my offspring was doing History GCSE, one of the modules related to Irish history encompassing some of the recent Troubles - Bloody Sunday, the civil rights marches etc. I lived through that and felt a bit odd answering questions for history essays about stuff that I was living through at approximately the same age.

I'll bet. In all seriousness, people do need to know about that sort of recent events, but it's hard to get a good picture for true historical analysis when events are so fresh and raw. They still can't march down streets or fly flags without argument, so true objective analysis must be bloody difficult to manage.

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.

I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.

You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.

Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.

He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.

If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.

Cyclefree said:

isam said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it

He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...

It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong

Hello Isam - you may find this article of interest - http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/its-all-over-for-the-decent-left-and-they-have-only-themselves-to-blame/

Hi Cyclefree, interesting article, thanks... I really like Douglas Murray

Yes I think the problem is that facing up to the problem would mean too many people admitting they were wrong, and someone they demonised was right.

Unfortunately that is more important than what's best for the country to them

Enoch even predicted that...

http://youtu.be/-dRuPPSKNhE

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it

He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...

It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong

Because he was. We don't have those.

Watch last Monday's 'Dispatches'

I really wish Dennis Skinner became a prominent member of the Sh Cab.

Wanderer said:

Pulpstar said:

Plato_Says said:

Mr Kirkup doesn't think Jezza is going anywhere - some great graphs here too http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12024115/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-a-disaster-for-Labour-but-the-MPs-plotting-against-him-are-worse.html

More or less the entire British political establishment has told Mr Corbyn he is wrong (and harmful to Labour) for decades, and especially since the summer. Why would he suddenly start listening just because a few (dozen) MPs say so? Or indeed the voters of Oldham?

I'm with Mr Kirkup, Corbyn is going nowhere. Any SCad resignations will just be replaced by true believers I reckon.

I think so. However, there are not enough true believers to fill all the posts and hardly any who are competent and house-trained, so we will see a lot more car-crash interviews and even less effective opposition. But it will go on.

chestnut said:

It's fairly clear that the group have segregated.

It may well be a voluntary act, which hints at the culture which underpins it.

Like a PB.com drinks evening, then?

TheScreamingEagles said:

The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.

We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.

We are 3 and 0 in world wars if you count the Napeolonic kerfuffle as WW0. Is it just a clean-sweep in group stage though?

He told them: "Mind the way so I can get in the car please."
But when they refused to move aside, he said: "You're actually very rude the way you behave."
As Mr Corbyn is driven away, one photographer tells another: "Apparently we were quite rude."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12024093/Jeremy-Corbyn-on-verge-of-denying-MPs-free-vote-on-Syrian-air-strikes-live.html

Only a matter of time before the famous Jahadi Jez temper flairs up for real.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it

He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...

It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong

Because he was. We don't have those.

Watch last Monday's 'Dispatches'

We some prats yes. Always have always will.

Our towns are not all segregated. I live on a street with people from all sorts of nationalities and faiths who get along and are not segregated.
Religious factionalism will always exist as long as religion is a pox on the world always has been but is less now than it was.
As for minority demands leading to violence don't make me laugh. My town was bombed by the IRA in the Troubles. I grew up in the 80's where religious violence waw real and not a paranoia. How many have died in the last decade from 2006-2015 in this so called violence you imagine we have and how is it worse than the 80's?

No one said all towns are segregated, but large parts of big cities are.

As for the rest of your post, tell that to the people in Paris the other Friday. Just because we have foiled similar attacks here doesn't mean everything's hunky dory

chestnut said:

Philip_Thompson said:

chestnut said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/671279645854167040

Not a fan of Labour but I see women sat next to men in the second row so not segregated. Who knows why groups are as they are but this is dishonest.

Yes it seems it's just Muslim women that are segregated

Or they're not segregated but rather grouped for another reason. Who knows? Clearly neither you not Nutall.

It's fairly clear that the group have segregated.

It may well be a voluntary act, which hints at the culture which underpins it.

No the front row has. The back rows haven't. Who knows why the front row alone has, maybe they are guests or speakers or friends or whatever.

Stop talking bollocks.

It's bollocks that the back rows aren't segregated? Look closer.

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it

He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...

It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong

Because he was. We don't have those.

Watch last Monday's 'Dispatches'

We some prats yes. Always have always will.

Our towns are not all segregated. I live on a street with people from all sorts of nationalities and faiths who get along and are not segregated.
Religious factionalism will always exist as long as religion is a pox on the world always has been but is less now than it was.
As for minority demands leading to violence don't make me laugh. My town was bombed by the IRA in the Troubles. I grew up in the 80's where religious violence waw real and not a paranoia. How many have died in the last decade from 2006-2015 in this so called violence you imagine we have and how is it worse than the 80's?

No one said all towns are segregated, but large parts of big cities are.

As for the rest of your post, tell that to the people in Paris the other Friday. Just because we have foiled similar attacks here doesn't mean everything's hunky dory

It is terrible that murderers killed people in Paris on Friday. Just as it is terrible that murderers killed thousands in our country during the Troubles. The fact that you are saying Powell was right about migration in this country because of atrocities in another is a pretty weak argument.

DanSmith said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.

I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.

You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.

Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.

He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.

If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.

He needs to be certain though of a majority.

HurstLlama said:

Sean_F said:

Generally speaking, the worst rulers of the twentieth century were people of high intelligence. That goes for their propagandists and cheerleaders.

The top three worst rulers of the 20th century were Mao, Hitler and Stalin. Were they men of great intelligence?

Without any doubt IMHO. You could also add the intellectually brilliant Pol Pot to that list.

david_herdson said:

EPG said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

Er, the Open University?

What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).

Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?

Probably not but then you have to rate their achievements and legacy against what was expected of them before they got the job. Major, for example, rose without trace in a way that Wilson - a cabinet minister in his twenties - certainly didn't.

Was Wilson a cabinet minister in his twenties? I rather thought he entered Parliament for the first time in 1945 and got his first cabinet ranked job (President of the Board of Trade) in 1947.

.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it

He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...

It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong

Because he was. We don't have those.

Watch last Monday's 'Dispatches'

We some prats yes. Always have always will.

than the 80's?

No one said all towns are segregated, but large parts of big cities are.

As for the rest of your post, tell that to the people in Paris the other Friday. Just because we have foiled similar attacks here doesn't mean everything's hunky dory

It is terrible that murderers killed people in Paris on Friday. Just as it is terrible that murderers killed thousands in our country during the Troubles. The fact that you are saying Powell was right about migration in this country because of atrocities in another is a pretty weak argument.

You're bang wrong, it shows the strength of the argument

Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here

And he has been proven right time and time again

Philip_Thompson said:

DanSmith said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.

I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.

You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.

Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.

He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.

If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.

He needs to be certain though of a majority.

Or he could just use royal prerogative.

''He needs to be certain though of a majority. ''

You would think that with a commons majority and the Ulster unionists, that would be a done deal.

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DanSmith said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.

I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.

You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.

Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.

He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.

If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.

He needs to be certain though of a majority.

Or he could just use royal prerogative.

Actually I think this is a crucial point. Going to war always used to be something PMs could do on their own. In theory they still could - but not in practical reality. I think the first Syria vote3 was what changed it. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. Decision by committee can oftentimes be no decision or indecision. I don't think we are safer for it.

I have no voice in parliament on air strikes, even though my MP is Labour she will not be voting on the motion.

isam said:

You're bang wrong, it shows the strength of the argument

Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here

And he has been proven right time and time again

7/7 was one terrorist attack more than a decade ago now.

If one murder years ago and one bombing over a decade ago are the levels of attacks we are talking about then frankly your concerns seem much ado about nothing. Those attacks are awful but just as last night I argued with someone here that rape needs blaming on criminals not men in general, so too here we need to hold into account the individuals and those who support them. Not blame a tiny number of people on an entire class of people.

You are acting the same as the person last night banging on about feminism.

We had far more than one day of bombing and one murder during the Troubles.

@chrisshipitv: NEW: Labour says 75 per cent of party members responding to weekend consultation oppose UK bombing in Syria

Pulpstar said:

I have no voice in parliament on air strikes, even though my MP is Labour she will not be voting on the motion.

How can you not vote on something this fundamental? I assume her desire to vote for it is counter balanced by the shit she will be in with the leadership if she does? If so, pathetic.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

You're bang wrong, it shows the strength of the argument

Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here

And he has been proven right time and time again

7/7 was one terrorist attack more than a decade ago now.

If one murder years ago and one bombing over a decade ago are the levels of attacks we are talking about then frankly your concerns seem much ado about nothing. Those attacks are awful but just as last night I argued with someone here that rape needs blaming on criminals not men in general, so too here we need to hold into account the individuals and those who support them. Not blame a tiny number of people on an entire class of people.

You are acting the same as the person last night banging on about feminism.

We had far more than one day of bombing and one murder during the Troubles.

Let's leave it, we aren't going to agree.

I think there is a big threat from home grown terrorists in England and you don't, fair enough.

@jantalipinski: It's a nonsense in every sense; sampling, question wording, analysis, time, quality. Everything. Embarrassing

@AGKD123: Just to add to this, it's garbage. Total, complete, utter garbage. Look up "voodoo poll" and that's what it is https://t.co/i8mc2rr9cv

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

You're bang wrong, it shows the strength of the argument

Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here

And he has been proven right time and time again

7/7 was one terrorist attack more than a decade ago now.

If one murder years ago and one bombing over a decade ago are the levels of attacks we are talking about then frankly your concerns seem much ado about nothing. Those attacks are awful but just as last night I argued with someone here that rape needs blaming on criminals not men in general, so too here we need to hold into account the individuals and those who support them. Not blame a tiny number of people on an entire class of people.

You are acting the same as the person last night banging on about feminism.

We had far more than one day of bombing and one murder during the Troubles.

Let's leave it, we aren't going to agree.

I think there is a big threat from home grown terrorists in England and you don't, fair enough.

Define big. I think the threat is less than it was when my town was bombed by the IRA. I think there is a threat that needs taking seriously we disagree on scale.

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Patrick said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DanSmith said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.

I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.

You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.

Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.

He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.

If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.

He needs to be certain though of a majority.

Or he could just use royal prerogative.

Actually I think this is a crucial point. Going to war always used to be something PMs could do on their own. In theory they still could - but not in practical reality. I think the first Syria vote3 was what changed it. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. Decision by committee can oftentimes be no decision or indecision. I don't think we are safer for it.

Precedence was set with the Iraq War vote wasn't it?

Cameron has used prerogative to bomb Syria in an isolated incident already.

Cameron can undo precedence. Especially a relatively recent one. That's the "beauty" of the UK constitution. The politics of doing that are horrible of course.

Of course he can. I think he should win a majority on this though given there's already been a vote.

My prediction is that Cameron will win a majority of 80 plus on Syria.

TheScreamingEagles said:

@chrisshipitv: NEW: Labour says 75 per cent of party members responding to weekend consultation oppose UK bombing in Syria

As someone who believes in a more transparent, open, direct democracy approach - what Jez is doing to Labour is fascinating - and highlighting all the issues of it being done badly...

There seems to be a fundamental mis-match of understanding about what the role of an MP is - should they represent their constituents, those that voted for them, or the party members?

There are arguments that can be made for either the 1st 2, but It should be obvious to anyone that taking the 3rd approach is desperately flawed as a long-term strategy.

david_herdson said:

EPG said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

Er, the Open University?

What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).

Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?

Probably not but then you have to rate their achievements and legacy against what was expected of them before they got the job. Major, for example, rose without trace in a way that Wilson - a cabinet minister in his twenties - certainly didn't.

Maybe that suggests "our" expectations of Prime Ministers should be reassessed, if our forecasting model predicts that the bottom 50 per cent of results happen 85 per cent of the time. "Our" being people with an interest in history / politics / etc.

After almost thirty years I have rejoined the Conservative Party: Stopsley beer (and ribbing Sean-Fear) is a start. Only left to rid the party of Scoots-bourne Yorkshire mongs and then we have a free England.

DanSmith said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.

You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.

Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.

He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.

If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.

It's a pity we don't have any posters from France. (And if we do and they are lurking: "Bonjour. Aujourd'hui est le moment pour nous donner votre perspective.") If, say, Cameron feels that he cannot get a big enough majority from parties across the House and therefore doesn't seek a vote, how will this be viewed by our allies?

Effectively, it will look as if Britain - a country not shy of involving itself in conflicts around the globe - is no longer able to do this because one of its main political parties is unwilling to support this. And this will be despite the very direct appeal of the President of France, a country with whom we are allied, which was attacked in a brutal way, a socialist making an appeal in a way that is rare, and despite most civilised people thinking that IS are, to put it mildly, beyond the pale.

Even if this is seen as down to the Labour party, it must surely have consequences for how Britain is viewed by its allies within Europe (and elsewhere). How would the French react to Britain's renegotiation demands re the EU if Britain - for all its talk of solidarity etc - turns its back on France's request for help in its hour of need?

It is ironic that a Labour party led by socialists who are always wittering on about class solidarity etc across national boundaries is proposing to turn its back on fellow socialists in France who are asking for our help.

justin124 said:

...

Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.

Interesting you should raise that at this juncture.

One of the key reasons being advanced as to why we should get involved militarily in Syria is because our ally, France, has asked for our support. We must, so the argument goes, show that we are a reliable ally. So war it is.

However, when 50 or so years ago another ally asked, damn near begged, for our support, even token support ("Just one battalion of the Black Watch") in another war we told them to feck off. That refusal to help an ally is seen, by some, as a jolly good thing to have done.

EPG said:

david_herdson said:

EPG said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

Er, the Open University?

What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).

Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?

Probably not but then you have to rate their achievements and legacy against what was expected of them before they got the job. Major, for example, rose without trace in a way that Wilson - a cabinet minister in his twenties - certainly didn't.

Maybe that suggests "our" expectations of Prime Ministers should be reassessed, if our forecasting model predicts that the bottom 50 per cent of results happen 85 per cent of the time. "Our" being people with an interest in history / politics / etc.

True, although the reverse also holds: how many outright failures have there been as PM post-war? Eden, Heath, Brown perhaps? And even those could point to some successes or reasons for 'failure' that were outside their control.

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Patrick said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DanSmith said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.

You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.

Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.

He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.

If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.

He needs to be certain though of a majority.

Or he could just use royal prerogative.

Actually I think this is a crucial point. Going to war always used to be something PMs could do on their own. In theory they still could - but not in practical reality. I think the first Syria vote3 was what changed it. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. Decision by committee can oftentimes be no decision or indecision. I don't think we are safer for it.

Precedence was set with the Iraq War vote wasn't it?

Cameron has used prerogative to bomb Syria in an isolated incident already.

Cameron can undo precedence. Especially a relatively recent one. That's the "beauty" of the UK constitution. The politics of doing that are horrible of course.

And it's the politics that matters. If a PM took a country into war or any serious military action against a vote in parliament, he could and should expect an immediate vote of no confidence - which is why parliament generally gets a vote these days as one way or another, one would be generated anyway.

HurstLlama said:

justin124 said:

...

Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.

Interesting you should raise that at this juncture.

One of the key reasons being advanced as to why we should get involved militarily in Syria is because our ally, France, has asked for our support. We must, so the argument goes, show that we are a reliable ally. So war it is.

However, when 50 or so years ago another ally asked, damn near begged, for our support, even token support ("Just one battalion of the Black Watch") in another war we told them to feck off. That refusal to help an ally is seen, by some, as a jolly good thing to have done.

Maybe, just maybe, the 'Light-blue' should have really moved Oz a few thousand klicks East. How are those F-111Ks anyhaps...?

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

You're bang wrong, it shows the strength of the argument

Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here

And he has been proven right time and time again

7/7 was one terrorist attack more than a decade ago now.

If one murder years ago and one bombing over a decade ago are the levels of attacks we are talking about then frankly your concerns seem much ado about nothing. Those attacks are awful but just as last night I argued with someone here that rape needs blaming on criminals not men in general, so too here we need to hold into account the individuals and those who support them. Not blame a tiny number of people on an entire class of people.

You are acting the same as the person last night banging on about feminism.

We had far more than one day of bombing and one murder during the Troubles.

Let's leave it, we aren't going to agree.

I think there is a big threat from home grown terrorists in England and you don't, fair enough.

Define big. I think the threat is less than it was when my town was bombed by the IRA. I think there is a threat that needs taking seriously we disagree on scale.

How many people died when your town was bombed by the IRA? Paris - 130. London - 50+. Madrid - 200. Bali - 150(?). New York - 3000. The IRA attacked more often but they killed fewer at any time. The Islamist groups are not engaged in a limited war: they want to kill as many as possible, so while the risk of being attacked in any given year is smaller than it was for the IRA, the risk of being killed probably isn't, unless you live in N Ireland.

justin124 said:

david_herdson said:

EPG said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Fenster said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).

I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.

If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.

But then what do I know...

In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.

Er, the Open University?

What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).

Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?

Probably not but then you have to rate their achievements and legacy against what was expected of them before they got the job. Major, for example, rose without trace in a way that Wilson - a cabinet minister in his twenties - certainly didn't.

Wilson was 31 when appointed President of the Board of Trade in 1947.
Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.

Apologies. I thought he was 29. Still extraordinarily young for the period. I'd agree about Vietnam - not a decision Blair would have taken.

Cyclefree said:

It's a pity we don't have any posters from France. (And if we do and they are lurking: "Bonjour. Aujourd'hui est le moment pour nous donner votre perspective.") If, say, Cameron feels that he cannot get a big enough majority from parties across the House and therefore doesn't seek a vote, how will this be viewed by our allies?

Effectively, it will look as if Britain - a country not shy of involving itself in conflicts around the globe - is no longer able to do this because one of its main political parties is unwilling to support this. And this will be despite the very direct appeal of the President of France, a country with whom we are allied, which was attacked in a brutal way, a socialist making an appeal in a way that is rare, and despite most civilised people thinking that IS are, to put it mildly, beyond the pale.

Even if this is seen as down to the Labour party, it must surely have consequences for how Britain is viewed by its allies within Europe (and elsewhere). How would the French react to Britain's renegotiation demands re the EU if Britain - for all its talk of solidarity etc - turns its back on France's request for help in its hour of need?

It is ironic that a Labour party led by socialists who are always wittering on about class solidarity etc across national boundaries is proposing to turn its back on fellow socialists in France who are asking for our help.

The username was chosen after my domicile at the time.