politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Imagine what next Monday’s PLP meeting is going to be like
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Imagine what next Monday’s PLP meeting is going to be like if LAB loses Oldham
It’s Tuesday morning and like many other Tuesdays since Mr Corbyn had his huge victory in the Labour leadership election the political news is dominated by what happened at the weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Comments
-
First!0
-
Dammit! Foiled by the "discussion ID required"CarlottaVance said:First!
0 -
Strong local candidate should see Lab over the line - if he doesn't they are well & truly cruising the marmite motorway.....0
-
You have to feel a little sorry for Jim McMahon. He's seems a reasonable candidate: he's served on a local council for over a decade and is party leader of the LGA. He seems like the sort of person who'd love to be an MP (although shockingly he's much younger than me).CarlottaVance said:Strong local candidate should see Lab over the line - if he doesn't they are well & truly cruising the marmite motorway.....
Then Meacher sadly dies, and he gets his opportunity in a very safe seat. He bashes his opponent in the selection, and so it's all set. He can almost feel the green bench under his bum.
Except ... except Corbyn. Except McDonnell. Except Ken f'ing Livingstone. Except Momentum.0 -
Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.
And it would help if he could learn to write.0 -
..and think.JosiasJessop said:Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.
And it would help if he could learn to write.0 -
SkyNews reporting the SeanT Fatbollah wheeze ....
0 -
I've no doubt he does plenty of thinking. It's just that he hasn't learnt how to present his arguments to make them compelling to anyone other than those who already agree with him. It's archetypal narrow one-track thinking. In fact, it's so narrow that he ought to apply to be a platelayer on the Ffestiniog.GeoffM said:
..and think.JosiasJessop said:Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.
And it would help if he could learn to write.
Which IME is strangely not unusual for people who have made it as far as a doctorate. Professors can be worse, especially in industry. Nice chaps (and I assume chapesses, but I've never worked with a female professor), but sometimes incapable of looking at the broader picture ...0 -
It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).
Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).
I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.
Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.
The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.0 -
You mean - they don't care about what makes the most money? Take them out and shoot them, pronto!!JosiasJessop said:
I've no doubt he does plenty of thinking. It's just that he hasn't learnt how to present his arguments to make them compelling to anyone other than those who already agree with him. It's archetypal narrow one-track thinking. In fact, it's so narrow that he ought to apply to be a platelayer on the Ffestiniog.GeoffM said:
..and think.JosiasJessop said:Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.
And it would help if he could learn to write.
Which IME is strangely not unusual for people who have made it as far as a doctorate. Professors can be worse, especially in industry. Nice chaps (and I assume chapesses, but I've never worked with a female professor), but sometimes incapable of looking at the broader picture ...
0 -
I agree, it's very silly. The good folk of Oldham will vote for a pig in a red rosette. Getting people excited about UKIP just seems to be a way of playing the expectations game so UKIP look worse afterwards.JohnLoony said:It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).
Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).
I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.
Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.
The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.0 -
You offering odds on any of that?JohnLoony said:It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).
Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).
I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.
Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.
The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.0 -
There'll be no need to imagine what the PLP meeting will be like - we'll have another multiply-reported tweetfest.
"For the time being the LAB leader and his MPs are stuck with each other in a loveless forced marriage and will be for the foreseeable future." - A very good way of putting it. The question is, who instigates divorce proceedings first?0 -
Having read Mr Loony's comments I am sticking with a Labour win of about 3000 in Oldham. The crisis will not come there but elsewhere. On Wednesday the PLP have an opportunity to show how little they appreciate Corbyn's opinion and judgement. How many will take it? How many of the Shadow Cabinet will take it?
I think it is quite certain that Benn will. His position as shadow FS has put him in the lead on this and he seems all too willing to pick up the challenge. Will the other members of the SC hostile to Corbyn follow in behind or play their own politics? We have been spun the idea that there is a majority in the SC in favour of bombing. I wonder. If a majority reject the view of the Leader that would indeed be a crisis.
It is also inevitable that those who chose not to serve in the SC will take yet another chance to show what they think of Corbyn's judgement. How many? I would suggest that more than about 60 Labour MPs voting in favour would also cause a crisis.
Corbyn has aggravated a difficult situation by a series of idiotic appointments from McDonnell to Milne to Livingstone. He has, apparently, no interest in being a consensual leader. If Labour do lose Oldham the crisis may come sooner but it is coming, of that there is no doubt.0 -
With that reply, you're showing you should just join him on the Ffestiniong. In fact, a garden railway might be more fitting for you.Innocent_Abroad said:You mean - they don't care about what makes the most money? Take them out and shoot them, pronto!!
0 -
To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452
UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259
Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.0 -
Morning luckyguy.Luckyguy1983 said:
I agree, it's very silly. The good folk of Oldham will vote for a pig in a red rosette. Getting people excited about UKIP just seems to be a way of playing the expectations game so UKIP look worse afterwards.JohnLoony said:It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).
Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).
I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.
Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.
The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.
Have you done any more reading on IHH ?
0 -
Why, in your judgment, did the Party's members vote JC into the leadership in the first place?DavidL said:Having read Mr Loony's comments I am sticking with a Labour win of about 3000 in Oldham. The crisis will not come there but elsewhere. On Wednesday the PLP have an opportunity to show how little they appreciate Corbyn's opinion and judgement. How many will take it? How many of the Shadow Cabinet will take it?
I think it is quite certain that Benn will. His position as shadow FS has put him in the lead on this and he seems all too willing to pick up the challenge. Will the other members of the SC hostile to Corbyn follow in behind or play their own politics? We have been spun the idea that there is a majority in the SC in favour of bombing. I wonder. If a majority reject the view of the Leader that would indeed be a crisis.
It is also inevitable that those who chose not to serve in the SC will take yet another chance to show what they think of Corbyn's judgement. How many? I would suggest that more than about 60 Labour MPs voting in favour would also cause a crisis.
Corbyn has aggravated a difficult situation by a series of idiotic appointments from McDonnell to Milne to Livingstone. He has, apparently, no interest in being a consensual leader. If Labour do lose Oldham the crisis may come sooner but it is coming, of that there is no doubt.
0 -
MP deselection would be a big mistake. In many cases it would lead to the subsequent loss of the constituency. Ultimately, though, it is the only weapon Corbyn really has. We'll see it start to happen relatively soon, I guess. Then the shit will really hit the fan.david_herdson said:There'll be no need to imagine what the PLP meeting will be like - we'll have another multiply-reported tweetfest.
"For the time being the LAB leader and his MPs are stuck with each other in a loveless forced marriage and will be for the foreseeable future." - A very good way of putting it. The question is, who instigates divorce proceedings first?
0 -
Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.0 -
FPT
Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?notme said:
The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.
He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.
To fix your teeth you need to look after them, sure, but they are bone like any other, they need to be nourished from the inside and they will regrow (no dentist will tell you this). You need to cut right down on sugar (not just because of acid erosion but because it undermines bone strength), and eat lots of cultured dairy (live yoghurt). Raw milk would work just as well, but is expensive. We can't properly assimilate calcium from pasteurised milk. Culturing reverses the damage done to the product when it's pasteurised. I speak from experience.0 -
@ZoraSuleman: BTP investigate after women handed cards on the London Underground telling them they're 'fat' pic @kflorish https://t.co/6EbuTBqo580
-
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.david_herdson said:To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452
UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259
Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
0 -
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
0 -
I think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions because they're clearly in the game to win it; the Tories aren't. There's therefore a much bigger incentive for UKIP supporters / anti-establishment voters to turn out for them than there is for Con-backers. Also, I think that there were probably quite a lot of people who backed Con and Lab in May on the basis that it was an important government-making decision (even though in Oldham West it wasn't really), whereas at a by-election it's clearly not.Innocent_Abroad said:
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.david_herdson said:To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452
UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259
Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
In the past, Con voters have been notoriously reluctant to vote tactically. That said, in Oldham East next door they were willing to go LD in quite large numbers in 2011 so it is possible. You're right that I've put what's probably quite a cautious figure on it though.0 -
Because the alternatives they were given were crap who did not appear to have any principles or beliefs but a tired and defeated manageralist outlook. I think that was unfair but they were so anxious to avoid offending any second or third preferences that they did not speak up for what they believed in until it was way too late. In short they didn't lead and Corbyn did.Innocent_Abroad said:
Why, in your judgment, did the Party's members vote JC into the leadership in the first place?DavidL said:Having read Mr Loony's comments I am sticking with a Labour win of about 3000 in Oldham. The crisis will not come there but elsewhere. On Wednesday the PLP have an opportunity to show how little they appreciate Corbyn's opinion and judgement. How many will take it? How many of the Shadow Cabinet will take it?
I think it is quite certain that Benn will. His position as shadow FS has put him in the lead on this and he seems all too willing to pick up the challenge. Will the other members of the SC hostile to Corbyn follow in behind or play their own politics? We have been spun the idea that there is a majority in the SC in favour of bombing. I wonder. If a majority reject the view of the Leader that would indeed be a crisis.
It is also inevitable that those who chose not to serve in the SC will take yet another chance to show what they think of Corbyn's judgement. How many? I would suggest that more than about 60 Labour MPs voting in favour would also cause a crisis.
Corbyn has aggravated a difficult situation by a series of idiotic appointments from McDonnell to Milne to Livingstone. He has, apparently, no interest in being a consensual leader. If Labour do lose Oldham the crisis may come sooner but it is coming, of that there is no doubt.
Right off the cliff.0 -
No need. The boundary review will assist greatly in expediting deselections. I do wonder whether Corbyn will support boundary review, even though removing their undersized seats will damage Labour, in the overt name of 'fairness' but actually because it makes effective deselection so much easier.SouthamObserver said:
MP deselection would be a big mistake. In many cases it would lead to the subsequent loss of the constituency. Ultimately, though, it is the only weapon Corbyn really has. We'll see it start to happen relatively soon, I guess. Then the shit will really hit the fan.david_herdson said:There'll be no need to imagine what the PLP meeting will be like - we'll have another multiply-reported tweetfest.
"For the time being the LAB leader and his MPs are stuck with each other in a loveless forced marriage and will be for the foreseeable future." - A very good way of putting it. The question is, who instigates divorce proceedings first?0 -
David - the way you have arrived at your figures means that 20% (rather than 10%) of those former Labour voters, who actually vote on Thursday switch to UKIP. That's a very big ask.david_herdson said:To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452
UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259
Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.0 -
@sundersays: Ken Livingstone will contribute his thoughts to @bbcr4today at 7.30am https://t.co/dPdb5tu6xI0
-
Labour are experts at getting postal votes organised, I suspect their nerves are built around the response they've had. Kippers will be very motivated in Oldham but I have concerns about resources and infrastructure in terms of getting people to the booths.david_herdson said:
I think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions because they're clearly in the game to win it; the Tories aren't. There's therefore a much bigger incentive for UKIP supporters / anti-establishment voters to turn out for them than there is for Con-backers. Also, I think that there were probably quite a lot of people who backed Con and Lab in May on the basis that it was an important government-making decision (even though in Oldham West it wasn't really), whereas at a by-election it's clearly not.Innocent_Abroad said:
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.david_herdson said:To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452
UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259
Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
In the past, Con voters have been notoriously reluctant to vote tactically. That said, in Oldham East next door they were willing to go LD in quite large numbers in 2011 so it is possible. You're right that I've put what's probably quite a cautious figure on it though.
From a distance it almost seems as though this election is being fought along race/ethnicity/cultural lines: Asians vote labour, WWC vote ukip, that's a very worrying development. If labour win as I expect it will paper over a lot of cracks.
0 -
Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.SouthamObserver said:
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.0 -
Doesn't it depend on who is affected, how selection processes for new seats work and timeframes? Sitting Labour MPs fighting as Independent Labour candidates on either current or new boundaries would be likely to significantly eat into the Labour vote - especially if they are high profile.david_herdson said:
No need. The boundary review will assist greatly in expediting deselections. I do wonder whether Corbyn will support boundary review, even though removing their undersized seats will damage Labour, in the overt name of 'fairness' but actually because it makes effective deselection so much easier.SouthamObserver said:
MP deselection would be a big mistake. In many cases it would lead to the subsequent loss of the constituency. Ultimately, though, it is the only weapon Corbyn really has. We'll see it start to happen relatively soon, I guess. Then the shit will really hit the fan.david_herdson said:There'll be no need to imagine what the PLP meeting will be like - we'll have another multiply-reported tweetfest.
"For the time being the LAB leader and his MPs are stuck with each other in a loveless forced marriage and will be for the foreseeable future." - A very good way of putting it. The question is, who instigates divorce proceedings first?
0 -
"(no dentist will tell you this)"Luckyguy1983 said:FPT
Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?notme said:
The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.
He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.
To fix your teeth you need to look after them, sure, but they are bone like any other, they need to be nourished from the inside and they will regrow (no dentist will tell you this). You need to cut right down on sugar (not just because of acid erosion but because it undermines bone strength), and eat lots of cultured dairy (live yoghurt). Raw milk would work just as well, but is expensive. We can't properly assimilate calcium from pasteurised milk. Culturing reverses the damage done to the product when it's pasteurised. I speak from experience.
I wonder why that is?
My dentist also repeatedly tells me not to rinse my mouth after brushing. The reason she gives (and I've no idea if this is true or not), is that most toothpaste contains chemicals that help protect the teeth and gums, and over-rigorous rinsing can remove them. If you're brushing before going to bed, by rinsing you miss many hours when those chemicals could be helping.
I always ignore the advice, as I find most toothpaste makes my mouth incredibly dry.
From memory, she says use mouthwash before brushing. Which again, has always struck me as a little odd.0 -
Len is not the brightest, but he will come to understand there is literally nothing the Tories could say or do that would put Corbyn Labour close to power. The only issue is when and how much damage the Corbynistas do to Labour in the meantime.DavidL said:
Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.SouthamObserver said:
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
0 -
JosiasJessop said:
"(no dentist will tell you this)"Luckyguy1983 said:FPT
Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?notme said:
The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.
He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.
To fix your teeth you need to look after them, sure, but they are bone like any other, they need to be nourished from the inside and they will regrow (no dentist will tell you this). You need to cut right down on sugar (not just because of acid erosion but because it undermines bone strength), and eat lots of cultured dairy (live yoghurt). Raw milk would work just as well, but is expensive. We can't properly assimilate calcium from pasteurised milk. Culturing reverses the damage done to the product when it's pasteurised. I speak from experience.
I wonder why that is?
My dentist also repeatedly tells me not to rinse my mouth after brushing. The reason she gives (and I've no idea if this is true or not), is that most toothpaste contains chemicals that help protect the teeth and gums, and over-rigorous rinsing can remove them. If you're brushing before going to bed, by rinsing you miss many hours when those chemicals could be helping.
I always ignore the advice, as I find most toothpaste makes my mouth incredibly dry.
From memory, she says use mouthwash before brushing. Which again, has always struck me as a little odd.
I have adopted a routine: floss, mouthwash, brush,don't rinse.. Since starting that 3 years ago, my teeth appear to much healthier. As I am an OAP, I like to keep whatever faculties I have left :-)0 -
Unless I've just misheard, Ken Livingstone just said on R4 that he doesn't support air strikes in Syria but he *would* support an invasion by ground troops - in the manner of the post-war occupation of Germany.0
-
McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got direDavidL said:
Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.SouthamObserver said:
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.0 -
I don't want to appear as if I'm being a bit picky here, but didn't the occupation of Germany require an awful lot of air strikes to enable us to occupy?Casino_Royale said:Unless I've just misheard, Ken Livingstone just said on R4 that he doesn't support air strikes in Syria but he *would* support an invasion by ground troops - in the manner of the post-war occupation of Germany.
0 -
Which is why I want Corbyn out. The Tories having no opposition is no good for anyone - it leads to arrogant, lazy and even corrupt government. And it probably means that, ultimately, when the tables do turn the Tories will go down to a very heavy defeat once again. Not to mention he's a corrosive influence on British politics as a whole.SouthamObserver said:
Len is not the brightest, but he will come to understand there is literally nothing the Tories could say or do that would put Corbyn Labour close to power. The only issue is when and how much damage the Corbynistas do to Labour in the meantime.DavidL said:
Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.SouthamObserver said:
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
Ideally, I want a strong centre-left party challenging the Tories and an assertive UKIP continuing to threaten its Right flank, particularly on the EU and immigration.
Obviously, i still want the Tories to win but monopolies are good for no-one.
0 -
Nick Robinson didn't push him on it.notme said:
I don't want to appear as if I'm being a bit picky here, but didn't the occupation of Germany require an awful lot of air strikes to enable us to occupy?Casino_Royale said:Unless I've just misheard, Ken Livingstone just said on R4 that he doesn't support air strikes in Syria but he *would* support an invasion by ground troops - in the manner of the post-war occupation of Germany.
Hands up who thinks Livingstone would back a ground invasion and occupation by NATO and the Arab League, even if mandated to do so by the UN?0 -
Good morning all.
The man who will never resign on principle, because he has none:
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/6715989999804088320 -
Exactly - it's not a binary choice between Jezza and a Blairite. This will sink in at some stage. Corbyn v a safe hands candidate will be the choice. The next leadership contest will be a rescue operation, not a clash of ideologies.HYUFD said:
McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got direDavidL said:
Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.SouthamObserver said:
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
0 -
What a nest of far left traitors that would be.HYUFD said:
McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got direDavidL said:
Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.SouthamObserver said:
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.0 -
Hilary Benn is starting to look like more than just the King across the water.HYUFD said:
McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got direDavidL said:
Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.SouthamObserver said:
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.0 -
Principles and power rarely go togetherMikeK said:Good morning all.
The man who will never resign on principle, because he has none:
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/6715989999804088320 -
Anyone to the left of Gideon or Hezza is a traitor to you.MikeK said:
What a nest of far left traitors that would be.HYUFD said:
McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got direDavidL said:
Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.SouthamObserver said:
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
0 -
Yes the PLP seem to have settled on him as their Michael Howard figure if the need arisesCasino_Royale said:
Hilary Benn is starting to look like more than just the King across the water.HYUFD said:
McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got direDavidL said:
Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.SouthamObserver said:
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.0 -
Agreed Labour members lost the next election when they picked Corbyn as Tory members lost the 2005 election when they picked IDS, the job of Benn would be to save the furniture as Michael Howard didSouthamObserver said:
Exactly - it's not a binary choice between Jezza and a Blairite. This will sink in at some stage. Corbyn v a safe hands candidate will be the choice. The next leadership contest will be a rescue operation, not a clash of ideologies.HYUFD said:
McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got direDavidL said:
Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.SouthamObserver said:
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.0 -
Off-topic. On Police Scotland.
Several Members of the Scottish Parliament have stated their concern over Police Scotland's decision to pursue whistleblowers citing investigative failures, rather than renewing the investigation itself.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/30/police_scotland_taken_tribunal_former_detective_unlawful_snooping/
0 -
What I can't understand is his wholesale blocking of people on Twitter - I've seen at least a dozen saying they've been blocked.
This seems like an incredibly stupid attitude for a candidate and potential MP - and very Eoin/Owenish. Creating your own echo chamber bubble strikes me as someone who can't accept they represent all parts of their constituency.
Eoin and Owen can do what they fancy - not a likely MP by Friday. For a supposedly sensible chap - he's making a mistake.0 -
Generation Selfie Londoners are a miserable bunch: Official!
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/30/london-selfies-glummer-study-big-bang-data?CMP=twt_gu0 -
It will have to beMikeK said:
What a nest of far left traitors that would be.HYUFD said:
McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got direDavidL said:
Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.SouthamObserver said:
In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.0 -
Could we have a Hil(l)ary in both the White House and No 10 at some stage?0
-
Mr Observer,
"Sitting Labour MPs fighting as Independent Labour candidates on either current or new boundaries would be likely to significantly eat into the Labour vote - especially if they are high profile.
Does that matter to Jezza? They're all Tories anyway.
Jezza is a man on a mission to bring back true socialism. The longest journey begins with a single step and all that. Gradualism is the key to ensure that the frog doesn't jump out the pan. But if the frog is a Tory one, it's good riddance.0 -
He posted here for a little bit under the moniker TheGreenBenches IIRC. That was before he got sued, a lot.JosiasJessop said:
Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.
And it would help if he could learn to write.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
I still expect Labour to win, but this might really help UKIP with renewal of memberships and reinvigorating the party after it did so well in the 2014 European vote but failed in the General Election.0 -
Having a PhD in IRA Feminism or whatever it was just sums him up.
Someone here ages ago mentioned meeting him once and said he seemed a nice chappy.JosiasJessop said:
I've no doubt he does plenty of thinking. It's just that he hasn't learnt how to present his arguments to make them compelling to anyone other than those who already agree with him. It's archetypal narrow one-track thinking. In fact, it's so narrow that he ought to apply to be a platelayer on the Ffestiniog.GeoffM said:
..and think.JosiasJessop said:Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.
And it would help if he could learn to write.
Which IME is strangely not unusual for people who have made it as far as a doctorate. Professors can be worse, especially in industry. Nice chaps (and I assume chapesses, but I've never worked with a female professor), but sometimes incapable of looking at the broader picture ...0 -
The Times reports Burnham and Healey and Ashworth led Shadow Cabinet opposition to an anti airstrikes policy with Burnham warning that if they voted against they could be Dr selected and ' you can't throw us to the wolves. ' Hilary Benn offered to speak from the backbenches in favour of strikes and Shadow Defence Secretary Kevin Jones said 'You won on a promise of straight politics. After this last week that lies in tatters.' Even McDonnell had reservations with Seamus Milne most in favour0
-
Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.
Will bombing make us safer? Probably not.
Will bombing make us less safe? Probably not.
Does anyone anywhere know the way out of the barbarous chaos let loose by the Arab Spring? Probably not, including all the participants.
0 -
@JoeWatts_: "I have no interest in leading the Labour party," says Hilary Benn, repeating a sentiment expressed by Jeremy Corbyn before he became leader0
-
I do wonder what the criteria was for blocking. I'd not even tweeted him. I do agree though it is a very stupid way to behave, choosing to listen to the comments he likes and mute the ones he doesn't.Plato_Says said:What I can't understand is his wholesale blocking of people on Twitter - I've seen at least a dozen saying they've been blocked.
This seems like an incredibly stupid attitude for a candidate and potential MP - and very Eoin/Owenish. Creating your own echo chamber bubble strikes me as someone who can't accept they represent all parts of their constituency.
Eoin and Owen can do what they fancy - not a likely MP by Friday. For a supposedly sensible chap - he's making a mistake.0 -
Dan sums up for me why I voted for Tony - I can feel his frustration and despair to a certain extent.
I'm sure those well to the Left of me felt similarly appalled and frustrated when Tony won, and won and won.
Unfortunately for them, they're making a monumental pig's ear of it.DavidL said:Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html
He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.0 -
Oh dear HYUFD - Benn just said he had no interest in leading the party....0
-
Labour MPs have even adopted her campaign slogan 'ready for Hillary'logical_song said:Could we have a Hil(l)ary in both the White House and No 10 at some stage?
0 -
Yesterday in The Times, Tim Farron wrote that the Liberal Democrats are now the real party of opposition.
Today, Labour MP, Jon Ashworth replied
https://twitter.com/timesredbox/status/6716056979609354240 -
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.0 -
On topic, success equal performance minus anticipation, any win for Labour will be seen as a victory for Corbyn.
Like limbo dancing Oompa Loompas, the bar is set quite low for Corbyn0 -
Only by the delusional...TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, success equal performance minus anticipation, any win for Labour will be seen as a victory for Corbyn.
Like limbo dancing Oompa Loompas, the bar is set quite low for Corbyn
My lefty luvvie mate has loads of right on Greenie/SWP mates. One of them just put on fb that Corbyn's actions yesterday will have gained the party millions of votes!
0 -
On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.
The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.0 -
I got blocked by Kay Burley FFS - I've no idea why, I was always nice too. My pitiful claim to fame is that she once retweeted me.
Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.0 -
What a load of old bollocks - you should seek to spouting rubbish about the NHS!foxinsoxuk said:Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.
Will bombing make us safer? Probably not.
Will bombing make us less safe? Probably not.
Does anyone anywhere know the way out of the barbarous chaos let loose by the Arab Spring? Probably not, including all the participants.0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.
The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.
But a sieve intentionally leaks?
Ahh, right.
0 -
In light of what's happened since May it's pretty clear that the only opposition to the Tories over the past five years have been the Lib DemsTheScreamingEagles said:Yesterday in The Times, Tim Farron wrote that the Liberal Democrats are now the real party of opposition.
Today, Labour MP, Jon Ashworth replied
https://twitter.com/timesredbox/status/6716056979609354240 -
Perhaps - I think it more it just feels like labour should be hit hard and someone else benefit right now, UKIP being the only likely candidates, which is why it will be so surprising to many if they don't.Luckyguy1983 said:
I agree, it's very silly. The good folk of Oldham will vote for a pig in a red rosette. Getting people excited about UKIP just seems to be a way of playing the expectations game so UKIP look worse afterwards.JohnLoony said:It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).
Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).
I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.
Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.
The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.0 -
It says a lot for how bad Labour is doing that the Farron claim is only mildly ludicrous.TheScreamingEagles said:Yesterday in The Times, Tim Farron wrote that the Liberal Democrats are now the real party of opposition.
Today, Labour MP, Jon Ashworth replied
https://twitter.com/timesredbox/status/6716056979609354240 -
To be fair, no one was really interested in the PLP meetings before.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.
The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.
Now, they're like a mini-series of entertainment every week.0 -
@Reuters: BREAKING: German cabinet approves plans to join military campaign against IS in Syria - German govt official https://t.co/dGnr5g42hG0
-
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.0 -
@LBC: Police appeal for information after cards handed to women on Tube calling them “fat” https://t.co/iz3di6Ojkk https://t.co/QTwqqGjaLv0
-
If Labour's majority falls under a thousand that will still be a bad result given they comfortably won the seat in MayTheScreamingEagles said:On topic, success equal performance minus anticipation, any win for Labour will be seen as a victory for Corbyn.
Like limbo dancing Oompa Loompas, the bar is set quite low for Corbyn0 -
It was the live reports we were getting from the Shadow Cabinet meeting that proves illuminating about what they really think about Jez.Slackbladder said:
To be fair, no one was really interested in the PLP meetings before.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.
The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.
Now, they're like a mini-series of entertainment every week.0 -
Even if someone likes Corbyn, how could they believe that given the shambles this week?MikeK said:Good morning all.
The man who will never resign on principle, because he has none:
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/6715989999804088320 -
Osborne eighteen points ahead of McDonnell on the economy and Tories take the lead on the cost-of-living.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ilk1lytlmr/InternalResults_151126_Spending_Review_W.pdf
The data also shows that Scots are most likely to be negative about the economy and the public do not believe that the nation's books will be balanced by 2020 - so, missing the deficit reduction target is already factored in to views about Osborne and voting intention.
Similarly, people believe that key public services will not be stronger so this is also factored in to voting intention.0 -
Would you also advocate ceasing air strikes on IS in Iraq and advising the Americans and French to cease in Syria and Iraq?foxinsoxuk said:Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.
Will bombing make us safer? Probably not.
Will bombing make us less safe? Probably not.
Does anyone anywhere know the way out of the barbarous chaos let loose by the Arab Spring? Probably not, including all the participants.0 -
If Labour do win Oldham do we think it will be enough to change the news narrative, even briefly, away from Jez-is-crap?0
-
While there's some truth in that, the major coalition partner didn't do badly. Mostly at the expense of the smaller party, of course, though.felix said:
It says a lot for how bad Labour is doing that the Farron claim is only mildly ludicrous.TheScreamingEagles said:Yesterday in The Times, Tim Farron wrote that the Liberal Democrats are now the real party of opposition.
Today, Labour MP, Jon Ashworth replied
https://twitter.com/timesredbox/status/6716056979609354240 -
We should be hearing about neither. Discussions behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors. The fact we're hearing about both shows just how ill-disciplined and how poor the morale is on the Labour Parliamentary benches. If I were a Labour party member, I'd be furious with the elected representatives about this.TheScreamingEagles said:
It was the live reports we were getting from the Shadow Cabinet meeting that proves illuminating about what they really think about Jez.Slackbladder said:
To be fair, no one was really interested in the PLP meetings before.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.
The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.
Now, they're like a mini-series of entertainment every week.0 -
The complete reverse of public opinion.......Casino_Royale said:Unless I've just misheard, Ken Livingstone just said on R4 that he doesn't support air strikes in Syria but he *would* support an invasion by ground troops
0 -
Yes. If it is comfortable, and ev n if reduced, then the inevitable claims of how this shows how well the party is doing in the face of hostile media etc, will be more credible.Wanderer said:If Labour do win Oldham do we think it will be enough to change the news narrative, even briefly, away from Jez-is-crap?
0 -
Morning all,Wanderer said:If Labour do win Oldham do we think it will be enough to change the news narrative, even briefly, away from Jez-is-crap?
Quite possibly. Mainly because we are rapidly entering the Xmas zone, where people's minds are on other matters for a few weeks.0 -
This is the problem with having a serial rebel as leader.AlastairMeeks said:
We should be hearing about neither. Discussions behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors. The fact we're hearing about both shows just how ill-disciplined and how poor the morale is on the Labour Parliamentary benches. If I were a Labour party member, I'd be furious with the elected representatives about this.TheScreamingEagles said:
It was the live reports we were getting from the Shadow Cabinet meeting that proves illuminating about what they really think about Jez.Slackbladder said:
To be fair, no one was really interested in the PLP meetings before.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.
The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.
Now, they're like a mini-series of entertainment every week.
Same thing happened when IDS was in charge, party discipline breaks down.0 -
He hasn't had the latest memo from Moscow yet. ;-)JosiasJessop said:
Morning luckyguy.Luckyguy1983 said:
I agree, it's very silly. The good folk of Oldham will vote for a pig in a red rosette. Getting people excited about UKIP just seems to be a way of playing the expectations game so UKIP look worse afterwards.JohnLoony said:It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).
Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).
I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.
Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.
The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.
Have you done any more reading on IHH ?0 -
Miss Plato, was there sadness in your eyes?
Mr. Abode, it just seems odd to me. Obviously if someone pesters you or is abusive, blocking makes sense. But having a different opinion? That's the whole point of democracy and freedom of choice. Saying "Rawr, you're wrong" and blocking works fine online, but doesn't cut it in reality.
Unfortunately for the hard left, voting occurs in reality, not Twitter.0 -
Slackbladder said:
To be fair, no one was really interested in the PLP meetings before.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.
The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.
Now, they're like a mini-series of entertainment every week.0 -
Yup, the next few weeks are going to be dominated by Star Wars, then Christmas.Wanderer said:If Labour do win Oldham do we think it will be enough to change the news narrative, even briefly, away from Jez-is-crap?
0 -
You don't think Cameron might have slightly weightier matters on his mind - like the slaughter in Paris, and likelihood of its repetition here? That ISIS claim to legitimacy is the physical occupation of territory (unlike most other terrorist groups) and that curtailing that is in our national interest? That a close ally has asked for our help?foxinsoxuk said:Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.
I doubt the shambles on the opposite benches gets a look in.
One of your silliest posts in quite some time!0 -
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.Razedabode said:
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
0 -
This may be unpleasant, but I fail to see that any sort of crime has been committed.Scott_P said:@LBC: Police appeal for information after cards handed to women on Tube calling them “fat” https://t.co/iz3di6Ojkk https://t.co/QTwqqGjaLv
0
