Remain seem at least "half competent"? Interesting. In what way? Can you name one single dazzling performance by a Remain campaigner, one speech, one article, one solitary sentence which has demonstrably affected the public mood in favour of IN?
No. You can't. All we've seen is Stuart Rose mumbling and fumbling, Alan Johnson saying"we should listen to the prime minister because he's the prime minister," and that same prime minister bringing home a "whole new relationship with the EU" which turns out to be an extra go on the Berlaymont pooltable, every second Friday, if the French head home before 10pm.
Indeed, such is the brilliance of this fantastically competent Remain campaign, the PM's deal has driven LEAVE to its highest polling in many months.
I've Followed both Leave and Remain campaigns on Twitter and Leave (principally @LeaveEUOfficial) is putting out more stuff and much better stuff than anything that Remain (@StrongerIn) has come up with.
Remain isn't competent. It is, however, united.
That's interesting. Leaving aside the question of how effective a medium Twitter is for such things, it'd be good to know why their stuff is much better.
Remain is putting out tweets like this, from a few minutes ago:
It's a very questionable assertion and even if true, is both of minimal impact to most people and smacks of patronising attitude that EU Knows Best.
Jim Messina is reportedly working for Remain.
I think it's a subtle dog whistle to some voters that UKIP opposed gay marriage and think gay marriage causes flooding.
Do you really want to be on the same side as these people.
In my view, more than immigration, it was the "floods caused gay marriage" and Farage's comments about breastfeeding in public that have damaged UKIP most.
Even many people who agree that immigration is too high and who think the EU is a lot of nonsense, don't want to view themselves as stuffy old fogeys who blush at the sight of a woman's breast or who think the threat of Sodom and Gomorrah hangs over the world.
Considering you're saying events with Syria and immigration may well win it for Leave (which it might), then it's clear all Leave has is fear.
I dislike Remain's economic arguments: the jobs ones are particularly ridiculous given their history. The business arguments (on both sides) are also rather crass: we can be a success in or out of the EU in the short term (I tend to agree with RCS about the medium and long term situation wrt a two-speed Europe, and this is one of the main reasons I'll probably vote to leave)
You may say that Leave have better, more visceral arguments, but that's pointless in my case as I haven't seen them. No FB posts. No mailshots. No ads on websites I visit. I have seen a fair few for Remain. If they're going down the new media route then they're fighting with one hand tied behind their back. It didn't do Labour much good at the GE.
No. Those emotional arguments need not be in any way about refugees. I have lots of emotional arguments supporting Leave which have nothing to do with migration at all. Indeed that is exactly what Sean is saying when he references the Indy vote as an example.
Controlling one's own laws, choosing ones own trading partners, not having foreign values imposed via the 'one size fits all' law-making system the EU uses, controlling our own farming and fisheries in such a way that doesn't strip our seas and see us having to destroy our own orchards, being able to set our own tax rates
Basically running our own country via elected representatives who we get to destroy every 5 years if they piss us off.
I've seen one boring leaflet for Remain, in my communal hallway, which no one else picked up, and then got dumped with the general trash. That's it.
To be fair the campaign proper hasn't even started yet, so most of it is happening on line, where it costs almost zero. And there LEAVE have the advantage, so far.
We've had two big leaflets from Remain for some reason. With the exception of this week I spend a fair while online, and I'm pretty sure I've seen nothing official from Leave.
Online campaigning can work, but to do it properly costs money. Labour didn't realise this for GE2015 and thought their echo chambers on FB and twitter were a success right up to May 5.
Considering you're saying events with Syria and immigration may well win it for Leave (which it might), then it's clear all Leave has is fear.
I dislike Remain's economic arguments: the jobs ones are particularly ridiculous given their history. The business arguments (on both sides) are also rather crass: we can be a success in or out of the EU in the short term (I tend to agree with RCS about the medium and long term situation wrt a two-speed Europe, and this is one of the main reasons I'll probably vote to leave)
You may say that Leave have better, more visceral arguments, but that's pointless in my case as I haven't seen them. No FB posts. No mailshots. No ads on websites I visit. I have seen a fair few for Remain. If they're going down the new media route then they're fighting with one hand tied behind their back. It didn't do Labour much good at the GE.
No. Those emotional arguments need not be in any way about refugees. I have lots of emotional arguments supporting Leave which have nothing to do with migration at all. Indeed that is exactly what Sean is saying when he references the Indy vote as an example.
Controlling one's own laws, choosing ones own trading partners, not having foreign values imposed via the 'one size fits all' law-making system the EU uses, controlling our own farming and fisheries in such a way that doesn't strip our seas and see us having to destroy our own orchards, being able to set our own tax rates
Basically running our own country via elected representatives who we get to destroy every 5 years if they piss us off.
Your last summation line screams "Fear!"
And I was referring to SeanT's oft-made comments about the immigration crisis and its effect on the vote.
Remain seem at least "half competent"? Interesting. In what way? Can you name one single dazzling performance by a Remain campaigner, one speech, one article, one solitary sentence which has demonstrably affected the public mood in favour of IN?
No. You can't. All we've seen is Stuart Rose mumbling and fumbling, Alan Johnson saying"we should listen to the prime minister because he's the prime minister," and that same prime minister bringing home a "whole new relationship with the EU" which turns out to be an extra go on the Berlaymont pooltable, every second Friday, if the French head home before 10pm.
Indeed, such is the brilliance of this fantastically competent Remain campaign, the PM's deal has driven LEAVE to its highest polling in many months.
I've Followed both Leave and Remain campaigns on Twitter and Leave (principally @LeaveEUOfficial) is putting out more stuff and much better stuff than anything that Remain (@StrongerIn) has come up with.
Remain isn't competent. It is, however, united.
That's interesting. Leaving aside the question of how effective a medium Twitter is for such things, it'd be good to know why their stuff is much better.
Remain is putting out tweets like this, from a few minutes ago:
It's a very questionable assertion and even if true, is both of minimal impact to most people and smacks of patronising attitude that EU Knows Best.
Jim Messina is reportedly working for Remain.
I think it's a subtle dog whistle to some voters that UKIP opposed gay marriage and think gay marriage causes flooding.
Do you really want to be on the same side as these people.
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
Remain seem at least "half competent"? Interesting. In what way? Can you name one single dazzling performance by a Remain campaigner, one speech, one article, one solitary sentence which has demonstrably affected the public mood in favour of IN?
No. You can't. All we've seen is Stuart Rose mumbling and fumbling, Alan Johnson saying"we should listen to the prime minister because he's the prime minister," and that same prime minister bringing home a "whole new relationship with the EU" which turns out to be an extra go on the Berlaymont pooltable, every second Friday, if the French head home before 10pm.
Indeed, such is the brilliance of this fantastically competent Remain campaign, the PM's deal has driven LEAVE to its highest polling in many months.
I've Followed both Leave and Remain campaigns on Twitter and Leave (principally @LeaveEUOfficial) is putting out more stuff and much better stuff than anything that Remain (@StrongerIn) has come up with.
Remain isn't competent. It is, however, united.
That's interesting. Leaving aside the question of how effective a medium Twitter is for such things, it'd be good to know why their stuff is much better.
It's because Leave have better, more visceral arguments. They sound positive. They've got the emotional debate in the bag - Cry Freedom! Give us back our country! Strike off the chains!
REMAIN is all about dull facts designed to induce mild dread - 3 billion budgies will slowly die in Britain without access to European seeds etc etc
It's the same as indyref. With the notable difference that NO could rely on an emotional attachment to Britishness amongst 30-40% of Scots AS WELL as the effect of Project Fear.
All Remain has is Fear.
Perhaps 10% are emotionally attached to the EU.
There's s thought. My impression is Remain is wide but tepid support. Is anyone really going to turn up to a Remain "rally" ( you know flag waving for the campaign cameras)?
Remain seem at least "half competent"? Interesting. In what way? Can you name one single dazzling performance by a Remain campaigner, one speech, one article, one solitary sentence which has demonstrably affected the public mood in favour of IN?
No. You can't. All we've seen is Stuart Rose mumbling and fumbling, Alan Johnson saying"we should listen to the prime minister because he's the prime minister," and that same prime minister bringing home a "whole new relationship with the EU" which turns out to be an extra go on the Berlaymont pooltable, every second Friday, if the French head home before 10pm.
Indeed, such is the brilliance of this fantastically competent Remain campaign, the PM's deal has driven LEAVE to its highest polling in many months.
I've Followed both Leave and Remain campaigns on Twitter and Leave (principally @LeaveEUOfficial) is putting out more stuff and much better stuff than anything that Remain (@StrongerIn) has come up with.
Remain isn't competent. It is, however, united.
That's interesting. Leaving aside the question of how effective a medium Twitter is for such things, it'd be good to know why their stuff is much better.
Remain is putting out tweets like this, from a few minutes ago:
twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/695682367768367104
It's a very questionable assertion and even if true, is both of minimal impact to most people and smacks of patronising attitude that EU Knows Best.
There is a audience that might play with. It doesn't post on here.
The ignorant gay one? Unlikely that they'll be following Remain's twitter feed.
Considering you're saying events with Syria and immigration may well win it for Leave (which it might), then it's clear all Leave has is fear.
I dislike Remain's economic arguments: the jobs ones are particularly ridiculous given their history. The business arguments (on both sides) are also rather crass: we can be a success in or out of the EU in the short term (I tend to agree with RCS about the medium and long term situation wrt a two-speed Europe, and this is one of the main reasons I'll probably vote to leave)
You may say that Leave have better, more visceral arguments, but that's pointless in my case as I haven't seen them. No FB posts. No mailshots. No ads on websites I visit. I have seen a fair few for Remain. If they're going down the new media route then they're fighting with one hand tied behind their back. It didn't do Labour much good at the GE.
No. Those emotional arguments need not be in any way about refugees. I have lots of emotional arguments supporting Leave which have nothing to do with migration at all. Indeed that is exactly what Sean is saying when he references the Indy vote as an example.
Controlling one's own laws, choosing ones own trading partners, not having foreign values imposed via the 'one size fits all' law-making system the EU uses, controlling our own farming and fisheries in such a way that doesn't strip our seas and see us having to destroy our own orchards, being able to set our own tax rates
Basically running our own country via elected representatives who we get to destroy every 5 years if they piss us off.
Your last summation line screams "Fear!"
And I was referring to SeanT's oft-made comments about the immigration crisis and its effect on the vote.
Why 'fear? It a hugely positive thing to be able to humiliate and destroy your elected representatives every 5 years. One of the highlights of election night we all love is seeing some particularly obnoxious MP or minister looking shell shocked as they see their political career disappear down the toilet.
Not usually possible with Euro elections since the really obnoxious career ones are usually top of the party list and get in no matter what.
Also, of all the f##k ups so far, McMao and his little red book is the most memorable. Remember last weekend, he even f##ked up his own tax return stunt. What makes anybody think he will be better than JJ, he is JJ but doesn't even come across as principled but deluded old man.
Can anyone recall who was behind the Moscow apartment bombings? Was it Chechens?
Possibly, although some blame the FSB's dirty hand (as much as I don't like Putin, I think that unlikely, at least directly). It's not as if the Chechen terrorists were nice, peace-loving chaps.
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
Can you recommend any good books on micro targetting?
Considering you're saying events with Syria and immigration may well win it for Leave (which it might), then it's clear all Leave has is fear.
I dislike Remain's economic arguments: the jobs ones are particularly ridiculous given their history. The business arguments (on both sides) are also rather crass: we can be a success in or out of the EU in the short term (I tend to agree with RCS about the medium and long term situation wrt a two-speed Europe, and this is one of the main reasons I'll probably vote to leave)
You may say that Leave have better, more visceral arguments, but that's pointless in my case as I haven't seen them. No FB posts. No mailshots. No ads on websites I visit. I have seen a fair few for Remain. If they're going down the new media route then they're fighting with one hand tied behind their back. It didn't do Labour much good at the GE.
No. Those emotional arguments need not be in any way about refugees. I have lots of emotional arguments supporting Leave which have nothing to do with migration at all. Indeed that is exactly what Sean is saying when he references the Indy vote as an example.
Controlling one's own laws, choosing ones own trading partners, not having foreign values imposed via the 'one size fits all' law-making system the EU uses, controlling our own farming and fisheries in such a way that doesn't strip our seas and see us having to destroy our own orchards, being able to set our own tax rates
Basically running our own country via elected representatives who we get to destroy every 5 years if they piss us off.
Your last summation line screams "Fear!"
And I was referring to SeanT's oft-made comments about the immigration crisis and its effect on the vote.
Why 'fear? It a hugely positive thing to be able to humiliate and destroy your elected representatives every 5 years. One of the highlights of election night we all love is seeing some particularly obnoxious MP or minister looking shell shocked as they see their political career disappear down the toilet.
Not usually possible with Euro elections since the really obnoxious career ones are usually top of the party list and get in no matter what.
Sorry, you are right: I misread the line and thought you were referring to the EU destroying us. Blame the dark and headache, and/or me being stupid.
And I agree with you on the worthlessness of party lists.
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
Can you recommend any good books on micro targetting?
This one references the Tory micro targeting in 2015
Sky News understands the Government is trying to elicit the services of Lynton Crosby over worries that David Cameron's EU deal is being portrayed too negatively by the press.
What do they mean, "trying to elicit"? Have they forgotten his phone number? Or is the reporter not quite sure it is more than a rumour. This is what Crosby does for a living, it's not like he has a different day job.
Sky News understands the Government is trying to elicit the services of Lynton Crosby over worries that David Cameron's EU deal is being portrayed too negatively by the press.
What do they mean, "trying to elicit"? Have they forgotten his phone number? Or is the reporter not quite sure it is more than a rumour. This is what Crosby does for a living, it's not like he has a different day job.
Read the story. He has several times refused to help the campaign, beforehand (perhaps he can detect a losing hand).
It's also interesting that the government is said to be "very worried" by the polls.
I'm sure that is the case. REMAIN are doing their best to look calm and assured and confident on the surface, but they must be cacking themselves at the way it's going so far. This was meant to be another "unlosable" referendum, just like indyref.
I suspect his reputation cannot be enhanced, even if Remain wins.
Far better to viewed as the genius behind the Tory majority in 2015.
Sky News understands the Government is trying to elicit the services of Lynton Crosby over worries that David Cameron's EU deal is being portrayed too negatively by the press.
What do they mean, "trying to elicit"? Have they forgotten his phone number? Or is the reporter not quite sure it is more than a rumour. This is what Crosby does for a living, it's not like he has a different day job.
Read the story. He has several times refused to help the campaign, beforehand (perhaps he can detect a losing hand).
It's also interesting that the government is said to be "very worried" by the polls.
I'm sure that is the case. REMAIN are doing their best to look calm and assured and confident on the surface, but they must be cacking themselves at the way it's going so far. This was meant to be another "unlosable" referendum, just like indyref.
I suspect his reputation cannot be enhanced, even if Remain wins.
Far better to viewed as the genius behind the Tory majority in 2015.
The Labour Party were barking to elect Corbyn, to change to McDonnell is moving into straightjacket territory.. A more odious individual its barely possible to think of.
Interesting chart. Mostly unsurprisingish, but wouldn't have thought that 67% of Indians trust the Indian justice system. But perhaps I'm misled - is it in fact OK?
Remain seem at least "half competent"? Interesting. In what way? Can you name one single dazzling performance by a Remain campaigner, one speech, one article, one solitary sentence which has demonstrably affected the public mood in favour of IN?
No. You can't. All we've seen is Stuart Rose mumbling and fumbling, Alan Johnson saying"we should listen to the prime minister because he's the prime minister," and that same prime minister bringing home a "whole new relationship with the EU" which turns out to be an extra go on the Berlaymont pooltable, every second Friday, if the French head home before 10pm.
Indeed, such is the brilliance of this fantastically competent Remain campaign, the PM's deal has driven LEAVE to its highest polling in many months.
I've Followed both Leave and Remain campaigns on Twitter and Leave (principally @LeaveEUOfficial) is putting out more stuff and much better stuff than anything that Remain (@StrongerIn) has come up with.
Remain isn't competent. It is, however, united.
That's interesting. Leaving aside the question of how effective a medium Twitter is for such things, it'd be good to know why their stuff is much better.
It's because Leave have better, more visceral arguments. They sound positive. They've got the emotional debate in the bag - Cry Freedom! Give us back our country! Strike off the chains!
REMAIN is all about dull facts designed to induce mild dread - 3 billion budgies will slowly die in Britain without access to European seeds etc etc
It's the same as indyref. With the notable difference that NO could rely on an emotional attachment to Britishness amongst 30-40% of Scots AS WELL as the effect of Project Fear.
All Remain has is Fear.
Perhaps 10% are emotionally attached to the EU.
More like 5% I'd say.
However the EU does have a big payroll vote, Brits whose careers and livelihoods directly depend on the EU. From academics to civil servants to charidee workers to some big business honchos. Another 5%?
Bigger than that. Lots of London graduates see their careers as depending on EU, whether that perception is true or not. Plus there are many with spouses and partners who are EU citizens.
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
OK - fair enough in theory though it's still a really weak tweet even on its own terms and is typical of what's been coming out so far.
Sky News understands the Government is trying to elicit the services of Lynton Crosby over worries that David Cameron's EU deal is being portrayed too negatively by the press.
What do they mean, "trying to elicit"? Have they forgotten his phone number? Or is the reporter not quite sure it is more than a rumour. This is what Crosby does for a living, it's not like he has a different day job.
Read the story. He has several times refused to help the campaign, beforehand (perhaps he can detect a losing hand).
It's also interesting that the government is said to be "very worried" by the polls.
I'm sure that is the case. REMAIN are doing their best to look calm and assured and confident on the surface, but they must be cacking themselves at the way it's going so far. This was meant to be another "unlosable" referendum, just like indyref.
I suspect his reputation cannot be enhanced, even if Remain wins.
Far better to viewed as the genius behind the Tory majority in 2015.
We also don't know what else he's doing. There are a lot of elections on these next few months.
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
OK - fair enough in theory though it's still a really weak tweet even on its own terms and is typical of what's been coming out so far.
I think this is the sort of stuff they are going for
Remain seem at least "half competent"? Interesting. In what way? Can you name one single dazzling performance by a Remain campaigner, one speech, one article, one solitary sentence which has demonstrably affected the public mood in favour of IN?
No. You can't. All we've seen is Stuart Rose mumbling and fumbling, Alan Johnson saying"we should listen to the prime minister because he's the prime minister," and that same prime minister bringing home a "whole new relationship with the EU" which turns out to be an extra go on the Berlaymont pooltable, every second Friday, if the French head home before 10pm.
Indeed, such is the brilliance of this fantastically competent Remain campaign, the PM's deal has driven LEAVE to its highest polling in many months.
I've Followed both Leave and Remain campaigns on Twitter and Leave (principally @LeaveEUOfficial) is putting out more stuff and much better stuff than anything that Remain (@StrongerIn) has come up with.
Remain isn't competent. It is, however, united.
That's interesting. Leaving aside the question of how effective a medium Twitter is for such things, it'd be good to know why their stuff is much better.
It's because Leave have better, more visceral arguments. They sound positive. They've got the emotional debate in the bag - Cry Freedom! Give us back our country! Strike off the chains!
REMAIN is all about dull facts designed to induce mild dread - 3 billion budgies will slowly die in Britain without access to European seeds etc etc
It's the same as indyref. With the notable difference that NO could rely on an emotional attachment to Britishness amongst 30-40% of Scots AS WELL as the effect of Project Fear.
All Remain has is Fear.
Perhaps 10% are emotionally attached to the EU.
More like 5% I'd say.
However the EU does have a big payroll vote, Brits whose careers and livelihoods directly depend on the EU. From academics to civil servants to charidee workers to some big business honchos. Another 5%?
Bigger than that. Lots of London graduates see their careers as depending on EU, whether that perception is true or not. Plus there are many with spouses and partners who are EU citizens.
The figures from the most recent British Social Attitudes survey in 2014 are stark. Just 35% of those who have no qualifications want to remain in the EU compared with 78% of those with university degrees.
Central (currently 6 Labour seats: 3 constituencies and 3 list seats
1. Richard Leonard 2. Monica Lennon 3. Mark Griffin MSP 4. Elaine Smith MSP 5. Craig Martin 6. Margaret Macculloch MSP 7. John Pentland MSP 8. LizAnne Handibode 9. Michael McMahon MSP 10. Siobhan McMahon MSP 11. Hugh Gaffney 12. Angela Feeney
Glasgow (currently 7 Labour seats, 4+3)
1. Anas Sarwar 2. Johann Lamont MSP 3. James Kelly MSP 4. Pauline McNeill 5. Bill Butler 6. Patricia Ferguson MSP 7. James Adams 8. Soryia Siddique 9. Paul Martin MSP 10. Samantha Ritchie 11. Danzala Malik MSP 12. Anne Mactaggart MSP
Highlands and Islands (currently 2 Lab seats)
1. Rhoda Grant MSP 2. David Stewart MSP 3. Leah Franchetti 4. Sean Morton 5. Sarah Atkin 6. John Erskine 7. Robina Barton 8. Gerry McGarvey
Lothian (currently 4 Lab seats, 1+3)
1. Kezia Dugdale MSP 2. Neil Findlay MSP 3. Sarah Boyack MSP 4. Daniel Johnson 5. Lesley Hinds 6. Jalal Chaudry 7. Cat Headley 8. Bernard Harkins 9. Eilidh MacDonald 10. Shami Khan 11. Ann Henderson 12. Richard Corral
Mid Scotland and Fife (in 2011 4 Labour seats, currently 5 after a by-election gain)
1. Alex Rowley MSP 2. Claire Baker MSP 3. Thomas Docherty 4. Cara Hilton MSP 5. Craig Miller 6. Johanna Boyd 7. Jamie Glackin 8. Jayne Baxter MSP 9. Jim Leishman 10. Lesley Laird 11. Altany Craik 12. Mary Lockhart
North East Scotland (currently 3 Lab seats)
1. Jenny Marra MSP 2. Lewis MacDonald MSP 3. Lesley Brennan MSP 4. Richard McCready 5. Sarah Duncan 6. Willie Young 7. Alison Evison 8. Frank Gilfeather 9. Joanne McFadden 10. Nathan Morrison
South Scotland (currently 4 Lab seats, 2+2)
1. Iain Gray MSP 2. Claudia Beamish MSP 3. Colin Smyth 4. Carol Mochan 5. Kenryck Lloyd-Jones 6. Fiona O’Donnell 7. Andrew Cochrane 8. Fiona Dugdale
West Scotland (currently 7 Lab seats, 4+3)
1. Jackie Baillie MSP 2. Neil Bibby MSP 3. Mary Fee MSP 4. Ken MacIntosh MSP 5. Johanna Baxter 6. Joe Cullinane 7. Siobhan McCready 8. Martin McCluskey 9. Moira Ramage 10. Mark McMillan 11. Gail Casey 12. Paul Sweeney
I think Rubio is going to win N.H barring an act of God. Which may happen if that snowstorm hits hard on pensioner turnout, for some reason his base of support are pensioners.
Rubio wins NH, I buy that. Next is South Carolina. I think Trump takes that, even if Rubio is surging. Nevada probably falls to Rubio.
Then is Super Tuesday, Cruz should score several states, including Texas.
But after that it's really hard for him.
But if Rubio wins New Hampshire and Nevada, I must say he should be 75-80% for the Republican nomination.
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
Can you recommend any good books on micro targetting?
This one references the Tory micro targeting in 2015
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
Can you recommend any good books on micro targetting?
This one references the Tory micro targeting in 2015
Bigger than that. Lots of London graduates see their careers as depending on EU, whether that perception is true or not. Plus there are many with spouses and partners who are EU citizens.
There will also be a substantial number of people with ties/attachment to the 'home' country. having had family born in EU nations, spouses originating from there etc.
Bigger than that. Lots of London graduates see their careers as depending on EU, whether that perception is true or not. Plus there are many with spouses and partners who are EU citizens.
Or who would like to work in the EU at some point, or who have a friend who's an EU citizen, etc.
EFTA/EEA doesn't scare the horses, saves money, and reduces interference from the ECJ. It doesn't require a wholesale renegotiation of trade deals. It means that firms - such as my own - with lots of EU clients will be largely unaffected.
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
Can you recommend any good books on micro targetting?
This one references the Tory micro targeting in 2015
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
Can you recommend any good books on micro targetting?
This one references the Tory micro targeting in 2015
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
Can you recommend any good books on micro targetting?
This one references the Tory micro targeting in 2015
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
Can you recommend any good books on micro targetting?
This one references the Tory micro targeting in 2015
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
A Muslim women's group has written to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn claiming women have been stopped from becoming councillors by Muslim men in the party.
It probably isn't intentional, it is just because all the men and women are separated at the selection meetings, the people running it miss "the little ladies" packed in the sides and back of the room when they put their hands up.
Also, he obviously didn't hear about how good our public polls were for GE2015...
Mind you Romney's 'private polls' had him ahead in 2012 so great investment they were. All the polls from New Hampshire today have Trump still ahead, I think he wins the state unless he has a disaster in tomorrow's debate. Bush and Christie will also be clashing with Rubio as much as Trump clashes with Cruz
Lots of NH pollsshowing Sanders' lead shrinking today from 30ish before the debate to 15ish now. So that national one showing him just behind Clinton seems likely to be a rogue, as we suspected.
As Mr Corbyn prepared to speak to the Association of Labour Councillors on Saturday, BBC Newsnight spoke to about a dozen Muslim women up and down the country.
They appeared to point to a pattern of obstruction from within Labour Muslim ranks and back up Muslim Women's Network UK complaints of sabotage.
Optician Fozia Parveen claims her efforts to become a Labour councillor in Birmingham in 2008 were scuppered by men within the party.
She said: "At the time, I was aware of a smear campaign against me, they said that I was having an affair with one of the existing councillors. I was quite taken aback. People were turning up at my family home trying to intimidate my mum."
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
The Corbyn to McDonnell swap is not an easy one. It requires a leadership contest, and McDonnell lacks Corbyns charm. He may well not get the nominations, and may well lose. Surely this is the obvious flaw in the plan? .
As Mr Corbyn prepared to speak to the Association of Labour Councillors on Saturday, BBC Newsnight spoke to about a dozen Muslim women up and down the country.
They appeared to point to a pattern of obstruction from within Labour Muslim ranks and back up Muslim Women's Network UK complaints of sabotage.
Optician Fozia Parveen claims her efforts to become a Labour councillor in Birmingham in 2008 were scuppered by men within the party.
She said: "At the time, I was aware of a smear campaign against me, they said that I was having an affair with one of the existing councillors. I was quite taken aback. People were turning up at my family home trying to intimidate my mum."
Lucky bastards. Imagine having to explain being a Labour councillor to your kids.
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
The Corbyn to McDonnell swap is not an easy one. It requires a leadership contest, and McDonnell lacks Corbyns charm. He may well not get the nominations, and may well lose. Surely this is the obvious flaw in the plan? .
I was surprised at just how good Mcdonnell was on Question Time, of course he got his unpleasant history with the IRA, but he handled himself fairly well. He had a lot of confidence and came across as credible.
Remain seem at least "half competent"? Interesting. In what way? Can you name one single dazzling performance by a Remain campaigner, one speech, one article, one solitary sentence which has demonstrably affected the public mood in favour of IN?
No. You can't. All we've seen is Stuart Rose mumbling and fumbling, Alan Johnson saying"we should listen to the prime minister because he's the prime minister," and that same prime minister bringing home a "whole new relationship with the EU" which turns out to be an extra go on the Berlaymont pooltable, every second Friday, if the French head home before 10pm.
Indeed, such is the brilliance of this fantastically competent Remain campaign, the PM's deal has driven LEAVE to its highest polling in many months.
I've Followed both Leave and Remain campaigns on Twitter and Leave (principally @LeaveEUOfficial) is putting out more stuff and much better stuff than anything that Remain (@StrongerIn) has come up with.
Remain isn't competent. It is, however, united.
That's interesting. Leaving aside the question of how effective a medium Twitter is for such things, it'd be good to know why their stuff is much better.
Remain is putting out tweets like this, from a few minutes ago:
It's a very questionable assertion and even if true, is both of minimal impact to most people and smacks of patronising attitude that EU Knows Best.
There are gay people who are anti-EU, for much the same reasons that heterosexuals are anti-EU. It would be hard to argue that leaving the EU would have any adverse impact on them, IMHO.
As Mr Corbyn prepared to speak to the Association of Labour Councillors on Saturday, BBC Newsnight spoke to about a dozen Muslim women up and down the country.
They appeared to point to a pattern of obstruction from within Labour Muslim ranks and back up Muslim Women's Network UK complaints of sabotage.
Optician Fozia Parveen claims her efforts to become a Labour councillor in Birmingham in 2008 were scuppered by men within the party.
She said: "At the time, I was aware of a smear campaign against me, they said that I was having an affair with one of the existing councillors. I was quite taken aback. People were turning up at my family home trying to intimidate my mum."
Lucky bastards. Imagine having to explain being a Labour councillor to your kids.
Lots of NH pollsshowing Sanders' lead shrinking today from 30ish before the debate to 15ish now. So that national one showing him just behind Clinton seems likely to be a rogue, as we suspected.
A Quinnipiac poll for the general election today had Clinton beating Trump and tieing Cruz but losing to Rubio while Sanders tied Rubio. If Rubio does somehow manage to win the GOP nomination Dems may feel they have nothing to lose and pick Sanders, especially as there are a rumoured few skeletons around the Florida Senator as yet unsubstantiated
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
The Corbyn to McDonnell swap is not an easy one. It requires a leadership contest, and McDonnell lacks Corbyns charm. He may well not get the nominations, and may well lose. Surely this is the obvious flaw in the plan? .
I was surprised at just how good Mcdonnell was on Question Time, of course he got his unpleasant history with the IRA, but he handled himself fairly well. He had a lot of confidence and came across as credible.
Well it's too subtle a dog whistle. It sounds more like 'you are on the same side as Peter Tatchell, aren't you?'
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
I know, but if I remember correctly, the Tory targeted ads on facebook were track to see what post people liked/followed the Tories, to help fill in the voter matrix.
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
Micro-targeting works when you're focusing on individual seats, but not when the country is one big constituency. That's when turning out your base is important.
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
The Corbyn to McDonnell swap is not an easy one. It requires a leadership contest, and McDonnell lacks Corbyns charm. He may well not get the nominations, and may well lose. Surely this is the obvious flaw in the plan? .
I was surprised at just how good Mcdonnell was on Question Time, of course he got his unpleasant history with the IRA, but he handled himself fairly well. He had a lot of confidence and came across as credible.
He isn't credible when you actually look at what he says/does
One reasonable QT performance does not make him an operator.
He would not stand up to scrutiny any more than Corbyn does
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
The Corbyn to McDonnell swap is not an easy one. It requires a leadership contest, and McDonnell lacks Corbyns charm. He may well not get the nominations, and may well lose. Surely this is the obvious flaw in the plan? .
I was surprised at just how good Mcdonnell was on Question Time, of course he got his unpleasant history with the IRA, but he handled himself fairly well. He had a lot of confidence and came across as credible.
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
The Corbyn to McDonnell swap is not an easy one. It requires a leadership contest, and McDonnell lacks Corbyns charm. He may well not get the nominations, and may well lose. Surely this is the obvious flaw in the plan? .
I was surprised at just how good Mcdonnell was on Question Time, of course he got his unpleasant history with the IRA, but he handled himself fairly well. He had a lot of confidence and came across as credible.
He is better presented than Corbyn, but lacks charm.
The selectorate is not as left wing as imagined - they did back David Miliband - and may well vote for someone else over McDonnell.
Unless I have missed it, I have not seen any comment today from the Labour leadership on Julian Assange. Could some kind person please ask Jeremy Corbyn or Diane Abbott which side they back -UN or the British government. The suspense is killing me.
Bigger than that. Lots of London graduates see their careers as depending on EU, whether that perception is true or not. Plus there are many with spouses and partners who are EU citizens.
There will also be a substantial number of people with ties/attachment to the 'home' country. having had family born in EU nations, spouses originating from there etc.
While that's so, there certainly are plenty of Leavers among older people who've come from the Continent.
Sky News understands the Government is trying to elicit the services of Lynton Crosby over worries that David Cameron's EU deal is being portrayed too negatively by the press.
What do they mean, "trying to elicit"? Have they forgotten his phone number? Or is the reporter not quite sure it is more than a rumour. This is what Crosby does for a living, it's not like he has a different day job.
Read the story. He has several times refused to help the campaign, beforehand (perhaps he can detect a losing hand).
It's also interesting that the government is said to be "very worried" by the polls.
I'm sure that is the case. REMAIN are doing their best to look calm and assured and confident on the surface, but they must be cacking themselves at the way it's going so far. This was meant to be another "unlosable" referendum, just like indyref.
Maybe Rupert's had a word in his shell-like and put him right?
Years of legal challenges in the case of a terrorist's daughter-in-law
Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law, who can only be identified by the initials CS, came to Britain from her native Morocco in 2003 the year after marrying the hate preacher’s son.
The Home Office, then under the tenure of Labour’s David Blunkett, granted her a visa on the basis of her marriage to Hamza’s son, a British citizen, who also cannot be named for legal reasons.
At the end of October the following year CS was granted indefinite leave to remain in this country - a decision rubber-stamped under Mr Blunkett’s successor Charles Clarke.
Within two years CS and Hamza’s son had divorced but they were later reconciled and re-married here and she fell pregnant.
It was the birth of that child – Abu Hamza’s grandson - which played a crucial role in CS’s fight to stay in Britain despite her later actions.
The child’s birth, registered in Hammersmith and Fulham borough in west London in July 2011, became the foundation of her claim to the European Court of Justice and yesterday’s outspoken developments on the floor of the House of Commons.
In December 2010, while newly pregnant, CS strolled into Belmarsh prison with a mobile phone ‘Sim’ cards hidden under her Islamic robes.
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
The Corbyn to McDonnell swap is not an easy one. It requires a leadership contest, and McDonnell lacks Corbyns charm. He may well not get the nominations, and may well lose. Surely this is the obvious flaw in the plan? .
I was surprised at just how good Mcdonnell was on Question Time, of course he got his unpleasant history with the IRA, but he handled himself fairly well. He had a lot of confidence and came across as credible.
He isn't credible when you actually look at what he says/does
One reasonable QT performance does not make him an operator.
He would not stand up to scrutiny any more than Corbyn does
quite so, there is no need to show up McDonnell for what he actually is.. yet.. His time will come, if elected to the leadership.. it will be just brutal, and so it should be.. .
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
The Corbyn to McDonnell swap is not an easy one. It requires a leadership contest, and McDonnell lacks Corbyns charm. He may well not get the nominations, and may well lose. Surely this is the obvious flaw in the plan? .
I was surprised at just how good Mcdonnell was on Question Time, of course he got his unpleasant history with the IRA, but he handled himself fairly well. He had a lot of confidence and came across as credible.
He is better presented than Corbyn, but lacks charm.
The selectorate is not as left wing as imagined - they did back David Miliband - and may well vote for someone else over McDonnell.
Different times, different rules.
The self-selecting three-quidders have changed the game massively. Yes, the membership also backed Corbyn but in any future election, a mainstream candidate will need well over 50% of the membership to overcome the three-quidder bias. And the membership has moved to the left since last summer, never mind 2010.
If the Government, or at least the Remainers are indeed "very worried" by the polls, might we reach a point where through fear of losing the referendum they might actually welcome the proposals being kicked into touch by the Mediterranean EU leaders, thereby saving Dave & Co. the embarrassment of losing the referendum ...... "sorry Guv'nor we did our best but those pesky foreigners just weren't having any of it"
The trouble is what happens then when we're facing a brick wall?
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
The Corbyn to McDonnell swap is not an easy one. It requires a leadership contest, and McDonnell lacks Corbyns charm. He may well not get the nominations, and may well lose. Surely this is the obvious flaw in the plan? .
I was surprised at just how good Mcdonnell was on Question Time, of course he got his unpleasant history with the IRA, but he handled himself fairly well. He had a lot of confidence and came across as credible.
He is better presented than Corbyn, but lacks charm.
The selectorate is not as left wing as imagined - they did back David Miliband - and may well vote for someone else over McDonnell.
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
The Corbyn to McDonnell swap is not an easy one. It requires a leadership contest, and McDonnell lacks Corbyns charm. He may well not get the nominations, and may well lose. Surely this is the obvious flaw in the plan? .
I was surprised at just how good Mcdonnell was on Question Time, of course he got his unpleasant history with the IRA, but he handled himself fairly well. He had a lot of confidence and came across as credible.
He is better presented than Corbyn, but lacks charm.
The selectorate is not as left wing as imagined - they did back David Miliband - and may well vote for someone else over McDonnell.
How would McDonnell get nominated?
I can't see it myself. Corbyn will continue as no chance of another hard leftie getting nominated.
McDonnell is like Corbyn, but with less charisma and broad appeal.
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
The Corbyn to McDonnell swap is not an easy one. It requires a leadership contest, and McDonnell lacks Corbyns charm. He may well not get the nominations, and may well lose. Surely this is the obvious flaw in the plan? .
I was surprised at just how good Mcdonnell was on Question Time, of course he got his unpleasant history with the IRA, but he handled himself fairly well. He had a lot of confidence and came across as credible.
He is better presented than Corbyn, but lacks charm.
The selectorate is not as left wing as imagined - they did back David Miliband - and may well vote for someone else over McDonnell.
Sky News understands the Government is trying to elicit the services of Lynton Crosby over worries that David Cameron's EU deal is being portrayed too negatively by the press.
What do they mean, "trying to elicit"? Have they forgotten his phone number? Or is the reporter not quite sure it is more than a rumour. This is what Crosby does for a living, it's not like he has a different day job.
Read the story. He has several times refused to help the campaign, beforehand (perhaps he can detect a losing hand).
It's also interesting that the government is said to be "very worried" by the polls.
I'm sure that is the case. REMAIN are doing their best to look calm and assured and confident on the surface, but they must be cacking themselves at the way it's going so far. This was meant to be another "unlosable" referendum, just like indyref.
Maybe Rupert's had a word in his shell-like and put him right?
Rupert will support Remain, in the end.
He wants to build Sky Europe: he has the UK, Italy and Germany. He wants to be able to buy Canal+ in France and Sogecable in Spain, without any pesky interference from the competition authorities,
It is therefore in his best interest to be as hostile as possible now, before reluctantly deciding (when the politicians fold to him) that Remain is the best option.
I think Rubio is going to win N.H barring an act of God. Which may happen if that snowstorm hits hard on pensioner turnout, for some reason his base of support are pensioners.
Hardly surprising, only the oldies still read newspapers or pay attention to the TV news where the ramping for the Flamingo Kid occurs.
More polls, looks like Rubio gets a small bump and Trump stays in the low thirties. Trump remains strong amongst independents but crucially 80% of his voters say they will definitely vote Trump, Rubio is much softer at sub 60%. Can't see anyone but Trump wining, post debate polls will be interesting.
The Labour Party were barking to elect Corbyn, to change to McDonnell is moving into straightjacket territory.. A more odious individual its barely possible to think of.
Sky News understands the Government is trying to elicit the services of Lynton Crosby over worries that David Cameron's EU deal is being portrayed too negatively by the press.
What do they mean, "trying to elicit"? Have they forgotten his phone number? Or is the reporter not quite sure it is more than a rumour. This is what Crosby does for a living, it's not like he has a different day job.
Read the story. He has several times refused to help the campaign, beforehand (perhaps he can detect a losing hand).
It's also interesting that the government is said to be "very worried" by the polls.
I'm sure that is the case. REMAIN are doing their best to look calm and assured and confident on the surface, but they must be cacking themselves at the way it's going so far. This was meant to be another "unlosable" referendum, just like indyref.
Maybe Rupert's had a word in his shell-like and put him right?
Rupert will support Remain, in the end.
He wants to build Sky Europe: he has the UK, Italy and Germany. He wants to be able to buy Canal+ in France and Sogecable in Spain, without any pesky interference from the competition authorities,
It is therefore in his best interest to be as hostile as possible now, before reluctantly deciding (when the politicians fold to him) that Remain is the best option. A huge number of Sun staffers are Eurosceptics. They will have a fit. I vaguely remember something happening the last time he made some Eruophile noises.
Lots of NH pollsshowing Sanders' lead shrinking today from 30ish before the debate to 15ish now. So that national one showing him just behind Clinton seems likely to be a rogue, as we suspected.
Lots of polls = zero in mumber
No N.H. poll has been published that was conducted after last nights debate.
If you count post Iowa polls , the only poll that has shown a Sanders lead of greater than 30 and now at 15 is the University of Massachusetts tracking poll. All the others show the Sanders lead either the same or increasing, although none have ever showed a Sanders lead of 30 before.
Comments
Even many people who agree that immigration is too high and who think the EU is a lot of nonsense, don't want to view themselves as stuffy old fogeys who blush at the sight of a woman's breast or who think the threat of Sodom and Gomorrah hangs over the world.
Controlling one's own laws, choosing ones own trading partners, not having foreign values imposed via the 'one size fits all' law-making system the EU uses, controlling our own farming and fisheries in such a way that doesn't strip our seas and see us having to destroy our own orchards, being able to set our own tax rates
Basically running our own country via elected representatives who we get to destroy every 5 years if they piss us off.
Online campaigning can work, but to do it properly costs money. Labour didn't realise this for GE2015 and thought their echo chambers on FB and twitter were a success right up to May 5.
And I was referring to SeanT's oft-made comments about the immigration crisis and its effect on the vote.
It also misses (or misleads on) the fundamental point that the referendum will not decide government policy other than on the specific question. We are having a referendum precisely in order to be able to determine policy *without* changing governments.
And it still sounds like 'If it wasn't for the nice EU looking after Britain, think of all the horrible things you'd do to yourself'.
Remain need to get their act together and talk turkey (not Turkey, obviously): jobs, travel, holiday homes - stuff people recognise.
Which countries trust their justice system?
@OECD chart https://t.co/LSYmTxjs2t
What is the percentage of "hard core" Remainers?
Not usually possible with Euro elections since the really obnoxious career ones are usually top of the party list and get in no matter what.
http://hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/John-McDonell-helping-Cage.jpg
Also, of all the f##k ups so far, McMao and his little red book is the most memorable. Remember last weekend, he even f##ked up his own tax return stunt. What makes anybody think he will be better than JJ, he is JJ but doesn't even come across as principled but deluded old man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings
If someone like a promoted facebook post on the economy, they were given tailored mailshots towards the economy, if they liked the post about education, their mailshots were primarily about education, so and so forth.
I think the same is happening here, building up a database.
And I agree with you on the worthlessness of party lists.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/how-the-tories-won
The kindle edition is £6.02 and well worth it
What do they mean, "trying to elicit"? Have they forgotten his phone number? Or is the reporter not quite sure it is more than a rumour. This is what Crosby does for a living, it's not like he has a different day job.
I'm watching a PBS docu on Putin and trying to get a feel for the other side.
It's also interesting that the government is said to be "very worried" by the polls.
I'm sure that is the case. REMAIN are doing their best to look calm and assured and confident on the surface, but they must be cacking themselves at the way it's going so far. This was meant to be another "unlosable" referendum, just like indyref.
I suspect his reputation cannot be enhanced, even if Remain wins.
Far better to viewed as the genius behind the Tory majority in 2015.
https://twitter.com/MeanwhileScotia/status/695691332204023808
Far better to viewed as the genius behind the Tory majority in 2015.
His bank balance can though....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell_(politician)
In about the only bit of good news I've had all week, my mother-in-law's now a Master of Fine Arts. Woohoo!
Far better to viewed as the genius behind the Tory majority in 2015.
We also don't know what else he's doing. There are a lot of elections on these next few months.
https://www.facebook.com/StrongerInCampaign/videos/vb.1014500498590274/1092255080814815/?type=2&theater
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35470281
Central (currently 6 Labour seats: 3 constituencies and 3 list seats
1. Richard Leonard
2. Monica Lennon
3. Mark Griffin MSP
4. Elaine Smith MSP
5. Craig Martin
6. Margaret Macculloch MSP
7. John Pentland MSP
8. LizAnne Handibode
9. Michael McMahon MSP
10. Siobhan McMahon MSP
11. Hugh Gaffney
12. Angela Feeney
Glasgow (currently 7 Labour seats, 4+3)
1. Anas Sarwar
2. Johann Lamont MSP
3. James Kelly MSP
4. Pauline McNeill
5. Bill Butler
6. Patricia Ferguson MSP
7. James Adams
8. Soryia Siddique
9. Paul Martin MSP
10. Samantha Ritchie
11. Danzala Malik MSP
12. Anne Mactaggart MSP
Highlands and Islands (currently 2 Lab seats)
1. Rhoda Grant MSP
2. David Stewart MSP
3. Leah Franchetti
4. Sean Morton
5. Sarah Atkin
6. John Erskine
7. Robina Barton
8. Gerry McGarvey
Lothian (currently 4 Lab seats, 1+3)
1. Kezia Dugdale MSP
2. Neil Findlay MSP
3. Sarah Boyack MSP
4. Daniel Johnson
5. Lesley Hinds
6. Jalal Chaudry
7. Cat Headley
8. Bernard Harkins
9. Eilidh MacDonald
10. Shami Khan
11. Ann Henderson
12. Richard Corral
Mid Scotland and Fife (in 2011 4 Labour seats, currently 5 after a by-election gain)
1. Alex Rowley MSP
2. Claire Baker MSP
3. Thomas Docherty
4. Cara Hilton MSP
5. Craig Miller
6. Johanna Boyd
7. Jamie Glackin
8. Jayne Baxter MSP
9. Jim Leishman
10. Lesley Laird
11. Altany Craik
12. Mary Lockhart
North East Scotland (currently 3 Lab seats)
1. Jenny Marra MSP
2. Lewis MacDonald MSP
3. Lesley Brennan MSP
4. Richard McCready
5. Sarah Duncan
6. Willie Young
7. Alison Evison
8. Frank Gilfeather
9. Joanne McFadden
10. Nathan Morrison
South Scotland (currently 4 Lab seats, 2+2)
1. Iain Gray MSP
2. Claudia Beamish MSP
3. Colin Smyth
4. Carol Mochan
5. Kenryck Lloyd-Jones
6. Fiona O’Donnell
7. Andrew Cochrane
8. Fiona Dugdale
West Scotland (currently 7 Lab seats, 4+3)
1. Jackie Baillie MSP
2. Neil Bibby MSP
3. Mary Fee MSP
4. Ken MacIntosh MSP
5. Johanna Baxter
6. Joe Cullinane
7. Siobhan McCready
8. Martin McCluskey
9. Moira Ramage
10. Mark McMillan
11. Gail Casey
12. Paul Sweeney
Next is South Carolina. I think Trump takes that, even if Rubio is surging.
Nevada probably falls to Rubio.
Then is Super Tuesday, Cruz should score several states, including Texas.
But after that it's really hard for him.
But if Rubio wins New Hampshire and Nevada, I must say he should be 75-80% for the Republican nomination.
EFTA/EEA doesn't scare the horses, saves money, and reduces interference from the ECJ. It doesn't require a wholesale renegotiation of trade deals. It means that firms - such as my own - with lots of EU clients will be largely unaffected.
What's not to like?
https://twitter.com/AriMelber/status/695691366479822848
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12143604/How-well-to-you-know-British-accents-Find-out-with-this-surprisingly-difficult-quiz.html
I think they are very different beasts. Corbyn, to give him the benefit of the doubt is misguided, but is well intentioned. I dont think he would ever swindle or intentionally harm anyone, however I also feel that it would be impossible to persuade him that a policy/position he advocates was in itself incredibly harmful. I get the impression he genuinely wants to bring about a better world. Of course his policies wouldnt do that, but that isnt the point. He has fallen into being the leader of a revolution, he hasnt sought it for its own sake.
Mcdonnell though is a different kettle of fish. There is a ruthless steel there that suggests he would do anything to bring about the changes he wishes to bring about, and he cares little about the harm it might do to those who get in the way. Most definite a post revolution soviet communist style, who would rather intern people in gulags and oppress than admit that his policies might be a failure. He will not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to achieve his aims.
Mcdonnell is a far more frightening prospect.
Looking at the lists, I would say
Macculloch
McMahon x 2
Pentland
Ferguson
Martin
Malik
McTaggart
Baxter
Hilton
A couple of others (Smith and Stewart) are at risk but with some hopes.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35504185
It probably isn't intentional, it is just because all the men and women are separated at the selection meetings, the people running it miss "the little ladies" packed in the sides and back of the room when they put their hands up.
German spy agency says Islamic State is sending fighters disguised as refugees: https://t.co/g7yvrBMyvc https://t.co/53M8HnyPtI
Muslim women 'stopped' from becoming Labour councillors
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35504185
I offer my services as scribe for the great AV thread if you are required to spend a little less time on the computer.
.
That Ken's hoping Jezza has a stroke is genuine concern for his wellbeing.
Seriously, what the Hell?!!
Moroccan woman with criminal record who can't be deported from UK because she is a mother is identified as Abu Hamza's daughter-in-law
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3433935/Moroccan-woman-criminal-record-t-deported-mother-Abu-Hamza-s-daughter-law.html
One reasonable QT performance does not make him an operator.
He would not stand up to scrutiny any more than Corbyn does
The selectorate is not as left wing as imagined - they did back David Miliband - and may well vote for someone else over McDonnell.
It's also interesting that the government is said to be "very worried" by the polls.
I'm sure that is the case. REMAIN are doing their best to look calm and assured and confident on the surface, but they must be cacking themselves at the way it's going so far. This was meant to be another "unlosable" referendum, just like indyref.
Maybe Rupert's had a word in his shell-like and put him right?
#BothVotesTory
Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law, who can only be identified by the initials CS, came to Britain from her native Morocco in 2003 the year after marrying the hate preacher’s son.
The Home Office, then under the tenure of Labour’s David Blunkett, granted her a visa on the basis of her marriage to Hamza’s son, a British citizen, who also cannot be named for legal reasons.
At the end of October the following year CS was granted indefinite leave to remain in this country - a decision rubber-stamped under Mr Blunkett’s successor Charles Clarke.
Within two years CS and Hamza’s son had divorced but they were later reconciled and re-married here and she fell pregnant.
It was the birth of that child – Abu Hamza’s grandson - which played a crucial role in CS’s fight to stay in Britain despite her later actions.
The child’s birth, registered in Hammersmith and Fulham borough in west London in July 2011, became the foundation of her claim to the European Court of Justice and yesterday’s outspoken developments on the floor of the House of Commons.
In December 2010, while newly pregnant, CS strolled into Belmarsh prison with a mobile phone ‘Sim’ cards hidden under her Islamic robes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12142702/Moroccan-criminal-fighting-deportation-is-Abu-Hamzas-daughter-in-law-a-Tory-MP-reveals.html
It goes on and on and on....
And such a lovely family too...
Four of Hamza’s sons, including his step-son, have been convicted of criminal offences ranging from plotting a terrorist campaign to fraud.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/641455/Colgone-sex-attacks-journalist-assault-live-TV-Esmeralda-Labye
"Erectile dysfunction? Vote Remain"
"What the Prime Minister offered to the House of Commons on Wednesday is so worthless that it is almost embarrassing to expend any ink on it. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12143491/I-feel-such-a-fool-for-giving-David-Cameron-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-on-his-EU-deal.html
The self-selecting three-quidders have changed the game massively. Yes, the membership also backed Corbyn but in any future election, a mainstream candidate will need well over 50% of the membership to overcome the three-quidder bias. And the membership has moved to the left since last summer, never mind 2010.
The trouble is what happens then when we're facing a brick wall?
You mean he combs his hair and doesn't wear beige jackets?
Rupert will support Remain, in the end.
He wants to build Sky Europe: he has the UK, Italy and Germany. He wants to be able to buy Canal+ in France and Sogecable in Spain, without any pesky interference from the competition authorities,
It is therefore in his best interest to be as hostile as possible now, before reluctantly deciding (when the politicians fold to him) that Remain is the best option.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-hampshire-presidential-republican-primary
More polls, looks like Rubio gets a small bump and Trump stays in the low thirties. Trump remains strong amongst independents but crucially 80% of his voters say they will definitely vote Trump, Rubio is much softer at sub 60%. Can't see anyone but Trump wining, post debate polls will be interesting.
Not that I do but asking for a friend.
He wants to build Sky Europe: he has the UK, Italy and Germany. He wants to be able to buy Canal+ in France and Sogecable in Spain, without any pesky interference from the competition authorities,
It is therefore in his best interest to be as hostile as possible now, before reluctantly deciding (when the politicians fold to him) that Remain is the best option.
A huge number of Sun staffers are Eurosceptics. They will have a fit. I vaguely remember something happening the last time he made some Eruophile noises.
No N.H. poll has been published that was conducted after last nights debate.
If you count post Iowa polls , the only poll that has shown a Sanders lead of greater than 30 and now at 15 is the University of Massachusetts tracking poll.
All the others show the Sanders lead either the same or increasing, although none have ever showed a Sanders lead of 30 before.