politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Professor Michael Thrasher introduces The Elections Centre

Polruan said:

Cyclefree said:

MP_SE said:

Labour are looking more and more like an anti-Semitic party:

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/707583610346446848

We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.

I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.

That is what is happening to the Labour party.

I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.

[Snipped]

bigjohnowls said:

SouthamObserver said:

Polruan said:

Cyclefree said:

MP_SE said:

Labour are looking more and more like an anti-Semitic party:

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/707583610346446848

We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.

I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.

That is what is happening to the Labour party.

I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.

I've not looked at this case, but on the face of it I can't see why the hierarchy haven't realised the need to appear tough and go for zero-tolerance. Whilst the constant "terrorist sympathiser" slurs are wearing to say the least, it's a lot easier to make the case for a vaguely grown up dialogue with one's enemies when one can also point to a record of dealing with those whose views really are beyond acceptable. Although with the constant fear-mongering witch-hunting "man who hated Britain" shit it's a bit hard to know which ones are the bad apples and which ones are raising reasonable points.

The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.

Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with.

Look who Blair surrounded himself with.

GW and Rupert!!

Richard_Nabavi said:

kle4 said:

It doesn't seem to annoy anyone in Scotland though, at least not in any way that will affect votes, so they can be as hypocritical as they like and not suffer any consequences.

Indeed: the more hypocritical and dishonest, the better.

bigjohnowls said:

SouthamObserver said:

Polruan said:

Cyclefree said:

MP_SE said:

Labour are looking more and more like an anti-Semitic party:

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/707583610346446848

We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.

I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.

That is what is happening to the Labour party.

I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.

I've not looked at this case, but on the face of it I can't see why the hierarchy haven't realised the need to appear tough and go for zero-tolerance. Whilst the constant "terrorist sympathiser" slurs are wearing to say the least, it's a lot easier to make the case for a vaguely grown up dialogue with one's enemies when one can also point to a record of dealing with those whose views really are beyond acceptable. Although with the constant fear-mongering witch-hunting "man who hated Britain" shit it's a bit hard to know which ones are the bad apples and which ones are raising reasonable points.

The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.

Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with. These are people with an active history of supporting terrorism. Corbyn himself refuses to share a platform with the PM during the referendum campaign. But look who has been happy to share platforms with in the past.

Sharing platforms with Tories works well.

Ask Scottish Lab.

Casino_Royale said:

Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?

I think the SNP would enjoy that.

(*could we?)

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?

I think the SNP would enjoy that.

(*could we?)

Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.

SouthamObserver said:

bigjohnowls said:

SouthamObserver said:

Polruan said:

Cyclefree said:

MP_SE said:

Labour are looking more and more like an anti-Semitic party:

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/707583610346446848

We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.

I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.

That is what is happening to the Labour party.

I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.

I've not looked at this case, but on the face of it I can't see why the hierarchy haven't realised the need to appear tough and go for zero-tolerance. Whilst the constant "terrorist sympathiser" slurs are wearing to say the least, it's a lot easier to make the case for a vaguely grown up dialogue with one's enemies when one can also point to a record of dealing with those whose views really are beyond acceptable. Although with the constant fear-mongering witch-hunting "man who hated Britain" shit it's a bit hard to know which ones are the bad apples and which ones are raising reasonable points.

The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.

Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with. These are people with an active history of supporting terrorism. Corbyn himself refuses to share a platform with the PM during the referendum campaign. But look who has been happy to share platforms with in the past.

Sharing platforms with Tories works well.

Ask Scottish Lab.

Far better to share platforms with people who advocate and celebrate the killing of British soldiers, as well as with religious bigots who believe in the death penalty for homosexuals and the subjugation of women. That's much more progressive and hugely popular among voters.

Polruan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Polruan said:

Cyclefree said:

MP_SE said:

Labour are looking more and more like an anti-Semitic party:

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/707583610346446848

We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.

I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.

That is what is happening to the Labour party.

I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.

The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.

Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with. These are people with an active history of supporting terrorism. Corbyn himself refuses to share a platform with the PM during the referendum campaign. But look who has been happy to share platforms with in the past.

Come on, you're knowingly comparing (bad) apples with oranges there. To say that (e.g.) Corbyn would be willing to share a platform with Hamas but not an Israeli PM would be a fair and damning critique of his views on terror (I've no idea, btw, if this has or has not happened). To compare his behaviour in a specific political campaign which is driven by the electoral needs of his party and the Scottish experience in particular with his behaviour in totally different contexts kind of spills over into irrational hatred.

bigjohnowls said:

SouthamObserver said:

bigjohnowls said:

SouthamObserver said:

Polruan said:

Cyclefree said:

MP_SE said:

Labour are looking more and more like an anti-Semitic party:

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/707583610346446848

We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.

I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.

That is what is happening to the Labour party.

I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.

The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.

Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with. These are people with an active history of supporting terrorism. Corbyn himself refuses to share a platform with the PM during the referendum campaign. But look who has been happy to share platforms with in the past.

Sharing platforms with Tories works well.

Ask Scottish Lab.

Far better to share platforms with people who advocate and celebrate the killing of British soldiers, as well as with religious bigots who believe in the death penalty for homosexuals and the subjugation of women. That's much more progressive and hugely popular among voters.

You always equate sharing platforms with agreeing with though and you would prefer a Tory Government to a Labour one so you should be happy.

Blair ain't coming back

SouthamObserver said:

I look at Jezza in the round. Who he appoints, who he lets into the Labour party, who he will share platforms with and who he will not, the views he espouses. On that basis, the fact he is the leader of the party does sicken me, I admit.

bigjohnowls said:

Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?

SeanT said:

The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.

There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.

SeanT said:

Casino_Royale said:

SeanT said:

@britainelects 27m27 minutes ago
EU referendum poll:
Remain: 40% (-1)
Leave: 41% (-)
(via ICM / 04 - 06 Mar)


Bum. Squeak. Number 10.

It is a little bit reassuring. Some welcome good news.

I'm hoping the moral fibre of the British people remains intact, and that they won't be "scared" into backing Remain by the combined forces of the establishment juggernaut.

I told you to calm down! This referendum is going to be CLOSE. You have a good chance of winning. About 25-40% I'd say. And given the crapness of your campaign and the lying and bullying of the entire Establishment, all set against you, that is SOMETHING.

Night night from Bhutan.

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

It annoys English Tories.

More that it annoys fair-minded people. After all, there isn't anyone on this earth who honestly thinks it's reasonable for Scottish MPs to veto a 100% English-only measure, even more so when what they were torpedoing applies in Scotland!

Scott_P said:

@RuthDavidsonMSP: Odd. In 5 years at Holyrood, I must have missed all those calls from @scottishlabour to restrict Sunday retail hours https://t.co/7xM2vK5uSu

viewcode said:

SeanT said:

The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.

There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.

I want to coin the phrase "pretendence" to describe this phenomenon: to pay lip service to the concept of independence whilst scrupulously avoiding the steps necessary to achieve it.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?

I think the SNP would enjoy that.

(*could we?)

Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?

I think the SNP would enjoy that.

(*could we?)

Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.

Indeed, Westminster should follow the SNP's logic and reclaim this as a central reserved issue and let the Westminster Parliament pass one law that applies to the whole UK.

flightpath01 said:

scotslass said:

Watching the Commons and seeing the Tory Party getting stuck into their Government AGAIN. Scot P should demand a paid break from his work at the Tory research Department (where he is forced to work Sunday's) and accept that the NATS have called it right again.

Osbourne's shilling was a PC ship for the NATS Deputy Leader. Rightly they turned it down and turned on the Government instead!

Englands Sunday trading has nothing to do with Scotland where Sunday trading is endemic .

''The Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 (c 18) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The aim of the Act was to close an anomaly in employment law in the United Kingdom, whereby shopworkers in England and Wales had the legal right to refuse to work on a Sunday, when shopworkers in Scotland did not enjoy this right.
The anomaly arose from the different legislation in force in Scotland and the rest of the UK regarding Sunday trading. In Scotland, there was never any legislation preventing Sunday trading, and shops could choose their own opening hours.''
(wiki)

SouthamObserver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?

The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?

viewcode said:

SeanT said:

The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.

There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.

I want to coin the phrase "pretendence" to describe this phenomenon: to pay lip service to the concept of independence whilst scrupulously avoiding the steps necessary to achieve it.

bigjohnowls said:

Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?

SeanT said:

flightpath01 said:

SeanT said:

Scott_P said:

@DAaronovitch: The very arguments that the SNP use to justify opposing English Sunday trading are the ones that render independence a fantasy. Or Brexit.

The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.

There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.

What has English Sunday trading got to do with Scotland. How does getting into that 'benefit' Scotland?

It doesn't. It benefits the SNP, which to SNPers is the same thing

I repeat my anecdote from last week, when I flew out to Asia from LHR T5. I shared the Fast Lane and the BA Business Class lounge with a very prominent Scot Nat MP in Westminster. He was knocking back the free champagne and looking very pleased with himself. As well he might, on a fine MP's wage plus vast expenses plus travel perks plus the chance to live in maybe the greatest city in the world, London, rather than (sorry) cold provincial Edinburgh, which is a classy and truly handsome city, but it sure ain't London.

How many SNP MPs heads will be turned by the attractions of the English capital, and the juicy advantages of living at its heart? I reckon many will go native, and start to question the virtues of TRUE independence. Instead they will want the best of both worlds. Close to what they have now.

tlg86 said:

OllyT said:

tlg86 said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@JWoodcockMP · 1h1 hour ago  London, England

My open letter to @jeremycorbyn asking him to take action to reverse decision to allow 9/11 apologist to join Labour

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdHcdSHWAAAF4XZ.jpg

It's astonishingly blunt for a Labour MP to send such an open letter to his leader.

It's a political suicide note. Corbyn is frequently slurred as an apologist for terrorists, so this open letter must close Woodcock's career in Corbyn's Labour.

At what point do moderates in Labour say "enough is enough". If they can't get their party back, when do they leave and form their own?

Can you imagine what would be happening if the Tory leadership had been taken over by the BNP?

Labour won't split. The moderates will bide their time and wait till the corbynistas have had a couple of drubbings at the polls. At the moment they can just sit back and enjoy watching the Tories fighting each other like ferrets in a sack over the EU.

So let's say Corbyn leaves in a couple of years' time. Do you honestly think the Tories won't keep reminding the country that sensible Labour tolerated terrorist sympathizing anti semites for such a long period of time?

malcolmg said:

jayfdee said:

viewcode said:

SeanT said:

The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.

There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.

I want to coin the phrase "pretendence" to describe this phenomenon: to pay lip service to the concept of independence whilst scrupulously avoiding the steps necessary to achieve it.

Pretendence,like.

A lot of Little Englander whining tonight over UK MP's voting in the UK parliament. Babies , blubber , sore losers , etc come to mind

malcolmg said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?

I think the SNP would enjoy that.

(*could we?)

Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.

You really are a dunderheid . The Tories had the choice to protect Scottish workers and get their vote through but chose to be destructive and petty as ever. Got it right up them.

Pulpstar said:

Jezza Corbyn will never ever ever get the opportunity to inflict as much damage as Blair did to our country.

Thankfully.

JackW said:

Pulpstar said:

JackW said:

National NBC/WSJ :

Clinton 51 .. Trump 38
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45
Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46

.........................................

North Carolina SUSA :

Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11

Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34

.............................................

Florida CNN/ORC

Clinton 50 .. Trump 43
Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47
Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48

................................................

Via RCP.

The GOP should choose Cruz for the sake of the party and my book.

They won't.

Horrible numbers for Trump. Too late now.

SquareRoot said:

Pulpstar said:

Jezza Corbyn will never ever ever get the opportunity to inflict as much damage as Blair did to our country.

Thankfully.

I just listened to PMQ's.. Corbyn was embarrassingly poor, almost as though he wasn't interested.. but of course he is, he just portrays himself as weak and ineffective.. HM Opposition should be better than this. Dave is on easy street.

williamglenn said:

JackW said:

Pulpstar said:

JackW said:

National NBC/WSJ :

Clinton 51 .. Trump 38
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45
Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46

.........................................

North Carolina SUSA :

Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11

Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34

.............................................

Florida CNN/ORC

Clinton 50 .. Trump 43
Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47
Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48

................................................

Via RCP.

The GOP should choose Cruz for the sake of the party and my book.

They won't.

Horrible numbers for Trump. Too late now.

Those numbers don't tell the whole story. This is the position after months of everyone being told that reasonable people ought to think that Trump is the next Hitler and must be stopped at all costs. In that context those numbers are amazingly good for Trump. He has a long time to correct that perception and has the communication skills to do it.

JackW said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JackW said:

National NBC/WSJ :

Clinton 51 .. Trump 38
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45
Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46

.........................................

North Carolina SUSA :

Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11

Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34

.............................................

Florida CNN/ORC

Clinton 50 .. Trump 43
Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47
Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48

................................................

Via RCP.

Landslide territory for HRC vs Trump?

Indeed. A repeat of those numbers in November and Trump will likely pull down the house with him.

jayfdee said:

SquareRoot said:

Pulpstar said:

Jezza Corbyn will never ever ever get the opportunity to inflict as much damage as Blair did to our country.

Thankfully.

I just listened to PMQ's.. Corbyn was embarrassingly poor, almost as though he wasn't interested.. but of course he is, he just portrays himself as weak and ineffective.. HM Opposition should be better than this. Dave is on easy street.

Yes, agree, I watched PMQ's and Dave as usual nowadays, had an easy ride. I think JC regards it as a weekly chore, and pays little attention to its value, he may be right.

flightpath01 said:

malcolmg said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?

I think the SNP would enjoy that.

(*could we?)

Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.

You really are a dunderheid . The Tories had the choice to protect Scottish workers and get their vote through but chose to be destructive and petty as ever. Got it right up them.

In what way is protecting devolved Scottish workers an issue for English MPs?

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JackW said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JackW said:

National NBC/WSJ :

Clinton 51 .. Trump 38
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45
Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46

.........................................

North Carolina SUSA :

Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11

Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34

.............................................

Florida CNN/ORC

Clinton 50 .. Trump 43
Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47
Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48

................................................

Via RCP.

Landslide territory for HRC vs Trump?

Indeed. A repeat of those numbers in November and Trump will likely pull down the house with him.

Senate too?

A Dem President, The House and Senate too.

Trump really is a secret Dem.

I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%

Says it all

If you believe these polling figures. How reliable are polls at this stage during the primary season?

Polruan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Polruan said:

SouthamObserver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?

The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?

That's a bit of a leap, you don't even need to look beyond the PLP to see plenty of Labour members Corbyn doesn't agree with.

There's not agreeing and there's not agreeing. Should a Labour leader not worry about anti-semites being allowed to join the party? Shouldn't he do all he can to prevent it happening and to speak out clearly in opposition if he cannot prevent it?

Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racist members as a priority over all other initiatives that might make the party electable would be a correct allocation of resources. Sounds a bit like ideological purity over pragmatism to me. Should they speak out against all racist views? Yeah, definitely.

Philip_Thompson said:

flightpath01 said:

malcolmg said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?

I think the SNP would enjoy that.

(*could we?)

Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.

You really are a dunderheid . The Tories had the choice to protect Scottish workers and get their vote through but chose to be destructive and petty as ever. Got it right up them.

In what way is protecting devolved Scottish workers an issue for English MPs?

It's not, malcomg is spinning faster than my Tumble Drier.

flightpath01 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Arsenal fans? Racist? Say it ain't so.

ARSENAL fans appear to have been caught on camera singing sick anti-semitic songs on the London underground.

Footage has emerged of the group, who are wearing Arsenal scarves, chanting: "I've got foreskin, how about you? F***ing Jew."

The football supporters are believed to be travelling to White Hart Lane for Saturday's North London derby, which ended in a thrilling 2-2 draw.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/6986786/Fing-Jew-Footage-appears-to-show-Arsenal-fans-chanting-vile-anti-semitic-songs-on-London-Underground.html?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-TheSunNewspaper-_-20160309-_-Sport-_-390299315-_-Imageandlink

Pretty appalling. Why were they not arrested on the spot. Sad to think it will only cost them £30 do demonstrate they are knob ends next season.

justin124 said:

This is wishful thinking and largely bonkers. Labour would not meekly allow legislation to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be rushed through for Tory Party advantage. In the unlikely event of the Government trying to go down that road the relevant Bill would be subject to the normal Parliamentary stages. I think it unlikely that a Government so obviously seeking to play 'fast & loose' with the Constitution for potential electoral gain in such a way would impress the electorate.It will not happen.

Polruan said:

justin124 said:

This is wishful thinking and largely bonkers. Labour would not meekly allow legislation to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be rushed through for Tory Party advantage. In the unlikely event of the Government trying to go down that road the relevant Bill would be subject to the normal Parliamentary stages. I think it unlikely that a Government so obviously seeking to play 'fast & loose' with the Constitution for potential electoral gain in such a way would impress the electorate.It will not happen.

Not sure. A lot of Labour people (not unreasonably) hold the view that the FTPA was rushed through for Tory party advantage and would welcome its repeal. And considerations of playing fast and loose with the constitution being an electoral risk really don't seem to have bothered the Tories recently with various other legislative priorities they've pursued. To be fair, the electorate doesn't really seem to care so they've called that one right.

SouthamObserver said:

Polruan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Polruan said:

SouthamObserver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?

The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?

That's a bit of a leap, you don't even need to look beyond the PLP to see plenty of Labour members Corbyn doesn't agree with.

There's not agreeing and there's not agreeing. Should a Labour leader not worry about anti-semites being allowed to join the party? Shouldn't he do all he can to prevent it happening and to speak out clearly in opposition if he cannot prevent it?

Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racist members as a priority over all other initiatives that might make the party electable would be a correct allocation of resources. Sounds a bit like ideological purity over pragmatism to me. Should they speak out against all racist views? Yeah, definitely.

Well, it seems that's where you and I differ. An anti-semitic apologist for 9/11 has been allowed to join the Labour party. My view is the party's leader has a responsibility to do all he can to see that decision is reversed. But I guess that's why Labour has lost my vote.

Alanbrooke said:

Polruan said:

justin124 said:

This is wishful thinking and largely bonkers. Labour would not meekly allow legislation to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be rushed through for Tory Party advantage. In the unlikely event of the Government trying to go down that road the relevant Bill would be subject to the normal Parliamentary stages. I think it unlikely that a Government so obviously seeking to play 'fast & loose' with the Constitution for potential electoral gain in such a way would impress the electorate.It will not happen.

Not sure. A lot of Labour people (not unreasonably) hold the view that the FTPA was rushed through for Tory party advantage and would welcome its repeal. And considerations of playing fast and loose with the constitution being an electoral risk really don't seem to have bothered the Tories recently with various other legislative priorities they've pursued. To be fair, the electorate doesn't really seem to care so they've called that one right.

Bollocks if Labour were in the place where a bit of dicking about with the consititution gave them a short term advantage they'd go for it like a shot

see 1997-2010

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%

That's only half the picture, though.

Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.

IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Sean_F said:

The ICM poll should be a reality check for Remain. High-fiving each other about the brilliance of their campaign, and the ineptitude of Leave is no substitute for actually persuading the voters.