It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
You're over-reacting.
There was one very unpleasant individual who abused his position. He's been banned for life from the party.
There was one man who demonstrated poor judgement in allowing him back into the fold after he had been cast out the first time. That individual has now been resigned.
Is there anyone else who you think is dark and disturbing?
Or would you prefer a party that tolerates someone who behaves inappropriately towards junior (female) colleagues and then promotes him to a very senior post? Or a party that tolerates anti-semitism? Or a party that wants to 'make white folks angry'?
Rennard resigned recently at the request of Tim Farron.
Yes, he did. But only after a few days of bad press. And he was elected to the federal executive only a few days before he was forced to quit.
Basically, the LibDems were happy to whitewash him, promote him and cast him overboard when the going got too hot. In the Tory case it appears that Shapps made a poor decision - no one questioned it - pressure mounted inside the party and from the media and he was ultimately cast out.
So the only fundamental difference is that it was poor judgement from one individual/lack of oversight vs a poor decision by a wider group within the LD party (the federal executive electorate)
The better parallel is to Feldman, who just like Rennard is being protected because a powerful force within the party favours him
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
USA wants it.
Bollocks.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
Bollocks right back to you. Anyone who fails to appreciate the control the US exerts over national and supranational organisations within its sphere is being startlingly naive.
No wonder you lap up Alex Jones.
I know who Alex Jones is - he just seems like a bigmouth to me. I can count the times I've visited his site on the fingers of one hand; I never read him and I never quote him. Seems like you're a bigger fan than me.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
PB comments is not all that politically diverse I would guess 85 per cent of political posts stretch from Lib Dem supporters of the former coalition to Conservative supporters of the former coalition 15 per cent in the Lab/SNP/Kip wilderness
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame
I thought he was ok - not one of my finer moments. I may have more of a contrarian spark than I imagined.
I'm not sure if the poster "pong" is around but I'd like to accept his offer of backing ukip to increase their GE score of 20.9% in Oldham. Perhaps you'd like to offer me odds then I'll place my bet.
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
You're over-reacting.
There was one very unpleasant individual who abused his position. He's been banned for life from the party.
There was one man who demonstrated poor judgement in allowing him back into the fold after he had been cast out the first time. That individual has now been resigned.
Is there anyone else who you think is dark and disturbing?
Or would you prefer a party that tolerates someone who behaves inappropriately towards junior (female) colleagues and then promotes him to a very senior post? Or a party that tolerates anti-semitism? Or a party that wants to 'make white folks angry'?
Rennard resigned recently at the request of Tim Farron.
Yes, he did. But only after a few days of bad press. And he was elected to the federal executive only a few days before he was forced to quit.
Basically, the LibDems were happy to whitewash him, promote him and cast him overboard when the going got too hot. In the Tory case it appears that Shapps made a poor decision - no one questioned it - pressure mounted inside the party and from the media and he was ultimately cast out.
So the only fundamental difference is that it was poor judgement from one individual/lack of oversight vs a poor decision by a wider group within the LD party (the federal executive electorate)
The better parallel is to Feldman, who just like Rennard is being protected because a powerful force within the party favours him
I haven't followed the detail of this case, but I thought Feldman stands accused of not following up on complaints rather than being accused of groping women who were junior to him in the organisation (thereby abusing his position as well behaving inappropriately)
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
PB comments is not all that politically diverse I would guess 85 per cent of political posts stretch from Lib Dem supporters of the former coalition to Conservative supporters of the former coalition 15 per cent in the Lab/SNP/Kip wilderness
Nah - especially not during election campaigns. I was sick to death of hearing of the Labour ground game in April May. We were flooded with ebullient Labour activists.
More likely a bit like accusations of BBC bias - if they're getting flak from left and right, from pro-Israeli factions and pro-Palestinian factions, etc, they're probably pretty much unbiased.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
USA wants it.
Bollocks.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
Bollocks right back to you. Anyone who fails to appreciate the control the US exerts over national and supranational organisations within its sphere is being startlingly naive.
Here's 'Geostrategy for Eurasia' on the topic:
'America should use its influence in Europe to encourage Turkey's eventual admission to the EU, and make a point of tre-ating Turkey as a European state, provided internal Turkish politics do not take a dramatically Islamist turn. Regular consultations with Ankara regarding the future of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia would foster Turkey's sense of strategic partnership with the United States. America should also support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Ceyhan on its own Mediterranean coast serve as a major outlet for the Caspian sea basin energy reserves.'
You mean 'Geostrategy for Eurasia', by Zbigniew Brzezinski? Written in 1997, sixteen years after he stopped being National Security Adviser?
Since when has that been official or even unofficial US policy?
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Speak as you find, Miss, see also confirmation bias.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
USA wants it.
Bollocks.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
Bollocks right back to you. Anyone who fails to appreciate the control the US exerts over national and supranational organisations within its sphere is being startlingly naive.
I suspect I'm rather better informed that you.
But enjoy yourself.
Your complete lack of awareness about how ripe for parody your posts often are is almost touching.
I prefer to make my case rather than boast about my own superiority, in which spirit here's my later edit again:
'America should use its influence in Europe to encourage Turkey's eventual admission to the EU, and make a point of tre-ating Turkey as a European state, provided internal Turkish politics do not take a dramatically Islamist turn. Regular consultations with Ankara regarding the future of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia would foster Turkey's sense of strategic partnership with the United States. America should also support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Ceyhan on its own Mediterranean coast serve as a major outlet for the Caspian sea basin energy reserves.' http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1254548/posts
Incidentally, and I suspect this is something that Mr TSE can associate with, I'm still finding it really quite novel that my political views and positions tend to be the ones in line with public opinion.
I'm 28, and it hasn't been like this since the early nineties. When I was an infant. (Yes, I did support the blues at that age - I'm told that I called the CofE Norman Blancmange.)
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
You're over-reacting.
There was one very unpleasant individual who abused his position. He's been banned for life from the party.
There was one man who demonstrated poor judgement in allowing him back into the fold after he had been cast out the first time. That individual has now been resigned.
Is there anyone else who you think is dark and disturbing?
Or would you prefer a party that tolerates someone who behaves inappropriately towards junior (female) colleagues and then promotes him to a very senior post? Or a party that tolerates anti-semitism? Or a party that wants to 'make white folks angry'?
Rennard resigned recently at the request of Tim Farron.
Yes, he did. But only after a few days of bad press. And he was elected to the federal executive only a few days before he was forced to quit.
Basically, the LibDems were happy to whitewash him, promote him and cast him overboard when the going got too hot. In the Tory case it appears that Shapps made a poor decision - no one questioned it - pressure mounted inside the party and from the media and he was ultimately cast out.
So the only fundamental difference is that it was poor judgement from one individual/lack of oversight vs a poor decision by a wider group within the LD party (the federal executive electorate)
The better parallel is to Feldman, who just like Rennard is being protected because a powerful force within the party favours him
I haven't followed the detail of this case, but I thought Feldman stands accused of not following up on complaints rather than being accused of groping women who were junior to him in the organisation (thereby abusing his position as well behaving inappropriately)
It is clear misrepresentation to say that I drew a parallel to their behaviours - I drew a parallel to the behaviours of others in protecting them
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
You're over-reacting.
There was one very unpleasant individual who abused his position. He's been banned for life from the party.
There was one man who demonstrated poor judgement in allowing him back into the fold after he had been cast out the first time. That individual has now been resigned.
Is there anyone else who you think is dark and disturbing?
Or would you prefer a party that tolerates someone who behaves inappropriately towards junior (female) colleagues and then promotes him to a very senior post? Or a party that tolerates anti-semitism? Or a party that wants to 'make white folks angry'?
Rennard resigned recently at the request of Tim Farron.
Yes, he did. But only after a few days of bad press. And he was elected to the federal executive only a few days before he was forced to quit.
Basically, the LibDems were happy to whitewash him, promote him and cast him overboard when the going got too hot. In the Tory case it appears that Shapps made a poor decision - no one questioned it - pressure mounted inside the party and from the media and he was ultimately cast out.
So the only fundamental difference is that it was poor judgement from one individual/lack of oversight vs a poor decision by a wider group within the LD party (the federal executive electorate)
The enquiry into Rennads behaviour did criticise him but did not find enough evidence to make a case stick. It was foolish for the LD Lords to stick by him, but he is gone now albeit in a fairly messy way.
Schapps cannot have been the only one aware of what was going on these roadtrips. There is something quite rotton in the state of Denmark. It is almost like FCS in the eighties, a group so bonkers that even Tebbit insisted on it being disbanded.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
Or, and you have to admit this is a possibility, just as I will freely admit that there PB may lean right at the moment, it could be that no-one to the left of TB will take power in the UK in the current climate.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
USA wants it.
Bollocks.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
Bollocks right back to you. Anyone who fails to appreciate the control the US exerts over national and supranational organisations within its sphere is being startlingly naive.
Here's 'Geostrategy for Eurasia' on the topic:
'America should use its influence in Europe to encourage Turkey's eventual admission to the EU, and make a point of tre-ating Turkey as a European state, provided internal Turkish politics do not take a dramatically Islamist turn. Regular consultations with Ankara regarding the future of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia would foster Turkey's sense of strategic partnership with the United States. America should also support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Ceyhan on its own Mediterranean coast serve as a major outlet for the Caspian sea basin energy reserves.'
You mean 'Geostrategy for Eurasia', by Zbigniew Brzezinski? Written in 1997, sixteen years after he stopped being National Security Adviser?
Since when has that been official or even unofficial US policy?
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Speak as you find, Miss, see also confirmation bias.
I don't agree. There are other PBers that don't think my observations are unreasonable.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
USA wants it.
Bollocks.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
Bollocks right back to you. Anyone who fails to appreciate the control the US exerts over national and supranational organisations within its sphere is being startlingly naive.
I suspect I'm rather better informed that you.
But enjoy yourself.
Your complete lack of awareness about how ripe for parody your posts often are is almost touching.
As the resident Tin foil hatter, that is a bit rich.....
Incidentally, and I suspect this is something that Mr TSE can associate with, I'm still finding it really quite novel that my political views and positions tend to be the ones in line with public opinion.
I'm 28, and it hasn't been like this since the early nineties. When I was an infant. (Yes, I did support the blues at that age - I'm told that I called the CofE Norman Blancmange.)
Again, PB may be ever so slightly distorting that impression It's the Cameron v Corbyn show for the majority of people, not ASI v NHS
You just have to be persistent - this government and its party will certainly provide plenty of reasons to criticize.
You could count the Cameron and Osborne fans on one hand at times during the last parliament. The surprise GE win and dearth of credible Labour opposition has upset the natural order is all.
We've even heard the Tories won't be torn to pieces like they once would have feared over the EU referendum, but I find that hard to believe - they'll be blood on the floor from an online Tory war then I feel, and you can bet the non-Cameroons will be out in force then criticising the party's direction and leadership.
Agreed. I think the surprise GE result has really changed things. I was on PB during the GE, and although there were always more right-wing voices than left-wing (or centrist) ones, I didn't get the feeling people were constantly predisposed to defend Cameron and Osborne, no matter what.
With O of it.
Why do say that about Corbyn? While I don't think Corbyn comes across as unpleasant, he has no leadership skills at all, and does not look like a statesmen.
Purely in the sense he has no or few friends among political pundits, and is reliant on the support of party members to keep him going. If the economy goes south, Osborne has no love from the pundits either I suspect, so would be reliant on party members to maintain his leadership bid and power, although in his case it would be MPs more than rank and file.
Oh, okay. For some reason I thought you were comparing Corbyn to Cameron for some reason!
Incidentally, and I suspect this is something that Mr TSE can associate with, I'm still finding it really quite novel that my political views and positions tend to be the ones in line with public opinion.
I'm 28, and it hasn't been like this since the early nineties. When I was an infant. (Yes, I did support the blues at that age - I'm told that I called the CofE Norman Blancmange.)
Again, PB may be ever so slightly distorting that impression It's the Cameron v Corbyn show for the majority of people, not ASI v NHS
Sorry - I should have clarified - I meant in the real-world. PB is a bit of fun when I have my nerdy hat on. I spend a lot of time on public transport and about 5 days a month at trade fairs where I chat to hundreds of people. Amazing how many centre-right norms I overhear, and how many shy Tories have 'come out' to me recently.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
USA wants it.
Bollocks.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
Bollocks right back to you. Anyone who fails to appreciate the control the US exerts over national and supranational organisations within its sphere is being startlingly naive.
No wonder you lap up Alex Jones.
I know who Alex Jones is - he just seems like a bigmouth to me. I can count the times I've visited his site on the fingers of one hand; I never read him and I never quote him. Seems like you're a bigger fan than me.
Only because I like to have a good laugh at his adherents. It's a seriously enjoyable way to spend an occasional half hour, which is probably an order of magnitude more time than Jones' adherents spend outside their tinfoil hats.
Given what you say above, it's odd that the link you provide to 'prove' some godawful point is from PrisonPlanet, his website which is well known to be filled to the brim by hilariously awful conspiracy theories.
You could have made a point about IHH's controversies by just going to Wiki. The Israeli's certainly don't like them.
But no, the Wiki article was too balanced for you ...
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
There was a PB poll of political parties a couple of years back. Apart from a slight excess of LDs there was a pretty close to national figures. We seem to have a pretty good geographic spread too.
But everyone defines other political views relative to their own sensible position. Communists are the sensible middle ground between the extremes of bourgouis democracy and anarcho-syndaclism for example...
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
Or, and you have to admit this is a possibility, just as I will freely admit that there PB may lean right at the moment, it could be that no-one to the left of TB will take power in the UK in the current climate.
Mind-blowing isn't it....
I don't really agree with you on that. For a start, Blair is far more right-wing now, then when he was elected in 1997. Secondly, the public have't really had a candidate to the left of Blair on offer who is actually electable. Miliband was far more left-wing than Blair, even more left wing than Brown. Corbyn is a whole new kind of left wing.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
There was a PB poll of political parties a couple of years back. Apart from a slight excess of LDs there was a pretty close to national figures. We seem to have a pretty good geographic spread too.
But everyone defines other political views relative to their own sensible position. Communists are the sensible middle ground between the extremes of bourgouis democracy and anarcho-syndaclism for example...
As Mr Smithson will note, the vast majority of PB readers do not look at the comments I think a poll of the comments would be about 55 C, 15 L, 10 LD, 5 Ukip, 5 SNP
As a translator I'm starting to see the phrase "Imports from a Member State, a signatory to the EEA agreement, or Turkey" here and there in official documents.
Surely that is simply because Turkey is already in a customs union with the EU?
I'm not sure if the poster "pong" is around but I'd like to accept his offer of backing ukip to increase their GE score of 20.9% in Oldham. Perhaps you'd like to offer me odds then I'll place my bet.
Hey
No bet on the voteshare %.
As I clearly posted at the time, my bet offer was in response to this statement you made a few days ago;
"Oldham is evidence that despite the media hatchet job, lack of funds, falling membership and Nigel's resignation story support for UKIP is solid and growing."
I suggested a bet on whether or not UKIP will get more than the 8892 votes they got in the constituency, back in May. If they do improve on their raw vote numbers, that would constitute, for me, evidence that UKIP is "strong and growing."
That was the basis of the bet.
I'll offer reasonable odds on that bet, if you're game?
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
USA wants it.
Bollocks.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
Bollocks right back to you. Anyone who fails to appreciate the control the US exerts over national and supranational organisations within its sphere is being startlingly naive.
Here's 'Geostrategy for Eurasia' on the topic:
'America should use its influence in Europe to encourage Turkey's eventual admission to the EU, and make a point of tre-ating Turkey as a European state, provided internal Turkish politics do not take a dramatically Islamist turn. Regular consultations with Ankara regarding the future of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia would foster Turkey's sense of strategic partnership with the United States. America should also support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Ceyhan on its own Mediterranean coast serve as a major outlet for the Caspian sea basin energy reserves.'
You mean 'Geostrategy for Eurasia', by Zbigniew Brzezinski? Written in 1997, sixteen years after he stopped being National Security Adviser?
Since when has that been official or even unofficial US policy?
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
There was a PB poll of political parties a couple of years back. Apart from a slight excess of LDs there was a pretty close to national figures. We seem to have a pretty good geographic spread too.
But everyone defines other political views relative to their own sensible position. Communists are the sensible middle ground between the extremes of bourgouis democracy and anarcho-syndaclism for example...
As Mr Smithson will note, the vast majority of PB readers do not look at the comments I think a poll of the comments would be about 55 C, 15 L, 10 LD, 5 Ukip, 5 SNP
We perhaps need to have a PB poll of party support weighted by number of posts to define that. I think it is much more even.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
There was a PB poll of political parties a couple of years back. Apart from a slight excess of LDs there was a pretty close to national figures. We seem to have a pretty good geographic spread too.
But everyone defines other political views relative to their own sensible position. Communists are the sensible middle ground between the extremes of bourgouis democracy and anarcho-syndaclism for example...
That was years ago. I'm sure years ago, there would have been more lefties on PB than there are now. I suppose you have a point re your last point. There are some PBers who embrace the idea of extreme right wing governments as some sort of fantasy, and think it's those who don't like that idea that are wrong or misguided.
What the canvassers have shown in Oldham is the true peculiarity of PB. Even if some of the good citizens were lying about not having heard of Corbyn it is undeniable that they were not much interested.
So many of the gaffes, tactics, unfortunate statements and plain stupidity that delight us on here pass nearly all of the public by. This obsession makes us think that Labour are doing very, very badly at the moment because no one who is really paying attention could doubt it. But the vast majority don't which is why Labour are going to win Oldham.
What the canvassers have shown in Oldham is the true peculiarity of PB. Even if some of the good citizens were lying about not having heard of Corbyn it is undeniable that they were not much interested.
So many of the gaffes, tactics, unfortunate statements and plain stupidity that delight us on here pass nearly all of the public by. This obsession makes us think that Labour are doing very, very badly at the moment because no one who is really paying attention could doubt it. But the vast majority don't which is why Labour are going to win Oldham.
You could possibly use the same argument as to why Corbyns proposed mass movement, from the grass roots upwards, won't work. People just not engaged and they won't be engaged.
I think the result is anything from a Labour majority of 1,500 to a UKIP one of 500 as things stand.
The final result really should be less of a relevance than the broad acceptance of a general collapse of the Labour vote in a by-election following Corbyn's election as leader. It would also need to be looked at through the lens of turnout, but a distinct collapse of Labour's vote would give the lie to the claim of a groundswell of localist support compared with PLP opposition.
Tories in the past have generally stuck with their team even when there was a far right option so I am doubting that neither side can count on much of a swap from there. At the same time there is not much LD vote left for labour to squeeze in defence.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
Or, and you have to admit this is a possibility, just as I will freely admit that there PB may lean right at the moment, it could be that no-one to the left of TB will take power in the UK in the current climate.
Mind-blowing isn't it....
Secondly, the public have't really had a candidate to the left of Blair on offer who is actually electable....
That is sort of my point - it is possible to argue, given there have been 2 tried and tested failures, and one untried but almost certain failure in office, that being more left wing that TB is electoral suicide.
Go back to Kinnock and Foot, too, and you realise that no-one more left wing than TB has won for 41 years, and it will be another 5 years till the next election, making it 46.
What the canvassers have shown in Oldham is the true peculiarity of PB. Even if some of the good citizens were lying about not having heard of Corbyn it is undeniable that they were not much interested.
So many of the gaffes, tactics, unfortunate statements and plain stupidity that delight us on here pass nearly all of the public by. This obsession makes us think that Labour are doing very, very badly at the moment because no one who is really paying attention could doubt it. But the vast majority don't which is why Labour are going to win Oldham.
That is why Labour have much further to fall. Corbyn is still in in his honeymoon period, and is still being given the benefit of the doubt.
What the canvassers have shown in Oldham is the true peculiarity of PB. Even if some of the good citizens were lying about not having heard of Corbyn it is undeniable that they were not much interested.
So many of the gaffes, tactics, unfortunate statements and plain stupidity that delight us on here pass nearly all of the public by. This obsession makes us think that Labour are doing very, very badly at the moment because no one who is really paying attention could doubt it. But the vast majority don't which is why Labour are going to win Oldham.
I agree with that, except ...
Before the GE, I said repeatedly that there would be some swingback for Scottish Labour for partly the same reason. I thought they'd get a drubbing, but they would perform a fair bit better than the polls said.
Ooops. That's what comes of listening to a small sample of Scottish friends ...
One of Labour's problems is that they're starting from a low, not a high. Not enough people had a good opinion of them to elect them under Miliband, and the slow drip-drip of negative stories will not be helping.
So whilst people are not paying attention, the subliminal messages are going to hurt an already tarnished and hard-to-sell brand.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 p......vative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
There was a PB poll of political parties a couple of years back. Apart from a slight excess of LDs there was a pretty close to national figures. We seem to have a pretty good geographic spread too.
But everyone defines other political views relative to their own sensible position. Communists are the sensible middle ground between the extremes of bourgouis democracy and anarcho-syndaclism for example...
That was years ago. I'm sure years ago, there would have been more lefties on PB than there are now. I suppose you have a point re your last point. There are some PBers who embrace the idea of extreme right wing governments as some sort of fantasy, and think it's those who don't like that idea that are wrong or misguided.
Not sure there are really any fascist or maoist regulars.
Compared to even 50 years ago, we're all centrists now...
I'm not sure if the poster "pong" is around but I'd like to accept his offer of backing ukip to increase their GE score of 20.9% in Oldham. Perhaps you'd like to offer me odds then I'll place my bet.
Er.... the impression I am getting from PBTories and PBKippers is that it is over for Labour. Now you want a bet that UKIP will cross 20.9%. Is that the limit of your confidence ?
What the canvassers have shown in Oldham is the true peculiarity of PB. Even if some of the good citizens were lying about not having heard of Corbyn it is undeniable that they were not much interested.
So many of the gaffes, tactics, unfortunate statements and plain stupidity that delight us on here pass nearly all of the public by. This obsession makes us think that Labour are doing very, very badly at the moment because no one who is really paying attention could doubt it. But the vast majority don't which is why Labour are going to win Oldham.
You could possibly use the same argument as to why Corbyns proposed mass movement, from the grass roots upwards, won't work. People just not engaged and they won't be engaged.
Yep, the days of mass movements, if they ever existed, are long past. Politics is a small minority sport and one of the great attractions for me of this site is that it has a good number of aficionados and an element of betting to keep it real and stop people from being completely silly. But never confuse it with the real world.
Not sure there are really any fascist or maoist regulars.
Compared to even 50 years ago, we're all centrists now...
I'd say we're more to the left socially than we were 50 years ago (homosexuality legalised, gay marriage, children born out of wedlock unremarkable, birth control routinely practiced, female vicars etc), and economically more to the right?
I'm not sure if the poster "pong" is around but I'd like to accept his offer of backing ukip to increase their GE score of 20.9% in Oldham. Perhaps you'd like to offer me odds then I'll place my bet.
Er.... the impression I am getting from PBTories and PBKippers is that it is over for Labour. Now you want a bet that UKIP will cross 20.9%. Is that the limit of your confidence ?
As an apparent fully signed-up PBTory, a few days ago I predicted a Labour win on a very low turnout (20%)
Not sure there are really any fascist or maoist regulars.
Compared to even 50 years ago, we're all centrists now...
I'd say we're more to the left socially than we were 50 years ago (homosexuality legalised, gay marriage, children born out of wedlock unremarkable, birth control routinely practiced, female vicars etc), and economically more to the right?
Then again, I wasn't around fifty years ago.
I'd agree with that. As a millennial, I'd say that life and economics have both moved on for the better.
1) The official labour party are set to lose most of there funding with the new Trade Union bill. and it is a lot easer for a new party to raise funds on the internet than it has ever been. 2) membership may be patchy at the start, but there are some that would come out of loyalty to individual MPs, some who would come out of horror at the Corbyn supporters, and a lot of Ex LibDems out their who left because of the LibDem/Con coalition, who might join. 3) If over 117 (I think) MPs where to leave and join the new party it would instantly become the official Oppression. and with that it would get to lead at PMQs and plenty of media coverage.
I don't think it will happen, the MPs don't have the guts, but if they did I think this time (unlike the SDP) it could work.
1. Crowdfunding's never going to beat hedgies or even fettered unions. With no membership base they would need patrons like Sainsbury. Big business funding is viewed less benignly on the centre-left nowadays 2. I agree but there will not be a national movement that can challenge for government, so you can write them off immediately as a political force in national debate 3. Exactly - a party with 117 MPs and aspiring to win 200 seats from nowhere is a losing game, a massive head without a body. I don't disagree that Labour too would be crippled in such a scenario
This is why Labour are going to be taken over by the Stop The War Coalition. Its only a matter of time. The PLP gifted Corbyn the election, most of its number are on the way out as a result. The 3 other candidates ran as if they were fighting a general election. Corbyn knew his electorate. Some Labour MPs don't seem able to recognise the party they are a part of.
That is sort of my point - it is possible to argue, given there have been 2 tried and tested failures, and one untried but almost certain failure in office, that being more left wing that TB is electoral suicide.
Go back to Kinnock and Foot, too, and you realise that no-one more left wing than TB has won for 41 years, and it will be another 5 years till the next election, making it 46.
Looks like a trend to me.
It is possible to argue; but I don't agree. For a start, I wouldn't say there have been two tried and tested failures. The only politician who I think who has been to the left of Blair, and has been Labour leader in the last thirty years or so, has been Gordon Brown. And Brown's issues are less rooted in him being percieved as 'left-wing' as opposed to his lack of leadership qualities, poor PR, and his own economic incompetence. Ed Miliband is not to the left of Tony Blair. He is far, far more left-wing than Tony Blair. But really, Ed's failure wasn't rooted in the public going 'OMG, he's left-wing'. It was, along with the fact he looked like Wallace, that he had no coherent message at all, and no leadership qualities.
As for Kinnock and Foot, again, those people are far more left wing than Blair. They aren't really moderates, especially Foot.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 p......vative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
There was a PB poll of political parties a couple of years back. Apart from a slight excess of LDs there was a pretty close to national figures. We seem to have a pretty good geographic spread too.
But everyone defines other political views relative to their own sensible position. Communists are the sensible middle ground between the extremes of bourgouis democracy and anarcho-syndaclism for example...
That was years ago. I'm sure years ago, there would have been more lefties on PB than there are now. I suppose you have a point re your last point. There are some PBers who embrace the idea of extreme right wing governments as some sort of fantasy, and think it's those who don't like that idea that are wrong or misguided.
Not sure there are really any fascist or maoist regulars.
Compared to even 50 years ago, we're all centrists now...
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
What the canvassers have shown in Oldham is the true peculiarity of PB. Even if some of the good citizens were lying about not having heard of Corbyn it is undeniable that they were not much interested.
So many of the gaffes, tactics, unfortunate statements and plain stupidity that delight us on here pass nearly all of the public by. This obsession makes us think that Labour are doing very, very badly at the moment because no one who is really paying attention could doubt it. But the vast majority don't which is why Labour are going to win Oldham.
I agree with that, except ...
Before the GE, I said repeatedly that there would be some swingback for Scottish Labour for partly the same reason. I thought they'd get a drubbing, but they would perform a fair bit better than the polls said.
Ooops. That's what comes of listening to a small sample of Scottish friends ...
One of Labour's problems is that they're starting from a low, not a high. Not enough people had a good opinion of them to elect them under Miliband, and the slow drip-drip of negative stories will not be helping.
So whilst people are not paying attention, the subliminal messages are going to hurt an already tarnished and hard-to-sell brand.
That's true. Some occasional political stories will break through, particular if there are enough of them - I've been surprised at some recent gaffes people I know have been aware of even though they care nothing for politics - and the mood music is affected. It's just that even if there is to be an electoral effect, in a place like Oldham, so very safe, it doesn't matter outside of once in a generation events.
What the canvassers have shown in Oldham is the true peculiarity of PB. Even if some of the good citizens were lying about not having heard of Corbyn it is undeniable that they were not much interested.
So many of the gaffes, tactics, unfortunate statements and plain stupidity that delight us on here pass nearly all of the public by. This obsession makes us think that Labour are doing very, very badly at the moment because no one who is really paying attention could doubt it. But the vast majority don't which is why Labour are going to win Oldham.
I agree with that, except ...
Before the GE, I said repeatedly that there would be some swingback for Scottish Labour for partly the same reason. I thought they'd get a drubbing, but they would perform a fair bit better than the polls said.
Ooops. That's what comes of listening to a small sample of Scottish friends ...
One of Labour's problems is that they're starting from a low, not a high. Not enough people had a good opinion of them to elect them under Miliband, and the slow drip-drip of negative stories will not be helping.
So whilst people are not paying attention, the subliminal messages are going to hurt an already tarnished and hard-to-sell brand.
The Scottish situation is very different because politics was energised by the referendum like nothing else in my lifetime. Really, the referendum was on a different scale from any election by an order of magnitude, as was shown by the incredible turnout. I would be very cautious about any read across.
Don't you think the massive civilian casualties Assad has caused is the reason for the refugee flow?
Assad is who the refugees are mostly fleeing.
Depends on whether you are one eyed enough. Its the same as Saddam. Saddam killed loads of his own, but a lot more die now he has gone. Which was the better outcome?
Same with Libya and Gadhafi... more die now and the country is divided
So it will be with Syria
The West is playing with fire, it should have left well alone.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
He doesn't appear to agree with much of the LD's politics (Pro EU, socially liberal - FGS, their then leader 'This is what a feminist looks like t-shirt).
I believe a recent PB Poll also revealed readership at least is generally in line with national percentages? Although as stated few venture below the line - as comparitively benign as it is to some places on the interwebs, a venture too far for most.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just someti
Yes, bing.
There wple...
As Mr Smithson will note, the vast majority of PB readers do not look at the comments I think a poll of the comments would be about 55 C, 15 L, 10 LD, 5 Ukip, 5 SNP
We perhaps need to have a PB poll of party support weighted by number of posts to define that. I think it is much more even.
Not by much, I suspect, though if we break it down that way I suppose I've in the 10% category. Three time LD voter here.
He doesn't want a free vote then? Otherwise I cannot see what business it is of a Union leader how they vote if there is no whip to go a certain way, which would mean rebelling against the leader.
Probably should. Having the party leadership at odds with MPs generally is one thing, but if the even shadow cabinet cannot agree a position on something without flaming rows (and more importantly, rows which make it into the press), maybe it's best to have an unfettered Corbynite shadow cabinet, and if he collapses the contagion to cut out is identified without ambiguity of who was there for the party only, who was working against him from the inside.
There aren't enough of them. Every corbynite who can walk and talk at the same time is in the shadow cabinet. There may be a couple of newbies who he could bring in but I don't think cat smith is going to bring any gravitas to the table. There really aren't that many 1980s london leftists left. Maybe he can appoint dave wetzel, linda bellos and ted knight to the lords. Sadly Bernie grant is no longer with us to be shadow Home Secretary.
What the canvassers have shown in Oldham is the true peculiarity of PB. Even if some of the good citizens were lying about not having heard of Corbyn it is undeniable that they were not much interested.
So many of the gaffes, tactics, unfortunate statements and plain stupidity that delight us on here pass nearly all of the public by. This obsession makes us think that Labour are doing very, very badly at the moment because no one who is really paying attention could doubt it. But the vast majority don't which is why Labour are going to win Oldham.
I agree with that, except ...
Before the GE, I said repeatedly that there would be some swingback for Scottish Labour for partly the same reason. I thought they'd get a drubbing, but they would perform a fair bit better than the polls said.
Ooops. That's what comes of listening to a small sample of Scottish friends ...
One of Labour's problems is that they're starting from a low, not a high. Not enough people had a good opinion of them to elect them under Miliband, and the slow drip-drip of negative stories will not be helping.
So whilst people are not paying attention, the subliminal messages are going to hurt an already tarnished and hard-to-sell brand.
Oh goody, Shadsy's evens on a shad cab resignation by the end of Monday looking good...
Don't mention that market, I spent a couple of hours writing a thread on that market and I was getting ready to publish that thread, Shadsy pulled the market.
"I'm going all in" "Jeremy, I've not even finished dealing the cards yet!" "Doesn't matter, I've got this feeling I'm going to win, and the crowd are behind me"
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Edit: Hasn't he said he wants us to leave the EU, though?
Oh goody, Shadsy's evens on a shad cab resignation by the end of Monday looking good...
Don't mention that market, I spent a couple of hours writing a thread on that market and I was getting ready to publish that thread, Shadsy pulled the market.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 p......vative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
There was a PB poll of political parties a couple of years back. Apart from a slight excess of LDs there was a pretty close to national figures. We seem to have a pretty good geographic spread too.
But everyone defines other political views relative to their own sensible position. Communists are the sensible middle ground between the extremes of bourgouis democracy and anarcho-syndaclism for example...
That was years ago. I'm sure years ago, there would have been more lefties on PB than there are now. I suppose you have a point re your last point. There are some PBers who embrace the idea of extreme right wing governments as some sort of fantasy, and think it's those who don't like that idea that are wrong or misguided.
Not sure there are really any fascist or maoist regulars.
Compared to even 50 years ago, we're all centrists now...
As an occasional Communist voter, I wonder if I'm the most left-wing person on PB.
Oh goody, Shadsy's evens on a shad cab resignation by the end of Monday looking good...
Don't mention that market, I spent a couple of hours writing a thread on that market and I was getting ready to publish that thread, Shadsy pulled the market.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Edit: Hasn't he said he wants us to leave the EU, though?
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
What is the Mirror's position on this? I thought they were against action in Syria, but the second subheading strikes me as more gung ho than that.
In any case, with the Mirror saying he's 'set to allow' a free vote and the Telegraph that he's 'on[the] verge' of not allowing a free vote, I suppose it's possible both could be true. That is, the current position is to allow, but he's still mulling over whether to disallow, based on what he thinks might happen.
Despite his much vaunted clarity of communication, I've found his message muddled much of the time, not least with all the times he claims to be taken out of context.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 p......vative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
....
That was years ago. I'm sure years ago, there would have been more lefties on PB than there are now. I suppose you have a point re your last point. There are some PBers who embrace the idea of extreme right wing governments as some sort of fantasy, and think it's those who don't like that idea that are wrong or misguided.
Not sure there are really any fascist or maoist regulars.
Compared to even 50 years ago, we're all centrists now...
As an occasional Communist voter, I wonder if I'm the most left-wing person on PB.
I'm sure there are several posters who used to be members of CPGB.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Edit: Hasn't he said he wants us to leave the EU, though?
What makes you think that about gender equality?
Because most PBers don't agree with 'gender equality' in the way feminists see it. There are quite few PBers who are openly anti-feminist. Meanwhile, most parties on the Left see feminism and gender equality as the same thing. The Right (bar Theresa May) don't.
Still carrying a torch? Now there's a stomach churning prospect.
I feel like I'm the only person in the nation heartwarmed that Corbyn and Abbott have remained such good friends and compatriots all these years after their brief relationship ended.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 p......vative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
Yes, but as I said in my post - this criticism isn't just limited to Corbyn, and all his flaws. It is practically any kind of ideological position to the left of Tony Blair. Now, there is a reason why there tends to be a broad agreement on this - because most of PB's regular commentators are right wing.
There was a PB poll of political parties a couple of years back. Apart from a slight excess of LDs there was a pretty close to national figures. We seem to have a pretty good geographic spread too.
But everyone defines other political views relative to their own sensible position. Communists are the sensible middle ground between the extremes of bourgouis democracy and anarcho-syndaclism for example...
That was years ago. I'm sure years ago, there would have been more lefties on PB than there are now. I suppose you have a point re your last point. There are some PBers who embrace the idea of extreme right wing governments as some sort of fantasy, and think it's those who don't like that idea that are wrong or misguided.
Not sure there are really any fascist or maoist regulars.
Compared to even 50 years ago, we're all centrists now...
Leftism has degenerated into a cult. They dance around various totems to justify their beliefs.
Because most PBers don't agree with 'gender equality' in the way feminists see it. There are quite few PBers who are openly anti-feminist. Meanwhile, most parties on the Left see feminism and gender equality as the same thing. The Right (bar Theresa May) don't.
You do talk some most arrant and ill-informed nonsense, Ms Apocalypse!
That mirror cover is ludicrous - like something off The Day Today. If cameron wins we'll drop half a dozen rockets on Isis in Syria instead of Iraq. Either way it makes no difference to the position on the ground so both sides breast beating about it being a massive point of moral principle is absurd.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
I recall him complaining at the time that the editors forced him to water the piece down by the addition of the final wishy-washy paragraph. His intent was rather more full-blooded.
(I might be misremembering, but I think he had a longer version of the piece at another magazine somewhere. The Week maybe?)
Don't you think the massive civilian casualties Assad has caused is the reason for the refugee flow?
Assad is who the refugees are mostly fleeing.
Depends on whether you are one eyed enough. Its the same as Saddam. Saddam killed loads of his own, but a lot more die now he has gone. Which was the better outcome?
Same with Libya and Gadhafi... more die now and the country is divided
So it will be with Syria
The West is playing with fire, it should have left well alone.
I agree completely but suspect that the genie is out of the bottle.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Edit: Hasn't he said he wants us to leave the EU, though?
What makes you think that about gender equality?
Because most PBers don't agree with 'gender equality' in the way feminists see it. There are quite few PBers who are openly anti-feminist. Meanwhile, most parties on the Left see feminism and gender equality as the same thing. The Right (bar Theresa May) don't.
I'll try again. This is your interpretation, right, based on posts made here?
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
That's a socially liberal position, but it doesn't mean he's socially liberal as a whole. I have certain right-wing positions (e.g. I believe in the nuclear family), but I'm not right wing as a whole.
@MyBurningEars Sex-positive feminism isn't centred on men viewing women (especially women under the age of 30) in a sexualised way though. It's about women's right to their own sexual expression.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
I recall him complaining at the time that the editors forced him to water the piece down by the addition of the final wishy-washy paragraph. His intent was rather more full-blooded.
(I might be misremembering, but I think he had a longer version of the piece at another magazine somewhere. The Week maybe?)
I believe so.
SeanT also has some very liberal views on the criminal justice system (from his own experiences)
Because most PBers don't agree with 'gender equality' in the way feminists see it. There are quite few PBers who are openly anti-feminist. Meanwhile, most parties on the Left see feminism and gender equality as the same thing. The Right (bar Theresa May) don't.
You do talk some most arrant and ill-informed nonsense, Ms Apocalypse!
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Probably should. Having the party leadership at odds with MPs generally is one thing, but if the even shadow cabinet cannot agree a position on something without flaming rows (and more importantly, rows which make it into the press), maybe it's best to have an unfettered Corbynite shadow cabinet, and if he collapses the contagion to cut out is identified without ambiguity of who was there for the party only, who was working against him from the inside.
There aren't enough of them. Every corbynite who can walk and talk at the same time is in the shadow cabinet. There may be a couple of newbies who he could bring in but I don't think cat smith is going to bring any gravitas to the table. There really aren't that many 1980s london leftists left. Maybe he can appoint dave wetzel, linda bellos and ted knight to the lords. Sadly Bernie grant is no longer with us to be shadow Home Secretary.
As a good Northern girl, Cat Smith will know that gravytas is what goes on pies.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
That's a socially liberal position, but it doesn't mean he's socially liberal as a whole. I have certain right-wing positions (e.g. I believe in the nuclear family), but I'm not right wing as a whole.
@MyBurningEars Sex-positive feminism isn't centred on men viewing women (especially women under the age of 30) in a sexualised way though. It's about women's right to their own sexual expression.
I am probably the most socially liberal person in the UK, I know a fellow social liberal when I see one.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Edit: Hasn't he said he wants us to leave the EU, though?
What makes you think that about gender equality?
Because most PBers don't agree with 'gender equality' in the way feminists see it. There are quite few PBers who are openly anti-feminist. Meanwhile, most parties on the Left see feminism and gender equality as the same thing. The Right (bar Theresa May) don't.
I'll try again. This is your interpretation, right, based on posts made here?
Comments
I would guess 85 per cent of political posts stretch from Lib Dem supporters of the former coalition to Conservative supporters of the former coalition
15 per cent in the Lab/SNP/Kip wilderness
Nah - especially not during election campaigns. I was sick to death of hearing of the Labour ground game in April May. We were flooded with ebullient Labour activists.
More likely a bit like accusations of BBC bias - if they're getting flak from left and right, from pro-Israeli factions and pro-Palestinian factions, etc, they're probably pretty much unbiased.
Since when has that been official or even unofficial US policy?
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html
I prefer to make my case rather than boast about my own superiority, in which spirit here's my later edit again:
'America should use its influence in Europe to encourage Turkey's eventual admission to the EU, and make a point of tre-ating Turkey as a European state, provided internal Turkish politics do not take a dramatically Islamist turn. Regular consultations with Ankara regarding the future of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia would foster Turkey's sense of strategic partnership with the United States. America should also support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Ceyhan on its own Mediterranean coast serve as a major outlet for the Caspian sea basin energy reserves.'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1254548/posts
I'm 28, and it hasn't been like this since the early nineties. When I was an infant. (Yes, I did support the blues at that age - I'm told that I called the CofE Norman Blancmange.)
Schapps cannot have been the only one aware of what was going on these roadtrips. There is something quite rotton in the state of Denmark. It is almost like FCS in the eighties, a group so bonkers that even Tebbit insisted on it being disbanded.
Mind-blowing isn't it....
It's the Cameron v Corbyn show for the majority of people, not ASI v NHS
Given what you say above, it's odd that the link you provide to 'prove' some godawful point is from PrisonPlanet, his website which is well known to be filled to the brim by hilariously awful conspiracy theories.
You could have made a point about IHH's controversies by just going to Wiki. The Israeli's certainly don't like them.
But no, the Wiki article was too balanced for you ...
But everyone defines other political views relative to their own sensible position. Communists are the sensible middle ground between the extremes of bourgouis democracy and anarcho-syndaclism for example...
I think a poll of the comments would be about 55 C, 15 L, 10 LD, 5 Ukip, 5 SNP
No bet on the voteshare %.
As I clearly posted at the time, my bet offer was in response to this statement you made a few days ago;
"Oldham is evidence that despite the media hatchet job, lack of funds, falling membership and Nigel's resignation story support for UKIP is solid and growing."
I suggested a bet on whether or not UKIP will get more than the 8892 votes they got in the constituency, back in May. If they do improve on their raw vote numbers, that would constitute, for me, evidence that UKIP is "strong and growing."
That was the basis of the bet.
I'll offer reasonable odds on that bet, if you're game?
So many of the gaffes, tactics, unfortunate statements and plain stupidity that delight us on here pass nearly all of the public by. This obsession makes us think that Labour are doing very, very badly at the moment because no one who is really paying attention could doubt it. But the vast majority don't which is why Labour are going to win Oldham.
It would also need to be looked at through the lens of turnout, but a distinct collapse of Labour's vote would give the lie to the claim of a groundswell of localist support compared with PLP opposition.
Tories in the past have generally stuck with their team even when there was a far right option so I am doubting that neither side can count on much of a swap from there. At the same time there is not much LD vote left for labour to squeeze in defence.
Go back to Kinnock and Foot, too, and you realise that no-one more left wing than TB has won for 41 years, and it will be another 5 years till the next election, making it 46.
Looks like a trend to me.
Before the GE, I said repeatedly that there would be some swingback for Scottish Labour for partly the same reason. I thought they'd get a drubbing, but they would perform a fair bit better than the polls said.
Ooops. That's what comes of listening to a small sample of Scottish friends ...
One of Labour's problems is that they're starting from a low, not a high. Not enough people had a good opinion of them to elect them under Miliband, and the slow drip-drip of negative stories will not be helping.
So whilst people are not paying attention, the subliminal messages are going to hurt an already tarnished and hard-to-sell brand.
Compared to even 50 years ago, we're all centrists now...
Then again, I wasn't around fifty years ago.
@TelePolitics: Corbyn's former lover backs traffic scheme which could see her house value soar above £1million https://t.co/YAfYyoppuy
Assad is who the refugees are mostly fleeing.
The PLP gifted Corbyn the election, most of its number are on the way out as a result. The 3 other candidates ran as if they were fighting a general election. Corbyn knew his electorate. Some Labour MPs don't seem able to recognise the party they are a part of.
As for Kinnock and Foot, again, those people are far more left wing than Blair. They aren't really moderates, especially Foot.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVAxIdXWoAUOR64.jpg
Same with Libya and Gadhafi... more die now and the country is divided
So it will be with Syria
The West is playing with fire, it should have left well alone.
A rough count of PB posters' political proclivities on this thread as of 10:07.
Tory: 28
UKIP: 5
Non specific Right: 3
LD: 5
Lab: 5
Nat: 2
Non aligned (as far as I can tell): 2
Perhaps there'll be late surge of lefties to 'even' things up..
He doesn't appear to agree with much of the LD's politics (Pro EU, socially liberal - FGS, their then leader 'This is what a feminist looks like t-shirt).
Edit: Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
The Git
"I'm going all in"
"Jeremy, I've not even finished dealing the cards yet!"
"Doesn't matter, I've got this feeling I'm going to win, and the crowd are behind me"
Edit: Hasn't he said he wants us to leave the EU, though?
Can hardly believe my eyes - right wing, global warming-denying rag up to its old tricks again.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/climate-change-syria-civil-war-prince-charles
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVAzvkQXIAA9J1O.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUwXWm8XIAAZX28.jpg
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
In any case, with the Mirror saying he's 'set to allow' a free vote and the Telegraph that he's 'on[the] verge' of not allowing a free vote, I suppose it's possible both could be true. That is, the current position is to allow, but he's still mulling over whether to disallow, based on what he thinks might happen.
Despite his much vaunted clarity of communication, I've found his message muddled much of the time, not least with all the times he claims to be taken out of context.
I recall him complaining at the time that the editors forced him to water the piece down by the addition of the final wishy-washy paragraph. His intent was rather more full-blooded.
(I might be misremembering, but I think he had a longer version of the piece at another magazine somewhere. The Week maybe?)
@MyBurningEars Sex-positive feminism isn't centred on men viewing women (especially women under the age of 30) in a sexualised way though. It's about women's right to their own sexual expression.
SeanT also has some very liberal views on the criminal justice system (from his own experiences)