Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Anticipating Corbyn’s second mandate

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Anticipating Corbyn’s second mandate

Albert Einstein said that time travel into the past is impossible. He was, however, only talking physically. Politics does not necessarily obey the same laws; a fact he recognised when he turned down the presidency of Israel due people needing to be treated differently from ‘objective matters’.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457
    First, glorious first!
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,963
    The thirst for first.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,963
    Requited
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,963
    For RobD
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457
    Second, third, and fourth? Greedy! ;)
  • RobD said:

    First, glorious first!

    Just like Corbyn......:-P
  • FPT:

    What do they know......

    Jeremy Corbyn is 'out of touch' and an 'election loser' among working class voters, poll finds
    Poll for The Independent shows a major disconnect between traditional Labour voters and new Corbyn supporters


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-results-live-jeremy-corbyn-owen-smith-poll-incompetent-working-class-voters-a7326486.html

    They probably voted for Brexit too, b*astards poor little proles.....
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited September 2016
    Morning all.

    Cheers Mr Herdson, never thought I’d see Einstein and Corbyn quoted in the same sentence.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,126
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    well maybe he says. and he says the model doesnt 100% apply to trump
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,121
    The second coming of Jeremy Corbyn is good news for John McCain ....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,124
    So, later today the Labour rebels will look at Owen and ask themselves "What the f*** were we thinking?"

    Then look down the list of their number, to find the next one to have a go....
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited September 2016
    Labour is finished - not because of JC, he's just a symbol - but because class politics are finished. We have moved on to identity politics, which has no "left" but is all right. If you like that sort of thing.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    The horror is live from 1130 on Sky - result 1145...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457
    catching up with Question Time... is there any answer to the question of what would happen if a second referendum was held on the deal and it was rejected?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,566

    Labour is finished - not because of JC, he's just a symbol - but because class politics are finished. We have moved on to identity politics, which has no "left" but is all right. If you like that sort of thing.


    The WWC had their say in the referendum, class politics is not dead. Labour are irrelevant, because Labour has never been a socialist party until now , and no socialist party is likely to be elected anytime soon.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    My favourite FBI email story so far is this. It's just bizarre

    "President Barack Obama used a fake name while communicating with Hillary Clinton while she used a private email server during her time as US secretary of state, FBI documents released Friday revealed.

    According to the documents, Huma Abedin, one of Clinton's aides, first noticed the former secretary of state's exchange with an unrecognized sender on June 28, 2012 that was later revealed to be Obama.

    "Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says.

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/obama-used-a-pseudonym-while-emailing-hillary-clinton-while-she-was-at-the-us-state-department-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Ummm

    Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence was once cautioned over a bust-up with her husband after hitting him with a framed painting

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Tamar
    15 of 24 shadow cab. ministers have failed to ask their opposite number any written questions since being in post. McDonnell hasn't asked 1. https://t.co/mEDEUMYNta
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    catching up with Question Time... is there any answer to the question of what would happen if a second referendum was held on the deal and it was rejected?

    Hard Brexit, because that is the default option.

    Unless the EU agreed that continuing membership on current terms was on the ballot paper. I cannot see either EU or UK agreeing to that.
  • Labour is finished - not because of JC, he's just a symbol - but because class politics are finished. We have moved on to identity politics, which has no "left" but is all right. If you like that sort of thing.


    The WWC had their say in the referendum, class politics is not dead. Labour are irrelevant, because Labour has never been a socialist party until now , and no socialist party is likely to be elected anytime soon.
    If socialism is unelectable, why isn't class politics dead?

  • RobD said:

    catching up with Question Time... is there any answer to the question of what would happen if a second referendum was held on the deal and it was rejected?

    No-one can say for sure but the options are:

    1. Very hard Brexit, with no deal in place and all UK-EU arrangements reverting to WTO standards at best (that should be a floor for standards but the ill-will and national feeling that'd follow a rejected deal might push it even further down).

    2. Further brief but intense negotiations, producing minimal face-saving change, which are then signed off by parliament. This'd be what I'd expect.

    3. An extention to negotiations and more substantive talks. This'd require all 27 other states to agree and as such is pretty unlikely, not least because it's improbable that they'd want to spend so much more time negotiating (and nor, frankly, would the UK government come 2019).

    4. Parliament ignores the referendum and signs the deal anyway as the only one available. Sorts the Brexit issue but kicks 5-10 points direct from Con to UKIP.
  • Another day; another killing spree across the Atlantic (and the BBC has not called it terrorism: no complaints on pb so far).

    Three women have been shot dead and a man critically injured at a shopping centre in Burlington, Washington state.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37460461
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457
    edited September 2016

    RobD said:

    catching up with Question Time... is there any answer to the question of what would happen if a second referendum was held on the deal and it was rejected?

    Hard Brexit, because that is the default option.

    Unless the EU agreed that continuing membership on current terms was on the ballot paper. I cannot see either EU or UK agreeing to that.
    Talk about hostage to fortune. The vote could be decided on the government's popularity, rather than the intricacies of the deal. You could argue the same happened in the referendum earlier this year though!

    Anyway, given the talk from the EU in recent weeks I doubt we'll get a deal much better than a hard brexit anyway, so the point is somewhat moot.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    My favourite FBI email story so far is this. It's just bizarre

    "President Barack Obama used a fake name while communicating with Hillary Clinton while she used a private email server during her time as US secretary of state, FBI documents released Friday revealed.

    According to the documents, Huma Abedin, one of Clinton's aides, first noticed the former secretary of state's exchange with an unrecognized sender on June 28, 2012 that was later revealed to be Obama.

    "Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says.

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/obama-used-a-pseudonym-while-emailing-hillary-clinton-while-she-was-at-the-us-state-department-2016-9?r=US&IR=T

    What is bizarre is the alleged reaction of the aide. The president says lots of things that are not "classified".
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    catching up with Question Time... is there any answer to the question of what would happen if a second referendum was held on the deal and it was rejected?

    Hard Brexit, because that is the default option.

    Unless the EU agreed that continuing membership on current terms was on the ballot paper. I cannot see either EU or UK agreeing to that.
    Talk about hostage to fortune. The vote could be decided on the government's popularity, rather than the intricacies of the deal. You could argue the same happened in the referendum earlier this year though!

    Anyway, given the talk from the EU in recent weeks I doubt we'll get a deal much better than a hard brexit anyway, so the point is somewhat moot.
    In the unlikely event of an EEA style deal being negotiated, then a referendum on that vs hard Brexit would be useful.

    A ballot of hard vs hard as nails Brexit less so.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Ummm

    Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence was once cautioned over a bust-up with her husband after hitting him with a framed painting

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html

    She should be sacked.

    Can you imagine the uproar if it was a Conservative, male minister for domestic violence with such a history?

    She's also said very little about domestic violence against men: DV against women seems to be her priority. Now we know why ...
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    For anyone interested

    Wikileaks
    FBI dumps 189 pages of heavily redacted Clinton witness interviews under the cover of Friday evening #FBIFriday https://t.co/w4zA0IKBl5
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    catching up with Question Time... is there any answer to the question of what would happen if a second referendum was held on the deal and it was rejected?

    Hard Brexit, because that is the default option.

    Unless the EU agreed that continuing membership on current terms was on the ballot paper. I cannot see either EU or UK agreeing to that.
    Talk about hostage to fortune. The vote could be decided on the government's popularity, rather than the intricacies of the deal. You could argue the same happened in the referendum earlier this year though!

    Anyway, given the talk from the EU in recent weeks I doubt we'll get a deal much better than a hard brexit anyway, so the point is somewhat moot.
    In the unlikely event of an EEA style deal being negotiated, then a referendum on that vs hard Brexit would be useful.

    A ballot of hard vs hard as nails Brexit less so.
    I don't see the logic from the Remain side though. Surely any deal got by the government would be better (in terms of having elements of single market/free movement) than hard brexit, so they'd support the deal? Is there a scenario where a remain supporter would vote against a deal? If not, why the calls for a second referendum since there is a chance it too would be lost.
  • So, later today the Labour rebels will look at Owen and ask themselves "What the f*** were we thinking?"

    Then look down the list of their number, to find the next one to have a go....

    Not unless the lie of the land changes substantially. What today is likely to prove, on top of last year's election and the NEC results, is that the Corbynite wing have a workable majority of the membership for internal elections. There will still be some 'give him a chance' swing voters backing him who might be peeled off for a challenge next year but they're unlikely to make the difference unless there's either a large influx of sensible Labour members (highly unlikely) or an outflow of Corbynites, which is possible if they get bored or disillusioned.

    Without that change, there's no point anyone challenging Corbyn because they'd lose. Besides, who is the White Knight? Labour ended up with Smith as alternative not least because of the paucity of talent available on their benches. Would Eagle have done better? Perhaps a little in retrospect: she probably wouldn't have made some of the more laddish errors that Smith did but she's still frankly lightweight.

    There's also now the shadow cabinet catch-22 problem. If you serve, you're tainted by all the problems and policies of Corbyn; if you don't serve, you've broken trust with the membership and failed to show solidarity with the movement.

    It's clear that the rebels never thought that Corbyn would refuse to go after losing a PLP VoNC by 4:1, and have been winging the strategy and tactics ever since. However, they'd be making a serious error to rejoin the shadow cabinet. Yes, it would be hugely divisive not to but that divide is already there and when Corbyn proves impossible to work with, what then? Resign again? For the same reason as last time? How much credibility would they expect to have after that?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ummm

    Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence was once cautioned over a bust-up with her husband after hitting him with a framed painting

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html

    She should be sacked.

    Can you imagine the uproar if it was a Conservative, male minister for domestic violence with such a history?

    She's also said very little about domestic violence against men: DV against women seems to be her priority. Now we know why ...
    From the article:

    "We got into a heated argument and he said, “If you want to leave you’ll have to leave with nothing.”

    ‘I told him if he was going to be ­unreasonable, then I would be too and grabbed a watercolour off the wall.

    ‘It had been given to us as a wedding present and painted by his great uncle Somervell, who attempted to climb Everest with [George] Mallory.

    "I started walking out of the room and Graham made a lunge for me.

    "The next thing I knew I was against the wall as he pushed the picture into my chest. I felt his grip relax and pushed back.

    ‘He grabbed the kitchen phone and called the police and said his wife was attacking him with a weapon.

    ‘I was terrified. That was the sum total of what happened."

    Both husband and wife accepted cautions (and thereby their guilt).

    For once we have a spokesperson with an interest and knowledge of their portfolio...
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Ummm

    Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence was once cautioned over a bust-up with her husband after hitting him with a framed painting

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html

    She should be sacked.

    Can you imagine the uproar if it was a Conservative, male minister for domestic violence with such a history?

    She's also said very little about domestic violence against men: DV against women seems to be her priority. Now we know why ...
    Perhaps we should ask Ms Champion if she intends to lobby for Men's Aid to be deprived of charitable status...

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,157
    edited September 2016
    Note that these are nearly all about the incumbent not the challenger. Normally this is OK, because the challenger is within a normal range. What you can conclude is that this would be a good cycle for the Republicans, but for the fact that they've nominated a megalomaniac nutcase.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited September 2016
    Tim Stanley on policing/crime in US and Hillary

    "But in 2016, Hillary seems to have tied herself too firmly to the Democrats’ more radical and shrunken base. At first, she didn’t get on too well with Black Lives Matter. Then she courted them. Now she regards not being denounced by the hard-Left as critical to her road to the White House.

    She’s not looking for their enthusiastic endorsement. She just doesn’t want trouble. Her whole campaign, after all, is predicated upon being a rational alternative to Trump; a presence accompanied by calm rather than anger. Ironically, this unwillingness to speak means she has no substantive centre-ground. On economics, abortion, guns, policing and a long list of other issues, she’s all Left, Left and more Left.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/americans-dont-like-riots-clintons-silence-on-charlotte-is-a-lib/
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Ummm

    Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence was once cautioned over a bust-up with her husband after hitting him with a framed painting

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html

    She should be sacked.

    Can you imagine the uproar if it was a Conservative, male minister for domestic violence with such a history?

    She's also said very little about domestic violence against men: DV against women seems to be her priority. Now we know why ...
    From the article:

    "We got into a heated argument and he said, “If you want to leave you’ll have to leave with nothing.”

    ‘I told him if he was going to be ­unreasonable, then I would be too and grabbed a watercolour off the wall.

    ‘It had been given to us as a wedding present and painted by his great uncle Somervell, who attempted to climb Everest with [George] Mallory.

    "I started walking out of the room and Graham made a lunge for me.

    "The next thing I knew I was against the wall as he pushed the picture into my chest. I felt his grip relax and pushed back.

    ‘He grabbed the kitchen phone and called the police and said his wife was attacking him with a weapon.

    ‘I was terrified. That was the sum total of what happened."

    Both husband and wife accepted cautions (and thereby their guilt).

    For once we have a spokesperson with an interest and knowledge of their portfolio...
    And I don't suppose some men who lash out might be terrified and make similar excuses? But those excuses don't count, obviously.

    As for your last comment; that's crass. I look forward to you suggesting that Harold Shipman should have been made head of the BMA, or Nick Leeson in charge of the Serious Fraud Office ...
  • Note that these are nearly all about the incumbent not the challenger. Normally this is OK, because the challenger is within a normal range. What you can conclude is that this would be a good cycle for the Republicans, but for the fact that they've nominated a megalamaniac nutcase.
    You can also conclude that the chances of a second Hillary term, in the event of her winning a first one, are almost entirely dependent on the quality of the opponent the Republicans pick in 2020 and that anything remotely sensible will be a GOP gain.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    catching up with Question Time... is there any answer to the question of what would happen if a second referendum was held on the deal and it was rejected?

    Hard Brexit, because that is the default option.

    Unless the EU agreed that continuing membership on current terms was on the ballot paper. I cannot see either EU or UK agreeing to that.
    Talk about hostage to fortune. The vote could be decided on the government's popularity, rather than the intricacies of the deal. You could argue the same happened in the referendum earlier this year though!

    Anyway, given the talk from the EU in recent weeks I doubt we'll get a deal much better than a hard brexit anyway, so the point is somewhat moot.
    In the unlikely event of an EEA style deal being negotiated, then a referendum on that vs hard Brexit would be useful.

    A ballot of hard vs hard as nails Brexit less so.
    I don't see the logic from the Remain side though. Surely any deal got by the government would be better (in terms of having elements of single market/free movement) than hard brexit, so they'd support the deal? Is there a scenario where a remain supporter would vote against a deal? If not, why the calls for a second referendum since there is a chance it too would be lost.
    If the deal was EEA vs hard Brexit then a ballot that went for EEA membership by a significant majority would probably last for the foreseable future.

    Staying in the EEA without a referendum would be grist to the mill of the Bitter Enders who would cry betrayal immediately.

    I was a Remainer, but am not keen on some version of soft Brexit that means we are subject to EU regulations without representation in the EU parliament and executive.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ummm

    Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence was once cautioned over a bust-up with her husband after hitting him with a framed painting

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html

    She should be sacked.

    Can you imagine the uproar if it was a Conservative, male minister for domestic violence with such a history?

    She's also said very little about domestic violence against men: DV against women seems to be her priority. Now we know why ...
    From the article:

    "We got into a heated argument and he said, “If you want to leave you’ll have to leave with nothing.”

    ‘I told him if he was going to be ­unreasonable, then I would be too and grabbed a watercolour off the wall.

    ‘It had been given to us as a wedding present and painted by his great uncle Somervell, who attempted to climb Everest with [George] Mallory.

    "I started walking out of the room and Graham made a lunge for me.

    "The next thing I knew I was against the wall as he pushed the picture into my chest. I felt his grip relax and pushed back.

    ‘He grabbed the kitchen phone and called the police and said his wife was attacking him with a weapon.

    ‘I was terrified. That was the sum total of what happened."

    Both husband and wife accepted cautions (and thereby their guilt).

    For once we have a spokesperson with an interest and knowledge of their portfolio...
    And I don't suppose some men who lash out might be terrified and make similar excuses? But those excuses don't count, obviously.

    As for your last comment; that's crass. I look forward to you suggesting that Harold Shipman should have been made head of the BMA, or Nick Leeson in charge of the Serious Fraud Office ...
    As her husband also accepted a caution, it seems to have been six of one and a half dozen of the other.

  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,776
    The centrists were only able to muster Argclu and Owen thingy to challenge Corbyn. I wouldn't say they have the tenacity.
  • Note that these are nearly all about the incumbent not the challenger. Normally this is OK, because the challenger is within a normal range. What you can conclude is that this would be a good cycle for the Republicans, but for the fact that they've nominated a megalamaniac nutcase.
    You can also conclude that the chances of a second Hillary term, in the event of her winning a first one, are almost entirely dependent on the quality of the opponent the Republicans pick in 2020 and that anything remotely sensible will be a GOP gain.
    That seems reasonable, although:
    1) Incumbents are a different thing - I suspect they're more of an "are you happy with how things are going" whereas open seats are more "do you like this person"
    2) Hillary's health may not hold up for long enough to run for a second term
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Ummm

    Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence was once cautioned over a bust-up with her husband after hitting him with a framed painting

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html

    She should be sacked.

    Can you imagine the uproar if it was a Conservative, male minister for domestic violence with such a history?

    She's also said very little about domestic violence against men: DV against women seems to be her priority. Now we know why ...
    From the article:

    "We got into a heated argument and he said, “If you want to leave you’ll have to leave with nothing.”

    ‘I told him if he was going to be ­unreasonable, then I would be too and grabbed a watercolour off the wall.

    ‘It had been given to us as a wedding present and painted by his great uncle Somervell, who attempted to climb Everest with [George] Mallory.

    "I started walking out of the room and Graham made a lunge for me.

    "The next thing I knew I was against the wall as he pushed the picture into my chest. I felt his grip relax and pushed back.

    ‘He grabbed the kitchen phone and called the police and said his wife was attacking him with a weapon.

    ‘I was terrified. That was the sum total of what happened."

    Both husband and wife accepted cautions (and thereby their guilt).

    For once we have a spokesperson with an interest and knowledge of their portfolio...
    And I don't suppose some men who lash out might be terrified and make similar excuses? But those excuses don't count, obviously.

    As for your last comment; that's crass. I look forward to you suggesting that Harold Shipman should have been made head of the BMA, or Nick Leeson in charge of the Serious Fraud Office ...
    As her husband also accepted a caution, it seems to have been six of one and a half dozen of the other.
    You miss the point. Such 'excuses' are never accepted when men are the perpetrators. And we also have only her side of the story: her ex-husband has yet to tell his side.

    Domestic violence is a horrible thing, but it, and its causes, are often multifaceted. Its about time politicians and the media understood that and stopped making women 'victims' and men 'perpetrators', especially when the reverse is often true. Or, as in this case, seemingly both.

    Though it should be said that there have been alleged cases where the woman has been beating a man, and the police arrest the man. You know, because they're obviously the cause.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 46,323
    @hopisen: Today's motto is "Not my circus, not my clowns".
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ummm

    Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence was once cautioned over a bust-up with her husband after hitting him with a framed painting

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html

    She should be sacked.

    Can you imagine the uproar if it was a Conservative, male minister for domestic violence with such a history?

    She's also said very little about domestic violence against men: DV against women seems to be her priority. Now we know why ...
    From the article:

    "We got into a heated argument and he said, “If you want to leave you’ll have to leave with nothing.”

    ‘I told him if he was going to be ­unreasonable, then I would be too and grabbed a watercolour off the wall.

    ‘It had been given to us as a wedding present and painted by his great uncle Somervell, who attempted to climb Everest with [George] Mallory.

    "I started walking out of the room and Graham made a lunge for me.

    "The next thing I knew I was against the wall as he pushed the picture into my chest. I felt his grip relax and pushed back.

    ‘He grabbed the kitchen phone and called the police and said his wife was attacking him with a weapon.

    ‘I was terrified. That was the sum total of what happened."

    Both husband and wife accepted cautions (and thereby their guilt).

    For once we have a spokesperson with an interest and knowledge of their portfolio...
    And I don't suppose some men who lash out might be terrified and make similar excuses? But those excuses don't count, obviously.

    As for your last comment; that's crass. I look forward to you suggesting that Harold Shipman should have been made head of the BMA, or Nick Leeson in charge of the Serious Fraud Office ...
    As her husband also accepted a caution, it seems to have been six of one and a half dozen of the other.
    You miss the point. Such 'excuses' are never accepted when men are the perpetrators. And we also have only her side of the story: her ex-husband has yet to tell his side.

    Domestic violence is a horrible thing, but it, and its causes, are often multifaceted. Its about time politicians and the media understood that and stopped making women 'victims' and men 'perpetrators', especially when the reverse is often true. Or, as in this case, seemingly both.

    Though it should be said that there have been alleged cases where the woman has been beating a man, and the police arrest the man. You know, because they're obviously the cause.
    We do know that both sides accepted the caution and therefore their guilt.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Wonderfully unPC

    CLASSIC: When Ian Holloway compared a win to being on the pull. Legend.
    https://t.co/WE0aLCnvgy
  • Morning all.

    Cheers Mr Herdson, never thought I’d see Einstein and Corbyn quoted in the same sentence.

    You're welcome. Next week, I'll be comparing him to Julius Caesar.

  • You miss the point. Such 'excuses' are never accepted when men are the perpetrators. And we also have only her side of the story: her ex-husband has yet to tell his side.

    Domestic violence is a horrible thing, but it, and its causes, are often multifaceted. Its about time politicians and the media understood that and stopped making women 'victims' and men 'perpetrators', especially when the reverse is often true. Or, as in this case, seemingly both.

    Though it should be said that there have been alleged cases where the woman has been beating a man, and the police arrest the man. You know, because they're obviously the cause.

    We do know that both sides accepted the caution and therefore their guilt.
    Lol. Did you hear that "whooshing" sound? It was the sound of the point flying past your cavernous skull, setting up a resonance within that I expect has given you tinnitus.

    Still, I'm hardly surprised it's a position you take.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,804
    What time is the second coming?
  • Note that these are nearly all about the incumbent not the challenger. Normally this is OK, because the challenger is within a normal range. What you can conclude is that this would be a good cycle for the Republicans, but for the fact that they've nominated a megalamaniac nutcase.
    You can also conclude that the chances of a second Hillary term, in the event of her winning a first one, are almost entirely dependent on the quality of the opponent the Republicans pick in 2020 and that anything remotely sensible will be a GOP gain.
    Unfortunately for the Republicans, Ted Cruz looks the most likely choice, four years out. They'll be pining for Trump if that happens.
  • Jonathan said:

    What time is the second coming?

    I won't be getting that excited. ;)

    The BBC2 coverage is between 11.00 and 13.00
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784

    Note that these are nearly all about the incumbent not the challenger. Normally this is OK, because the challenger is within a normal range. What you can conclude is that this would be a good cycle for the Republicans, but for the fact that they've nominated a megalamaniac nutcase.
    You can also conclude that the chances of a second Hillary term, in the event of her winning a first one, are almost entirely dependent on the quality of the opponent the Republicans pick in 2020 and that anything remotely sensible will be a GOP gain.
    Unfortunately for the Republicans, Ted Cruz looks the most likely choice, four years out. They'll be pining for Trump if that happens.
    im not sure about that. he alienated the trump fans for the convention and has now alienated the non trump fans by being humiliated last night.
  • Note that these are nearly all about the incumbent not the challenger. Normally this is OK, because the challenger is within a normal range. What you can conclude is that this would be a good cycle for the Republicans, but for the fact that they've nominated a megalamaniac nutcase.
    You can also conclude that the chances of a second Hillary term, in the event of her winning a first one, are almost entirely dependent on the quality of the opponent the Republicans pick in 2020 and that anything remotely sensible will be a GOP gain.
    Unfortunately for the Republicans, Ted Cruz looks the most likely choice, four years out. They'll be pining for Trump if that happens.
    Not to mention, why wouldn't Trump run again?
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    PlatoSaid said:

    Tim Stanley on policing/crime in US and Hillary

    "But in 2016, Hillary seems to have tied herself too firmly to the Democrats’ more radical and shrunken base. At first, she didn’t get on too well with Black Lives Matter. Then she courted them. Now she regards not being denounced by the hard-Left as critical to her road to the White House.

    She’s not looking for their enthusiastic endorsement. She just doesn’t want trouble. Her whole campaign, after all, is predicated upon being a rational alternative to Trump; a presence accompanied by calm rather than anger. Ironically, this unwillingness to speak means she has no substantive centre-ground. On economics, abortion, guns, policing and a long list of other issues, she’s all Left, Left and more Left.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/americans-dont-like-riots-clintons-silence-on-charlotte-is-a-lib/

    compared to trumps extreme right, clinton seems a liberal perhaps...
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Morning all.

    Cheers Mr Herdson, never thought I’d see Einstein and Corbyn quoted in the same sentence.

    You're welcome. Next week, I'll be comparing him to Julius Caesar.
    Odds on that Corbyn gets beyond 15th March :wink:
  • Note that these are nearly all about the incumbent not the challenger. Normally this is OK, because the challenger is within a normal range. What you can conclude is that this would be a good cycle for the Republicans, but for the fact that they've nominated a megalamaniac nutcase.
    You can also conclude that the chances of a second Hillary term, in the event of her winning a first one, are almost entirely dependent on the quality of the opponent the Republicans pick in 2020 and that anything remotely sensible will be a GOP gain.
    That seems reasonable, although:
    1) Incumbents are a different thing - I suspect they're more of an "are you happy with how things are going" whereas open seats are more "do you like this person"
    2) Hillary's health may not hold up for long enough to run for a second term
    1. True to an extent, though IIRC, ratings tend to fall for incumbents during their first term, which hardly augurs well. I can't imagine an inspiring domestic policy from Clinton given that we've not seen one so far; she's likely to be caught up in the continuing row over healthcare; foreign policy will be very difficult with isolationists, Europe's internal difficulties and an aggressively revisionist Russia; and the economy remains vulnerable to shocks, as do most economies in the West.

    2. Agreed. Kaine should make a better candidate.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784

    Another day; another killing spree across the Atlantic (and the BBC has not called it terrorism: no complaints on pb so far).

    Three women have been shot dead and a man critically injured at a shopping centre in Burlington, Washington state.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37460461

    sounds like an alt right virgin upset over women not talking to him
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,566
    Jonathan said:

    What time is the second coming?

    That rather depends on ones age and general fitness.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,739
    edited September 2016
    Morning all,

    Have we got an ETA on Jezza becoming king of all he survey's and Owen Who being to go back being, well... Owen Who?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,804

    Jonathan said:

    What time is the second coming?

    That rather depends on ones age and general fitness.
    You'll be talking about an enormous mandate next.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,739
    Go Jezza!!!!!!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 46,323
    Jonathan said:

    You'll be talking about an enormous mandate next.

    It's Yooooooooge
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Morning all.

    Cheers Mr Herdson, never thought I’d see Einstein and Corbyn quoted in the same sentence.

    You're welcome. Next week, I'll be comparing him to Julius Caesar.
    Odds on that Corbyn gets beyond 15th March :wink:
    On a betting point, in a currently thin (but previously well-traded) Betfair market on whether Corbyn would serve through to the next GE, he is currently about 2/5 to do so (the spread is 1.33-1.47). Personally, I think there's value on the other side there: he shouldn't be 2/1 against going given the events of the last year and that there are probably another three and a half years left of the parliament.
  • There's plain, salted or sweet: can anyone recommend any other coatings for popcorn?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457
    GIN1138 said:

    Go Jezza!!!!!!

    PB Tories 4 Corbyn champagne reception starts at 3!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    PlatoSaid said:

    Morning all.

    Cheers Mr Herdson, never thought I’d see Einstein and Corbyn quoted in the same sentence.

    You're welcome. Next week, I'll be comparing him to Julius Caesar.
    Odds on that Corbyn gets beyond 15th March :wink:
    On a betting point, in a currently thin (but previously well-traded) Betfair market on whether Corbyn would serve through to the next GE, he is currently about 2/5 to do so (the spread is 1.33-1.47). Personally, I think there's value on the other side there: he shouldn't be 2/1 against going given the events of the last year and that there are probably another three and a half years left of the parliament.
    Corbyn is in good health, so should last the course. I cannot see him going before 2020, and possibly not even then. He is not the sort of person who is bothered by a catastrophic electoral performance.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,124
    Scott_P said:

    @hopisen: Today's motto is "Not my circus, not my clowns".

    And the search for a Ringmaster is further away than ever.....
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,037
    I've got to hand it to Trump, I thought Johnson was going to run the griftiest campaign but Trump is beating him hands down. Campaign offices rented from his properties, campaign events renting spaces in his own resorts and, my favourite, the Secret Service paying Trump over a million dollars so far to travel with him as the Trump campaign is renting Trump's plane from a Trump company.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    GIN1138 said:

    Morning all,

    Have we got an ETA on Jezza becoming king of all he survey's and Owen Who being to go back being, well... Owen Who?

    1145
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,626
    edited September 2016
    Good morning, everyone.

    This is vaguely reminiscent of when Nicias attempted to dissuade the Athenians from attempting the conquest of Syracuse by emphasising how much manpower it would take, diminishing their ability to prosecute the war with Sparta.

    Athens then voted to put even more manpower into the Sicilian expedition, which ended up losing them the war.

    Smith is Nicias, busily persuading his own side that the worst course of action is worth doubling down on.

    Edited extra bit: shade unfair on Nicias, to be honest.
  • RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Go Jezza!!!!!!

    PB Tories 4 Corbyn champagne reception starts at 3!
    They'll be a few celebratory pints being quaffed later.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Go Jezza!!!!!!

    PB Tories 4 Corbyn champagne reception starts at 3!
    They'll be a few celebratory pints being quaffed later.
    Half-pints, surely ;)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457
    Alistair said:

    I've got to hand it to Trump, I thought Johnson was going to run the griftiest campaign but Trump is beating him hands down. Campaign offices rented from his properties, campaign events renting spaces in his own resorts and, my favourite, the Secret Service paying Trump over a million dollars so far to travel with him as the Trump campaign is renting Trump's plane from a Trump company.

    And hasn't Trump smashed previous GOP donation numbers?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,124
    PlatoSaid said:

    Ummm

    Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence was once cautioned over a bust-up with her husband after hitting him with a framed painting

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html

    I'm thinking that story is not atop the list of Labour woes today.....
  • Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.

    Right.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,739
    PlatoSaid said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Morning all,

    Have we got an ETA on Jezza becoming king of all he survey's and Owen Who being to go back being, well... Owen Who?

    1145
    Thanks. :)

    Have cleared all my morning chores to be able to witness this glorious moment in history! :smiley:
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457
    edited September 2016
    GIN1138 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Morning all,

    Have we got an ETA on Jezza becoming king of all he survey's and Owen Who being to go back being, well... Owen Who?

    1145
    Thanks. :)

    Have cleared all my morning chores to be able to witness this glorious moment in history! :smiley:
    Ken Livingstone said it would be "the most significant event in human history since our ancestors came down from out the trees"... so much for expectations management :p
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    I've got to hand it to Trump, I thought Johnson was going to run the griftiest campaign but Trump is beating him hands down. Campaign offices rented from his properties, campaign events renting spaces in his own resorts and, my favourite, the Secret Service paying Trump over a million dollars so far to travel with him as the Trump campaign is renting Trump's plane from a Trump company.

    And hasn't Trump smashed previous GOP donation numbers?
    Well do you want a grifty president of one that splashes the money out to all and sundry? The Deplorables want the former, the 47% the latter.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    I've got to hand it to Trump, I thought Johnson was going to run the griftiest campaign but Trump is beating him hands down. Campaign offices rented from his properties, campaign events renting spaces in his own resorts and, my favourite, the Secret Service paying Trump over a million dollars so far to travel with him as the Trump campaign is renting Trump's plane from a Trump company.

    And hasn't Trump smashed previous GOP donation numbers?
    nope, small doner number maybe. big donors arent giving in general for the reasons above...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457
    619 said:

    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    I've got to hand it to Trump, I thought Johnson was going to run the griftiest campaign but Trump is beating him hands down. Campaign offices rented from his properties, campaign events renting spaces in his own resorts and, my favourite, the Secret Service paying Trump over a million dollars so far to travel with him as the Trump campaign is renting Trump's plane from a Trump company.

    And hasn't Trump smashed previous GOP donation numbers?
    nope, small doner number maybe. big donors arent giving in general for the reasons above...
    Ah yeah, I was talking about the small ones.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    There's plain, salted or sweet: can anyone recommend any other coatings for popcorn?

    Toffee, Cinnamon, Strawberries and Cream, + http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/articles/50-flavored-popcorn-recipes.html
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    I've got to hand it to Trump, I thought Johnson was going to run the griftiest campaign but Trump is beating him hands down. Campaign offices rented from his properties, campaign events renting spaces in his own resorts and, my favourite, the Secret Service paying Trump over a million dollars so far to travel with him as the Trump campaign is renting Trump's plane from a Trump company.

    And hasn't Trump smashed previous GOP donation numbers?
    IIRC - he's raised $100m+ in donations under $200 each. No Fortune donors in August either.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,739
    edited September 2016
    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Morning all,

    Have we got an ETA on Jezza becoming king of all he survey's and Owen Who being to go back being, well... Owen Who?

    1145
    Thanks. :)

    Have cleared all my morning chores to be able to witness this glorious moment in history! :smiley:
    Ken Livingstone said it would be "the most significant event in human history since our ancestors came down from out the trees"... so much for expectations management :p
    It's not often a Parliamentary party makes complete and utter fools of themselves (and wastes tens of thousands of pounds in party funds in the process)

    If Jezza wins this with an increased mandate compared to last year they'll be able to hear me laughing in London! :smiley:
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016
    "The Great Brexit Hate Crime Myth. How claims of an epidemic of race crimes since the referendum are simply false"


    Hopefully this is the first shots being fired in a campaign to get the iniquitous hate crime legislation repealed.

    "Take, for example, the conference organiser’s headline claim: that hate crime has ‘risen 57 per cent since the EU referendum vote’.

    This eye-catching figure has certainly done the rounds in recent months, regularly bandied about by liberal commentators, the BBC and Left-wing newspapers.

    Yet dig into its provenance and things soon start to smell distinctly whiffy. For the ‘57 per cent’ number was actually plucked from a single press release issued by the National Police Chief’s Council on June 27, four days after the EU ballot took place.

    The document in question specifically stated that police forces had recorded ‘no major spikes in tensions’ since Britain went to the polls.

    However, its footnote added that 85 people had logged hate crime ‘incidents’ on True Vision, a website that records unverified allegations of such behaviour, during the four days in question, up from 54 during the corresponding period a month earlier.

    What exactly did this mean? The police press release made things clear. ‘This should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57 per cent but an increase in reporting through one mechanism’ over a single 96-hour period.

    Fast forward three months, however, and the number was being used very differently.

    As we have seen above, organisers of the....Conference were using it to allege that hate crime had risen by 57 per cent across Britain during the entire period since the Brexit vote.

    This is demonstrably untrue.....

    These people.... often owe their jobs, status and mortgages to the fashionable perception that hate crime is somehow spiralling out of control...

    The Left has a supply-and-demand problem with bigotry: there isn’t enough to go around to support the apocalyptic world view they hold so dear."



    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805008/The-great-Brexit-hate-crime-myth-claims-epidemic-race-crimes-referendum-simply-false.html
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457
    GIN1138 said:

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Morning all,

    Have we got an ETA on Jezza becoming king of all he survey's and Owen Who being to go back being, well... Owen Who?

    1145
    Thanks. :)

    Have cleared all my morning chores to be able to witness this glorious moment in history! :smiley:
    Ken Livingstone said it would be "the most significant event in human history since our ancestors came down from out the trees"... so much for expectations management :p
    It's not often a Parliamentary party makes complete and utter fools of themselves (and wastes tens of thousands of pounds in party funds in the process)

    If Jezza wins this with an increased mandate compared to last year they'll be able to hear me laughing in London! :smiley:
    Prepare yourself for a good chortling.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 23,741
    edited September 2016

    Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.

    Right.

    Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.

    It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.

    After all, who can tell when she will snap?

    And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.

    (The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,649
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    catching up with Question Time... is there any answer to the question of what would happen if a second referendum was held on the deal and it was rejected?

    Hard Brexit, because that is the default option.

    Unless the EU agreed that continuing membership on current terms was on the ballot paper. I cannot see either EU or UK agreeing to that.
    Talk about hostage to fortune. The vote could be decided on the government's popularity, rather than the intricacies of the deal. You could argue the same happened in the referendum earlier this year though!

    Anyway, given the talk from the EU in recent weeks I doubt we'll get a deal much better than a hard brexit anyway, so the point is somewhat moot.
    In the unlikely event of an EEA style deal being negotiated, then a referendum on that vs hard Brexit would be useful.

    A ballot of hard vs hard as nails Brexit less so.
    I don't see the logic from the Remain side though. Surely any deal got by the government would be better (in terms of having elements of single market/free movement) than hard brexit, so they'd support the deal? Is there a scenario where a remain supporter would vote against a deal? If not, why the calls for a second referendum since there is a chance it too would be lost.
    Funnily enough I might, simply because I don't think EEA will work for the UK. Hard Brexit on the other hand is workable but will be very painful. Push come to shove I suspect I would vote for it in a referendum. Referendums are lousy ways to make decisions
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,705
    Will Owen manage a graceful concession speech ?

    Given that everything else he has done has been marked by stupidity and brutishness, my guess is no.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,227
    Morning all :)

    As always, an interesting piece from David (for which, as always, many thanks).

    Remembering David writes from a Conservative perspective, it's a curious piece given what has happened in his Party in the past 15 months. In May 2015, David Cameron won the first Conservative overall majority in an election in a generation. Yet now he is out of the leadership and out of politics.

    To an outsider, it's been a display of unpleasant, ill-tempered ruthlessness predicated solely on the principle the Conservative Party wants to, indeed needs to, stay in Government. Now, there are plenty of people who will tell me Cameron was the architect of his own downfall and there's a lot of truth in that.

    The irony of Cameron saying all through the Referendum he would stay on as PM whatever the result and then walking away on the Friday morning isn't lost on me. After all, Cameron had said 72 hours before the 2010 GE there would be no deals with the Liberal Democrats yet by the Friday afternoon, he was "willing to talk".

    I think it's the ingratitude I don't get - even Nick Clegg, who you would think would be anathema to most LDs, is welcomed to the Conference and allowed to speak and plug his book - the leader who oversaw the decimation of the councillor base and the loss of 7/8 of the Party's MPs. If he'd been a Conservative, one suspects, he'd have been put in a cage and pelted with rotten fruit.

    That then is the nature and question of the political party - do you stay in Opposition with a leader you like, support, want to work for etc or do you sit in Government with a leader you don't like, doing things you don't necessarily support, changing loyalties and opinions as often as an extremely fastidious man obsessed with his personal appearance changes his socks but having the luxury of power ?

    In the end, is it like supporting a football club - my Party, right or left, right or wrong ? I've always said if I liked the policies of a Government, I didn't care what colour rosette it had. That's not true of course but does it work the other way. If the team with your rosette starts introducing policies you don't support, what then ?


  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Alistair said:

    I've got to hand it to Trump, I thought Johnson was going to run the griftiest campaign but Trump is beating him hands down. Campaign offices rented from his properties, campaign events renting spaces in his own resorts and, my favourite, the Secret Service paying Trump over a million dollars so far to travel with him as the Trump campaign is renting Trump's plane from a Trump company.

    Is it possible that Trump personally and via his companies may come out at a profit at the expense of his campaign?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,666

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ummm

    Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence was once cautioned over a bust-up with her husband after hitting him with a framed painting

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html

    She should be sacked.

    Can you imagine the uproar if it was a Conservative, male minister for domestic violence with such a history?

    She's also said very little about domestic violence against men: DV against women seems to be her priority. Now we know why ...
    From the article:

    "We got into a heated argument and he said, “If you want to leave you’ll have to leave with nothing.”

    ‘I told him if he was going to be ­unreasonable, then I would be too and grabbed a watercolour off the wall.

    ‘It had been given to us as a wedding present and painted by his great uncle Somervell, who attempted to climb Everest with [George] Mallory.

    "I started walking out of the room and Graham made a lunge for me.

    "The next thing I knew I was against the wall as he pushed the picture into my chest. I felt his grip relax and pushed back.

    ‘He grabbed the kitchen phone and called the police and said his wife was attacking him with a weapon.

    ‘I was terrified. That was the sum total of what happened."

    Both husband and wife accepted cautions (and thereby their guilt).

    For once we have a spokesperson with an interest and knowledge of their portfolio...
    And I don't suppose some men who lash out might be terrified and make similar excuses? But those excuses don't count, obviously.

    As for your last comment; that's crass. I look forward to you suggesting that Harold Shipman should have been made head of the BMA, or Nick Leeson in charge of the Serious Fraud Office ...
    As her husband also accepted a caution, it seems to have been six of one and a half dozen of the other.

    Maybe he wouldn't stop nagging her?
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016
    More about how that Brexit Hate Crime surge came about:

    "Of course it should be stressed that genuine hate crime is not to be tolerated. In Friday’s Mail, for example, the Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth described being sent 25,000 abusive messages by members of her party’s Corbyn-supporting far Left, one of which referred to her as a ‘yid c***’.

    The problem, however, comes when the definition of what constitutes a hate crime becomes risibly vague. After all, the subjective way in which the police (who increasingly resemble glorified social workers) now categorise such offences is hardly forensic.

    Under their official guidance, hate crime is now deemed to be ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice.’

    Proof of such intent is not necessarily required, the guidance adds: ‘Evidence of … hostility is not required … [The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor.’

    In essence, this means that anyone, anywhere, can force officers to treat something as a hate crime. All it takes is a vague ‘perception’. Such rules are perverse and open to abuse. They mean that, in theory, a straight white male punched in a pub fight can falsely claim his assailant thought he was gay, and therefore motivated by homophobia.

    Such an incident will duly be investigated as a hate crime, with the police and CPS under pressure to prosecute.
    If they fail, the ‘victim’ can potentially claim to have suffered so-called ‘secondary victimisation’ in which the ‘hate’ he or she experienced is compounded by the police’s lack of sensitivity.....

    Consider, in this context, the aforementioned police website True Vision. It allows anyone, anywhere in Britain, to report an incident, even if they were not the victim, have no idea of the victim’s identity, can provide no supporting evidence, and would prefer to remain anonymous.

    Their claims then get logged as official statistics and, as we have seen above, used by ‘experts’ to draw sweeping conclusions (invariably negative) about the state of the nation.

    Seldom has such a system been more open to abuse than in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, when Left-wing media outlets predicted a ‘surge of xenophobia’ and disheartened Remain voters attempted to prove them right. On Twitter, the hashtag #postbrexit racism went viral.

    On Facebook, a forum called ‘worrying signs’ was established for ‘anyone dealing with post-Brexit fallout’ to post reports of hate crime. From here, users were directed to True Vision.

    Unsurprisingly, many allegedly racist incidents they carried turned out to be anything but."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805008/The-great-Brexit-hate-crime-myth-claims-epidemic-race-crimes-referendum-simply-false.html
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Morning all.

    Cheers Mr Herdson, never thought I’d see Einstein and Corbyn quoted in the same sentence.

    You're welcome. Next week, I'll be comparing him to Julius Caesar.
    Odds on that Corbyn gets beyond 15th March :wink:
    On a betting point, in a currently thin (but previously well-traded) Betfair market on whether Corbyn would serve through to the next GE, he is currently about 2/5 to do so (the spread is 1.33-1.47). Personally, I think there's value on the other side there: he shouldn't be 2/1 against going given the events of the last year and that there are probably another three and a half years left of the parliament.
    Corbyn is in good health, so should last the course. I cannot see him going before 2020, and possibly not even then. He is not the sort of person who is bothered by a catastrophic electoral performance.
    The key mover may be Big Len at Unite. Once he's re-elected, and with the GE looming, pressure might well be brought to bear from the unions at the right moment - and there'll be many moments to pick from.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,347
    Except that if you read the article it's a fairly crude mechanistic algorithm that he is using, some of the criteria involve some subjectivity, and he as good admits that it doesn't work that well in the current unprecedented circumstances and that Trump may not win after all....

    Nevertheless thanks for the link and an amusing read!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,164
    Morning all. Three hours away from the biggest PB Tory popcorn and champagne party since May 2015 :D
  • Mr. Stodge, I think that's somewhat unfair.

    Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.

    Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).

    In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
  • Does RobD ever sleep?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,457

    Does RobD ever sleep?

    Was thinking about heading off to bedfordshire... but the thought of the glorious election of Jezza is keeping me up.
  • Mr. Sandpit, more than June this year?
  • GIN1138 said:

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Morning all,

    Have we got an ETA on Jezza becoming king of all he survey's and Owen Who being to go back being, well... Owen Who?

    1145
    Thanks. :)

    Have cleared all my morning chores to be able to witness this glorious moment in history! :smiley:
    Ken Livingstone said it would be "the most significant event in human history since our ancestors came down from out the trees"... so much for expectations management :p
    It's not often a Parliamentary party makes complete and utter fools of themselves (and wastes tens of thousands of pounds in party funds in the process)

    If Jezza wins this with an increased mandate compared to last year they'll be able to hear me laughing in London! :smiley:
    The 'bigger mandate' question will be an interesting pointer as to how good the spin operations are.

    Corbyn's side should be emphasising his fifty-odd percent last year and looking to contrast it against what's likely to be sixty-something this time. It doesn't matter that 'fifty-odd' was in fact 59.5%, or that had it gone to two-person-preferred, it'd have been well over sixty. The point is that it sounds a lot more.

    By contrast, Owen Smith ought to be playing up that the best-placed opponent last time only won 19% and finished 40% behind Corbyn, so that as long as Corbyn doesn't top 70%, he can claim to have cut Corbyn's lead. He should also be pointing out the number of anti-Corbyn votes last time was 170k, which he's likely to comfortably exceed today.

    From what I've seen so far, there's not been any expectation management from either side.
This discussion has been closed.