I went to the Cannes film festival today and they had the British the French and the EU flags at half mast. It was quite moving. I think we're going to miss this solidarity more than we can imagine in the months and years ahead.
Why - surely none of them could be that nasty as to deny support under those circumstances?
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help:-
Exhibit 1 below: a vignette from September 2016 – the first formal day of the Conference.
9:46am: Corbyn tells Jewish peer who quit Labour over anti-Semitism to “reflect“.
9:56am: Corbyn says he backs war crimes investigations into British troops.
10:00am: Corbyn says he opposes giving more resources to MI6.
10:22am: McDonnell defends calling Esther McVey “a stain on humanity”.
10:40am: Yvette Cooper tells McDonnell to apologise.
11:06am: McDonnell doubles down, says “yes I do” think they were the right words.
11:15pm: Derek Hatton spotted in the conference hall.
11:52am: Ken Livingstone talks about Hitler on the BBC.
1:42am: Delegate rants about “Jewish MPs” and “Jewish plot to oust Corbyn”.
1:50pm: Fringe speaker compares Tory welfare policy to Nazis’ Arbeit Macht Frei.
5:00pm: Momentum host speaker call for a Jewish man’s throat to be cut.
5:25pm: Anti-war merchandise mocking injured British soldiers on sale.
6:00pm: Jackie Walker says anti-Semitism in Labour is “exaggerated“.
6:30pm: Leaflets circulated: “Jewish Labour Movement does not belong in Labour” at a meeting held to discuss anti-Semitism within the Labour party.
And this – Exhibit 2 – from a former Labour councillor in Portsmouth. Perhaps it should now be plastered all over Tory posters.
"I cannot advocate to voters that they elect a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Indeed, I would be morally obliged to campaign against any administration that included Corbyn and John McDonnell, given my belief that they would seriously imperil our nation's national security if ever given the reins of power."
Mind you, it simply echoes what Jeff (now Lord) Rooker said last year at the time of the Syria bombing vote.
"My party leader cannot be accused, like the prime minister, of misleading anyone. He has never, to my knowledge, agreed to protect the realm, the British way of life, or western liberal democracies – and he won't. We need to get rid of him before we face the electorate and have a leader fit and proper to offer themselves as our prime minister….
The case is clear, Daesh is coming for us. They try to use our innate tolerance to undermine us – exactly the same way as the anti-British Trots in the Labour party are using our tolerance to try and get control. The history of Munich tells me not to give in to the easy route. If you don't fight when under attack, you lose – and we are under attack."
Ouch, ouch….
Plus Diane Abbott, a woman Corbyn is putting forward as Home Secretary.
How any decent person can – in all good conscience – now support Labour beats me.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
Hadn't thought of it that way - but I suspect that as long as the Tories wait long enough they will be able to attack on those issues. If they did it right now I agree it would be seen as exploiting by many... But in a weeks time - I think most will accept they would just be doing what they would be doing regardless.
After an attack on British kids? He's so sad and bitter he runs that fucking non-story?
What a c*nt. Your hero Osborne can go suck the pizzle of Satan. Ugh.
Seconded.
Harsh, but fair. He has now diminished himself to the point of invisibility: he isn't even within the tradition of great British journalism, which is about selling papers. Getting people to accept freebies doesn't really cut it.
After an attack on British kids? He's so sad and bitter he runs that fucking non-story?
What a c*nt. Your hero Osborne can go suck the pizzle of Satan. Ugh.
Seconded.
Harsh, but fair. He has now diminished himself to the point of invisibility: he isn't even within the tradition of great British journalism, which is about selling papers. Getting people to accept freebies doesn't really cut it.
I expect he'll end up a regular on HIGNFY.
Can't see him doing well on HIGNFY.
He is an interesting figure in that he is probably one of the few people hated pretty evenly by the left and right at the moment. Tony Blair perhaps another.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
I expect Corbyn to hoist himself with his own petard with a little help from Sophy Ridge and Andrew Neil, without too much overt assistance from CCHQ.
One of the serious questions requiring a debate when the Election kicks off again is the success and future of the Prevent Strategy.
We have polarised opinions which need to be examined in front of the public.
It is quite possible that we have one of the more successful security/prevention structures in Europe to deal with Islamoloosers - certainly the combined result is better than France or Belgium.
After an attack on British kids? He's so sad and bitter he runs that fucking non-story?
What a c*nt. Your hero Osborne can go suck the pizzle of Satan. Ugh.
Seconded.
Yes it's very disappointing. he is bright, young enough to have had a great future and is behaving very much like a spoilt child. Such a waste but certainly it looks increasingly like one case where my faith in him was completely unfounded.
We could potentially end up going back a hundred years, at least in the short term. It's a horrifying thought, but let's not kid ourselves about this - if they could make this happen, they would.
No they fucking wouldn't.
Places like the Bank of England, the Stock Exchange all have off site back ups well away from London to stop the nightmare scenario you're fantasising about.
No, no, no, I'm not talking about physically blowing up computer servers. Stock markets can crash without someone unplugging a machine.
And it's hardly a fucking fantasy, now is it?
With all due respect , you don't have a clue what you're talking about Servers for any large City organisation are typical hosted AWAY from the centre of London in at least 2 buildings a minimum of 30 miles apart. Data is replicated between both locations so the company can continue with limited impact should a site go down.
No, you misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. In the event of such a disastrous occurrence, stock markets the world over would crash, wiping trillions off stocks and commodities. I'm not necessarily talking about the physical damage, which would be immense anyway, but the massive psychological damage and commercial/business sentiment.
I'm really struggling to make it any simpler to understand than that.
It's because you're not aware of the controls in place to stop something like that happening.
They've already wargamed this into the system.
One oil company commissioned a report into what would happen if it's London HQ was completely destroyed (staff, records - the lot). The foolish consultants provided a report that said - no noticeable effect on world wide operations.
Strangely, no further work was commissioned to them from the London office....
Why, was it closed?
I still remember the look on one senior managers face - the moment he realised that he was being told (in 300 pages of detail) that he was a pointless waste of space.
I went to the Cannes film festival today and they had the British the French and the EU flags at half mast. It was quite moving. I think we're going to miss this solidarity more than we can imagine in the months and years ahead.
We don't put our flags at half mast when they have a bombing or shootings in Iraq or Libya or Israel or the US or Russia or Tunisia. It's something we do with those closest to us and something those close do to us.
What utter bollocks. We certainly stand in solidarity with the USA when they get hit.
Remember this? It had a significant impact, at the time. Perhaps one of the first examples of this international solidarity-signalling.
Perhaps you're right. But the Cannes Festival of all places which is hugely American-centric and where most Americans wouldn't have the faintest idea what it was all about made the gesture feel quite special.
Not particularly surprising now because that's what you do for your own but whether that's how they'll see us in the years ahead is anyone's guess.
well he's got so much time on his hands these days .....
You miss him don't you.
I predicted this.
Like I miss haemorroids
You'll feel better when you admit it.
Serious question.
Are you disappointed that Osborne didn't have the courage to challenge for the Conservative leadership ?
spineless in Tatton
So many politicians have been willing to give it a go when they weren't the favourite - Wilson, Heath, Thatcher, Foot, Kinnock, Blair, Hague, IDS, EdM, Cameron and indeed May and Corbyn.
But Osborne wimped out.
And the man who Osborne's lack of courage and consequential bitterness reminds me of:
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
That is a risk they may not want to take, true, although I think given that Corbyn has been forced to 'clarify' his views on such things twice already it's quite possible it will come up of its own accord.
However that could conceivably be bad news for Corbyn, for it then begs the question of whether they might go for a different line of attack - his record in this highly unsavoury case, which to put it mildly is underwhelming and is back in the news in the last fortnight:
I think he needs to rethink his obvious massive gripe. You really can't play out your personal vendettas at the expense of the country.
Indeed. I had a small, sneaking, guilty-pleasure admiration for Osborne until now. He was the smart, bohemian, funny one. But this desperate and very public assault on TMay is odious and demeaning. No sane professional editor would run that utter non story - posh twat artist makes a bunch of lame, unfunny posters. And they would NEVER run it today.
What a falling from grace is here.
Well it's an interesting career.
In 2010 I and others were very worried indeed about GO's qualifications to steer us out of violent waters. He did though, but only just about.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
I expect Corbyn to hoist himself with his own petard with a little help from Sophy Ridge and Andrew Neil, without too much overt assistance from CCHQ.
Depends on whether the voters notice, and on how many of them care. I feel very cynical about that.
On the other hand, cynicism also dictates that a necessary plurality of voters are likely to stick with the Tories (social care concerns or no) because they suspect, deep down, that Corbyn Labour will prove disastrous for their wallets. So Labour should lose regardless.
I'm reminded of when the people of Nice booed Hollande and Valls after the Promenade truck massacre. May's job as Home Secretary was and as PM is to keep the British public safe. Strong and stable my arse indeed.
We could potentially end up going back a hundred years, at least in the short term. It's a horrifying thought, but let's not kid ourselves about this - if they could make this happen, they would.
No they fucking wouldn't.
Places like the Bank of England, the Stock Exchange all have off site back ups well away from London to stop the nightmare scenario you're fantasising about.
No, no, no, I'm not talking about physically blowing up computer servers. Stock markets can crash without someone unplugging a machine.
And it's hardly a fucking fantasy, now is it?
With all due respect , you don't have a clue what you're talking about Servers for any large City organisation are typical hosted AWAY from the centre of London in at least 2 buildings a minimum of 30 miles apart. Data is replicated between both locations so the company can continue with limited impact should a site go down.
No, you misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. In the event of such a disastrous occurrence, stock markets the world over would crash, wiping trillions off stocks and commodities. I'm not necessarily talking about the physical damage, which would be immense anyway, but the massive psychological damage and commercial/business sentiment.
I'm really struggling to make it any simpler to understand than that.
It's because you're not aware of the controls in place to stop something like that happening.
They've already wargamed this into the system.
One oil company commissioned a report into what would happen if it's London HQ was completely destroyed (staff, records - the lot). The foolish consultants provided a report that said - no noticeable effect on world wide operations.
Strangely, no further work was commissioned to them from the London office....
Why, was it closed?
I still remember the look on one senior managers face - the moment he realised that he was being told (in 300 pages of detail) that he was a pointless waste of space.
A sensation I have had creep across me when talking to quite a number of senior managers, in fairness.
I think my favourite was the headmaster who got locked out of a classroom and had to send for backup...
After an attack on British kids? He's so sad and bitter he runs that fucking non-story?
What a c*nt. Your hero Osborne can go suck the pizzle of Satan. Ugh.
Seconded.
Yes it's very disappointing. he is bright, young enough to have had a great future and is behaving very much like a spoilt child. Such a waste but certainly it looks increasingly like one case where my faith in him was completely unfounded.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
Zac Goldsmith's attack on Sadiq Khan linking him with terrorism is a cautionary tale. It cost Zac his 23,000 majority and his reputation.
Edit: Not just that of course. There was also Brexit. But I canvassed a man last night who said "I'm definitely not voting for Zac Goldsmith. I nodded encouragingly. He went on "I'm voting for the Conservative Party".
well he's got so much time on his hands these days .....
You miss him don't you.
I predicted this.
Like I miss haemorroids
You'll feel better when you admit it.
Serious question.
Are you disappointed that Osborne didn't have the courage to challenge for the Conservative leadership ?
spineless in Tatton
So many politicians have been willing to give it a go when they weren't the favourite - Wilson, Heath, Thatcher, Foot, Kinnock, Blair, Hague, IDS, EdM, Cameron and indeed May and Corbyn.
But Osborne wimped out.
And the man who Osborne's lack of courage and consequential bitterness reminds me of:
Gordon Brown
Though Brown did become PM in the end.
I would have said Blair, Heath and Wilson were all favourites in those particular contests with those electorates, although possibly not to the public at large given Brown, Maudling and Brown all had higher public profiles.
William Whitelaw was the one - overwhelming favourite to win and didn't even stand!
You clearly weren't in town today, because Manchester was the front page. Very striking, poignant headline, that I won't repeat because we have all heard enough for one day.
Ozzy is entitled to run that funny in the internals.
Seriously, back off with the piousness - doesn't suit you.
Aw, all the headbangers are upset because George Osborne is having fun at the Prime Minister's expense. He's grasped his new job's responsibilities early, which is to engage readers. Deference and obsequiousness would be hindrances, not assets.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
Zac Goldsmith's attack on Sadiq Khan linking him with terrorism is a cautionary tale. It cost Zac his 23,000 majority and his reputation.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
That is a risk they may not want to take, true, although I think given that Corbyn has been forced to 'clarify' his views on such things twice already it's quite possible it will come up of its own accord.
However that could conceivably be bad news for Corbyn, for it then begs the question of whether they might go for a different line of attack - his record in this highly unsavoury case, which to put it mildly is underwhelming and is back in the news in the last fortnight:
well he's got so much time on his hands these days .....
You miss him don't you.
I predicted this.
Like I miss haemorroids
You'll feel better when you admit it.
Serious question.
Are you disappointed that Osborne didn't have the courage to challenge for the Conservative leadership ?
spineless in Tatton
So many politicians have been willing to give it a go when they weren't the favourite - Wilson, Heath, Thatcher, Foot, Kinnock, Blair, Hague, IDS, EdM, Cameron and indeed May and Corbyn.
But Osborne wimped out.
And the man who Osborne's lack of courage and consequential bitterness reminds me of:
Gordon Brown
Though Brown did become PM in the end.
I would have said Blair, Heath and Wilson were all favourites in those particular contests with those electorates, although possibly not to the public at large given Brown, Maudling and Brown all had higher public profiles.
William Whitelaw was the one - overwhelming favourite to win and didn't even stand!
Wikipedia says that Maudling was considered the favourite in 1965:
and Wilson had the good fortune that there were two candidates from Labour's centre-right.
The Brown / Blair hypothetical is interesting - I think that if Brown had had the courage to run against John Smith in 1992 he would have lost but would have made himself 'next in line' for the leadership.
Aw, all the headbangers are upset because George Osborne is having fun at the Prime Minister's expense. He's grasped his new job's responsibilities early, which is to engage readers. Deference and obsequiousness would be hindrances, not assets.
I'm a professional journalist, you're not. That story just screams "non story which furthers my editorial agenda", the kind of thing the Express or the Sun or the Mirror might, if they are really at a pinch, run on a very very slow news day, and hope that no one really notices, even if it has the desired subliminal impact.
On the day after the worst atrocity on British soil in a decade? When the Prime Minister, the PM he is so blatantly yet adolescently mocking, is asking her advisors how many kids died?
It's just shit journalism. Shit editing. Just a bit shit. Call me a pious hypocritical twat, but Osborne is certainly burning his bridges - Tories won't forget this.
Not sure it tops the Mirror story on Roger Moore...
Aw, all the headbangers are upset because George Osborne is having fun at the Prime Minister's expense. He's grasped his new job's responsibilities early, which is to engage readers. Deference and obsequiousness would be hindrances, not assets.
I'm a professional journalist, you're not. That story just screams "non story which furthers my editorial agenda", the kind of thing the Express or the Sun or the Mirror might, if they are really at a pinch, run on a very very slow news day, and hope that no one really notices, even if it has the desired subliminal impact.
On the day after the worst atrocity on British soil in a decade? When the Prime Minister, the PM he is so blatantly yet adolescently mocking, is asking her advisors how many kids died?
It's just shit journalism. Shit editing. Just a bit shit. Call me a pious hypocritical twat, but Osborne is certainly burning his bridges - Tories won't forget this.
You're a pious hypocritical twat. The story isn't there for you but for the many thousands of young leftish Londoners who have enjoyed the discomfort the Prime Minister has suffered over the last few days. Yesterday's major news story is not so old (except in the minds of the most dementedly partisan Tories) that it isn't worth a reprise.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
Zac Goldsmith's attack on Sadiq Khan linking him with terrorism is a cautionary tale. It cost Zac his 23,000 majority and his reputation.
Not sure it's quite on the same scale as Corbyn.
You're right. It isn't. But it illustrates the danger in that line of attack.
I hope Andrew Neil questions him closely on this. I suspect Corbyn will enhance his reputation. We'll see. The more he is seen as he is and not through hostile newspapers and commentators, the better he will do.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
Don't attack over the IRA. But do put out there those quotes by Labour people. Ask him whether he agrees that intelligence rather than bombing is the best way to stop such attacks and ask him why he is putting forward as Home Secretary someone who has publicly expressed disdain for those services. Ask him whether he agrees with her words about "a defeat for the British state being a victory for us all". Etc etc.
When is the next PB meet in Yorkshire? Cycling World Championships? A bit of a way off!
I'm hoping to arrange a PB meet in Manchester in October to coincide with the Tory conference.
It is a pity they demolished Tommy Ducks - you lot would have loved it, especially the "collection" nailed to the ceiling
That takes me back. women's knickers wasn't it?
Yes. However, for the avoidance of doubt, none of them belonged to me
I assume you go commando ?
You assume wrongly.
shame Roger and I regularly meet for commando weekends in Ludlow.
Really? Well.... it is Ludlow I suppose, not much else to do. Nonetheless such things are best kept between yourself and Roger
Pay no Attention. He's tried to airbrush his time in Manchester completely but ask anyone to name the student who used to moon up and down Oxford Rd most Saturday nights. I'd be very surprised if one of thse trophies on Tommy Ducks ceiling doesn't bear the name 'Alanbrooke'
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
Zac Goldsmith's attack on Sadiq Khan linking him with terrorism is a cautionary tale. It cost Zac his 23,000 majority and his reputation.
Not sure it's quite on the same scale as Corbyn.
You're right. It isn't. But it illustrates the danger in that line of attack.
I hope Andrew Neil questions him closely on this. I suspect Corbyn will enhance his reputation. We'll see. The more he is seen as he is and not through hostile newspapers and commentators, the better he will do.
I wonder if that would hold true for videos of him praising the IRA's struggle?
Instead of the hustings in Epping tonight we had a service of remembrance for Manchester with 22 candles representing each of the victims. The Father gave a good sermon 'what happened was not heroic it was cowardice, love will conquer hate etc' and all parties agreed the hustings will still take place but at a later date as the priest also said 'we will let terrorism win if we do not allow democracy to continue' a statement I expect we all agree with
Foxinsoxuk said 'I think that the voting public are much more phlegmatic than the more hysterical posters here. The murder of Jo Cox mid campaign did not alter the Brexit referendum noticeably. The French too did not alter their views because of terror attacks, nor did the Germans. I dont think Britons will either. '
We cannot be sure that the Jo Cox murder had no effect last year. It may well be that had it not been for that tragic event the Leave campaign would have won by a 55: 45 margin rather than 52: 48.
Presumably - as you say - the media will feel less restraint. As they jolly well should. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are outright appeasers of terror, if not actual traitors.
Shifting the ground to security and defense does the job in itself for the Tories.
well he's got so much time on his hands these days .....
You miss him don't you.
I predicted this.
Like I miss haemorroids
You'll feel better when you admit it.
Serious question.
Are you disappointed that Osborne didn't have the courage to challenge for the Conservative leadership ?
spineless in Tatton
So many politicians have been willing to give it a go when they weren't the favourite - Wilson, Heath, Thatcher, Foot, Kinnock, Blair, Hague, IDS, EdM, Cameron and indeed May and Corbyn.
But Osborne wimped out.
And the man who Osborne's lack of courage and consequential bitterness reminds me of:
Gordon Brown
Though Brown did become PM in the end.
I would have said Blair, Heath and Wilson were all favourites in those particular contests with those electorates, although possibly not to the public at large given Brown, Maudling and Brown all had higher public profiles.
William Whitelaw was the one - overwhelming favourite to win and didn't even stand!
Wikipedia says that Maudling was considered the favourite in 1965:
and Wilson had the good fortune that there were two candidates from Labour's centre-right.
The Brown / Blair hypothetical is interesting - I think that if Brown had had the courage to run against John Smith in 1992 he would have lost but would have made himself 'next in line' for the leadership.
Yes, with the public Maudling would have been the favourite, but not with Tory MPs. He was considered arrogant and lazy while Heath was much admired for his role in keeping the party from collapse over Suez as Chief Whip.
I think it is a great shame from every point of view that Brown didn't stand and come fourth in 1994. That would have avoided a disastrous 13-year sulk.
When is the next PB meet in Yorkshire? Cycling World Championships? A bit of a way off!
I'm hoping to arrange a PB meet in Manchester in October to coincide with the Tory conference.
It is a pity they demolished Tommy Ducks - you lot would have loved it, especially the "collection" nailed to the ceiling
That takes me back. women's knickers wasn't it?
Yes. However, for the avoidance of doubt, none of them belonged to me
I assume you go commando ?
You assume wrongly.
shame Roger and I regularly meet for commando weekends in Ludlow.
Really? Well.... it is Ludlow I suppose, not much else to do. Nonetheless such things are best kept between yourself and Roger
Pay no Attention. He's tried to airbrush his time in Manchester completely but ask anyone to name the student who used to moon up and down Oxford Rd most Saturday nights. I'd be very surprised if one of thse trophies on Tommy Ducks ceiling doesn't bear the name 'Alanbrooke'
I suppose you spent your nights at the arty cinema on Oxford Station Ramp? It strikes me as your sort of place
Tommy Ducks was high class compared to The Continental, just off Princess St.
If Manchester had not happened then these posters would have been a humorous talking point in respect of a PM very much on the ropes and trying to change things as she went along whilst pretending otherwise. I think yesterday was arguably a leader's worst day in a GE since Brown met Mrs Duffy.
It would have got people talking about his paper in a big way. Is that not his job? Of course after events overnight it looks crass. But who could have foreseen that?
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
Zac Goldsmith's attack on Sadiq Khan linking him with terrorism is a cautionary tale. It cost Zac his 23,000 majority and his reputation.
Not sure it's quite on the same scale as Corbyn.
You're right. It isn't. But it illustrates the danger in that line of attack.
I hope Andrew Neil questions him closely on this. I suspect Corbyn will enhance his reputation. We'll see. The more he is seen as he is and not through hostile newspapers and commentators, the better he will do.
That rather assumes for one that Corbyn is as he says he is and no more, and for two that people are in essence just being brainwashed into disliking him.
Aw, all the headbangers are upset because George Osborne is having fun at the Prime Minister's expense. He's grasped his new job's responsibilities early, which is to engage readers. Deference and obsequiousness would be hindrances, not assets.
TBF it wasn't even in the paper. It's a silly bit of internet click bait
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
Zac Goldsmith's attack on Sadiq Khan linking him with terrorism is a cautionary tale. It cost Zac his 23,000 majority and his reputation.
Not sure it's quite on the same scale as Corbyn.
You're right. It isn't. But it illustrates the danger in that line of attack.
I hope Andrew Neil questions him closely on this. I suspect Corbyn will enhance his reputation. We'll see. The more he is seen as he is and not through hostile newspapers and commentators, the better he will do.
That rather assumes for one that Corbyn is as he says he is and no more, and for two that people are in essence just being brainwashed into disliking him.
Presumably - as you say - the media will feel less restraint. As they jolly well should. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are outright appeasers of terror, if not actual traitors.
Shifting the ground to security and defense does the job in itself for the Tories.
The Conservative need say nothing at all. Corbyn's record speaks for itself.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
That is a risk they may not want to take, true, although I think given that Corbyn has been forced to 'clarify' his views on such things twice already it's quite possible it will come up of its own accord.
However that could conceivably be bad news for Corbyn, for it then begs the question of whether they might go for a different line of attack - his record in this highly unsavoury case, which to put it mildly is underwhelming and is back in the news in the last fortnight:
I think any party would be foolish to campaign on terrorism now. It risks looking ghoulish.
The media might do it for them, mind.
Same thought occurred to me today. Manchester, paradoxically, makes it HARDER for the Tories to go at Corbyn over terrorism. It's so saddening and horrible, any electoral reference to terror, however oblique or tangential, could backfire badly.
Presumably - as you say - the media will feel less restraint. As they jolly well should. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are outright appeasers of terror, if not actual traitors.
What makes you think that they are not traitors? Really not sure I see it myself.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
Zac Goldsmith's attack on Sadiq Khan linking him with terrorism is a cautionary tale. It cost Zac his 23,000 majority and his reputation.
Not sure it's quite on the same scale as Corbyn.
You're right. It isn't. But it illustrates the danger in that line of attack.
I hope Andrew Neil questions him closely on this. I suspect Corbyn will enhance his reputation. We'll see. The more he is seen as he is and not through hostile newspapers and commentators, the better he will do.
That rather assumes for one that Corbyn is as he says he is and no more, and for two that people are in essence just being brainwashed into disliking him.
You're clearly not aware of the mainstream media.
I believe it is pronounced "Mainstream Media"*evil laughter*.
If Manchester had not happened then these posters would have been a humorous talking point in respect of a PM very much on the ropes and trying to change things as she went along whilst pretending otherwise. I think yesterday was arguably a leader's worst day in a GE since Brown met Mrs Duffy.
It would have got people talking about his paper in a big way. Is that not his job? Of course after events overnight it looks crass. But who could have foreseen that?
It was published AFTER the attacks (I think).
I am very sure that the posters will have been ordered before. He has been caught out by events. It happens. Ideally he would have cancelled but presumably it was too difficult.
But I find it difficult to criticise politicians for coming out with the 'never be cowed' stuff. They're national leaders: it's their job to look strong and defiant.
Aw, all the headbangers are upset because George Osborne is having fun at the Prime Minister's expense. He's grasped his new job's responsibilities early, which is to engage readers. Deference and obsequiousness would be hindrances, not assets.
I'm a professional journalist, you're not. That story just screams "non story which furthers my editorial agenda", the kind of thing the Express or the Sun or the Mirror might, if they are really at a pinch, run on a very very slow news day, and hope that no one really notices, even if it has the desired subliminal impact.
On the day after the worst atrocity on British soil in a decade? When the Prime Minister, the PM he is so blatantly yet adolescently mocking, is asking her advisors how many kids died?
It's just shit journalism. Shit editing. Just a bit shit. Call me a pious hypocritical twat, but Osborne is certainly burning his bridges - Tories won't forget this.
You're a pious hypocritical twat. The story isn't there for you but for the many thousands of young leftish Londoners who have enjoyed the discomfort the Prime Minister has suffered over the last few days. Yesterday's major news story is not so old (except in the minds of the most dementedly partisan Tories) that it isn't worth a reprise.
Not today, though. Not today. Manchester is massive. It's the most read and watched thing everywhere. The nation mourns. People cry. And Osborne titters maliciously, with his scented kerchief poised at a powdered nostril.
That's not the best look.
Indeed, May looks statesmanlike, even Corbyn acts seriously, Osborne acts like a sixth former it is not a good look. He is a very talented and intelligent man no doubt but he was never a leader
If Manchester had not happened then these posters would have been a humorous talking point in respect of a PM very much on the ropes and trying to change things as she went along whilst pretending otherwise. I think yesterday was arguably a leader's worst day in a GE since Brown met Mrs Duffy.
It would have got people talking about his paper in a big way. Is that not his job? Of course after events overnight it looks crass. But who could have foreseen that?
It was published AFTER the attacks (I think).
I am very sure that the posters will have been ordered before. He has been caught out by events. It happens. Ideally he would have cancelled but presumably it was too difficult.
Well he is right that we always say we won't allow these things to change us, that we are not afraid, but in fact we are and we do, although I rather disagree with the conflating of putting on a brave front and praising strong words with not having a free press.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
That is a risk they may not want to take, true, although I think given that Corbyn has been forced to 'clarify' his views on such things twice already it's quite possible it will come up of its own accord.
However that could conceivably be bad news for Corbyn, for it then begs the question of whether they might go for a different line of attack - his record in this highly unsavoury case, which to put it mildly is underwhelming and is back in the news in the last fortnight:
I think any party would be foolish to campaign on terrorism now. It risks looking ghoulish.
The media might do it for them, mind.
Same thought occurred to me today. Manchester, paradoxically, makes it HARDER for the Tories to go at Corbyn over terrorism. It's so saddening and horrible, any electoral reference to terror, however oblique or tangential, could backfire badly.
Presumably - as you say - the media will feel less restraint. As they jolly well should. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are outright appeasers of terror, if not actual traitors.
I expect the newspapers to hold nothing back in their attacks on Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott from the end of the week, and then to continue through the weekend, and beyond.
This election will now be run on the narrative 'who do you want to negotiate Brexit and who do you trust over National security'
I've been banned from Twitter by my girlfriend. She's a fierce 21 year old Corbynista, and she hates my right wing views, even as we have lots of fun. She's told me she can't continue to go out with me, if I publicly air my vile, Thatcherite opinions, and, like the French at Dien Bien Phu, I have folded pathetically, and agreed. Because she is absurdly beautiful and sexy, and I am a sad pussywhipped middle aged man in a swoon. Oh god. And she will probably dump me in a week, anyway.
So I am afraid I might be overly vocal on here, for a while, until I find somewhere else to go. Or she chucks me.
FPT Jason said: » show previous quotes One thing I found curious about this announcement was the total lack of scrutiny from either the Tories or the media. As you say, one of the most naked electoral bribes I can ever remember, coming in at an eye watering 10 billion quid a year. As I mentioned earlier, the scrutiny of Labour's manifesto (and Mr Corbyn) has been woefully lacking because nobody took it seriously. That cannot be allowed to continue.
We all know the voting history of 18-24 year olds, so the Tories needn't worry too much, I feel. They didn't even turn out for the EU referendum in any great number, and I expect the same at this election.
They don't want to give an obvious bribe the oxygen of publicity... instead concentrate on the overall sums not adding up. Don't want to increase awareness among benefiting students, do we?
Did they actually not turnoput. I seem to recall reading that the figures showe dreasonab;e levels. Not as high as my age group, admittedly.
There appears to be no significant increase in turnout among young people, with 18-24s almost half as likely to vote as those aged 65+ (43% vs 78%; in 2010 estimated turnout for 18-24s was 44%).
Which half of that age group do you think is voting?
The half who made it to university or the half that did not?
I've never understood the meme that students do not vote. In 2001 I was living in a Halls of Residence as an 18 year old student and virtually everyone I spoke to that day voted. While young people as a whole do not turnout I imagine most who dropped out of education before uni are those not voting.
Would be interested to see some actual numbers on that, but I fear no analysis has been done.
Indeed but extrapolating from other things we know, the more educated tend to vote more than the less educated overall I believe. It seems logical to imagine there is a sharp divide between those who have and have not gone on to university at 18. In my anecdotal experience the people I know who haven't gone to university are precisely the sort not to vote.
I would imagine (just an educated guess) that the turnout for 18-21 students is not that much if any lower than turnout for older age groups 25+ ... while turnout for 18-21 non-students will be dramatically lower, lower than the average figures we normally see and potentially as low as single figures or teens.
I've been banned from Twitter by my girlfriend. She's a fierce 21 year old Corbynista, and she hates my right wing views, even as we have lots of fun. She's told me she can't continue to go out with me, if I publicly air my vile, Thatcherite opinions, and, like the French at Dien Bien Phu, I have folded pathetically, and agreed. Because she is absurdly beautiful and sexy, and I am a sad pussywhipped middle aged man in a swoon. Oh god. And she will probably dump me in a week, anyway.
So I am afraid I might be overly vocal on here, for a while, until I find somewhere else to go. Or she chucks me.
Phew. Sorry. Had to share that. Apols.
You are rewarding unreasonable behaviour. Have some self-respect and let her go!
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
That is a risk they may not want to take, true, although I think given that Corbyn has been forced to 'clarify' his views on such things twice already it's quite possible it will come up of its own accord.
However that could conceivably be bad news for Corbyn, for it then begs the question of whether they might go for a different line of attack - his record in this highly unsavoury case, which to put it mildly is underwhelming and is back in the news in the last fortnight:
I think any party would be foolish to campaign on terrorism now. It risks looking ghoulish.
The media might do it for them, mind.
Same thought occurred to me today. Manchester, paradoxically, makes it HARDER for the Tories to go at Corbyn over terrorism. It's so saddening and horrible, any electoral reference to terror, however oblique or tangential, could backfire badly.
Presumably - as you say - the media will feel less restraint. As they jolly well should. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are outright appeasers of terror, if not actual traitors.
What makes you think that they are not traitors? Really not sure I see it myself.
I think Abbott's and McDonnell's comments on the IRA (inter alia) mark them down as traitors. For sure. If we're being honest. I'm not convinced Corbyn himself has said anything quite as damning. Though he is definitely a fellow-traveller, and an appeaser.
But I find it difficult to criticise politicians for coming out with the 'never be cowed' stuff. They're national leaders: it's their job to look strong and defiant.
Yes but are we not all getting tired of this crap? The gestures of solidarity that impresses no one but ourselves, the assertion of our values (provided that there is no personal risk), the vainglorious claims that democracy and decency will prevail because, well because they must. I have had too much wine but I am starting to think that taking out Medina and reducing it to rubble looks a good response.
I've been banned from Twitter by my girlfriend. She's a fierce 21 year old Corbynista, and she hates my right wing views, even as we have lots of fun. She's told me she can't continue to go out with me, if I publicly air my vile, Thatcherite opinions, and, like the French at Dien Bien Phu, I have folded pathetically, and agreed. Because she is absurdly beautiful and sexy, and I am a sad pussywhipped middle aged man in a swoon. Oh god. And she will probably dump me in a week, anyway.
So I am afraid I might be overly vocal on here, for a while, until I find somewhere else to go. Or she chucks me.
Phew. Sorry. Had to share that. Apols.
Just dump her - and find yourself a nice 20 year-old Tory as consolation!!
The PB Tories, and Sean, and - bizarrely - Cyclefree seem to have take leave of their senses today.
Corbyn is shite. He is a deluded old trot. But he has sod all to do with Manchester. Linking him with it because of the pro-IRA comments he has made in the distant past is utterly stupid, either from the media, or the Tory party itself.
It is in extreme bad taste to keep writing about the IRA on the day when so many innocent people have died. If you want to attack the Labour Leadership then do it on another day or not at all. The IRA pitch smacks of desperation.
I've been banned from Twitter by my girlfriend. She's a fierce 21 year old Corbynista, and she hates my right wing views, even as we have lots of fun. She's told me she can't continue to go out with me, if I publicly air my vile, Thatcherite opinions, and, like the French at Dien Bien Phu, I have folded pathetically, and agreed. Because she is absurdly beautiful and sexy, and I am a sad pussywhipped middle aged man in a swoon. Oh god. And she will probably dump me in a week, anyway.
So I am afraid I might be overly vocal on here, for a while, until I find somewhere else to go. Or she chucks me.
Phew. Sorry. Had to share that. Apols.
Just dump her - and find yourself a nice 20 year-old Tory as consolation!!
20 year old Tories - do they exist?
I think Sean needs to change tactics - does he like older women?
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
Don't attack over the IRA. But do put out there those quotes by Labour people. Ask him whether he agrees that intelligence rather than bombing is the best way to stop such attacks and ask him why he is putting forward as Home Secretary someone who has publicly expressed disdain for those services. Ask him whether he agrees with her words about "a defeat for the British state being a victory for us all". Etc etc.
It is in extreme bad taste to keep writing about the IRA on the day when so many innocent people have died. If you want to attack the Labour Leadership then do it on another day or not at all. The IRA pitch smacks of desperation.
People are free to attack the Labour or Tory leaderships on this or any other day, yes even such a day as this. It's a political website, if people cannot face discussing politics on such a day, when there is likely to be much in bad taste as emotions get heated, then they should wait until a day they can face it.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
That is a risk they may not want to take, true, although I think given that Corbyn has been forced to 'clarify' his views on such things twice already it's quite possible it will come up of its own accord.
However that could conceivably be bad news for Corbyn, for it then begs the question of whether they might go for a different line of attack - his record in this highly unsavoury case, which to put it mildly is underwhelming and is back in the news in the last fortnight:
I think any party would be foolish to campaign on terrorism now. It risks looking ghoulish.
The media might do it for them, mind.
Same thought occurred to me today. Manchester, paradoxically, makes it HARDER for the Tories to go at Corbyn over terrorism. It's so saddening and horrible, any electoral reference to terror, however oblique or tangential, could backfire badly.
Presumably - as you say - the media will feel less restraint. As they jolly well should. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are outright appeasers of terror, if not actual traitors.
What makes you think that they are not traitors? Really not sure I see it myself.
I think Abbott's and McDonnell's comments on the IRA (inter alia) mark them down as traitors. For sure. If we're being honest. I'm not convinced Corbyn himself has said anything quite as damning. Though he is definitely a fellow-traveller, and an appeaser.
Did he not invite IRA terrorists to the HoC about a week after Brighton? It says everything that you want to say about the Labour party that he was ever allowed to stand for them again.
I've been banned from Twitter by my girlfriend. She's a fierce 21 year old Corbynista, and she hates my right wing views, even as we have lots of fun. She's told me she can't continue to go out with me, if I publicly air my vile, Thatcherite opinions, and, like the French at Dien Bien Phu, I have folded pathetically, and agreed. Because she is absurdly beautiful and sexy, and I am a sad pussywhipped middle aged man in a swoon. Oh god. And she will probably dump me in a week, anyway.
So I am afraid I might be overly vocal on here, for a while, until I find somewhere else to go. Or she chucks me.
Phew. Sorry. Had to share that. Apols.
Man up, dump her and start thinking with your brain and not your with baby making equipment. If you cannot be yourself in a relationship, you shouldn't be in that relationship.
I've been banned from Twitter by my girlfriend. She's a fierce 21 year old Corbynista, and she hates my right wing views, even as we have lots of fun. She's told me she can't continue to go out with me, if I publicly air my vile, Thatcherite opinions, and, like the French at Dien Bien Phu, I have folded pathetically, and agreed. Because she is absurdly beautiful and sexy, and I am a sad pussywhipped middle aged man in a swoon. Oh god. And she will probably dump me in a week, anyway.
So I am afraid I might be overly vocal on here, for a while, until I find somewhere else to go. Or she chucks me.
Phew. Sorry. Had to share that. Apols.
Just dump her - and find yourself a nice 20 year-old Tory as consolation!!
20 year old Tories - do they exist?
I'm afraid they do, they get lots of votes from that age, just nowhere near as many as Labour. As they are fewer, finding ones of equivalent beauty with a penchant for thriller writers may be tougher though.
I've been banned from Twitter by my girlfriend. She's a fierce 21 year old Corbynista, and she hates my right wing views, even as we have lots of fun. She's told me she can't continue to go out with me, if I publicly air my vile, Thatcherite opinions, and, like the French at Dien Bien Phu, I have folded pathetically, and agreed. Because she is absurdly beautiful and sexy, and I am a sad pussywhipped middle aged man in a swoon. Oh god. And she will probably dump me in a week, anyway.
So I am afraid I might be overly vocal on here, for a while, until I find somewhere else to go. Or she chucks me.
Phew. Sorry. Had to share that. Apols.
You are rewarding unreasonable behaviour. Have some self-respect and let her go!
Man, you should see her. Stunning. One of those girls that silences a bar when she walks in. All male faces turn.
I am hapless. Pinioned. Skewered by my own libido. Also she is very funny and very smart, she might be Corbynite but she can think for herself. Her leftwing parents hate me.
Renounce the evil dark side and join the light! You know it's good for you! LOL!!
It is in extreme bad taste to keep writing about the IRA on the day when so many innocent people have died. If you want to attack the Labour Leadership then do it on another day or not at all. The IRA pitch smacks of desperation.
Here in Canada the news media including the US have been constantly comparing the attack to the IRA outrages
I've been banned from Twitter by my girlfriend. She's a fierce 21 year old Corbynista, and she hates my right wing views, even as we have lots of fun. She's told me she can't continue to go out with me, if I publicly air my vile, Thatcherite opinions, and, like the French at Dien Bien Phu, I have folded pathetically, and agreed. Because she is absurdly beautiful and sexy, and I am a sad pussywhipped middle aged man in a swoon. Oh god. And she will probably dump me in a week, anyway.
So I am afraid I might be overly vocal on here, for a while, until I find somewhere else to go. Or she chucks me.
Phew. Sorry. Had to share that. Apols.
You are rewarding unreasonable behaviour. Have some self-respect and let her go!
Man, you should see her. Stunning. One of those girls that silences a bar when she walks in. All male faces turn.
I am hapless. Pinioned. Skewered by my own libido. Also she is very funny and very smart, she might be Corbynite but she can think for herself. Her leftwing parents hate me.
It is in extreme bad taste to keep writing about the IRA on the day when so many innocent people have died. If you want to attack the Labour Leadership then do it on another day or not at all. The IRA pitch smacks of desperation.
People are free to attack the Labour or Tory leaderships on this or any other day, yes even such a day as this. It's a political website, if people cannot face discussing politics on such a day, when there is likely to be much in bad taste as emotions get heated, then they should wait until a day they can face it.
And that is fine, by the way. I cannot fine many a political bitchfight.
@SeanT Always difficult to find the words to deal with a situation like that. I don't think there's a right answer - hopefully you'll be able to find your bollocks spirit some place soon.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
That is a risk they may not want to take, true, although I think given that Corbyn has been forced to 'clarify' his views on such things twice already it's quite possible it will come up of its own accord.
However that could conceivably be bad news for Corbyn, for it then begs the question of whether they might go for a different line of attack - his record in this highly unsavoury case, which to put it mildly is underwhelming and is back in the news in the last fortnight:
I think any party would be foolish to campaign on terrorism now. It risks looking ghoulish.
The media might do it for them, mind.
Same thought occurred to me today. Manchester, paradoxically, makes it HARDER for the Tories to go at Corbyn over terrorism. It's so saddening and horrible, any electoral reference to terror, however oblique or tangential, could backfire badly.
Presumably - as you say - the media will feel less restraint. As they jolly well should. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are outright appeasers of terror, if not actual traitors.
What makes you think that they are not traitors? Really not sure I see it myself.
I think Abbott's and McDonnell's comments on the IRA (inter alia) mark them down as traitors. For sure. If we're being honest. I'm not convinced Corbyn himself has said anything quite as damning. Though he is definitely a fellow-traveller, and an appeaser.
Did he not invite IRA terrorists to the HoC about a week after Brighton? It says everything that you want to say about the Labour party that he was ever allowed to stand for them again.
Hopefully the three of them didn't say anything after the 96 attack.
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
That is a risk they may not want to take, true, although I think given that Corbyn has been forced to 'clarify' his views on such things twice already it's quite possible it will come up of its own accord.
However that could conceivably be bad news for Corbyn, for it then begs the question of whether they might go for a different line of attack - his record in this highly unsavoury case, which to put it mildly is underwhelming and is back in the news in the last fortnight:
I think any party would be foolish to campaign on terrorism now. It risks looking ghoulish.
The media might do it for them, mind.
Same thought occurred to me today. Manchester, paradoxically, makes it HARDER for the Tories to go at Corbyn over terrorism. It's so saddening and horrible, any electoral reference to terror, however oblique or tangential, could backfire badly.
Presumably - as you say - the media will feel less restraint. As they jolly well should. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are outright appeasers of terror, if not actual traitors.
What makes you think that they are not traitors? Really not sure I see it myself.
I think Abbott's and McDonnell's comments on the IRA (inter alia) mark them down as traitors. For sure. If we're being honest. I'm not convinced Corbyn himself has said anything quite as damning. Though he is definitely a fellow-traveller, and an appeaser.
Abbott's traitorous views are on the record.
For crying out loud. I am on here dissing the boring, entitled, anti-meritocratic monarchy as "Britain's richest welfare recipients", from time to time. I guess you want to strap on the jack boots Rob and march me to the scaffold (at the Tower, naturally) ?
I share what @TudorRose wrote on the previous thread about how to tackle Corbyn.
Perhaps some comments from Labour types might help.........................
But surely Conservatives are going to have to be very, very careful here - because if they now attack Corbyn over IRA etc it may well appear highly inappropriate after what has happened - they may well be accused of exploiting the situation. Which could be a huge negative for them.
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
That is a risk they may not want to take, true, although I think given that Corbyn has been forced to 'clarify' his views on such things twice already it's quite possible it will come up of its own accord.
However that could conceivably be bad news for Corbyn, for it then begs the question of whether they might go for a different line of attack - his record in this highly unsavoury case, which to put it mildly is underwhelming and is back in the news in the last fortnight:
I think any party would be foolish to campaign on terrorism now. It risks looking ghoulish.
The media might do it for them, mind.
Same thought occurred to me today. Manchester, paradoxically, makes it HARDER for the Tories to go at Corbyn over terrorism. It's so saddening and horrible, any electoral reference to terror, however oblique or tangential, could backfire badly.
Presumably - as you say - the media will feel less restraint. As they jolly well should. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are outright appeasers of terror, if not actual traitors.
I expect the newspapers to hold nothing back in their attacks on Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott from the end of the week, and then to continue through the weekend, and beyond.
This election will now be run on the narrative 'who do you want to negotiate Brexit and who do you trust over National security'
May or Corbyn
Not convinced of that. I suspect it will be very difficult to get the electorate so focussed on such a technical issue as Brexit following this terrible atrocity. In October 1974 the Guildford pub bombings took place just five days before polling day, but did not lead to the other domestic issues of the day being pushed aside and largely ignored.I will be surprised if in a weeks time the campaign's focus is on security.
I've been banned from Twitter by my girlfriend. She's a fierce 21 year old Corbynista, and she hates my right wing views, even as we have lots of fun. She's told me she can't continue to go out with me, if I publicly air my vile, Thatcherite opinions, and, like the French at Dien Bien Phu, I have folded pathetically, and agreed. Because she is absurdly beautiful and sexy, and I am a sad pussywhipped middle aged man in a swoon. Oh god. And she will probably dump me in a week, anyway.
So I am afraid I might be overly vocal on here, for a while, until I find somewhere else to go. Or she chucks me.
Phew. Sorry. Had to share that. Apols.
You are rewarding unreasonable behaviour. Have some self-respect and let her go!
Man, you should see her. Stunning. One of those girls that silences a bar when she walks in. All male faces turn.
I am hapless. Pinioned. Skewered by my own libido. Also she is very funny and very smart, she might be Corbynite but she can think for herself. Her leftwing parents hate me.
Was that because they're younger than you?
It's because he associates with people who get excited by local by-elections. Highly suspect.
Comments
So it may well now be much harder for Con to finish the campaign with attacks on Corbyn along these lines.
Having said that, what has happened has obviously massively elevated the issue of security which has to be a strong point for Con.
Are you disappointed that Osborne didn't have the courage to challenge for the Conservative leadership ?
I think he needs to rethink his obvious massive gripe. You really can't play out your personal vendettas at the expense of the country.
I expect he'll end up a regular on HIGNFY.
He is an interesting figure in that he is probably one of the few people hated pretty evenly by the left and right at the moment. Tony Blair perhaps another.
He didn't want to see all the hard work of the past ten and a half years undone, like in 2005, when he declined to run, for the greater good.
June 23rd was the Cameroon Dunkerque.
Osborne is looking/waiting for the opportunity to launch Overlord.
I suspect his leadership ambitions ended with the UK's membership of the EU, but he might fancy moulding a future Tory leader down the line.
Remember within the next few years George Osborne is going to be an extremely wealthy man as well as influential man.
Lots of prejudgements in the manifestos.
Not particularly surprising now because that's what you do for your own but whether that's how they'll see us in the years ahead is anyone's guess.
Yougov Comparison - two weeks before the vote.
2015: D/Ks and Won't Votes: 20%
2017: D/Ks and Won't Votes: 30%
2015: 10/10 to vote: 64%
2017: 10/10 to vote: 50%
(Cautionary note: I can't be certain whether they have reweighted or changed presentation)
But Osborne wimped out.
And the man who Osborne's lack of courage and consequential bitterness reminds me of:
Gordon Brown
Though Brown did become PM in the end.
However that could conceivably be bad news for Corbyn, for it then begs the question of whether they might go for a different line of attack - his record in this highly unsavoury case, which to put it mildly is underwhelming and is back in the news in the last fortnight:
http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/politics/islington-kids-homes-scandal-shame-of-ex-mayor-sandy-marks-pro-paedophile-past-1-5012565
In 2010 I and others were very worried indeed about GO's qualifications to steer us out of violent waters. He did though, but only just about.
On the other hand, cynicism also dictates that a necessary plurality of voters are likely to stick with the Tories (social care concerns or no) because they suspect, deep down, that Corbyn Labour will prove disastrous for their wallets. So Labour should lose regardless.
You should feel betrayed.
I think my favourite was the headmaster who got locked out of a classroom and had to send for backup...
Edit: Not just that of course. There was also Brexit. But I canvassed a man last night who said "I'm definitely not voting for Zac Goldsmith. I nodded encouragingly. He went on "I'm voting for the Conservative Party".
William Whitelaw was the one - overwhelming favourite to win and didn't even stand!
You clearly weren't in town today, because Manchester was the front page. Very striking, poignant headline, that I won't repeat because we have all heard enough for one day.
Ozzy is entitled to run that funny in the internals.
Seriously, back off with the piousness - doesn't suit you.
I suspect if you ever met him you'd like him.
The media might do it for them, mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_1965
and Wilson had the good fortune that there were two candidates from Labour's centre-right.
The Brown / Blair hypothetical is interesting - I think that if Brown had had the courage to run against John Smith in 1992 he would have lost but would have made himself 'next in line' for the leadership.
He could, in theory, become a grandee like Heseltine.
I hope Andrew Neil questions him closely on this. I suspect Corbyn will enhance his reputation. We'll see. The more he is seen as he is and not through hostile newspapers and commentators, the better he will do.
There is plenty out there after all.
Perhaps I would like him - I've read various conflicting accounts as to his personality.
'I think that the voting public are much more phlegmatic than the more hysterical posters here. The murder of Jo Cox mid campaign did not alter the Brexit referendum noticeably. The French too did not alter their views because of terror attacks, nor did the Germans. I dont think Britons will either. '
We cannot be sure that the Jo Cox murder had no effect last year. It may well be that had it not been for that tragic event the Leave campaign would have won by a 55: 45 margin rather than 52: 48.
I think it is a great shame from every point of view that Brown didn't stand and come fourth in 1994. That would have avoided a disastrous 13-year sulk.
Tommy Ducks was high class compared to The Continental, just off Princess St.
It would have got people talking about his paper in a big way. Is that not his job? Of course after events overnight it looks crass. But who could have foreseen that?
But I find it difficult to criticise politicians for coming out with the 'never be cowed' stuff. They're national leaders: it's their job to look strong and defiant.
This election will now be run on the narrative 'who do you want to negotiate Brexit and who do you trust over National security'
May or Corbyn
But I'm guessing it won't be beyond June 9th...
I would imagine (just an educated guess) that the turnout for 18-21 students is not that much if any lower than turnout for older age groups 25+ ... while turnout for 18-21 non-students will be dramatically lower, lower than the average figures we normally see and potentially as low as single figures or teens.
I have had too much wine but I am starting to think that taking out Medina and reducing it to rubble looks a good response.
Corbyn is shite. He is a deluded old trot. But he has sod all to do with Manchester. Linking him with it because of the pro-IRA comments he has made in the distant past is utterly stupid, either from the media, or the Tory party itself.
May is going to win big anyway. Don't worry.
The IRA pitch smacks of desperation.
I think Sean needs to change tactics - does he like older women?