Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
The 1979 compromise - 40% of the eligible electorate - was a more sensible one. It meant without a high turnout a very clear margin was needed. Indeed, that might have given us the best of all worlds in this referendum - a clear warning to the EU that they were behaving like a bunch of idiots, while still keeping us in.
That said, anyone who didn't vote and claims they now want to stay is as far as I am concerned in a hard Cheddar situation. They had their chance. If they had come out and voted Remain, Remain might have won. They didn't and we lost. Their mistake.
Yes it's history now, we are where we are. I just think the onus in future should be on those who want to change the status quo to get out and vote.
I think you'd find a way of criticising any voting mechanism that didn't get the result that you wanted, but then you'd not be alone in that
I doubt an "independent fisheries policy" will be substantially different in practice from the Common Fisheries Policy, which probably isn't that bad anyway. Mr Lamont appears to have bought into the idea fishermen have that Brexit will be transformative and will see a huge boost in employment in fishing. There's no objective reason to believe that, but fishermen are optimists by nature.
Some huge share of UK waters goes to other EU nations so it is almost certain employment in the sector would be boosted tremendously by leaving the CFP.
I doubt an "independent fisheries policy" will be substantially different in practice from the Common Fisheries Policy, which probably isn't that bad anyway. Mr Lamont appears to have bought into the idea fishermen have that Brexit will be transformative and will see a huge boost in employment in fishing. There's no objective reason to believe that, but fishermen are optimists by nature.
Or it could be merely political cover for voting against the deal. We’re now at a point where the government can have an Article 50 deal on the table whenever it wants so the choreography for a second referendum or exit strategy can begin.
I expect there will be joint management of fish stocks and a bilateral agreement on quotas.where the UK trades fishing access for EU market access. In effect it will be similar to the current arrangement I expect. The killer for the Scottish fish industry will be in processed fish, if we stay outside the CFP.+ CU. Norway has to pay 13% duty on smoked salmon and other processed fish. It's not worth it. Norway sends its salmon to Scotland to be smoked because Scotland is in the EU.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
The 1979 compromise - 40% of the eligible electorate - was a more sensible one. It meant without a high turnout a very clear margin was needed. Indeed, that might have given us the best of all worlds in this referendum - a clear warning to the EU that they were behaving like a bunch of idiots, while still keeping us in.
That said, anyone who didn't vote and claims they now want to stay is as far as I am concerned in a hard Cheddar situation. They had their chance. If they had come out and voted Remain, Remain might have won. They didn't and we lost. Their mistake.
Yes it's history now, we are where we are. I just think the onus in future should be on those who want to change the status quo to get out and vote.
I think you'd find a way of criticising any voting mechanism that didn't get the result that you wanted, but then you'd not be alone in that
The Brexit ref is history; I was talking about future referenda
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
Strange thing about McDonnell was that Sky showed him completely endorsing TM and opposite to Corbyn but BBC did not show that clip but words that were ambiguous, and all from the same interview.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I think to be fair, the vast majority of PBers called out Corbyn's reaction as wrong and a mistake.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
As an election is likely several years away at best that may be difficult to prove one way or another, but as someone who thinks Corbyn's approach has been explicitly political and some of his defenders disingenuous (particularly once Corbyn's position was altered from its initial position, thus invalidating some of the defences), I am curious as to why this issue, and no other of his myriad ones, will resonate so effectively years from now, when quite similar ones either did not have an effect last time, or only had the effect of minimising the gains that he did make for other reasons.
according to Avery Theresa is following Jeremy's lead
Well that makes no sense, since his position, officially, is now 'same thing as the government, but let's be even more careful than we already are', IIRC.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I think to be fair, the vast majority of PBers called out Corbyn's reaction as wrong and a mistake.
I have an admission to make. I have little or no knowledge of US politics, even less interest in all the machinations, but Hilary Clinton was a dud and Trump is a total embarrassment. Hopefully someday the US will appoint a President worthy of that high office.
The advantage I have is that it does not add another level of stress above the chaos that is Brexit and the labour party with a Marxist Russian loving, anti west, communist party dominated leader
I can understand the merit of wanting 2/3 or something else other than just 50% + 1 vote for referendum on big changes, although I'd never really thought about it before the EU referendum the reasoning behind it seems pretty good.
What makes me a bit more reluctant is that even if this had been in place and established before the EU referendum if the result had been similar, or worse an even bigger leave victory but still not enough then that could have caused a lot of problems as well.
I have an admission to make. I have little or no knowledge of US politics, even less interest in all the machinations, but Hilary Clinton was a dud and Trump is a total embarrassment. Hopefully someday the US will appoint a President worthy of that high office.
Democrats should have run with Sanders... not sure how the Republicans could have stopped Trump in all honesty..... (edit) without barring him or some other perhaps illegitimate tactics.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
As an election is likely several years away at best that may be difficult to prove one way or another, but as someone who thinks Corbyn's approach has been explicitly political and some of his defenders disingenuous (particularly once Corbyn's position was altered from its initial position, thus invalidating some of the defences), I am curious as to why this issue, and no other of his myriad ones, will resonate so effectively years from now, when quite similar ones either did not have an effect last time, or only had the effect of minimising the gains that he did make for other reasons.
according to Avery Theresa is following Jeremy's lead
Well that makes no sense, since his position, officially, is now 'same thing as the government, but let's be even more careful than we already are', IIRC.
A direct (and seemingly undisguised) biological attack on the UK rather changes the terms of debate, don’t you think?
If you don’t, then you are guilty of the same error as Corbyn.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
The polls do not support your contention, probably because such reactions are only reinforcing existing conceptions.
Britain risks becoming a "joke nation" if it cannot formally sign trade deals in the 20 month transition period after the UK leaves the European Union, the most senior Eurosceptic Tory backbencher has warned.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory MP who leads the European Research Group, warns Theresa May that she cannot not accept any deal that leaves the UK as a "subservient state”.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I suspect the majority of the British public don't give a toss about the story.
And of those that do most will have forgetten it by next year or will not have their vote affected by it.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I remember people saying the same when I said the IRA stuff was already priced in during the last general election campaign.
Remember the intellectual frotagging over the number of views on the Corbyn/IRA attack video.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
As an election is likely several years away at best that may be difficult to prove one way or another, but as someone who thinks Corbyn's approach has been explicitly political and some of his defenders disingenuous (particularly once Corbyn's position was altered from its initial position, thus invalidating some of the defences), I am curious as to why this issue, and no other of his myriad ones, will resonate so effectively years from now, when quite similar ones either did not have an effect last time, or only had the effect of minimising the gains that he did make for other reasons.
according to Avery Theresa is following Jeremy's lead
Well that makes no sense, since his position, officially, is now 'same thing as the government, but let's be even more careful than we already are', IIRC.
A direct (and seemingly undisguised) biological attack on the UK rather changes the terms of debate, don’t you think?
If you don’t, then you are guilty of the same error as Corbyn.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I remember people saying the same when I said the IRA stuff was already priced in during the last general election campaign.
Remember the intellectual frotagging over the number of views on the Corbyn/IRA attack video.
I suspect it has hurt Labour, and helped the Conservatives, a little.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
If we have a second referendum the turnout will almost certainly be lower.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
As an election is likely several years away at best that may be difficult to prove one way or another, but as someone who thinks Corbyn's approach has been explicitly political and some of his defenders disingenuous (particularly once Corbyn's position was altered from its initial position, thus invalidating some of the defences), I am curious as to why this issue, and no other of his myriad ones, will resonate so effectively years from now, when quite similar ones either did not have an effect last time, or only had the effect of minimising the gains that he did make for other reasons.
according to Avery Theresa is following Jeremy's lead
Well that makes no sense, since his position, officially, is now 'same thing as the government, but let's be even more careful than we already are', IIRC.
A direct (and seemingly undisguised) biological attack on the UK rather changes the terms of debate, don’t you think?
If you don’t, then you are guilty of the same error as Corbyn.
I thought it was chemical not biological ?
"Physics and biology? No. Physics AS biology." Lieutenant Stamets.
A direct (and seemingly undisguised) biological attack on the UK rather changes the terms of debate, don’t you think?
If you don’t, then you are guilty of the same error as Corbyn.
A terror attack in the UK seemingly did not change the terms of debate when it occurred, when many assumed Corbyn's perceived weaknesses on national security meant that it should. I struggle to see why this heinous event will change the debate when that did not - we already see him and those around him preparing the line to take, about how he is being calm and measured, or that he has in fact supported, even driven, the government take on things. It doesn't have to be plausible to all those who dislike Corbyn, it needs to be enough to keep his base on side, and to prevent those internally who dislike him from rocking the boat. I see no reason to believe he and his advisers cannot manage that - they have run rings around the Labour moderates, and once this tragedy fades from the news cycle any of his base upset about his lukewarm at best response can convince themselves maybe he didn't actually say the things he said, or that it doesn't matter.
There are many reasons I do not like Corbyn - I think he's inflexible, overly simplistic, I think he is far more of a regular professional politician than he and his spinners pretend - but a lot of his base are going nowhere, so it comes down to if he can persuade the rest to live with negative news cycles like he has suffered on foreign affairs. Previous examples would suggest he can, particularly since they are so weak following GE2017.
Many things seem like they should change the terms of debate, but frankly it seems rarer than people think. Perhaps this will be one such time, but given the way things already seem to be dying down, I doubt it.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I remember people saying the same when I said the IRA stuff was already priced in during the last general election campaign.
Remember the intellectual frotagging over the number of views on the Corbyn/IRA attack video.
I think you simply don’t really understand the public reaction. The IRA was many years ago and the peace process has blurred the lines. This is a direct and undisguised CBN attack on the UK and is clearly being seen as such by the best majority of the public, hence Mcdonnell’s shift today. I can’t tell you whether Labour will win the next election (although I am reasonably certain they won’t). But I do know the last few days have made it less likely.
“Sophist” is the right word. Stop trying to be too clever....
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I remember people saying the same when I said the IRA stuff was already priced in during the last general election campaign.
Remember the intellectual frotagging over the number of views on the Corbyn/IRA attack video.
I suspect it has hurt Labour, and helped the Conservatives, a little.
That's my view, however if this is a one off, then it will be forgotten by the time of the 2022 election.
Jeremy Corbyn will have to be less pacifist.
The other day I viewed a PB thread when Corbyn's shoot to kill policy for terrorists (or lack thereof) was considered damaging for Corbyn.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
As an election is likely several years away at best that may be difficult to prove one way or another, but as someone who thinks Corbyn's approach has been explicitly political and some of his defenders disingenuous (particularly once Corbyn's position was altered from its initial position, thus invalidating some of the defences), I am curious as to why this issue, and no other of his myriad ones, will resonate so effectively years from now, when quite similar ones either did not have an effect last time, or only had the effect of minimising the gains that he did make for other reasons.
according to Avery Theresa is following Jeremy's lead
Well that makes no sense, since his position, officially, is now 'same thing as the government, but let's be even more careful than we already are', IIRC.
A direct (and seemingly undisguised) biological attack on the UK rather changes the terms of debate, don’t you think?
If you don’t, then you are guilty of the same error as Corbyn.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I remember people saying the same when I said the IRA stuff was already priced in during the last general election campaign.
Remember the intellectual frotagging over the number of views on the Corbyn/IRA attack video.
I think you simply don’t really understand the public reaction. The IRA was many years ago and the peace process has blurred the lines. This is a direct and undisguised CBN attack on the UK and is clearly being seen as such by the best majority of the public, hence Mcdonnell’s shift today. I can’t tell you whether Labour will win the next election (although I am reasonably certain they won’t). But I do know the last few days have made it less likely.
“Sophist” is the right word. Stop trying to be too clever....
The problem with sophistry is that clever arguments to support false position are supposed, by their nature, to appear to be clever arguments to support true positions. So the mere fact a perhaps overly clever argument has been utilised does not in itself mean it is true or false.
Crap, was that clever enough to be sophistry? Is it better if it was merely a dumb comment? I just don't know anymore.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I suspect the majority of the British public don't give a toss about the story.
And of those that do most will have forgetten it by next year or will not have their vote affected by it.
I would suggest you are quite wrong. In Syria they wouldn’t, in the UK they will. It was Salisbury but it could have been anywhere.
That is certainly the reaction of people that I meet.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I suspect the majority of the British public don't give a toss about the story.
And of those that do most will have forgetten it by next year or will not have their vote affected by it.
Probably also worth adding rear whether the British public notice or not, 280 Labour MPs certainly have....
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I remember people saying the same when I said the IRA stuff was already priced in during the last general election campaign.
Remember the intellectual frotagging over the number of views on the Corbyn/IRA attack video.
I think you simply don’t really understand the public reaction. The IRA was many years ago and the peace process has blurred the lines. This is a direct and undisguised CBN attack on the UK and is clearly being seen as such by the best majority of the public, hence Mcdonnell’s shift today. I can’t tell you whether Labour will win the next election (although I am reasonably certain they won’t). But I do know the last few days have made it less likely.
“Sophist” is the right word. Stop trying to be too clever....
Considering you don't know the difference biological and chemical perhaps sophist is the correct adjective for you.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I remember people saying the same when I said the IRA stuff was already priced in during the last general election campaign.
Remember the intellectual frotagging over the number of views on the Corbyn/IRA attack video.
I suspect it has hurt Labour, and helped the Conservatives, a little.
That's my view, however if this is a one off, then it will be forgotten by the time of the 2022 election.
Jeremy Corbyn will have to be less pacifist.
The other day I viewed a PB thread when Corbyn's shoot to kill policy for terrorists (or lack thereof) was considered damaging for Corbyn.
Not even mentioned during the campaign was it.
Another complete misunderstanding by TSE. Corbyn is not a “pacifist”....
That’s what this issue has highlighted. Don’t you understand that?!
A direct (and seemingly undisguised) biological attack on the UK rather changes the terms of debate, don’t you think?
If you don’t, then you are guilty of the same error as Corbyn.
A terror attack in the UK seemingly did not change the terms of debate when it occurred, when many assumed Corbyn's perceived weaknesses on national security meant that it should. I struggle to see why this heinous event will change the debate when that did not - we already see him and those around him preparing the line to take, about how he is being calm and measured, or that he has in fact supported, even driven, the government take on things. It doesn't have to be plausible to all those who dislike Corbyn, it needs to be enough to keep his base on side, and to prevent those internally who dislike him from rocking the boat. I see no reason to believe he and his advisers cannot manage that - they have run rings around the Labour moderates, and once this tragedy fades from the news cycle any of his base upset about his lukewarm at best response can convince themselves maybe he didn't actually say the things he said, or that it doesn't matter.
There are many reasons I do not like Corbyn - I think he's inflexible, overly simplistic, I think he is far more of a regular professional politician than he and his spinners pretend - but a lot of his base are going nowhere, so it comes down to if he can persuade the rest to live with negative news cycles like he has suffered on foreign affairs. Previous examples would suggest he can, particularly since they are so weak following GE2017.
Many things seem like they should change the terms of debate, but frankly it seems rarer than people think. Perhaps this will be one such time, but given the way things already seem to be dying down, I doubt it.
Already dying down seems a strange view. This is going to be a big story for a long time. Tonight the police are talking of exhuming bodies of previous Russian victims to test for nerve agent as they had not done it at the time.
Tomorrow the OPCW comes to Salisbury to independently test the nerve agent and expect to report in two weeks time.
Tomorrow Boris travels to the EU foreign ministers meeting then the EU leaders meeting is later this month
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I suspect the majority of the British public don't give a toss about the story.
And of those that do most will have forgetten it by next year or will not have their vote affected by it.
I would suggest you are quite wrong. In Syria they wouldn’t, in the UK they will. It was Salisbury but it could have been anywhere.
That is certainly the reaction of people that I meet.
Its not been the reaction of people I meet.
People don't give a toss because its Russians poisoning Russians and it doesn't affect them nor is it as interesting as sleb gossip, cat pictures or football.
And what they want from the government is to give them a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford (preferably from taking money from people they don't like) and not posturing about the world stage.
A direct (and seemingly undisguised) biological attack on the UK rather changes the terms of debate, don’t you think?
If you don’t, then you are guilty of the same error as Corbyn.
A terror attack in the UK seemingly did not change the terms of debate when it occurred, when many assumed Corbyn's perceived weaknesses on national security meant that it should. I struggle to see why this heinous event will change the debate when that did not - we already see him and those around him preparing the line to take, about how he is being calm and measured, or that he has in fact supported, even driven, the government take on things. It doesn't have to be plausible to all those who dislike Corbyn, it needs to be enough to keep his base on side, and to prevent those internally who dislike him from rocking the boat. I see no reason to believe he and his advisers cannot manage that - they have run rings around the Labour moderates, and once this tragedy fades from the news cycle any of his base upset about his lukewarm at best response can convince themselves maybe he didn't actually say the things he said, or that it doesn't matter.
There are many reasons I do not like Corbyn - I think he's inflexible, overly simplistic, I think he is far more of a regular professional politician than he and his spinners pretend - but a lot of his base are going nowhere, so it comes down to if he can persuade the rest to live with negative news cycles like he has suffered on foreign affairs. Previous examples would suggest he can, particularly since they are so weak following GE2017.
Many things seem like they should change the terms of debate, but frankly it seems rarer than people think. Perhaps this will be one such time, but given the way things already seem to be dying down, I doubt it.
Already dying down seems a strange view. This is going to be a big story for a long time. Tonight the police are talking of exhuming bodies of previous Russian victims to test for nerve agent as they had not done it at the time.
Tomorrow the OPCW comes to Salisbury to independently test the nerve agent and expect to report in two weeks time.
Tomorrow Boris travels to the EU foreign ministers meeting then the EU leaders meeting is later this month
The Labour divisions seem to be dying down (McDonnell taking a smarter line I do not see as presaging his own leadership ambitions, except insofar as it shows him as better at spinning a line in the media)
Boo, the government are reducing the stakes on FOBT to £30 not the £2 that trailed.
Aren't FOBT used for money laundering ?
Nah, it would have to be the worst way to launder money, you'd be pissing away most of your money.
I heard you could fill them full of dodgy money, bet at near 50/50 odds on small amounts and then after a while get a cheque from the counter for your balance.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I remember people saying the same when I said the IRA stuff was already priced in during the last general election campaign.
Remember the intellectual frotagging over the number of views on the Corbyn/IRA attack video.
I suspect it has hurt Labour, and helped the Conservatives, a little.
That's my view, however if this is a one off, then it will be forgotten by the time of the 2022 election.
Jeremy Corbyn will have to be less pacifist.
The other day I viewed a PB thread when Corbyn's shoot to kill policy for terrorists (or lack thereof) was considered damaging for Corbyn.
Not even mentioned during the campaign was it.
it certainly came up from the audience at some event (I forget which one)
I doubt an "independent fisheries policy" will be substantially different in practice from the Common Fisheries Policy, which probably isn't that bad anyway. Mr Lamont appears to have bought into the idea fishermen have that Brexit will be transformative and will see a huge boost in employment in fishing. There's no objective reason to believe that, but fishermen are optimists by nature.
Some huge share of UK waters goes to other EU nations so it is almost certain employment in the sector would be boosted tremendously by leaving the CFP.
It's a bit more complex than that I suspect.
The free trade deals we sign will inevitably constrain somewhat. So, if we are going to demand access to other countries financial systems, then they may demand that their fishermen are allowed access to (i.e. to bid for) our quota system. Or, put it another way, we can't stop an American or a Frenchman from owning a farm in the UK, we may not be able to prevent commercial American fishing firms from buying rights to fish.
There's another factor that will play a role too: if we sign FTAs with countries with large efficient fishing fleets, then it may be that the price of fish in the UK will come down (which is good for consumers). It might not be good news for British fishermen.
Finally, I suspect that the proportion of fish we get from farms will continue to rise, and that which we get from the sea will continue to decline. Whatever policy we have may just be about ameliorating the long term decline of the industry.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I suspect the majority of the British public don't give a toss about the story.
And of those that do most will have forgetten it by next year or will not have their vote affected by it.
I would suggest you are quite wrong. In Syria they wouldn’t, in the UK they will. It was Salisbury but it could have been anywhere.
That is certainly the reaction of people that I meet.
Its not been the reaction of people I meet.
People don't give a toss because its Russians poisoning Russians and it doesn't affect them nor is it as interesting as sleb gossip, cat pictures or football.
And what they want from the government is to give them a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford (preferably from taking money from people they don't like) and not posturing about the world stage.
These things are incremental and cumulative. Many people dont give a toss. But many do.
Lightning strikes and for a moment the landscape is illuminated. That is what’s happened here. Mcdonnell certainly seems to think so. As do a significant number of Labour MPs.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
As an election is likely several years away at best that may be difficult to prove one way or another, but as someone who thinks Corbyn's approach has been explicitly political and some of his defenders disingenuous (particularly once Corbyn's position was altered from its initial position, thus invalidating some of the defences), I am curious as to why this issue, and no other of his myriad ones, will resonate so effectively years from now, when quite similar ones either did not have an effect last time, or only had the effect of minimising the gains that he did make for other reasons.
according to Avery Theresa is following Jeremy's lead
Well that makes no sense, since his position, officially, is now 'same thing as the government, but let's be even more careful than we already are', IIRC.
I have an admission to make. I have little or no knowledge of US politics, even less interest in all the machinations,
In the 18th century parts of the British Empire in North America broke away. The first 50 odd years were spent working out how to govern themselves and deal with the indigines and other colonies from Britain, Spain and France. As the European powers were distracted by the Napoleonic Wars and poor administration their colonies shrank or were sold off and the United States expanded west. Some of the new areas owned slaves, the others did not, and efforts to keep the two together ended in a civil war nad the abolition of slavery. By the end of the 19th century the colonies had evolved into Mexico, Canada and the USA and the European powers held little sway.
The 20th century saw the USA working out how to deal with the rest of the world, eventually rejecting isolationism in favour of engagement, with considerable successful, displacing dictatorships and imperial administrations with democracies, ending the 20th century as a global superpower.
It's politics is dominated by two parties, the democrats and the republicans. Historically the former is the party of organised labour and the latter the party of business, although their policies and constituencies have varied considerably over the decades.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I suspect the majority of the British public don't give a toss about the story.
And of those that do most will have forgetten it by next year or will not have their vote affected by it.
I would suggest you are quite wrong. In Syria they wouldn’t, in the UK they will. It was Salisbury but it could have been anywhere.
That is certainly the reaction of people that I meet.
Its not been the reaction of people I meet.
People don't give a toss because its Russians poisoning Russians and it doesn't affect them nor is it as interesting as sleb gossip, cat pictures or football.
And what they want from the government is to give them a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford (preferably from taking money from people they don't like) and not posturing about the world stage.
These things are incremental and cumulative. Many people dont give a toss. But many do.
Lightning strikes and for a moment the landscape is illuminated. That is what’s happened here. Mcdonnell certainly seems to think so. As do a significant number of Labour MPs.
The same Labour MPs who have been consistently wrong about Corbyn's electoral appeal ?
The dumbest bit of Corbyn's nonsense is the idea that we would learn anything from giving the Russians a sample to examine. Because if there is one country on Earth that you can be sure will test chemicals and report their findings truthfully, it's Russia.
I have an admission to make. I have little or no knowledge of US politics, even less interest in all the machinations,
In the 18th century parts of the British Empire in North America broke away. The first 50 odd years were spent working out how to govern themselves and deal with the indigines and other colonies from Britain, Spain and France. As the European powers were distracted by the Napoleonic Wars and poor administration their colonies shrank or were sold off and the United States expanded west. Some of the new areas owned slaves, the others did not, and efforts to keep the two together ended in a civil war nad the abolition of slavery. By the end of the 19th century the colonies had evolved into Mexico, Canada and the USA and the European powers held little sway.
The 20th century saw the USA working out how to deal with the rest of the world, eventually rejecting isolationism in favour of engagement, with considerable successful, displacing dictatorships and imperial administrations with democracies, ending the 20th century as a global superpower.
It's politics is dominated by two parties, the democrats and the republicans. Historically the former is the party of organised labour and the latter the party of business, although their policies and constituencies have varied considerably over the decades.
( My train is arriving so I must stop hete)
Thank you for that resume - I was aware that two parties dominate and generally their politics.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I suspect the majority of the British public don't give a toss about the story.
And of those that do most will have forgetten it by next year or will not have their vote affected by it.
I would suggest you are quite wrong. In Syria they wouldn’t, in the UK they will. It was Salisbury but it could have been anywhere.
That is certainly the reaction of people that I meet.
Its not been the reaction of people I meet.
People don't give a toss because its Russians poisoning Russians and it doesn't affect them nor is it as interesting as sleb gossip, cat pictures or football.
And what they want from the government is to give them a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford (preferably from taking money from people they don't like) and not posturing about the world stage.
These things are incremental and cumulative. Many people dont give a toss. But many do.
Lightning strikes and for a moment the landscape is illuminated. That is what’s happened here. Mcdonnell certainly seems to think so. As do a significant number of Labour MPs.
The same Labour MPs who have been consistently wrong about Corbyn's electoral appeal ?
Corbyn’s behind in the polls.
Perhaps that’s all that matters to them. But perhaps not. Perhaps some also realise that Marxism will fail, and fail badly.
The dumbest bit of Corbyn's nonsense is the idea that we would learn anything from giving the Russians a sample to examine. Because if there is one country on Earth that you can be sure will test chemicals and report their findings truthfully, it's Russia.
Probably come back saying the guy took an overdose of EPO...
Probably come back saying the guy took an overdose of EPO...
The Russian foreign ministry has already suggested the chemical might have come from Sweden. And I see Putin's repeating the "if it was military grade they'd be dead" nonsense too.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
I suspect the majority of the British public don't give a toss about the story.
And of those that do most will have forgetten it by next year or will not have their vote affected by it.
I would suggest you are quite wrong. In Syria they wouldn’t, in the UK they will. It was Salisbury but it could have been anywhere.
That is certainly the reaction of people that I meet.
Its not been the reaction of people I meet.
People don't give a toss because its Russians poisoning Russians and it doesn't affect them nor is it as interesting as sleb gossip, cat pictures or football.
And what they want from the government is to give them a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford (preferably from taking money from people they don't like) and not posturing about the world stage.
These things are incremental and cumulative. Many people dont give a toss. But many do.
Lightning strikes and for a moment the landscape is illuminated. That is what’s happened here. Mcdonnell certainly seems to think so. As do a significant number of Labour MPs.
The same Labour MPs who have been consistently wrong about Corbyn's electoral appeal ?
Corbyn’s behind in the polls.
Perhaps that’s all that matters to them. But perhaps not. Perhaps some also realise that Marxism will fail, and fail badly.
Labour are not behind in the Britain Elects tracker:
This is a trailing average I believe. Other than the GMB poll most other recent ones have shown Labour drifting behind. Furthermore, Labour should be far ahead at this stage. They aren’t.
Corbyn’s personal ratings as best PM remain consistently behind.
The events in Salisbury will have an electorally negative impact for Labour, albeit at this stage the quantum is difficult to define.
If you take an average of recent polls in the most generous way for Labour they're still only 0.7% ahead of the Tories. That includes the 7 point lead with Survation.
Considering recent history I don't think Labour members are going to be too worried about being a little ahead in the polls or a little behind... we might have to wait a few years for the poll that really matters.
Host is interviewing a guy who wrote Corbyns improbable path to power and they basically go through various things that happened to propel Corbyn, not sure how far it goes but on the 2015 leadership election at the moment.
Considering recent history I don't think Labour members are going to be too worried about being a little ahead in the polls or a little behind... we might have to wait a few years for the poll that really matters.
The local elections could be interesting if they deliver a widely unexpected result, one way or the other. Obviously they won't have much impact if the result is broadly in line with the polls.
Considering recent history I don't think Labour members are going to be too worried about being a little ahead in the polls or a little behind... we might have to wait a few years for the poll that really matters.
To win Corbyn needs to win over centrist voters, including soft tories. The last few days have shown him incapable of that.
You can wait as long as you like but it becomes ever clearer he won’t win.
I'm not sure with the Conservatives but I think the results would have to be pretty dramatic to actually prompt a big change in Labour. Maybe it could cause small changes but I think Corbyn is incredibly safe in his position.
I'm not sure with the Conservatives but I think the results would have to be pretty dramatic to actually prompt a big change in Labour. Maybe it could cause small changes but I think Corbyn is incredibly safe in his position.
Much the same was said before the last election yet Corbyn still took Labour quite close, I don't believe it is as impossible as you think.
Interesting article tonight on Corbyn and Nationalisation where the present owners state that it would be outlawed under human rights law. No idea how likely but there we are
I'm not sure with the Conservatives but I think the results would have to be pretty dramatic to actually prompt a big change in Labour. Maybe it could cause small changes but I think Corbyn is incredibly safe in his position.
Pavel Grududin (Communist) in second place in Russia election on 12.9% Zhironovsky (Lib Dem) in third place on 6.2% so should keep deposit.... Via RT election night coverage.
Not entirely sure about that identification with the Lib Dems, Mr Foxy.
But if you are right, it means that the Lib Dems trounce both Labour and Conservatives out of sight.
I have an admission to make. I have little or no knowledge of US politics, even less interest in all the machinations,
In the 18th century parts of the British Empire in North America broke away. The first 50 odd years were spent working out how to govern themselves and deal with the indigines and other colonies from Britain, Spain and France. As the European powers were distracted by the Napoleonic Wars and poor administration their colonies shrank or were sold off and the United States expanded west. Some of the new areas owned slaves, the others did not, and efforts to keep the two together ended in a civil war nad the abolition of slavery. By the end of the 19th century the colonies had evolved into Mexico, Canada and the USA and the European powers held little sway.
The 20th century saw the USA working out how to deal with the rest of the world, eventually rejecting isolationism in favour of engagement, with considerable successful, displacing dictatorships and imperial administrations with democracies, ending the 20th century as a global superpower.
It's politics is dominated by two parties, the democrats and the republicans. Historically the former is the party of organised labour and the latter the party of business, although their policies and constituencies have varied considerably over the decades.
( My train is arriving so I must stop hete)
Thank you for that resume - I was aware that two parties dominate and generally their politics.
I was on the support desk this weekend, and on Friday night I had to make a tough call as everybody had gone for the evening. Initial feedback is that I chose poorly and I am going to get an almighty bollocking tomorrow. I'm travelling down early to avoid tomorrow's weather and was stuck on a commuter train with the usual crowd of jeering drunks. To cope with the stress I did a brief explainer of the evolution of the USA. If you're really unlucky I'll do third party presidential candidates since Ww2 from Thurmond to Stein, with especially reference to Stockdale...
I assume, if accurate, that it would be related to the ECHR? Which there was talk about its future but I have assumed we were staying part of it and the agreements around it?
Albeit I might have missed something and this isn't something I know a lot about. With the previous proviso in mind I wouldn't be completely surprised if it is something they could do within the rules, there is usually some wiggle room in these things and whilst the guy being interviewed isn't necessarily a liar I do imagine he would present the case in the best possible light for his side.
A phrase I have heard many times, there will of course eventually be a peak but people have predicted it wrongly so many times you'll forgive me for not assuming you are right.
One of the things I find interesting is the Democrat party switch from being the party of the South, almost feels like the parties did a complete swap.
I'm not sure with the Conservatives but I think the results would have to be pretty dramatic to actually prompt a big change in Labour. Maybe it could cause small changes but I think Corbyn is incredibly safe in his position.
Much the same was said before the last election yet Corbyn still took Labour quite close, I don't believe it is as impossible as you think.
Interesting article tonight on Corbyn and Nationalisation where the present owners state that it would be outlawed under human rights law. No idea how likely but there we are
It's not outlawed, it's just if Labour in power effectively steal the companies by deciding the purchase price themselves, they'll loose in court. Hardly a surprise.
O/T French parliamentary by-elections (long and only for people interested in continental politics)
The constitutional court has canceled at the end of 2017 the election of 8 MPs due to different electoral law violations: 4 from LREM (Macron's party), 2 Republicains (right), Socialist, 1 Constructif (centre-right allied to Macron).
The first two in February were both won by Republicains, one incumbent and one beating the LREM incumbent. The swings against LREM were 5.7% and 8.2% respectively.
The third one was in French Guyana on March 4 and 11. The LREM incumbent was reelected with a tiny margin 50.6/49.3 against his far-left opponent, with a 0.4 swing in his favor.
In Haute-Garonne (rural South-West) The election was on 11 March and yesterday. The incumbent was one of the very few socialists escaping verry narrowly (50.1/49.9) the June 2017 disaster . 1st round: Socialist 38.7 (+21!), LREM 20.3 (-13.1), FI (far-left) 13 (-1), FN (Le Pen) 11.7 (-3.5), Republicains 4.9 (+4.9), others (7 candidates) 11 Again a big drop for LREM, especially as its candidate was supported by the 2017 Constructif candidate (8.7% in June) who did not run again. Poor performance again by Le Pen's party. Republicains are nowhere in this kind of constituency where LREM takes up the centre-right vote. 2nd round: Socialist 70.31 LREM 29.69 The incumbent got a 10 000 votes margin after only 91 in June 2017. Shocking result for LREM and very encouraging for the new Socialist leader elected last week (Olivier Faure)
In Loiret (near Orleans, traditionally right-wing) the first round was held yesterday: Republicains Incumbent 38.2 (+14.4), LREM 20.2 (-8.4), FN 13.9 (-6.9), Socialists 6.6 (+1.1), Communists 6 (-5.6) DLF (eurosceptic right) 5.2 (+2.2) FI 5 (+5) Again a poor performance from LREM and FN and a solid one from the opposition incumbent. The left is weak and very divided in this constituency. The incumbent whould very easily win next Sunday.
In Mayotte (overseas territory in the Indian ocean) the incumbent had been elected as socialist then defected to LREM. She ran again as an independent but LREM did not run a candidate against her. Incumbent 36.2 (+19.4) Republicains 32.7 (+16) Centre-right independent 12.2 (-1.2) Centre-left independent 12.2 (-3.4) Others 8 The situation is very unclear with a low turnout and a very difficult security situation at the moment on the island. The second round should again be close.
The last 2 by-elections of this wave will be organized in April (one overseas French constituency and one in the overseas teritory of Mayotte).
So far, this series of elections has shown a clear move away from LREM candidates except in overseas teritories. Nothing alarming yet but LREM also struggles to attract second-round votes from eliminated candidates despite its centrist positioning.
Comments
We must surely be getting to breaking point, where Trump dismisses Mueller, which will force Republicans to stand up and be counted?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/975471685741752320
ho ho ho
lol
utter bollocks
Sky presenter says "your position makes no sense"
quite
The British public seems to have a rather clearer grasp of this than all the sophists on PB (yes TSE, that’s you). Corbyn’s been called out by this crisis and seen for what he really is. There will be an electoral price for this and McDonnell has grasped this rather faster than many PBers.
The advantage I have is that it does not add another level of stress above the chaos that is Brexit and the labour party with a Marxist Russian loving, anti west, communist party dominated leader
What makes me a bit more reluctant is that even if this had been in place and established before the EU referendum if the result had been similar, or worse an even bigger leave victory but still not enough then that could have caused a lot of problems as well.
A direct (and seemingly undisguised) biological attack on the UK rather changes the terms of debate, don’t you think?
If you don’t, then you are guilty of the same error as Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/975379141930487809?s=19
Britain risks becoming a "joke nation" if it cannot formally sign trade deals in the 20 month transition period after the UK leaves the European Union, the most senior Eurosceptic Tory backbencher has warned.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory MP who leads the European Research Group, warns Theresa May that she cannot not accept any deal that leaves the UK as a "subservient state”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/18/britain-risks-becoming-joke-nation-cannot-sign-trade-deals-transition/
And of those that do most will have forgetten it by next year or will not have their vote affected by it.
Remember the intellectual frotagging over the number of views on the Corbyn/IRA attack video.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/975450900935389184?s=21
https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response/13294/signup/?source=&s=
and Lindsey Graham
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/18/congress-trump-mueller-republicans-fired-470062
are using similar language, there are some grounds for hope.
But I'm not holding my breath for the Republicans.
https://twitter.com/tomroyal/status/975443107385888773?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomroyal/status/975450955864072192?s=21
There are many reasons I do not like Corbyn - I think he's inflexible, overly simplistic, I think he is far more of a regular professional politician than he and his spinners pretend - but a lot of his base are going nowhere, so it comes down to if he can persuade the rest to live with negative news cycles like he has suffered on foreign affairs. Previous examples would suggest he can, particularly since they are so weak following GE2017.
Many things seem like they should change the terms of debate, but frankly it seems rarer than people think. Perhaps this will be one such time, but given the way things already seem to be dying down, I doubt it.
“Sophist” is the right word. Stop trying to be too clever....
Jeremy Corbyn will have to be less pacifist.
The other day I viewed a PB thread when Corbyn's shoot to kill policy for terrorists (or lack thereof) was considered damaging for Corbyn.
Not even mentioned during the campaign was it.
Crap, was that clever enough to be sophistry? Is it better if it was merely a dumb comment? I just don't know anymore.
Good night all.
I would suggest you are quite wrong. In Syria they wouldn’t, in the UK they will. It was Salisbury but it could have been anywhere.
That is certainly the reaction of people that I meet.
Ruth was in favour of diamond hard Brexit when touring round Aberdeen and more distant parts.
That’s what this issue has highlighted. Don’t you understand that?!
https://ria.ru/infografika/20180316/1516332260.html
Tomorrow the OPCW comes to Salisbury to independently test the nerve agent and expect to report in two weeks time.
Tomorrow Boris travels to the EU foreign ministers meeting then the EU leaders meeting is later this month
People don't give a toss because its Russians poisoning Russians and it doesn't affect them nor is it as interesting as sleb gossip, cat pictures or football.
And what they want from the government is to give them a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford (preferably from taking money from people they don't like) and not posturing about the world stage.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/standards-watchdog-confirms-keith-vaz-1168752
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
(Whatever you think of the merits of Brexit, which in the context is a second order issue.)
The free trade deals we sign will inevitably constrain somewhat. So, if we are going to demand access to other countries financial systems, then they may demand that their fishermen are allowed access to (i.e. to bid for) our quota system. Or, put it another way, we can't stop an American or a Frenchman from owning a farm in the UK, we may not be able to prevent commercial American fishing firms from buying rights to fish.
There's another factor that will play a role too: if we sign FTAs with countries with large efficient fishing fleets, then it may be that the price of fish in the UK will come down (which is good for consumers). It might not be good news for British fishermen.
Finally, I suspect that the proportion of fish we get from farms will continue to rise, and that which we get from the sea will continue to decline. Whatever policy we have may just be about ameliorating the long term decline of the industry.
These things are incremental and cumulative. Many people dont give a toss. But many do.
Lightning strikes and for a moment the landscape is illuminated. That is what’s happened here. Mcdonnell certainly seems to think so. As do a significant number of Labour MPs.
Few votes lost in fewer high st. betting shops....
The 20th century saw the USA working out how to deal with the rest of the world, eventually rejecting isolationism in favour of engagement, with considerable successful, displacing dictatorships and imperial administrations with democracies, ending the 20th century as a global superpower.
It's politics is dominated by two parties, the democrats and the republicans. Historically the former is the party of organised labour and the latter the party of business, although their policies and constituencies have varied considerably over the decades.
( My train is arriving so I must stop hete)
Corbyn’s behind in the polls.
Perhaps that’s all that matters to them. But perhaps not. Perhaps some also realise that Marxism will fail, and fail badly.
Tonight Putin said
'If we had used our nerve agents we would have killed a lot more people'
But you have said you do not have nerve agents
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/975384065087037440
Sorry you did not quite manage to beat Chelsea but good game
I am interested in your opinion on why Spurs can play a home tie semi final at Wembley.
It should be moved to Villa Park to be fair but you may disagree
Corbyn’s personal ratings as best PM remain consistently behind.
The events in Salisbury will have an electorally negative impact for Labour, albeit at this stage the quantum is difficult to define.
All else is sophistry.
We knew at the beginning that the Semis were to be at Wembley. The issue should have been sorted then.
Albrighton had a good game for Leicester, they gave MOM to Kante but it was Albrighton for me
YouGov: Con+3 (15th March)
Opinium: Con+2 (15th March)
Ipsos MORI: Con+1 (7th March)
ICM: Con+1 (4th March)
Kantar: tie (12th Feb)
BMG: tie (9th Feb)
Survation: Lab+7 (8th March)
https://soundcloud.com/a-up-lets-talk/1-alex-nunns-discusses-the-candidate-jeremy-corbyns-improbable-path-to-power
Host is interviewing a guy who wrote Corbyns improbable path to power and they basically go through various things that happened to propel Corbyn, not sure how far it goes but on the 2015 leadership election at the moment.
You can wait as long as you like but it becomes ever clearer he won’t win.
Edit: @basicbridge
Much the same was said before the last election yet Corbyn still took Labour quite close, I don't believe it is as impossible as you think.
“Peak Corbyn”
But if you are right, it means that the Lib Dems trounce both Labour and Conservatives out of sight.
I assume, if accurate, that it would be related to the ECHR? Which there was talk about its future but I have assumed we were staying part of it and the agreements around it?
Albeit I might have missed something and this isn't something I know a lot about. With the previous proviso in mind I wouldn't be completely surprised if it is something they could do within the rules, there is usually some wiggle room in these things and whilst the guy being interviewed isn't necessarily a liar I do imagine he would present the case in the best possible light for his side.
@basicbridge
A phrase I have heard many times, there will of course eventually be a peak but people have predicted it wrongly so many times you'll forgive me for not assuming you are right.
@viewcode
One of the things I find interesting is the Democrat party switch from being the party of the South, almost feels like the parties did a complete swap.
The constitutional court has canceled at the end of 2017 the election of 8 MPs due to different electoral law violations: 4 from LREM (Macron's party), 2 Republicains (right), Socialist, 1 Constructif (centre-right allied to Macron).
The first two in February were both won by Republicains, one incumbent and one beating the LREM incumbent. The swings against LREM were 5.7% and 8.2% respectively.
The third one was in French Guyana on March 4 and 11. The LREM incumbent was reelected with a tiny margin 50.6/49.3 against his far-left opponent, with a 0.4 swing in his favor.
In Haute-Garonne (rural South-West) The election was on 11 March and yesterday. The incumbent was one of the very few socialists escaping verry narrowly (50.1/49.9) the June 2017 disaster .
1st round: Socialist 38.7 (+21!), LREM 20.3 (-13.1), FI (far-left) 13 (-1), FN (Le Pen) 11.7 (-3.5), Republicains 4.9 (+4.9), others (7 candidates) 11
Again a big drop for LREM, especially as its candidate was supported by the 2017 Constructif candidate (8.7% in June) who did not run again. Poor performance again by Le Pen's party. Republicains are nowhere in this kind of constituency where LREM takes up the centre-right vote.
2nd round: Socialist 70.31 LREM 29.69
The incumbent got a 10 000 votes margin after only 91 in June 2017. Shocking result for LREM and very encouraging for the new Socialist leader elected last week (Olivier Faure)
In Loiret (near Orleans, traditionally right-wing) the first round was held yesterday:
Republicains Incumbent 38.2 (+14.4), LREM 20.2 (-8.4), FN 13.9 (-6.9), Socialists 6.6 (+1.1), Communists 6 (-5.6) DLF (eurosceptic right) 5.2 (+2.2) FI 5 (+5)
Again a poor performance from LREM and FN and a solid one from the opposition incumbent. The left is weak and very divided in this constituency. The incumbent whould very easily win next Sunday.
In Mayotte (overseas territory in the Indian ocean) the incumbent had been elected as socialist then defected to LREM. She ran again as an independent but LREM did not run a candidate against her.
Incumbent 36.2 (+19.4) Republicains 32.7 (+16) Centre-right independent 12.2 (-1.2) Centre-left independent 12.2 (-3.4) Others 8
The situation is very unclear with a low turnout and a very difficult security situation at the moment on the island. The second round should again be close.
The last 2 by-elections of this wave will be organized in April (one overseas French constituency and one in the overseas teritory of Mayotte).
So far, this series of elections has shown a clear move away from LREM candidates except in overseas teritories. Nothing alarming yet but LREM also struggles to attract second-round votes from eliminated candidates despite its centrist positioning.