Forum rules Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
howsillyofme1 wrote:I really fail to see where Labour would get Remain votes from to be honest
LD are in the doldrums and running at around 8%....Greens at 2%....you think Labour would attract Tory Remainers?
Is there any evidence - surely if they were that bothered then they would go for the LD at least?
Perhaps you should turn some of your frustrations on those that attempted a botched coup last Summer! I am sure that did not help either
So you think the recent rise for Labour in the polls came from leave voters predominantly? I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all. Never mind. It's too late now, anyway. Which is why I'm so grumpy. Just ignore me.
I just don't think people are deciding to vote based on this - apart from ex UKIP supporters, and some extreme Brexit supporters who originally voted Labour
This is why I am skeptical at predictions of the Tories at over 45% - I would think that this vote is exceedingly soft and could stay at home, or switch fairly readily.
If I was asked for a prediction now I would put the Tories at 40-42% and Labour at 32-34% - between 6 and 10% gap.
It could be that Labour loses more seats because of the effect of marginals but we will see on June 9th
tinyclanger2 wrote:At the end of the day, the left finds it hard to persuade the Brits.
Why that is (variously) one would suspect would be valuable for moving forward.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Even our resident anti-Corbynites would struggle to say that Labour Unhinged "analysis" is anything other than risible.
Ignore it, but not before you have had a good laugh at it first
Oh come on you are better than that.
For some time I have been curious as to why Labour strategists are quite so gloomy. In particular Smithson (who knows stuff, and knows people who know stuff) commented earlier this week that regardless of the polls Labour MPs in Bristol were in trouble and two of them had given up.
What we have here is a view of some of the raw data that they are working with. It also squares a little with other comments earlier in the campaign that in key battleground seats things were even worse.
I am not in a position to know if this stuff is more or less accurate than opinion polls, but it is pretty foolish to dismiss it out of hand, especially as it connects other datapoints that had previously seemed odd but which were being taken seriously by serious people.
Now on the subject of polls, predictably promising your key voters thin gruel in a manifesto is causing May a little (but only a little discomfort). Interestingly however an analysis of the responses by age group (always a dangerous activity with a poll) suggests some interesting things. In particular the over 65s haven't changed (not.a shock as oddly this policy impacts them the least, see Ben Chu and Will Hutton)
From a comment posted on Smithson's Political betting site.
Black_Rook Posts: 1,843
2:31PM
Comparing like with like - YouGov for Sunday Times, this weekend's versus the last:
Headline VI
Last Sunday: Con 49, Lab 31
This Sunday: Con 44, Lab 35
Con lead over Lab in headline VI, by age group
Last Sunday:
18-24 -20
25-49 -3
50-64 +29
65+ +52
This Sunday:
18-24 -33
25-49 -16
50-64 +21
65+ +50
Leader ratings:
The Sunday Times series asks people to decide whether the leaders are doing well or badly. A negative score indicates that more respondents say they are doing badly than well.
Last Sunday: May +18, Corbyn -42 (net difference: 60)
This Sunday: May +15, Corbyn -35 (net difference: 50)
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Even our resident anti-Corbynites would struggle to say that Labour Unhinged "analysis" is anything other than risible.
Ignore it, but not before you have had a good laugh at it first
Oh come on you are better than that.
For some time I have been curious as to why Labour strategists are quite so gloomy. In particular Smithson (who knows stuff, and knows people who know stuff) commented earlier this week that regardless of the polls Labour MPs in Bristol were in trouble and two of them had given up.
What we have here is a view of some of the raw data that they are working with. It also squares a little with other comments earlier in the campaign that in key battleground seats things were even worse.
I am not in a position to know if this stuff is more or less accurate than opinion polls, but it is pretty foolish to dismiss it out of hand, especially as it connects other datapoints that had previously seemed odd but which were being taken seriously by serious people.
Now on the subject of polls, predictably promising your key voters thin gruel in a manifesto is causing May a little (but only a little discomfort). Interestingly however an analysis of the responses by age group (always a dangerous activity with a poll) suggests some interesting things. In particular the over 65s haven't changed (not.a shock as oddly this policy impacts them the least, see Ben Chu and Will Hutton)
From a comment posted on Smithson's Political betting site.
Black_Rook Posts: 1,843
2:31PM
Comparing like with like - YouGov for Sunday Times, this weekend's versus the last:
Headline VI
Last Sunday: Con 49, Lab 31
This Sunday: Con 44, Lab 35
Con lead over Lab in headline VI, by age group
Last Sunday:
18-24 -20
25-49 -3
50-64 +29
65+ +52
This Sunday:
18-24 -33
25-49 -16
50-64 +21
65+ +50
Leader ratings:
The Sunday Times series asks people to decide whether the leaders are doing well or badly. A negative score indicates that more respondents say they are doing badly than well.
Last Sunday: May +18, Corbyn -42 (net difference: 60)
This Sunday: May +15, Corbyn -35 (net difference: 50)
May's lead over Corbyn, broken down by age group:
Last Sunday:
18-24 -5
25-49 +32
50-64 +84
65+ +132
This Sunday:
18-24 -27
25-49 +26
50-64 +67
65+ +113
Still waiting for you to justify why agreeing with a universal definition of genocide and wanting that definition to be applied universally is genocide denial.
TE re poll,in my constituency at least the numbers literally don't add up,it may well turn blue,I am just going by basic arithmetic,unless 11-13% to Greens,then I rescind my comment.
Since when has Smithson been a 'Labour strategist' - surely you mean ex-Lib Dem councillor and PPC?
I am sure there are problems in some Brexit voting seats especially in the Midlands and the Northern suburbs - we will have to wait and see how much though
The question is how much of this vote will turn out.......and vote Tory
Because we are in FPTP the consequences of changes in these types of seats is very marked
However, I am not sure what Labour can do about Labour->UKIP or Labour Brexiteers voting for 'Strong and Stable' May to kick the EU in the balls going for a Hard Brexit?
I am often criticised for not attacking the Tories enough, and instead focusing on Labour's shortcomings. Indeed, the dafter posters accuse me of being a Tory or fascist.
So, let me put on the record that i think the Tory leadership and policy agenda is a complete crock of shit.
Leadership
Now, here I am going to say something many here won't agree with. I think Cameron and especially Osborne were able politicians. That doesn't mean they were right about, say, austerity, but it is to say that I recognise their technical skill. Cameron was a good front of house leader. Good presentational skills, good with people. some wit, a recognisable human being. He was a kind of Blair-lite, not brilliant but acceptable for any serious party. Osborne was an able political strategist, who managed to pin the blame for his agenda of reducing the size of the state on Labour. Yes, their careers ended in failure because of Brexit but first all political careers do (save Harold Wilson's) and second I think the pressure for a Brexit referendum couldn't be resisted.
But May? Dear oh dear. She is wooden, no people skills, an introvert, poor judgement, no charisma. The reason they aren't letting her meet the public is obvious: she physically hates it. The Tory frontbench is made up of absolute no-hopers. Priti Patel? Liz Truss? Liam Fox? Jeremy Hunt? Andrea Leadsome? Sajid Javid? Grayling? Greening? BoJo?
Now, I know most here hated the 2010-2015 government, but compared to the senior ministers we have now it was a team of Titans. This bunch are completely incompetent.
Policies
Then you look at the manifesto. What is in it? Nothing at all to appeal to anyone. A crazy social care scheme. Where what should be done is obvious: it should be collectivised, integrated with the NHS, and paid for through upgrading inheritance tax. Everyone would understand and accept that. Ridiculous rightwing stuff on grammar schools and foxes. Hopeless Heath style 1970s corporatism about regulating markets. You're supposed to be the Tories! If you don't believe in letting markets work, who does? On the economy there is some recognition of the need to borrow to spend on capital projects when rates are at zero, but not really enough. The brutal cuts to benefits (which save next to nothing) are set to continue (though Labour is not in fact any better on that).
And then, of course, we have their utterly bonkers views on Brexit. Basically we're headed for Hard Brexit, with disastrous adverse economic consequences. This combined with the economic and social vandalism of capping immigration.
So, this week, for the first time in a while, I thought about voting Labour again. The Tories are utterly beyond belief bad, and need to be removed.
And yet, and yet.
We have Corbyn on Sky this morning being asked to condemn the IRA, and what does he say? He condemns all violence. And a complete lie about how he was working for peace.
I can't vote for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell (sorry). I really do want the Tories out, but I can't vote for Corbyn or a party led y him, I think it is immoral.
So, this post is my attempt to stand as a marker. I may be critical of Labour, but my God the Tories are shit.
I expect care costs to rocket on the "grab it while you can" principle (just in case people die too soon). It will be wrapped in the cloak of "improved service", of course.
Temulkar wrote:Ah here come the IRA smears, it really is desperate stuff, and entirely predicted earlier in the thread.
How is repeating what someone said, not even in previous years but today, a smear?
Smears are thing that are untrue.
Corbyn and McDonnell's longstanding support for a united Ireland are fine. I have a lot of sympathy for that too.
None at all for their attitudes towards the IRA, and none now for their claims to have been somehow involved in the peace process, or to have just been 'talking' to SF.
Sorry, I shouldn't rise to someone with your agenda, but I do feel a bit strongly about killing innocent people.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Even our resident anti-Corbynites would struggle to say that Labour Unhinged "analysis" is anything other than risible.
Ignore it, but not before you have had a good laugh at it first
Oh come on you are better than that.
For some time I have been curious as to why Labour strategists are quite so gloomy. In particular Smithson (who knows stuff, and knows people who know stuff) commented earlier this week that regardless of the polls Labour MPs in Bristol were in trouble and two of them had given up.
What we have here is a view of some of the raw data that they are working with. It also squares a little with other comments earlier in the campaign that in key battleground seats things were even worse.
I am not in a position to know if this stuff is more or less accurate than opinion polls, but it is pretty foolish to dismiss it out of hand, especially as it connects other datapoints that had previously seemed odd but which were being taken seriously by serious people.
Now on the subject of polls, predictably promising your key voters thin gruel in a manifesto is causing May a little (but only a little discomfort). Interestingly however an analysis of the responses by age group (always a dangerous activity with a poll) suggests some interesting things. In particular the over 65s haven't changed (not.a shock as oddly this policy impacts them the least, see Ben Chu and Will Hutton)
This by Matt Singh in the FT makes the same kind of point. He is far more credible than Labour Uncut.
I think the IRA criticisms are a bit desperate now.....seeing the blood that is on Tory hands from their support of tyrants and murderers in the past and continuing into the present - but then there are plenty of excuses for that aren't they. Britain just has to sell arms to the Saudis (to use on who) and they had to approve the sale of Sarin precursors to Assad as well.
The whole of Ireland's recent history has not been a pretty story for Britain and a number of politicians - I would like to see all the files opened so we can see where the bodies are buried and who was actually doing what at that time - including collusion
Also, a Tory councillor has a bit of history in this area....well more than a bit
Temulkar wrote:Ah here come the IRA smears, it really is desperate stuff, and entirely predicted earlier in the thread.
How is repeating what someone said, not even in previous years but today, a smear?
Smears are thing that are untrue.
Corbyn and McDonnell's longstanding support for a united Ireland are fine. I have a lot of sympathy for that too.
None at all for their attitudes towards the IRA, and none now for their claims to have been somehow involved in the peace process, or to have just been 'talking' to SF.
Sorry, I shouldn't rise to someone with your agenda, but I do feel a bit strongly about killing innocent people.
You are accusing me of an 'agenda'?
I tell you what my agenda is, I am damned if I will let people like you abuse history. You like to use smears and lies, and I will not stand by and let you debase and demean with impunity, spreading your nasty bile and venom. You and TE went way too far with your genocide denial smear, and I am not going to let it go.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Corbyn actually made a point of condemning IRA violence today. But because he also mentioned loyalists, some see even that as "beyond the pale".
Genuinely unbelievable, and can only be seen as evidence of actual derangement with some.
No. He really did not. He said, again, he condemned all violence. It is the same tick he has with anti-semitism or Syria. Asked to condemn anti-semitism he says "he condemns all forms of racism". Asked to condemn Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians, he says he of course condemns all violence whoever commits it.
Corbyn and McDonnel are of the hard left. You are old enough and should be sensible enough to know what they are like. They and their ilk have been around all my life. He really is not in the same proud tradition as Bevin and Cook. He was a regular in the Morning Star for a reason.
Look, I really didn't want to start an argument about this. I wanted to say that I shared everyone else' s opinion on the Tories.
howsillyofme1 wrote:I think the IRA criticisms are a bit desperate now.....seeing the blood that is on Tory hands from their support of tyrants and murderers in the past and continuing into the present - but then there are plenty of excuses for that aren't they. Britain just has to sell arms to the Saudis (to use on who) and they had to approve the sale of Sarin precursors to Assad as well.
The whole of Ireland's recent history has not been a pretty story for Britain and a number of politicians - I would like to see all the files opened so we can see where the bodies are buried and who was actually doing what at that time - including collusion
Also, a Tory councillor has a bit of history in this area....well more than a bit
Let us assume all that you say is true, so what? I don't have to choose the lesser of two evils. I choose not to support either evil thanks. I don't wish to be associated with either.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Corbyn actually made a point of condemning IRA violence today. But because he also mentioned loyalists, some see even that as "beyond the pale".
Genuinely unbelievable, and can only be seen as evidence of actual derangement with some.
No. He really did not. He said, again, he condemned all violence. It is the same tick he has with anti-semitism or Syria. Asked to condemn anti-semitism he says "he condemns all forms of racism". Asked to condemn Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians, he says he of course condemns all violence whoever commits it.
Corbyn and McDonnel are of the hard left. You are old enough and should be sensible enough to know what they are like. They and their ilk have been around all my life. He really is not in the same proud tradition as Bevin and Cook. He was a regular in the Morning Star for a reason.
Look, I really didn't want to start an argument about this. I wanted to say that I shared everyone else' s opinion on the Tories.
“I condemn all the bombing by the both loyalists and the IRA.” Jeremy Corbyn 21.5.17
Your lies and smears are easy to expose, its there in black and white, he said it, its there on the video, he said it, you are damned liar.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Corbyn actually made a point of condemning IRA violence today. But because he also mentioned loyalists, some see even that as "beyond the pale".
Genuinely unbelievable, and can only be seen as evidence of actual derangement with some.
No. He really did not. He said, again, he condemned all violence. It is the same tick he has with anti-semitism or Syria. Asked to condemn anti-semitism he says "he condemns all forms of racism". Asked to condemn Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians, he says he of course condemns all violence whoever commits it.
Corbyn and McDonnel are of the hard left. You are old enough and should be sensible enough to know what they are like. They and their ilk have been around all my life. He really is not in the same proud tradition as Bevin and Cook. He was a regular in the Morning Star for a reason.
Look, I really didn't want to start an argument about this. I wanted to say that I shared everyone else' s opinion on the Tories.
Perhaps he doesn't think the killing of innocent people is acceptable whoever does it, or being racist isn't acceptable against anti race
Do you thinks some forms of violence and racism are more acceptable than others?
Do you think anti-semitism is worse than anti-black racism?
Do you think chemical weapon use is worse than the use of cluster bombs?
We had a Tory politician suggesting that our PM supports first-strike nuclear weapon use......
IRA violence is bad but UK Military violence is excusable?
I suggest you read up on the history of Ireland....and look at the violence there and which side was the most keen to use it.....
FWIW dad,ex military particularly annoyed by Davidson's "insult to all.those in uniform" comment,one of the neutrals heartedly sick of the anti Corbynmania ever degree of ridiculousness on the basis of who the hell are you to speak for all.Still goes on about Thatcher wrapping the flag around her re.Falklands,which he was involved in ,but wasn't.He doesn't like such attempts at manipulation,particularly given contexts.
Being very much an introvert(there are ways to hide it involving having a list of characters to go into subject to circumstances,though bankrobber Bob perhaps not the best choice in my last visit to the Halifax,other banks are available)so I take great exception to SH's use as a negative against May.
I don't of course.
That is interesting so you think that people seeing the obvious antiCorbynmania,shit policies,and not liking the casual disregard,arrogance,contempt of getting a four year old with a crayon to write the Manifesto largely on their own might have some effect.
Fuck knows but no harm in continually pointing it out to people at every opportunity.
Ah.ok.
I'm ok with Corbyn's dealings with the IRA,
ultimately if criticising question would have to be whether his actions caused more deaths in some way.
I'm not aware of this being the case.
HindleA wrote:Being very much an introvert(there are ways to hide it involving having a list of characters to go into subject to circumstances,though bankrobber Bob perhaps not the best choice in my last visit to the Halifax,other banks are available)so I take great exception to SH's use as a negative against May.
I don't of course.
Nothing wrong with being an introvert, but it is not a great trait for her job.
The "pride" thing is a bugger,used to visit people in condemned caravans,skeletal like refusal to take benefits,and those were the people we found about,this is a terrible move.
I gave some leeway as to ignorance,not in we are removing,we don't know who from or how and haven't thought about it really but we are going to win anyway who gives a shit.
Temulkar wrote:
Still waiting for you to justify why agreeing with a universal definition of genocide and wanting that definition to be applied universally is genocide denial.
And you will be waiting a very long time indeed, not least because it has no relevance to anything.
However as a courtesy to the rest of the board, and to stop you spamming the board with the same comment, let's be quite clear here.
1. My point is Chomsky has endorsed some questionable views on events in Former Yugoslavia.
2. As a result of this George Monbiot (well known fascist that one - not) has accused Chomsky of endorsing genocide denial. I posted a link to George's original article.
3. Unusually for a journalist George evidences and references his work. He provides a set of considered opinions from actual experts on genocide that agree with his view. I also included that article.
So if you wish to take it up with George and his experts on genocide go ahead and do so. I wouldn't recommend accusing them of a smear though, they might have a point of view.
Temulkar wrote:
Still waiting for you to justify why agreeing with a universal definition of genocide and wanting that definition to be applied universally is genocide denial.
And you will be waiting a very long time indeed, not least because it has no relevance to anything.
However as a courtesy to the rest of the board, and to stop you spamming the board with the same comment, let's be quite clear here.
1. My point is Chomsky has endorsed some questionable views on events in Former Yugoslavia.
2. As a result of this George Monbiot (well known fascist that one - not) has accused Chomsky of endorsing genocide denial. I posted a link to George's original article.
3. Unusually for a journalist George evidences and references his work. He provides a set of considered opinions from actual experts on genocide that agree with his view. I also included that article.
So if you wish to take it up with George and his experts on genocide go ahead and do so. I wouldn't recommend accusing them of a smear though, they might have a point of view.
You accused Chomsky of being a 'genocide denier' that was your statement
"That would be Chomsky. Genocide denier I assume, famously taken to pieces by Monbiot."
None of the academics or monbiot accused chomsky of "genocide denial" - You did.
Chomsky as he responded to Monbiot, and as I have pointed out, did not endorse any of the claims made about Yugoslavia which are as everybody, including me, chomsky and monbiot accept 'eminently contestable statements about the massacre at Srebrenica.' Although it should be pointed out that the 'wildly inaccurate' depiction of the RPF in Rwanda has been somewhat vindicated.
Of course if you actually knew anything about the subject matter, like the academics, like monbiot, like me, you would not have made such an absurd, morally repugnant, statement that Chomsky was IN YOUR WORDS a 'genocide denier'.
You were talking utter arse-hat about a subject that you patently do not understand, and rather than admit that, and at least regain some credibility, you persevere in your attempts to deny and smear.
Tem - I get the idea that you don't agree with TE and SH on some issues - fair enough. But would appreciate it if you could "take it outside" when it comes to the more repetitive and, let's say, 'robust' of your interactions.
"Richard Humphries, a senior fellow in social care at the thinktank, said: “It will mean thousands of people paying more for home care but will be complex and challenging for councils to implement and risks unintended consequences.
“These might include discouraging people from seeking help, placing a greater burden on unpaid carers and driving increased use of hospitals and long-term care.”
Sorry still not buying unintended,if I could see it instantly,I am sure they could.
Last edited by HindleA on Sun 21 May, 2017 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tinyclanger2 wrote:Tem - I get the idea that you don't agree with TE and SH on some issues - fair enough. But would appreciate it if you could "take it outside" when it comes to the more repetitive and, let's say, 'robust' of your interactions.
I think Temulkar should be allowed to express himself as he feels fit responding to people he feels have misrepresented him
I agree sometimes things are a bit more 'robust' than how I would have expressed them but he is not alone in that, and TE has been known to not be averse to that himself
As to repetivity.......I do not think he is one of the major culprits of that to be honest......
Rowan Williams has warned of the dangers of “messianic leadership” arising from disillusion in the political process, saying lessons need to be learned from Germany in the 1930s.
The former archbishop of Canterbury also said many Britons were peering into the abyss following last year’s Brexit referendum. Asked if the country was facing an existential crisis, he told the Guardian: “Yes … we’re certainly not a country at ease with itself.”
tinyclanger2 wrote:Tem - I get the idea that you don't agree with TE and SH on some issues - fair enough. But would appreciate it if you could "take it outside" when it comes to the more repetitive and, let's say, 'robust' of your interactions.
I'm really angry about this, it's a course I teach and I am livid that people on here would misrepresent genocide denial in an attempt to smear. You know there are really valid arguments about H+Ps book (of which only 10% is controversial) but I haven't seen that here, I have only seen a hit and run smear job that demeans the victims of all genocides. It cannot be allowed to pass.
There is real genocide denial in the world, you know, the bastards that deny the holocaust, the armenians, the ukranians etc etc etc. They use genocide as a political weapon to smear, and that is exactly what was being done here. There was no attempt to critique the argument, there was no knowledge of the details that were controversial, there was no understanding of what does and does not constitute genocide in a theatre of mass killing. All there was was a statement calling Chomsky a genocide denier - can you not see why I am so angry?
I can say much I called someone a detritus,but there were exceptional.circumstances.I am more of an occasional fuck you arsehole which isn't person specific,I hate you all to varying degrees.
tinyclanger2 wrote:Tem - I get the idea that you don't agree with TE and SH on some issues - fair enough. But would appreciate it if you could "take it outside" when it comes to the more repetitive and, let's say, 'robust' of your interactions.
I think Temulkar should be allowed to express himself as he feels fit responding to people he feels have misrepresented him
I agree sometimes things are a bit more 'robust' than how I would have expressed them but he is not alone in that, and TE has been known to not be averse to that himself
As to repetivity.......I do not think he is one of the major culprits of that to be honest......
Yes - agree he should be able to express his view (like anyone here), but (in my view) the way it's done matters.
Inevitably to each of us, some views are more offputting than others, but so are some tones in which views are expressed. I do think it would benefit the board enormously if we could minimise what comes across as shouting.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all. Never mind. It's too late now, anyway. Which is why I'm so grumpy. Just ignore me.
