No, it was when she was being talked about as the next boss of Ofcom which has now been confirmed.Tubby Isaacs wrote: Private Eye?
I thought they were out of order with criticizing Chote. He basically said in the OBR report on Osborne that the plans were dubious.
Perfect - no one forget this post - remember how someone votes, listen to their words, watch their actions.rebeccariots2 wrote:But Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems are all the same, aren't they?Chris Bryant @ChrisBryantMP 10m10 minutes ago
Yesterday I voted against government's treatment of firefighters, today I voted for equal pay, tomorrow I'll vote to end bedroom tax
Couldn't get a better short summary that shows they're not.
I think the great green lurker in the sky is busy today so you'll have to make do with me. Not great, not in the sky, and not all that wrathful I'm afraid. I do lurk a lot and I am Green so it's a start I guess.yahyah wrote:diGriz wrote:I don't really want her at the debates. Her voice just grates on me.rebeccariots2 wrote: Well - going to be interesting if and when they come out and tell us to vote for Tories and Lib Dems so there can be a repeat coalition - ain't it just?
Careful DiGriz, you may incur the wrath of the great green lurker in the sky.
It will get unwieldy with too many people debating.
Better to have the leaders of the small parties, Greens, Lib Dems and UKIP together.
Leave Ed & Cameron to get on with it.
And apparently went to a state comp in Leyton....social mobility not that much of an issue then.RogerOThornhill wrote:No, it was when she was being talked about as the next boss of Ofcom which has now been confirmed.Tubby Isaacs wrote: Private Eye?
I thought they were out of order with criticizing Chote. He basically said in the OBR report on Osborne that the plans were dubious.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30501529
This post - and the comments on it - have left me speechless. Has to be read to understand why.Our worst nightmare? Peter Kellner’s scenario 3: “Lib Dems choose who’s the PM”
http://www.libdemvoice.org/our-worst-ni ... 43781.html
I share TE's contempt. Politics is a constant moving communication between individuals, groups, societies - declining to participate or refusing to accept comprise or to cooperate is wrong. Declining to cooperate is supercilious action.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Oh god, I had a 'conversation' with one of those on Twitter yesterday. Life is too short.Tubby Isaacs wrote:TechnicalEphemera wrote:
It is actually quite a decent piece, if utterly trivial.
Bunch of complete twats posting BTL. A toxic combination of SNP nutters, and True Socialist tossers.
Presumably looking forward to Osborne fucking over the country because Ed wasn't a true socialist.
Excuse my utter contempt.
Ah, man, the true Socialists. There's one chap who keeps mentioning TUSC- who got 13 votes in Blackbird Leys recently.
The silly thing is I know quite a few true Socialists. One, an ardent SWPer, has no problem at all with voting Labour where you have to.
and the northeast's referendum on a regional assembly (resoundingly rejected by the people of the northeast at the time)DonutHingeParty wrote:Hague:The Tories (and Labour, for that matter) seem to have totally forgotten about the Regional minsters and Regional Select Committees, torn up on day 1 by the Coalition.For 13 years Labour did not give extra powers to the cities and towns of England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_minister" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;In England, regional ministers were appointed from 2007 on a part-time basis as part of the Government of the United Kingdom. Each minister had other departmental responsibilities, as well as specific responsibilities for one of the English regions. Their stated role was "to provide a clear sense of strategic direction for the nine English regions and to help strengthen their links with central government."[1]
Very much the point I made. I think the main conclusion reached was that I am not a socialist because I still entertain hopes that the Labour Party (aka Red Tories) are substantially different from the other parties; in fact I'm probably a class traitor or, more likely, a lawyer for not abandoning them and joining the TUSC. Seem to have heard that before somewhere.citizenJA wrote:I share TE's contempt. Politics is a constant moving communication between individuals, groups, societies - declining to participate or refusing to accept comprise or to cooperate is wrong. Declining to cooperate is supercilious action.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Oh god, I had a 'conversation' with one of those on Twitter yesterday. Life is too short.Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Ah, man, the true Socialists. There's one chap who keeps mentioning TUSC- who got 13 votes in Blackbird Leys recently.
The silly thing is I know quite a few true Socialists. One, an ardent SWPer, has no problem at all with voting Labour where you have to.
Yes, I think he needs to do that. And even though he's been in Westminster, he looks like a hard bastard, so the "branch office" bollocks won't wash so much.letsskiptotheleft wrote:Looks like Murphy fully intends to attack the SNP on their two weakest fronts, education and finance, as I have said, I don't particularly like the guy, but he's taking the fight to them, and he's put leadership rivals in key positions, it has always been interesting up there, but leaders for a while have been fighting with their hands tied behind their backs, that appears to no longer be the case.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -reshuffle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Labour Students @LabourStudents 1h1 hour ago London
So IER happening to wipe hundreds of thousands of students off the electoral register is just a lucky side effect? #NoNick #Leaderslive
Young Labour @YoungLabourUK 48m48 minutes ago
Clegg keeps talking about manifestoes. Remember he trebled fees having said he'd scrap them in the last one. #NoNick
[/quote]rebeccariots2 wrote:
"It is bringing people from different demographics together that doesn't involve money. People are opening Junk Food Projects because they have had enough of what is going on in society and care about what is happening to other human beings," he said. "It is a revolution."
Of course, well said.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Very much the point I made. I think the main conclusion reached was that I am not a socialist because I still entertain hopes that the Labour Party (aka Red Tories) are substantially different from the other parties; in fact I'm probably a class traitor or, more likely, a lawyer for not abandoning them and joining the TUSC. Seem to have heard that before somewhere.citizenJA wrote:I share TE's contempt. Politics is a constant moving communication between individuals, groups, societies - declining to participate or refusing to accept comprise or to cooperate is wrong. Declining to cooperate is supercilious action.TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Oh god, I had a 'conversation' with one of those on Twitter yesterday. Life is too short.
Until groups like the TUSC are genuinely electable in sizeable numbers I won't even entertain them; tactical voting for the "radical alternative" worked so well in 2010, after all. So until that day I'll fight within the existing Labour Party, and I'll try my hardest to argue for change; so people can claim they are "far to the left" of me, or that I'm "not a real Socialist" as often as they like - it is based on assumptions on their part, and says far more about their attitudes than it does about mine.
I wonder if there'd be a different result now, with the danger of John Redwood and pals in London running "radical experiments" in Newcastle and Sunderland. Think there'd be quite a big incentive to try and keep some powers in the North East.tinyclanger2 wrote:and the northeast's referendum on a regional assembly (resoundingly rejected by the people of the northeast at the time)DonutHingeParty wrote:Hague:The Tories (and Labour, for that matter) seem to have totally forgotten about the Regional minsters and Regional Select Committees, torn up on day 1 by the Coalition.For 13 years Labour did not give extra powers to the cities and towns of England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_minister" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;In England, regional ministers were appointed from 2007 on a part-time basis as part of the Government of the United Kingdom. Each minister had other departmental responsibilities, as well as specific responsibilities for one of the English regions. Their stated role was "to provide a clear sense of strategic direction for the nine English regions and to help strengthen their links with central government."[1]
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/ ... 459207.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
rebeccariots2 wrote:This is the charm offensive clip that letsskip was referring to ...
[youtube]wMCRsBUZtAE[/youtube]Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk · 54m 54 minutes ago
To those who say Jim Murphy can’t beat “charismatic” Nicola Sturgeon. I say, watch this… " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
We're going to get one of these stories every day up until the election, aren't we.School bans UKIP candidate who posted map featuring 'Bongo Bongo Land' from speaking after protests by parents
Ukip candidate banned from speaking at school after parents protested
David Little was going to give lecture on importance of democracy
But he caused outrage last month by posting 'Bongo Bongo Land' map
Parents threatened to picket the school in protest if he gave speech
Father-of-two Mr Little has slammed the move as 'an affront to democracy'
Even the cartoonist, who hates Ukip's policies, said it was the wrong call
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Land.html
I think I've put the photo in the wrong place (sigh)Tizme1 wrote:*chuckle*diGriz wrote:I don't really want her at the debates. Her voice just grates on me.rebeccariots2 wrote: Well - going to be interesting if and when they come out and tell us to vote for Tories and Lib Dems so there can be a repeat coalition - ain't it just?
Isn't that a bit like not wanting a person to be Prime Minister because they 'look a bit weird'? That said, Cameron's voice grates on me. As did John Major's.
Speaking of which [Ed looking 'weird' I mean], has anyone ever been able to get an explanation in what way he supposedly looks 'weird'? I was speaking to my eldest son about this just the other day and he said that ''Miliband looks weird but its not a reason not to vote for him, or at least it shouldn't be". I asked him in what way does Miliband look weird and he replied "he just does". Now I know my son is not at all racist and he doesn't dislike Miliband so it's not the looks Jewish/foreign thing. And I don't think he [my son] would come to this conclusion just because its in the papers/other people say it. I suggested that maybe Ed isn't particularly photogenic [not to mention the msm choose the worst pics they can find of him]. I'm really at a loss to understand it though.
And indeed nor was he planning to run a country.RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear, talk about only making things worse...
Shamed Ukip candidate: my language was no worse than Fools & Horses
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -dark-arts
Now I might be wrong and my memory might be going a bit but I don't actually remember Del Boy calling anyone a “fucking disgusting poofter"...On Tuesday night, Smith gave an interview to the BBC saying he had been too politically incorrect, but that his language had been “no worse than watching an old episode of Fools and Horses, to be fair”.
I'm a true socialist, but I'm more than aware that to inject socialism into politics, you have to appeal to a large number of voters. TUSC doesn't any more than the SWP or RCP did.Tubby Isaacs wrote:TechnicalEphemera wrote:rebeccariots2 wrote: Don't look BTL if you value your sanity.
Burnell's piece is not anti Ed - it has ebb and flow, and some background. Cue outrage.
It is actually quite a decent piece, if utterly trivial.
Bunch of complete twats posting BTL. A toxic combination of SNP nutters, and True Socialist tossers.
Presumably looking forward to Osborne fucking over the country because Ed wasn't a true socialist.
Excuse my utter contempt.
Ah, man, the true Socialists. There's one chap who keeps mentioning TUSC- who got 13 votes in Blackbird Leys recently.
The silly thing is I know quite a few true Socialists. One, an ardent SWPer, has no problem at all with voting Labour where you have to.
Well said. "Pragmatism" seems to be an obscene word to some. Go figure.ErnstRemarx wrote:I'm a true socialist, but I'm more than aware that to inject socialism into politics, you have to appeal to a large number of voters. TUSC doesn't any more than the SWP or RCP did.Tubby Isaacs wrote:TechnicalEphemera wrote:
It is actually quite a decent piece, if utterly trivial.
Bunch of complete twats posting BTL. A toxic combination of SNP nutters, and True Socialist tossers.
Presumably looking forward to Osborne fucking over the country because Ed wasn't a true socialist.
Excuse my utter contempt.
Ah, man, the true Socialists. There's one chap who keeps mentioning TUSC- who got 13 votes in Blackbird Leys recently.
The silly thing is I know quite a few true Socialists. One, an ardent SWPer, has no problem at all with voting Labour where you have to.
My socialism is rather more pragmatic than that.
It's because he looks like what he is - a second generation Briton from eastern european immigrant stock - and hence his physiognomy is atypical of most of his fellow Britons. Frankly, I can't think of many party leaders in the last 50 years who'd win a beauty contest, and it's irrelevant anyway. If you base your vote upon whether someone looks "weird" or not, you should probably put your ballot paper in the fire, as you're too fucking thick to be voting.Tizme1 wrote:*chuckle*diGriz wrote:I don't really want her at the debates. Her voice just grates on me.rebeccariots2 wrote: Well - going to be interesting if and when they come out and tell us to vote for Tories and Lib Dems so there can be a repeat coalition - ain't it just?
Isn't that a bit like not wanting a person to be Prime Minister because they 'look a bit weird'? That said, Cameron's voice grates on me. As did John Major's.
Speaking of which [Ed looking 'weird' I mean], has anyone ever been able to get an explanation in what way he supposedly looks 'weird'? I was speaking to my eldest son about this just the other day and he said that ''Miliband looks weird but its not a reason not to vote for him, or at least it shouldn't be". I asked him in what way does Miliband look weird and he replied "he just does". Now I know my son is not at all racist and he doesn't dislike Miliband so it's not the looks Jewish/foreign thing. And I don't think he [my son] would come to this conclusion just because its in the papers/other people say it. I suggested that maybe Ed isn't particularly photogenic [not to mention the msm choose the worst pics they can find of him]. I'm really at a loss to understand it though.
I absolutely agree that Bennett should be in there. At the very least, her party is more popular that one of those currently ingovernment and has a sitting MP, so that qualifies her twice over.Tizme1 wrote:I think the great green lurker in the sky is busy today so you'll have to make do with me. Not great, not in the sky, and not all that wrathful I'm afraid. I do lurk a lot and I am Green so it's a start I guess.yahyah wrote:diGriz wrote: I don't really want her at the debates. Her voice just grates on me.
Careful DiGriz, you may incur the wrath of the great green lurker in the sky.
It will get unwieldy with too many people debating.
Better to have the leaders of the small parties, Greens, Lib Dems and UKIP together.
Leave Ed & Cameron to get on with it.
As to the format of the debates I obviously think Greens should be included. I guess it depends on whether one is considering them as a means of checking out the likely next PM or a 'debate' on the policies of the various parties.
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Very much the point I made. I think the main conclusion reached was that I am not a socialist because I still entertain hopes that the Labour Party (aka Red Tories) are substantially different from the other parties; in fact I'm probably a class traitor or, more likely, a lawyer for not abandoning them and joining the TUSC. Seem to have heard that before somewhere.citizenJA wrote:I share TE's contempt. Politics is a constant moving communication between individuals, groups, societies - declining to participate or refusing to accept comprise or to cooperate is wrong. Declining to cooperate is supercilious action.TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Oh god, I had a 'conversation' with one of those on Twitter yesterday. Life is too short.
Until groups like the TUSC are genuinely electable in sizeable numbers I won't even entertain them; tactical voting for the "radical alternative" worked so well in 2010, after all. So until that day I'll fight within the existing Labour Party, and I'll try my hardest to argue for change; so people can claim they are "far to the left" of me, or that I'm "not a real Socialist" as often as they like - it is based on assumptions on their part, and says far more about their attitudes than it does about mine.
I've had a few people say that to me. My reply to them is, well, what are you doing to bring about the change you must surely yearn for? If they can tell me they're active (and how), they get a thumbs up, and I tell them they should be in the Labour party with me; if they tell me they've not active, then I try to get them to join up and work, but generally there's something more important going on in their lives. I'm not one to pry, , but I certainly have a view on why they're armchair socialists.so people can claim they are "far to the left" of me, or that I'm "not a real Socialist" as often as they like - it is based on assumptions on their part, and says far more about their attitudes than it does about mine.
I hope so too. I understand why they think they need to cover the right flank (not least because many working class Labour voters are pretty hardnosed on social security) but surely they've gone far enough? Bring some positive policies together.AngryAsWell wrote:Right note here from - yes - Liam Bryne - Optimism, he's right that is what we need.
Time to start backing and stop attacking our young people
http://labourlist.org/2014/12/time-to-s ... ng-people/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is nothing new announced, but the tone in talking about the same things as RR, comes across more purposeful and optimistic than her dower, depressed "we'll be 'ard us, we will" routine.
+AngryAsWell wrote:Homeless man gives student his last £3 to get home and is repaid with amazing gesture
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ho ... st-4822025" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So far she has topped £14,000 for him.
Twitter page
https://twitter.com/Help_Robbie" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Funding page
http://gogetfunding.com/project/help-ro ... eless-hero" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Glad they're not letting the frontline deteriorate, and just hitting silly back office stuff.North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust has raised its operational status to “severe pressure”.
There are six levels of alert and today, NEAS was the eighth ambulance service out of 10 in England to declare its status at level four.
Thanks AAW. I know absolutely it won't be because Ed is Jewish. When I chose my children's primary school, I deliberately chose the most multi racial school in the area. They went to school with Jews, muslims, South Africans, Nigerians, Polish, Somali, Americans, Chinese, Japanese, and simply too many 'foreigners' to mention. There were even some Scottish, Welsh and Irish in the mix. Oh and a few English too! Sometimes my house used to be like a mini gathering of the United Nations - it was wonderful. My lot understand racism exists, but they find it incomprehensible that people are judged on their colour/nationality/ethnicity.AngryAsWell wrote:I think I've put the photo in the wrong place (sigh)Tizme1 wrote:*chuckle*diGriz wrote: I don't really want her at the debates. Her voice just grates on me.
Isn't that a bit like not wanting a person to be Prime Minister because they 'look a bit weird'? That said, Cameron's voice grates on me. As did John Major's.
Speaking of which [Ed looking 'weird' I mean], has anyone ever been able to get an explanation in what way he supposedly looks 'weird'? I was speaking to my eldest son about this just the other day and he said that ''Miliband looks weird but its not a reason not to vote for him, or at least it shouldn't be". I asked him in what way does Miliband look weird and he replied "he just does". Now I know my son is not at all racist and he doesn't dislike Miliband so it's not the looks Jewish/foreign thing. And I don't think he [my son] would come to this conclusion just because its in the papers/other people say it. I suggested that maybe Ed isn't particularly photogenic [not to mention the msm choose the worst pics they can find of him]. I'm really at a loss to understand it though.
But that aside - could you ask your son if this man looks in any way weird? You could also take him to the #Webacked page on twitter where there are many more "normal" photographs of him and ask him if any of those look "weird".
Part if the problem is that if the press say something long enough and hard enough, people will believe it, even at the cost of letting their own eyes lie to them.
For some though (not saying your son) it is an alternative way of saying "he looks Jewish".
On the other hand it could be that I'm out of step. I grew up in a predominately Jewish area (flippin immigrants! coming over here in the 40's 50's an 60's!) and we were the only none Jews on the block, so Jewish the profile is quite familiar to me and formed part of my childhood (?)
As I've just said to AAW I don't think it will be the immigrant thing. And as my son said, it isn't a reason to not vote for Ed [or anyone]. As to your last sentence - he would totally agree with you.ErnstRemarx wrote:It's because he looks like what he is - a second generation Briton from eastern european immigrant stock - and hence his physiognomy is atypical of most of his fellow Britons. Frankly, I can't think of many party leaders in the last 50 years who'd win a beauty contest, and it's irrelevant anyway. If you base your vote upon whether someone looks "weird" or not, you should probably put your ballot paper in the fire, as you're too fucking thick to be voting.Tizme1 wrote:*chuckle*diGriz wrote: I don't really want her at the debates. Her voice just grates on me.
Isn't that a bit like not wanting a person to be Prime Minister because they 'look a bit weird'? That said, Cameron's voice grates on me. As did John Major's.
Speaking of which [Ed looking 'weird' I mean], has anyone ever been able to get an explanation in what way he supposedly looks 'weird'? I was speaking to my eldest son about this just the other day and he said that ''Miliband looks weird but its not a reason not to vote for him, or at least it shouldn't be". I asked him in what way does Miliband look weird and he replied "he just does". Now I know my son is not at all racist and he doesn't dislike Miliband so it's not the looks Jewish/foreign thing. And I don't think he [my son] would come to this conclusion just because its in the papers/other people say it. I suggested that maybe Ed isn't particularly photogenic [not to mention the msm choose the worst pics they can find of him]. I'm really at a loss to understand it though.
Passed it up the chain but haven't heard anything. I have hopes of coming at it from another angle though. Won't be for a while yet but I'll pm you to explain when I'm more certain.ErnstRemarx wrote:I absolutely agree that Bennett should be in there. At the very least, her party is more popular that one of those currently ingovernment and has a sitting MP, so that qualifies her twice over.Tizme1 wrote:I think the great green lurker in the sky is busy today so you'll have to make do with me. Not great, not in the sky, and not all that wrathful I'm afraid. I do lurk a lot and I am Green so it's a start I guess.yahyah wrote:
Careful DiGriz, you may incur the wrath of the great green lurker in the sky.
It will get unwieldy with too many people debating.
Better to have the leaders of the small parties, Greens, Lib Dems and UKIP together.
Leave Ed & Cameron to get on with it.
As to the format of the debates I obviously think Greens should be included. I guess it depends on whether one is considering them as a means of checking out the likely next PM or a 'debate' on the policies of the various parties.
Did you ever have any luck with the Bury Greens? They still seem to be spouting absolute gibberish about Bury Library and leaping on passing bandwagons akimbo.
Wouldn't it have been 'woolly woofter' for south of the river?RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear, talk about only making things worse...
Shamed Ukip candidate: my language was no worse than Fools & Horses
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -dark-arts
Now I might be wrong and my memory might be going a bit but I don't actually remember Del Boy calling anyone a “fucking disgusting poofter"...On Tuesday night, Smith gave an interview to the BBC saying he had been too politically incorrect, but that his language had been “no worse than watching an old episode of Fools and Horses, to be fair”.
Much obliged, young Tizzers.Tizme1 wrote:Passed it up the chain but haven't heard anything. I have hopes of coming at it from another angle though. Won't be for a while yet but I'll pm you to explain when I'm more certain.ErnstRemarx wrote:I absolutely agree that Bennett should be in there. At the very least, her party is more popular that one of those currently ingovernment and has a sitting MP, so that qualifies her twice over.Tizme1 wrote: I think the great green lurker in the sky is busy today so you'll have to make do with me. Not great, not in the sky, and not all that wrathful I'm afraid. I do lurk a lot and I am Green so it's a start I guess.
As to the format of the debates I obviously think Greens should be included. I guess it depends on whether one is considering them as a means of checking out the likely next PM or a 'debate' on the policies of the various parties.
Did you ever have any luck with the Bury Greens? They still seem to be spouting absolute gibberish about Bury Library and leaping on passing bandwagons akimbo.
Hasn't he committed himself yet then? It doesn't surprise me if not. He'll be waiting until he thinks he will have just announced something wonderful for young people - wonderful for chosen young people, and wonderful in Cameron's blinkered eye. And he'll be spending hours practice gurning in front of a mirror to get the plastic contortions and inference just right (in his eyes, once again).Will Bradshaw @Spikeasaur 11m11 minutes ago
@David_Cameron when will you confirm a date for #LeadersLive?
I especially love them for that Lib Dems 2%. Can't help myself.AngryAsWell wrote:Yougov
Aged 18-24 voting intentions
Labour 42%
Conservatives 21%
Greens 19%
SNP / PC 12%
UKIP 3%
OTHER 2%
LIBDEMS 2%
Won't vote / DK 25%
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Love our kids
It's being beaten by OTHER that gets me- hard to imagine exactly who the OTHER are, given that UKIP, Green, SNP and PC are all included. To be beaten by Sinn Fein and the DUP would be a new low even for this lot.rebeccariots2 wrote:I especially love them for that Lib Dems 2%. Can't help myself.AngryAsWell wrote:Yougov
Aged 18-24 voting intentions
Labour 42%
Conservatives 21%
Greens 19%
SNP / PC 12%
UKIP 3%
OTHER 2%
LIBDEMS 2%
Won't vote / DK 25%
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Love our kids
Karl Turner MP retweeted
The Howard League @TheHowardLeague Dec 12
We've just received confirmation that there was a suicide in prison on each of the following days:
Dec 1
Dec 2
Dec 3
Dec 4
Dec 5
Dec 7
Possibly TUSC, SWP (who are no longer a party incidentally, so they don't have to submit accounts), the RCP or maybe the English Democrats or The Monster Raving Loony Party (but I repeat myself, pace Twain).Tubby Isaacs wrote:It's being beaten by OTHER that gets me- hard to imagine exactly who the OTHER are, given that UKIP, Green, SNP and PC are all included. To be beaten by Sinn Fein and the DUP would be a new low even for this lot.rebeccariots2 wrote:I especially love them for that Lib Dems 2%. Can't help myself.AngryAsWell wrote:Yougov
Aged 18-24 voting intentions
Labour 42%
Conservatives 21%
Greens 19%
SNP / PC 12%
UKIP 3%
OTHER 2%
LIBDEMS 2%
Won't vote / DK 25%
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Love our kids
Now if only getting out the vote worked for that age bracket.AngryAsWell wrote:Yougov
Aged 18-24 voting intentions
Labour 42%
Conservatives 21%
Greens 19%
SNP / PC 12%
UKIP 3%
OTHER 2%
LIBDEMS 2%
Won't vote / DK 25%
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Love our kids
Ah, yes, TUSC is a good call. SWP tend to be clued up on their own brand of politics, so might be someone not actually that close to them saying it.ErnstRemarx wrote:Possibly TUSC, SWP (who are no longer a party incidentally, so they don't have to submit accounts), the RCP or maybe the English Democrats or The Monster Raving Loony Party (but I repeat myself, pace Twain).Tubby Isaacs wrote:It's being beaten by OTHER that gets me- hard to imagine exactly who the OTHER are, given that UKIP, Green, SNP and PC are all included. To be beaten by Sinn Fein and the DUP would be a new low even for this lot.rebeccariots2 wrote: I especially love them for that Lib Dems 2%. Can't help myself.
