Thursday 15th January 2015

[refitman]

I watch a fair bit of US tv lately, With a bit of nifty downloading, I'm up to speed with the latest episodes of Big Bang Theory & the Seth MacFarlane stuff.

It's a pity that More 4 dropped The Daily Show as that is now no longer available on any terrestrial UK channel, here is Jon Stewart with President Jimmy Carter a couple of nights ago

You can watch Comedy Central shows, on their site, using a Firefox plugin called Modify Headers. Instructions are here: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/01/08/ ... in-the-uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TechnicalEphemera]

Wow, just wow.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... is-attacks

US tech experts tell Cameron no chance, in other news US government report confirms Cameron is an idiot.

Check out the David Miliband Top Secret memo, look what naughty GCHQ have been doing. We can be pretty certain that if GCHQ have discovered vulnerabilities in a leading virus product the Russians have either worked it out or stolen that from GCHQ. If the Russians know, organised crime will know. This compromising crypto and security by our intelligence services has got to stop.

Basically here is the state of play.

1. Terrorists already use secure crypto.
2. GCHQ want the ability to spy on everybody to continue. They do this by capturing every packet and running pattern searches on the slurped data.
3. As more and more internet services are turning on strong encryption this general snooping for data is no longer possible. What they have captured is encrypted.
4. GCHQ will still be able to apply for warrants to access data on servers, but they will not be permitted to grab all data, just a set of named individuals.
5. They will probably still know which servers you are using but not what you are sending (You can't really encrypt IP addresses unless you want your packets unroutable.
6. Cameron wants to force all encryption to be weak.
7. The criminals would love that, therefore he has no chance.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not inside the UK security establishment, and I am not working on security projects involving any organisation. This is all public domain information.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Thanks for that video Toby.

It is depressing when US news coverage is so much better than the BBC's pathetic efforts. Sensible questions, no stupid interruptions.

Maybe somebody should tweet Marr the link with a snide comment like - This is what happens if you let a Labour politician talk without interruption.

You're welcome, one of the things which struck me too was the way he was given respect. Fox News could learn a thing or two .

I found it interesting that the person who asked about bringing profits back from off shore was Michael Steel, former chairman of the Republican Party. I don't think some of his fellow party members would be too pleased to hear about that happening.

I think it is fairly clear Fox News are incapable of learning anything. No matter how hard or how often you hit them on the head with a shovel they remain stuck in stupid Republican Redneck mode. It is their default behaviour, even forcing a complete reboot won't shift it.

[WelshIan]

With regard to the vote on the Charter of Responsibility, Danny Alexander makes it clear that Labour did not vote for £30 billion of cuts, Labour voted to clear the structural deficit in the required timeframe. As has been noted previously, Labour's plan is completely different to the Conservative plan.

I am proud of the progress we have made in this Parliament and welcome the widespread support this Charter for Budget Responsibility has received across the House, but it is important to be clear what this charter does and does not do. It sets out that the Government of the day must have a plan to eliminate the structural deficit within three years and get our national debt falling as a percentage of GDP by 2016-17. Of course it does not prescribe what specific steps various parties would actually take to meet the commitments that the charter imposes.

The quote is from Hansard.

Outstanding. Thank you, WelshIan.

You're welcome, JA.

I just went to the primary source rather than reading about it 2nd or 3rd hand from the media.

FlyTheNest and everyone contributing here have helped me to consider where our news comes from, and opened my eyes to a far wider range of comment and opinion than I had previously looked at. Although I do worry that I am becoming more subject to confirmation bias which is part of the reason I have started looking at factual resources like Hansard.

Thanks everyone!

[Toby Latimer]

I watch a fair bit of US tv lately, With a bit of nifty downloading, I'm up to speed with the latest episodes of Big Bang Theory & the Seth MacFarlane stuff.

It's a pity that More 4 dropped The Daily Show as that is now no longer available on any terrestrial UK channel, here is Jon Stewart with President Jimmy Carter a couple of nights ago

You can watch Comedy Central shows, on their site, using a Firefox plugin called Modify Headers. Instructions are here: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/01/08/ ... in-the-uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I discovered that a year or so ago thanks Dan, I also have Media Hint plug in https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... mediahint/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which is very good.

I use a Chromium based browser most of the time nowadays made by Comodo, they do a few but the 'Dragon' is fine for my use http://tinyurl.com/q45sco3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which is supposed to be safer and with more privacy than Google Chrome.

A lot of shows are showing up on eztv also, usually within hours of the initial broadcast, so you can watch them at your leisure

[citizenJA]

...Archbishop Welby...
“Our human journey is not a journey of individuals, it is a journey held in common, and no individual can safely be left behind. The principle of the common good and human flourishing finds its foundation here. We really are all in it together.”

The book is likely to infuriate the Tories in the run-up to the election, reigniting tensions between Church and state seen in 2011 when the then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams accused the Coalition of pushing through "radical policies for which no one voted".

That prompted a direct response from David Cameron while Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, dismissed the Archbishop’s comments as “unbalanced and unfair”.

(my bold)
Unbelievable, Dave, IDSmith, both of you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... itain.html

[TechnicalEphemera]

I watch a fair bit of US tv lately, With a bit of nifty downloading, I'm up to speed with the latest episodes of Big Bang Theory & the Seth MacFarlane stuff.

It's a pity that More 4 dropped The Daily Show as that is now no longer available on any terrestrial UK channel, here is Jon Stewart with President Jimmy Carter a couple of nights ago

You can watch Comedy Central shows, on their site, using a Firefox plugin called Modify Headers. Instructions are here: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/01/08/ ... in-the-uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I discovered that a year or so ago thanks Dan, I also have Media Hint plug in https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... mediahint/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which is very good.

I use a Chromium based browser most of the time nowadays made by Comodo, they do a few but the 'Dragon' is fine for my use http://tinyurl.com/q45sco3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which is supposed to be safer and with more privacy than Google Chrome.

A lot of shows are showing up on eztv also, usually within hours of the initial broadcast, so you can watch them at your leisure

Hmm I am pretty sure I was warned about you guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWPfcEOr2Yg&sns=em

[refitman]

Wow, just wow.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... is-attacks

US tech experts tell Cameron no chance, in other news US government report confirms Cameron is an idiot.

Check out the David Miliband Top Secret memo, look what naughty GCHQ have been doing. We can be pretty certain that if GCHQ have discovered vulnerabilities in a leading virus product the Russians have either worked it out or stolen that from GCHQ. If the Russians know, organised crime will know. This compromising crypto and security by our intelligence services has got to stop.

Basically here is the state of play.

1. Terrorists already use secure crypto.
2. GCHQ want the ability to spy on everybody to continue. They do this by capturing every packet and running pattern searches on the slurped data.
3. As more and more internet services are turning on strong encryption this general snooping for data is no longer possible. What they have captured is encrypted.
4. GCHQ will still be able to apply for warrants to access data on servers, but they will not be permitted to grab all data, just a set of named individuals.
5. They will probably still know which servers you are using but not what you are sending (You can't really encrypt IP addresses unless you want your packets unroutable.
6. Cameron wants to force all encryption to be weak.
7. The criminals would love that, therefore he has no chance.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not inside the UK security establishment, and I am not working on security projects involving any organisation. This is all public domain information.

PM had Peter Somers, from De Montfort & OU, on. He said that Cameron's plans would break pretty much all internet banking and commerce transactions. He made the very valid point that you don't need encryption to pass secret messages over the internet, you just need to not say what you mean.

It's from about 36 mins: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xrwhf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[refitman]

You can watch Comedy Central shows, on their site, using a Firefox plugin called Modify Headers. Instructions are here: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/01/08/ ... in-the-uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I discovered that a year or so ago thanks Dan, I also have Media Hint plug in https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... mediahint/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which is very good.

I use a Chromium based browser most of the time nowadays made by Comodo, they do a few but the 'Dragon' is fine for my use http://tinyurl.com/q45sco3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which is supposed to be safer and with more privacy than Google Chrome.

A lot of shows are showing up on eztv also, usually within hours of the initial broadcast, so you can watch them at your leisure

Hmm I am pretty sure I was warned about you guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWPfcEOr2Yg&sns=em

Before I click on that, IT Crowd?

Edited to add: Nope. This is what I was thinking about:
[youtube]ALZZx1xmAzg[/youtube]

[ErnstRemarx]

I've been out this evening at a Township Forum meeting locally - a surefire cure for both insomnia and interest in local politics - but have been thinking about that ConHome article I linked earlier. And, you'll be unsurprised to learn, I have more conclusions to gather from it.

The first is that more than one poster - and these are Tories remember - stated that he was beginning to believe that the Tory party is now run purely for the benefit of big business (who donate most of the money) and wonky "think tanks" run by SpAds who go on to become MPs. That's a big issue for grass roots Tories I'm sure. Even they aren't going to relish their backwater status brought on by that. Hardly motivational.

The second is that as they become demotivated or disillusioned about what the Tory party has become and cease to participate meaningfully, by dropping off the radar they diminish the rapidly evaporating pool of Tory talent that has any organic links into communities of ordinary people. That explains why Tory councillors are increasingly shit in quality. The ones in Bury are largely risible and certainly the Township Forum meeting I attended tonight had about 4-5 Tory councillors (one's the Chair) who collectively lack very much in the way of intellect and depth. It can be embarrassing to watch at times. I would expect the same issue with MPs and prospective MPs.

The final point is that trees die from the roots up. If their base is now so small - the original article mentioned 18 Tory Association members in a town of 35000 - then those are pretty shallow roots. For comparison, my ward party's membership is about 50 members (there are 17 wards in the borough) and the CLP has over 400 members I think. Without that link out into the communities they seek to represent, the Tories become ever more reliant on focus groups, SpAds, self-interested "think tanks" and IDS' much mocked "belief".

I'm not one to write political obituaries, but I genuinely believe that if they cleave to their current trajectory, then the Tories will not survive as a major party. There's too much standing in their way, as I've tried to point out in my previous posts. Makes me happy, I have to say, although their replacement by UKIP would not.

None of this is to say that Labour are in such good shape that they can just point and laugh; they clearly can't, as the rise of the Greens shows, but at least the core values of Labour members (and those committed enough to contemplate membership) should help to ensure that the party survives and prospers. But woe betide the party if those activists are taken for granted in the same way as CCHQ clearly has done with their members. The Labour party would do very well to remember that.

[rebeccariots2]

Mr Riots and I have decided against watching C4's latest offering - 'My Granny The Escort'.

(Still at least they are obviously trying to keep up their commitment to reflecting diversity ... of age at least .... we've just had 'Cyberbully' centering on young people. )

[citizenJA]

@ErnstRemarx
I read that article & I've two questions.
Where'd the 'rows of young persons' & the friends who wouldn't join but voted for Tories come from?
Assuming that article was for real, of course.

[citizenJA]

I'd love to write the Tory party obituary.

[ohsocynical]

Barbara Cannon retweeted
Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 16 mins16 minutes ago
Latest YouGov poll (14 - 15 Jan):
CON: 32% (-)
LAB: 32% (-2)
UKIP: 16% (+1)
GRN: 8% (+1)
LDEM: 6% (-)

[refitman]

It will come a shock to no one, but David Starkey knows bugger all about cyber security. The ignorance shown by the panellists on QT is astounding.

[ErnstRemarx]

@ErnstRemarx
I read that article & I've two questions.
Where'd the 'rows of young persons' & the friends who wouldn't join but voted for Tories come from?
Assuming that article was for real, of course.

No idea. Don't forget that at a national level, it's not going to be that hard to gather together a room full of 16-20 year olds who, for whatever reasons, wil vote Tory. Go out to constituencies, and that's much harder to do. In my area, I've met the Tory party member who's under 20, and he's a complete knob. And he's about the only one too. They might even put him up against me in 2016, which would be amusing, as I'd end up losing to a boy who's still wet behind the ears, and whose idea of a wild night out is to change into a different three piece suit before he goes down to the local to have a pint.

And who knows - nothing.

But that's demographics, politics and the way it is. I gained this seat against fairly awesome odds through hard work; that's not fluffing myself, it's a statement of the work that me and political friends put in, but you can guarantee that come 2016, if there's a Labour government, we'll shed members - and voters - and the Tories are likely to be the beneficiaries up here, unless UKIP really are here to stay and divide that vote.

[Hobiejoe]

It will come a shock to no one, but David Starkey knows bugger all about cyber security. The ignorance shown by the panellists on QT is astounding.

I didn't see it, but I was going to make a cheap crack about Starkey because...well, just because.

And then I thought, hang on a minute, I think I recall that cryptography was a serious business historically, and probably no more so than in the Tudor reign, what with those terrorist insurgents from Lancashire playing up. Or was it Yorkshire? Sorry, history not my strong point despite having nearly finished reading Wolf Hall for at least two years now.

Which would make Starkey an even bigger dick.

[refitman]

Soubry just said that managing a national economy is the same as managing a household budget.

[TechnicalEphemera]

It will come a shock to no one, but David Starkey knows bugger all about cyber security. The ignorance shown by the panellists on QT is astounding.

None of the establishment have a clue about this stuff, believe me I have met them.

Bunch of useless arts students the lot of them.

Worryingly as most UK companies are run by accountants this even applies to CEOs of technology companies in the UK.

[TechnicalEphemera]

It will come a shock to no one, but David Starkey knows bugger all about cyber security. The ignorance shown by the panellists on QT is astounding.

I didn't see it, but I was going to make a cheap crack about Starkey because...well, just because.

And then I thought, hang on a minute, I think I recall that cryptography was a serious business historically, and probably no more so than in the Tudor reign, what with those terrorist insurgents from Lancashire playing up. Or was it Yorkshire? Sorry, history not my strong point despite having nearly finished reading Wolf Hall for at least two years now.

Which would make Starkey an even bigger dick.

To be fair the Tudors hadn't invented Public Key Infrastructure and AES. The maths behind PKI is both brilliant and surprising.

I don't understand much of it, but the people who discovered it must have been amazing.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Soubry just said that managing a national economy is the same as managing a household budget.

At which point any self respecting chair would have pointed out that was utter bollocks.

[refitman]

Soubry just said that managing a national economy is the same as managing a household budget.

At which point any self respecting chair would have pointed out that was utter bollocks.

It is Dimbleby we're talking about though.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Soubry just said that managing a national economy is the same as managing a household budget.

At which point any self respecting chair would have pointed out that was utter bollocks.

It is Dimbleby we're talking about though.

Aha, another pig ignorant establishment muppet.

[ErnstRemarx]

@ErnstRemarx
I read that article & I've two questions.
Where'd the 'rows of young persons' & the friends who wouldn't join but voted for Tories come from?
Assuming that article was for real, of course.

No idea. Don't forget that at a national level, it's not going to be that hard to gather together a room full of 16-20 year olds who, for whatever reasons, wil vote Tory. Go out to constituencies, and that's much harder to do. In my area, I've met the Tory party member who's under 20, and he's a complete knob. And he's about the only one too. They might even put him up against me in 2016, which would be amusing, as I'd end up losing to a boy who's still wet behind the ears, and whose idea of a wild night out is to change into a different three piece suit before he goes down to the local to have a pint.

And who knows - nothing.

But that's demographics, politics and the way it is. I gained this seat against fairly awesome odds through hard work; that's not fluffing myself, it's a statement of the work that me and political friends put in, but you can guarantee that come 2016, if there's a Labour government, we'll shed members - and voters - and the Tories are likely to be the beneficiaries up here, unless UKIP really are here to stay and divide that vote.

The last sentence, I am reminded, brings me neatly, if elliptically back to the points I was making about the Tories. I wonder how many Tories left the party to go to UKIP? I wonder how many of them are actually physically capable of campaigning? More crap sent via UKMail from London to big UKIP up? That appears to be the raison d'etre, but that's easy meat when the hedge funds have decided to back you.

[citizenJA]

@ErnstRemarx
I read that article & I've two questions.
Where'd the 'rows of young persons' & the friends who wouldn't join but voted for Tories come from?
Assuming that article was for real, of course.

No idea. Don't forget that at a national level, it's not going to be that hard to gather together a room full of 16-20 year olds who, for whatever reasons, wil vote Tory. Go out to constituencies, and that's much harder to do. In my area, I've met the Tory party member who's under 20, and he's a complete knob. And he's about the only one too. They might even put him up against me in 2016, which would be amusing, as I'd end up losing to a boy who's still wet behind the ears, and whose idea of a wild night out is to change into a different three piece suit before he goes down to the local to have a pint.

And who knows - nothing.

But that's demographics, politics and the way it is. I gained this seat against fairly awesome odds through hard work; that's not fluffing myself, it's a statement of the work that me and political friends put in, but you can guarantee that come 2016, if there's a Labour government, we'll shed members - and voters - and the Tories are likely to be the beneficiaries up here, unless UKIP really are here to stay and divide that vote.

No, you won't lose your seat.

[citizenJA]

Stay together, please.
Good-night.
I love you.
JA

[Hobiejoe]

It will come a shock to no one, but David Starkey knows bugger all about cyber security. The ignorance shown by the panellists on QT is astounding.

I didn't see it, but I was going to make a cheap crack about Starkey because...well, just because.

And then I thought, hang on a minute, I think I recall that cryptography was a serious business historically, and probably no more so than in the Tudor reign, what with those terrorist insurgents from Lancashire playing up. Or was it Yorkshire? Sorry, history not my strong point despite having nearly finished reading Wolf Hall for at least two years now.

Which would make Starkey an even bigger dick.

To be fair the Tudors hadn't invented Public Key Infrastructure and AES. The maths behind PKI is both brilliant and surprising.

I don't understand much of it, but the people who discovered it must have been amazing.

Oh I don't doubt it, I was merely wondering how an historian of his *ahem* eminence might have managed to miss an opportunity for an historical analogy or two. I mean it wouldn't take someone with the brain of an eminent historian to spot that questions about encryption might pop up on a current affairs focussed panel show called "Question Time" given current affairs, surely?

[ErnstRemarx]

@ErnstRemarx
I read that article & I've two questions.
Where'd the 'rows of young persons' & the friends who wouldn't join but voted for Tories come from?
Assuming that article was for real, of course.

No idea. Don't forget that at a national level, it's not going to be that hard to gather together a room full of 16-20 year olds who, for whatever reasons, wil vote Tory. Go out to constituencies, and that's much harder to do. In my area, I've met the Tory party member who's under 20, and he's a complete knob. And he's about the only one too. They might even put him up against me in 2016, which would be amusing, as I'd end up losing to a boy who's still wet behind the ears, and whose idea of a wild night out is to change into a different three piece suit before he goes down to the local to have a pint.

And who knows - nothing.

But that's demographics, politics and the way it is. I gained this seat against fairly awesome odds through hard work; that's not fluffing myself, it's a statement of the work that me and political friends put in, but you can guarantee that come 2016, if there's a Labour government, we'll shed members - and voters - and the Tories are likely to be the beneficiaries up here, unless UKIP really are here to stay and divide that vote.

No, you won't lose your seat.

Thanks, JA, I'd love to think so, but I have to be realistic. It's a Tory ward that's become borderline on a few occasions in recent history. That means that it's terribly hard to defend, but doable. The problem - paradoxically - is that if Labour are in government after this May, we'll see the backlash locally in local elections in 2016, because it always happens, and members become ex-members. I've no idea why the latter happens, but the former is nailed on: you don't win seats locally when you're in gevernment, and you're not going to hold marginal ones (like mine).

I wish it weren't so, but that's life. With luck I might get selected to stand again in a safer seat in 2018 (2017 being the fallow year), and with more luck still, get elected, but these things seem a long way off.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I didn't see it, but I was going to make a cheap crack about Starkey because...well, just because.

And then I thought, hang on a minute, I think I recall that cryptography was a serious business historically, and probably no more so than in the Tudor reign, what with those terrorist insurgents from Lancashire playing up. Or was it Yorkshire? Sorry, history not my strong point despite having nearly finished reading Wolf Hall for at least two years now.

Which would make Starkey an even bigger dick.

To be fair the Tudors hadn't invented Public Key Infrastructure and AES. The maths behind PKI is both brilliant and surprising.

I don't understand much of it, but the people who discovered it must have been amazing.

Oh I don't doubt it, I was merely wondering how an historian of his *ahem* eminence might have managed to miss an opportunity for an historical analogy or two. I mean it wouldn't take someone with the brain of an eminent historian to spot that questions about encryption might pop up on a current affairs focussed panel show called "Question Time" given current affairs, surely?

I am no historian of the eminence of Dame Starkey (but, then, neither is he these days), but he could easily have popped in a comment about Walsingham at that point, with especial focus on the Babington Plot. The man has become his own tribute act, even the presence of Lucy Worsley couldn't hide that fact during the Hampton Court prog.

[rebeccariots2]

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 26m26 minutes ago
New poll from TNS-BMRB just published has LAB retaining its 7% lead
LAB 35%=
CON 28%=
UKIP 18%-1
LD 6%+1
GRN 5%-2
OTH 9%+3

[rebeccariots2]

Chris Bryant ‏@ChrisBryantMP 48m48 minutes ago
Sorry, Dimbleby lost control there and even when @Anna_SoubryMP was right she was just v v irritating and rude.

That tweet is about her having a go at Starkey - and he's right. But also very interesting that her assault on Labour and their handling of the economy - and insistence that the coalition government had got everything tickety boo - was met with virtually no support from the Lincoln audience. In fact it sparked outrage from some of them shouting out to deny her assertion that they had got 750,000 more people in employment and they were all better off for it ... they shouted out about zero hours contracts and low pay and the misery it was causing. And the audience applauded them.

Which way is Lincoln predicted to go come the election?

Refreshing not to have the ubiquitous UKIP presence as well.

[rebeccariots2]

Jamie Reed ‏@jreedmp 1h1 hour ago
#bbcqt Anna Soubry is a wonderful spokesperson on the economy for the Tories. More please. Oh, and vote Labour.

Spot on - as I was just saying.

[ErnstRemarx]

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 26m26 minutes ago
New poll from TNS-BMRB just published has LAB retaining its 7% lead
LAB 35%=
CON 28%=
UKIP 18%-1
LD 6%+1
GRN 5%-2
OTH 9%+3

Liking that big time - that's the Tories shit canned if true. If true.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 26m26 minutes ago
New poll from TNS-BMRB just published has LAB retaining its 7% lead
LAB 35%=
CON 28%=
UKIP 18%-1
LD 6%+1
GRN 5%-2
OTH 9%+3

Liking that big time - that's the Tories shit canned if true. If true.

Wile the polls have been quite varied, most of them this week have shown how poor Ashcroft's latest was. He should stick to the regional stuff and not embarrass himself.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Chris Bryant ‏@ChrisBryantMP 48m48 minutes ago
Sorry, Dimbleby lost control there and even when @Anna_SoubryMP was right she was just v v irritating and rude.

That tweet is about her having a go at Starkey - and he's right. But also very interesting that her assault on Labour and their handling of the economy - and insistence that the coalition government had got everything tickety boo - was met with virtually no support from the Lincoln audience. In fact it sparked outrage from some of them shouting out to deny her assertion that they had got 750,000 more people in employment and they were all better off for it ... they shouted out about zero hours contracts and low pay and the misery it was causing. And the audience applauded them.

Which way is Lincoln predicted to go come the election?

Refreshing not to have the ubiquitous UKIP presence as well.

According to Electoral Calculus, looking like a Labour gain.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conl ... ml#Lincoln" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ErnstRemarx]

Liking that big time - that's the Tories shit canned if true. If true.

Wile the polls have been quite varied, most of them this week have shown how poor Ashcroft's latest was. He should stick to the regional stuff and not embarrass himself.

Agreed. Too small to be feasible nationally, so better deployed in marginals - where, sadly because of FPTP - the argument is. The news from Bury is that the Tories are in terrible difficulties, and if you read my previous posts this aft/evening, you'll see why that's so, if you didn't already (which I'm guessing you did!).

Why quite so many sane citizens of the UK vote Tory is something that will always elude me.