RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:I'd say no, but mainly (and I don't object to this) he seems to be saying there should be more police, and this is a justification he can get coverage over. As an aside I doubt he's an ex commissioner speaking like that, which might also means he's less likely to speak bollocks of course.

That there should be more police is a message that could (and should imo) garner a lot of support. But that can and should standalone from events of the last couple of days

Why should it be kept separate? Are you suggesting with 100% confidence that it in no way hindered our security apparatus from preventing the terror attacks?

I don't know one could claim certainty on either side, but pretty much. Which doesn't mean it's not of relevance to an awful lot of other activities the police could (should?) be getting stuck into. And there's an even bigger point behind that with some claims of crime being reduced by up to a third and thus a reduced number of officers being acceptable, and I suspect an awful lot of people would be willing to listen to the idea that the government is presenting figures in a manner that they feel presents them in the best light.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:I'd say no, but mainly (and I don't object to this) he seems to be saying there should be more police, and this is a justification he can get coverage over. As an aside I doubt he's an ex commissioner speaking like that, which might also means he's less likely to speak bollocks of course.

That there should be more police is a message that could (and should imo) garner a lot of support. But that can and should standalone from events of the last couple of days

Why should it be kept separate? Are you suggesting with 100% confidence that it in no way hindered our security apparatus from preventing the terror attacks?

I don't know one could claim certainty on either side, but pretty much. Which doesn't mean it's not of relevance to an awful lot of other activities the police could (should?) be getting stuck into. And there's an even bigger point behind that with some claims of crime being reduced by up to a third and thus a reduced number of officers being acceptable, and I suspect an awful lot of people would be willing to listen to the idea that the government is presenting figures in a manner that they feel presents them in the best light.

The government doesn't do crime figures. At least not the official ones which are by the national crime survey. It does release the reported crime statistics but those aren't considered accurate for all sorts of reasons. Labour decided they were going to use it recently to claim that there had been an increase in homicides attributable to the decrease in police. Of course they didn't bother to mention that the stats included the dead of Hillsborough because of the way that stats are calculated, but hey. I'm glad that Corbyn is such an honest and straight up chap because that would look like flat out lying otherwise.

Flat out lying. A bit like sitting on the floor of a train carriage and ignoring available seats. That sort of lying?

You guys are beyond belief

Unfairly judging him simply on the basis of things he's said and done?

It does seem more that if someone like Trump came out with his rubbish many of the Corbynistas would be all over that, but akin to Trump's supporters they've drunk the kool-aid and will hear no wrong of their Glorious Leader™

Digby wrote:Unfairly judging him simply on the basis of things he's said and done?

It does seem more that if someone like Trump came out with his rubbish many of the Corbynistas would be all over that, but akin to Trump's supporters they've drunk the kool-aid and will hear no wrong of their Glorious Leader™

It's not just Corbynistas. It's the way politics is in the UK now. It used to be a largely truthful if exaggerated business in all sides. Now it's gone the way of America and is mainly outright lies.

So, Corbyn has thrown Dianne Abbott overboard.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 76491.html

Bolting gates and absent horses spring to mind.

Stones of granite wrote:So, Corbyn has thrown Dianne Abbott overboard.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 76491.html

Bolting gates and absent horses spring to mind.

Now now, the poor lass isn't well. I'm sure that's not a convenient excuse and the woman seen on her phone when she should have been in an interview was just a lookalike.

I expect her to recover sometime Friday.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:So, Corbyn has thrown Dianne Abbott overboard.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 76491.html

Bolting gates and absent horses spring to mind.

Now now, the poor lass isn't well. I'm sure that's not a convenient excuse and the woman seen on her phone when she should have been in an interview was just a lookalike.

I expect her to recover sometime Friday.

I'm glad for her that she's been diagnosed now, and that the Labour Party have decided to force her to rest for her own good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40184826

Labour's international trade spokesman Barry Gardiner said he had been told by Labour Party officials that Ms Abbott was suffering from a long-term illness.
"Diane is clearly not well and I understand that it is a condition which has been diagnosed and is long-term," Mr Gardiner told TalkRadio.
"I think anybody who has seen her in the past couple of weeks would realise that she was showing that she was not well, in the way in which she had been operating."
He added: "Everybody is aware that Diane didn't perform well in a couple of programmes, but what we didn't know was why and I think that has now become clear."

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... -70-years/

Just going to leave this here. Probably to late to influence anything but there we go....

I know we've all learned not to trust the Polls, but this guy has still done some interesting research... and he reckons Labours poll surge might not be all his supporters would hope for...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ju ... boost-real

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:I know we've all learned not to trust the Polls, but this guy has still done some interesting research... and he reckons Labours poll surge might not be all his supporters would hope for...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ju ... boost-real

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

There's been a few left-wing pessimistic articles on the NS recently about how Labour's support is too narrowly focused and things might go ill for them.

Shame, as I think I'd vote for a hung parliament if I could with this mess.

Donny osmond wrote:I know we've all learned not to trust the Polls, but this guy has still done some interesting research... and he reckons Labours poll surge might not be all his supporters would hope for...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ju ... boost-real

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Whilst it suits The Staggers to motivate the Labour vote into turning out, that analysis seems honest. It's my rough guess as to what's going on.

From what I've been told CCHQ expect to increase their majority by a decent amount. Nothing like the early polls predicted but nothing near the the disaster that some of the later polls have suggested. Personally, I'd guess at a handful of gains but nothing more. If the youngsters turn up its squeaky bum time.

Everyone please vote. Before you do please watch this - and the subsequent expansions if you have time.

I voted earlier. As per usual in a raging certainty of a safe seat there was no exit poll being taken, which is fine, but they didn't even offer a stick or lollipop as a reward.

I've voted. Labour got 54%of the vote last time. I'm sure it will be tight...

Mellsblue wrote:From what I've been told CCHQ expect to increase their majority by a decent amount. Nothing like the early polls predicted but nothing near the the disaster that some of the later polls have suggested. Personally, I'd guess at a handful of gains but nothing more. If the youngsters turn up its squeaky bum time.

I think a majority of 30-40. Certainly not a huge wipeout but a noticeable increase.

Ross. S wrote:http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... -70-years/

Just going to leave this here. Probably to late to influence anything but there we go....

That is a vital piece of information that no-one believes, ever.

Donny osmond wrote:I know we've all learned not to trust the Polls, but this guy has still done some interesting research... and he reckons Labours poll surge might not be all his supporters would hope for...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ju ... boost-real

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I reckon that's about right, too. Labour will get 230-240 seats, imo. But it will be interesting to see what happens with potential "protest votes". Everyone I know who is not family in Twickenham is voting for Vince Cable to get rid of the Tory MP who ousted him. If that happens elsewhere, we could see a reduced Tory majority, even. And some of the UKIP voters I know - actually most of them - have been posting more pro-Labour than pro-Tory stuff on FB. Which was interesting. Not sure where they'll turn out.

But the most important thing is to actually have voted. This time - for the first time since being here - they actually sent me my postal vote in time. So I could vote this time.

Everyone else, get out there (although I know I'm preaching to the converted in an internet politics thread...).

Dunno, I very nearly didn't. Probably wouldn't have if I wasn't out already.

Never really liked the idea that putting a democratic figleaf of approval on an oligarchy is a massive civic duty and privilege for an individual. Huge for the country but the individual vote? Meh. Particularly if you don't live in a marginal.

are we nearly there yet?

Stom wrote:But the most important thing is to actually have voted. This time - for the first time since being here - they actually sent me my postal vote in time. So I could vote this time.

Everyone else, get out there (although I know I'm preaching to the converted in an internet politics thread...).

Why don't you use proxy?

Zhivago wrote:

Stom wrote:But the most important thing is to actually have voted. This time - for the first time since being here - they actually sent me my postal vote in time. So I could vote this time.

Everyone else, get out there (although I know I'm preaching to the converted in an internet politics thread...).

Why don't you use proxy?

Is that a Russian voting system?