Apparently the bus was full of journalists and couldn't be corroborated at the time, so its probably made up.
(page break edit: this is about Dan Carden singing an anti-semitic song. Also for extra context the buzz feed article is from a former Guido Fawkes writer)
Just back from a panel on brexit (Kilkenomics, pretty good festival all round). Some interesting discussion, but mostly outweighed by the sheer amount of bollocks spouted by the brexiteer Liam halligan. The usual tropes - misleading figures, ‘democracy’, “I think all the remainders now support brexit”, unnamed liberal elite controlling the media (ps don’t mention I write for the torygraph). I’d never heard such an infuriating and unmitigated torrent of rubbish in person before. The biggest groan came when he tried the “technological solution to the border”. In Ireland. I have no idea how he’s considered qualified for anything quite frankly, but since the torygraph is a gutter rag these days I’m not surprised either.
Listening to brexiteers in person is genuinely infuriating.
(Matt Singh works for an analytics consultancy, that is not partisan as far as I am aware)
Posting this for general interest, because it fits with a pattern I've observed when it comes to commentary on the Best for Britain tactical voting advice
Essentially, there seems to be a lot of people dismissing it on the basis of apparently counterintuitive advice in specific seats, whereas I've yet to see anyone looking at the data and the methodology identify anything obviously incorrect or unsupported
So I'm inclined to come down on the side of "there are going to be a lot of weird results, based on the situation as it stands"
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
yeah people dont seem to understand how much the relative changes affect what constitutes a sensible tactical vote
god i hope people can get over themselves enough to just focus on the important thing (stopping the conservatives getting a majority). i am so bored with labour feeling like the lib dems are the important target
yeah people dont seem to understand how much the relative changes affect what constitutes a sensible tactical vote
god i hope people can get over themselves enough to just focus on the important thing (stopping the conservatives getting a majority). i am so bored with labour feeling like the lib dems are the important target
When has it ever been different on the left anywhere?
yeah people dont seem to understand how much the relative changes affect what constitutes a sensible tactical vote
god i hope people can get over themselves enough to just focus on the important thing (stopping the conservatives getting a majority). i am so bored with labour feeling like the lib dems are the important target
Guess it's a bit of a strange case, in that it's probably harder to get Lib Dem voters to switch to Labour but you probably need less Lib Dems to switch in many cases.
I can see why Labour might be a bit bitter though, as for instance in South Cambridgeshire it means switching your vote to the guys who came third and behind you last time to compromise with the Remain Tories.
I think the Remain Alliance could probably do itself some favours if it backed a fresh election after Brexit is done - otherwise we're setting policy for the next five years based on something due to happen in January, in 8 weeks time - with the fear that we might stop Brexit, but get another Tory/Lib Dem coalition or them propping up a minority government.
There is not a chance in hell of another Tory-Lib Dem coalition.
Not a formal one, but if the Tories scrap Brexit but carry on with their spending plans - I think I could see a lot of the Lib Dems being happy to go along with that rather than bringing the government down. This batch of Lib Dem voters is going to be heavily made up of Remain Tories.
I definitely don't think they'd do as well without Brexit in a follow up election - especially if Corbyn steps down (though he definitely won't if they promise a do-over once Brexit is done).
That's assuming that the Lib Dem/Labour/Nationals group is the majority and Boris can't get his deal (or No Deal) through. If the Tories get a firm enough majority then all bets are off, and we're stuck with this trainwreck of Brexit 'teething pains' for another five years.
So Tories are a minority that can't Brexit, but can function if they want to ditch austerity and do their big spending plans. In that case, I reckon Lib Dems provide support for enough of the critical bills to keep them in power for a while.
When divorced from the current leadership, their policies are pretty popular.
Labour also ran into the perennial question about how fast Corbyn would spring into action to slam his hand down on to the launch button for nuclear weapons, which is a moronic question beloved of gammon faced arseholes. Emily Thornberry was asked this and "Can you think of any incident in which Jeremy supported the involvement of British troops", which she answered with an honest "No". The trouble with this isn't that Corbyn would be cautious about involving the army in any foreign war, it's that people think he's basically a pacifist and would never sanction the use of force under any circumstances, so answers other than that come across as dishonest because plainly the answer to "Would he launch the nukes" is "No, not on your nelly", but they can't say that because they know a) it's not actual Labour policy and b) they're trying not to paint him as a no good dirty peacenik. They can't stand behind Corbyn's views so they have to talk around them.
His (I assume) pacifism is a perfectly reasonable point of view, but it's one that Labour try and pretend doesn't exist or doesn't matter or can be changed at a later date, because they think, rightly or wrongly, it won't go down well among some sections of the population.
I think they should always be painting it as "I don't support the involvement of British troops because I don't want to see coffins with Union Flags on them being flown in from anywhere" and pushing it as actually there are numerous benefits of peace like the safety of the armed forces etc.
Although Corbyn would probably get rid of most of the armed forces which I think most people probably would be against so I also wouldn't be painting criticism of him on a stupid "would you nuke anyone?" question but rather " does the UK military have any future in a Corbyn government?"
I think they should always be painting it as "I don't support the involvement of British troops because I don't want to see coffins with Union Flags on them being flown in from anywhere" and pushing it as actually there are numerous benefits of peace like the safety of the armed forces etc.
Although Corbyn would probably get rid of most of the armed forces which I think most people probably would be against so I also wouldn't be painting criticism of him on a stupid "would you nuke anyone?" question but rather " does the UK military have any future in a Corbyn government?"
As a Filthy Blairite: there have been times when I've thought that British involvement in armed conflicts was unwise, and times when I felt it would be morally indefensible not to get involved. Corbyn's position, not supporting the involvement of British troops anywhere, ever, is philosopically consistent, but doesn't make me any more likely to vote for him.
To be fair, it's also nowhere near the top of my list of "things I care about", nor most other peoples I suspect. At least until, as you say, he tries to dismantle the armed forces (but the chances of that are miniscule). But it's another feather added to the weights for when people come to cast their votes.
The nukes thing is a little weird. On its face, it's a ridiculous question. However, for the sake of argument: committing absolutely to not using a nuclear arsenal does diminish influence and soft power. Everyone knows we'd never use it, but committing to doing so is diplomatically unwise.
So Johnson gets most of the benefit of an electoral pact with Farage without having to actually do anything. I dunno what Farage is going to get out of this except a chance to say it was him wot won it.
EDIT: I mean he's still splitting the Leave vote in constituencies the Tories want to win, but not contesting the Tory seats at all makes them much, much easier to retain. UKIP is polling at 0-1% so the right wing candidate will have a mostly free ride.
Bear in mind that this still means that the Brexit party will be campaigning against the Tories in the seats that the Tories actually need to win to avoid a minority government this time around.
So Johnson gets most of the benefit of an electoral pact with Farage without having to actually do anything. I dunno what Farage is going to get out of this except a chance to say it was him wot won it.
Johnson seems to have outplayed Farage on becoming the most popular Brexit actor, so if Farage gets on the way, Johnson will blame him for the results and Farage will get crucified.
But it'll be labour held marginals where the election will be decided - and the Brexit party are still going to standing people there? So they could still split the Brexiteer vote where it counts.
So Johnson gets most of the benefit of an electoral pact with Farage without having to actually do anything. I dunno what Farage is going to get out of this except a chance to say it was him wot won it.
EDIT: I mean he's still splitting the Leave vote in constituencies the Tories want to win, but not contesting the Tory seats at all makes them much, much easier to retain. UKIP is polling at 0-1% so the right wing candidate will have a mostly free ride.
Yeah. They'll be splitting the Brexit vote in Conservative target seats. Which is still good. But not splitting it in Labour/LD target seats.
Given the current polling, that makes a Tory majority much more likely.
EDIT: Yougov pollster suggests this is actually unlikely to have much impact, and they probably know better than I do, so I'll stop drinking the whisky straight from the bottle, and read the Twitter thread
But it'll be labour held marginals where the election will be decided - and the Brexit party are still going to standing people there? So they could still split the Brexiteer vote where it counts.
So, the same seats where there's already a split between Labour and Lib Dems?
But it'll be labour held marginals where the election will be decided - and the Brexit party are still going to standing people there? So they could still split the Brexiteer vote where it counts.
So, the same seats where there's already a split between Labour and Lib Dems?
Most Lab marginals are Lab/Con , not Lab/LD or Lab/LD/Con.
It'll also probably make them a less attractive option for Leave voters in those marginal seats, as their manifesto now is essentially "we're a tactical vote". I expect their polling to fall noticeably in the next few weeks as they increasingly look like a cult led by someone who won't lead for fear of losing.
I shows how much of a cult his party is as well. He says 317 candidates don't stand and they all bow, or at least they have no recourse to complain about it. No one saying hang on I gave you money so I could stand as a candidate how can you simply withdraw this?
And the answer is, of course, that it isn't and never was a political party with members and an elected leader they could actually influence, just a cult for arseholes, racists and the gullible.
Scottish Green Party aren't contesting a couple of SNP marginals (North East Fife and Perth & North Perthshire), which will probably help them retain those seats.
Some reaction from a Brexit candidate who is now suddenly not a Brexit candidate.
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
shouldnt matter too much in the seats they dont stand - but may matter in marginals depending on defection behaviour. but even then effect mostly swamped by labour leave voter turnout or abstention more than anything else
but still bad in the sense that it reduces the cost of brexit- related failures in the campaign for cons
(Matt Singh works for an analytics consultancy, that is not partisan as far as I am aware)
Posting this for general interest, because it fits with a pattern I've observed when it comes to commentary on the Best for Britain tactical voting advice
Essentially, there seems to be a lot of people dismissing it on the basis of apparently counterintuitive advice in specific seats, whereas I've yet to see anyone looking at the data and the methodology identify anything obviously incorrect or unsupported
So I'm inclined to come down on the side of "there are going to be a lot of weird results, based on the situation as it stands"
I am trying and failing to scrape up much sympathy for morons who handed Farage money and expected something in return. I'm sure they're livid and have been well and truly hosed, but honestly fuck them.
I am trying and failing to scrape up much sympathy for morons who handed Farage money and expected something in return. I'm sure they're livid and have been well and truly hosed, but honestly fuck them.
It's like seeing a wasp land on a nettle
Something is going to get stung, and there's no sympathy either way
I quite enjoyed BoJo putting his wreath upside down. Apparently the BBC clicked the wrong video this morning and showed footage from 3 years ago instead of putting the footage on of him messing up the placement of a wreath. I am sure they will correct their honest mistake by repeatedly showing the right video. https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/bbc-sorry-poppy-wreath
Its the banal little things that make UK politics so lovely.
Aldo on
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
For some delicious schadenfreude, here's Nick Boles bringing out the knife for the Tories while laying into Corbyn at the same time.
Posts
(page break edit: this is about Dan Carden singing an anti-semitic song. Also for extra context the buzz feed article is from a former Guido Fawkes writer)
Listening to brexiteers in person is genuinely infuriating.
(Matt Singh works for an analytics consultancy, that is not partisan as far as I am aware)
Posting this for general interest, because it fits with a pattern I've observed when it comes to commentary on the Best for Britain tactical voting advice
Essentially, there seems to be a lot of people dismissing it on the basis of apparently counterintuitive advice in specific seats, whereas I've yet to see anyone looking at the data and the methodology identify anything obviously incorrect or unsupported
So I'm inclined to come down on the side of "there are going to be a lot of weird results, based on the situation as it stands"
god i hope people can get over themselves enough to just focus on the important thing (stopping the conservatives getting a majority). i am so bored with labour feeling like the lib dems are the important target
"Remember when we lost? Let's do that again!"
When has it ever been different on the left anywhere?
Guess it's a bit of a strange case, in that it's probably harder to get Lib Dem voters to switch to Labour but you probably need less Lib Dems to switch in many cases.
I can see why Labour might be a bit bitter though, as for instance in South Cambridgeshire it means switching your vote to the guys who came third and behind you last time to compromise with the Remain Tories.
I think the Remain Alliance could probably do itself some favours if it backed a fresh election after Brexit is done - otherwise we're setting policy for the next five years based on something due to happen in January, in 8 weeks time - with the fear that we might stop Brexit, but get another Tory/Lib Dem coalition or them propping up a minority government.
Not a formal one, but if the Tories scrap Brexit but carry on with their spending plans - I think I could see a lot of the Lib Dems being happy to go along with that rather than bringing the government down. This batch of Lib Dem voters is going to be heavily made up of Remain Tories.
I definitely don't think they'd do as well without Brexit in a follow up election - especially if Corbyn steps down (though he definitely won't if they promise a do-over once Brexit is done).
That's a mighty big "if".
Steam | XBL
That's assuming that the Lib Dem/Labour/Nationals group is the majority and Boris can't get his deal (or No Deal) through. If the Tories get a firm enough majority then all bets are off, and we're stuck with this trainwreck of Brexit 'teething pains' for another five years.
So Tories are a minority that can't Brexit, but can function if they want to ditch austerity and do their big spending plans. In that case, I reckon Lib Dems provide support for enough of the critical bills to keep them in power for a while.
When divorced from the current leadership, their policies are pretty popular.
Labour also ran into the perennial question about how fast Corbyn would spring into action to slam his hand down on to the launch button for nuclear weapons, which is a moronic question beloved of gammon faced arseholes. Emily Thornberry was asked this and "Can you think of any incident in which Jeremy supported the involvement of British troops", which she answered with an honest "No". The trouble with this isn't that Corbyn would be cautious about involving the army in any foreign war, it's that people think he's basically a pacifist and would never sanction the use of force under any circumstances, so answers other than that come across as dishonest because plainly the answer to "Would he launch the nukes" is "No, not on your nelly", but they can't say that because they know a) it's not actual Labour policy and b) they're trying not to paint him as a no good dirty peacenik. They can't stand behind Corbyn's views so they have to talk around them.
His (I assume) pacifism is a perfectly reasonable point of view, but it's one that Labour try and pretend doesn't exist or doesn't matter or can be changed at a later date, because they think, rightly or wrongly, it won't go down well among some sections of the population.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I think they should always be painting it as "I don't support the involvement of British troops because I don't want to see coffins with Union Flags on them being flown in from anywhere" and pushing it as actually there are numerous benefits of peace like the safety of the armed forces etc.
Although Corbyn would probably get rid of most of the armed forces which I think most people probably would be against so I also wouldn't be painting criticism of him on a stupid "would you nuke anyone?" question but rather " does the UK military have any future in a Corbyn government?"
As a Filthy Blairite: there have been times when I've thought that British involvement in armed conflicts was unwise, and times when I felt it would be morally indefensible not to get involved. Corbyn's position, not supporting the involvement of British troops anywhere, ever, is philosopically consistent, but doesn't make me any more likely to vote for him.
To be fair, it's also nowhere near the top of my list of "things I care about", nor most other peoples I suspect. At least until, as you say, he tries to dismantle the armed forces (but the chances of that are miniscule). But it's another feather added to the weights for when people come to cast their votes.
The nukes thing is a little weird. On its face, it's a ridiculous question. However, for the sake of argument: committing absolutely to not using a nuclear arsenal does diminish influence and soft power. Everyone knows we'd never use it, but committing to doing so is diplomatically unwise.
It's still a stupid question, of course.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
Well...that's that then.
Tory majority just became much more certain.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
EDIT: I mean he's still splitting the Leave vote in constituencies the Tories want to win, but not contesting the Tory seats at all makes them much, much easier to retain. UKIP is polling at 0-1% so the right wing candidate will have a mostly free ride.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Johnson seems to have outplayed Farage on becoming the most popular Brexit actor, so if Farage gets on the way, Johnson will blame him for the results and Farage will get crucified.
Yeah. They'll be splitting the Brexit vote in Conservative target seats. Which is still good. But not splitting it in Labour/LD target seats.
Given the current polling, that makes a Tory majority much more likely.
EDIT: Yougov pollster suggests this is actually unlikely to have much impact, and they probably know better than I do, so I'll stop drinking the whisky straight from the bottle, and read the Twitter thread
(Chris Curtis works for Yougov, and presumably knows what he's on about)
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
So, the same seats where there's already a split between Labour and Lib Dems?
Most Lab marginals are Lab/Con , not Lab/LD or Lab/LD/Con.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Or country
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And the answer is, of course, that it isn't and never was a political party with members and an elected leader they could actually influence, just a cult for arseholes, racists and the gullible.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Some reaction from a Brexit candidate who is now suddenly not a Brexit candidate.
The cult is there for the leader, not the followers, Wayne. You don't matter.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
but still bad in the sense that it reduces the cost of brexit- related failures in the campaign for cons
This might be interesting for the data crunchers
What about all the people in these constituencies that have donated to The Brexit Party?
I guess grifters gotta grift. Nice money earner without having to actually do anything.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It's like seeing a wasp land on a nettle
Something is going to get stung, and there's no sympathy either way
He was just interviewed on LBC and he said (gist):
"Oh course not, these people want me to make brexit happen and I'm going to do it."
I wonder though, considering the arsehole Brexit party is a company whether people can sue him.
He offered a service that is now not being rendered.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/bbc-sorry-poppy-wreath
Its the banal little things that make UK politics so lovely.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50380613
In what is basically a two party FPTP system, if Boles wants to have an impact he should vote Labour.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck