tories hate the poor, but want caring support and free school meals. and higher pensions. lol.
Printable View
tories hate the poor, but want caring support and free school meals. and higher pensions. lol.
Like i say, it's interesting to watch. Twitter especially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
People have had enough of mainstream media, and they're reporting their own news.
Twitter is definitely interesting to follow, but the move away from what's called mainstream media is better for speed than accuracy.
Twitter is great for group think, for confirmation bias, and sources that are unaccountable and cynical in their methods. It is often attractive to people who are disillusioned and want an alternative source to tell them something counter-intuitive or that makes them feel better. Sometimes there's a useful take, or a breaking story, but often times it's cranks who focus in on a very small segment of facts and block out everything else. As a result, it has been a boon for promoters of conspiracy theories. 140 characters per tweet is too short for a caveat and therefore too short for a balanced or thoughtful view but great for zingers.
On the other hand, it can be useful if you follow people who are accountable for their views (they work for a company that has an editorial board and are subject to defamation laws and dismissal if they spout bullshit).
What is interesting about this point, is that if we accept the media in general is biased against Corbyn in particular, and I think they are, and if a lot of young people -say, under the age of 30- use different sources for their news, will this affect the outcome of the election? According to the Independent, younger voters could be the key to Labour holding on to marginal seats and denying May a huge majority in the Commons. It is too late now for any more to register, so now the issue is, will they turn out to vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7744296.html
I really don't understand this post? You're clearly are not a follower of Twitter? It's a site for people to express their own views! That's what we are allowed to do in this country! 140 characters per tweet is irrelevant because a lot of tweets have a link to click on to the bigger story. As for disillusioned cranks; you have to ask yourself what they are disillusioned with? You sound like a very influential part of "The Establishment"?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
The mainstream media bias against Corbyn (in particular) and the Labour Party, may have worked in their favour a little. Irking our British sense of fair play (If such a thing exists)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
On Twitter, there's almost a 'cult' of Jeremy Corbyn. Sorta, fuck you then, don't report it. We'll do it..."We Are His Media".
And you've got to give Labour props. They've used it to *really* go after the young voter.
Tho, like you say, can they be arsed to go and vote.
I dunno.
Attachment 1010003
I had a debate with Prospero some years ago about the effectiveness of negative media campaigns on leading politicians, mostly the hysterical banner headlines in the Mail, Sun, Express and Mirror, and also the bias of the Telegraph, Times and Guardian, it was a primary feature of the attacks on Labour when Neil Kinnock was leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
If over a period of more than a year there is a drip-drip of nasty headlines, in Corbyn's case add the words IRA, anti-Semitism, immigration and a negative tone is infiltrated into reports on Corbyn and Labour and it creates suspicion, if only because a lot of people don't instantly think beyond the headline. Where in the past The Times had journalists who reported the news and then investigated the deeper background to it, investigative journalism has been a casualty of the Murdoch machine which either creates news rather than reporting it, or relies on the government, the police, the military, etc for news without bothering to check to see if it is true. The vilification by The Sun of Winston Silcott was one example, Hillsborough a stunning follow up.
Unfortunately for him, Corbyn is not a smooth performer in the media and has trouble explaining his invitation to Gerry Adams to speak in the Commons (even though the Government had its own contacts with Sinn Fein at the time), or struggling to separate Israel from Zionism and Palestinian rights, so he doesn't help his own cause, but those are also two issues on which there is little to be gained in the UK, too many people recall the worst aspects of the armed struggle for a United Ireland, though it may only be people of my age who remember Palestinians hi-jacking aeroplanes and murdering Israeli athletes. Sometimes people get a bad press because they deserve to, though Labour is hardly a special case compared to the other parties.
It would also help if Labour's front bench representatives spoke with one voice rather than Emily Thornberry claiming Labour is still reviewing the renewal of Trident when the shadow Defence Secretary slaps her down by saying it is not and anyway its not her job to comment on it -etc etc. It looks bad, and one can compare that to Phillip Hammond's budget policy to increase National Insurance contributions by the self-employed, which he had to reverse a week later, even though Theresa May sat in the same Cabinet office when Hammond told them what was in the budget. And even in recent weeks when there is speculation about his future as Chancellor, it doesn't generate 'Tories in crisis' headlines. It may that the power of the 'mainstream media' in the UK is not as strong as once it was, but I can't say for sure.
Part of the problem is also the simple fact that a few obscure details aside, on Brexit it is a choice between Blue Labour and the Red Tories. Neither of them have staked out a position that is anything other than a fairy tale from where I am sitting. Just today Jay Rayner has an extensive article on the food industry in the UK, something he knows a lot about, with the simple fact that seasonal migrant labour is crucial to our food production but neither party has a coherent policy on it -as Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at the City University put it
Basically, if on March 31, 2019, migrant labour is not sorted the food system is fucked.” And then he says, “I hope those who voted Brexit and who still want to eat British are prepared to go to Lincolnshire in winter to pick vegetables.” Or as Wright [Ian Wright of the Food and Drink Federation] puts it, “Food is at the heart of national security. If you can’t feed a country you haven’t got a country.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business...rant-labour-eu
You have a right to express a view, but when you do so, is it news? I think twitter is a great news aggregator and I use it to follow people who publish useful articles. But here (in the U.S.) you will have 200,000 people following some guy who calls himself the maestro or something and makes all sorts of outlandish claims...and the claims never come true and the goalposts keep shifting.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
I can't help but notice similarities between what you guys are saying and what a lot of Trump supporters say. So one of the things the media should be reporting is Corbyn's crowds? I guess I'm just not as convinced that Corbyn has been so unfairly treated and when I've encountered pockets of Corbyn supporters on twitter they do seem a bit cultish, but not in a good way.
I can't help it if that's what I think....I'm also just expressing a viewpoint:).
No, I just have been all over that site and find that the information that turns out to be correct is often from a major outlet, or is posted in a niche blog by someone who is knowledgeable about some matter. I didn't mean to post anything too contrary, just that it's easy to use social media to spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
Maybe your conclusion is that the media is unfair to Corbyn. When we lost, we found that too, but if things don't go well I'm not sure that can be your only take away. There has to something about the message, the messenger, the tactics...anyhow, that's what I've been told when my candidate loses. Often we will say, "well no matter how many flaws he/she has, she's still superior to the right wing jerk." But then you will find when the candidate and the message are perfectly tuned, you will have enough support to win.
When newspapers/headlines are saying, "Mrs May today met crowds in Scotland, and meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn met a few labour supporters in Clacton (or wherever)", and the truth is, May met a few party faithful in a barn (that was booked as a child's party), and the 'few' labour supports were a packed out/streets closed, shopping precinct, then damn right the newspapers should be 'reporting' on those crowds.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
As Stavros mentioned above, this isn't the first time (I personally believe Neil Kinnock was the best prime minister this country never had....but Welsh and Ginger, they might as well have painted a bullseye on his back)!
This time (maybe for the 1st time), MSM can't get way with that shit, people are calling them out on it.
Re the Corbynistas, I'm not one, but I don't blame them/ They're up against it, they've got an uphill struggle. I do know they've certainly opened up my eyes to Corbyn. (unlike some, in the past, my reasons for disliking him were personal rather than idealogical).
And it rankles to have my opinions changed, but I see a man I can follow, a leader.
But what if you've no outlet for that message, or those outlets are trying to fuck you, even when they do give you a voice?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Granted, there are a few biased the other way, the Canary for instance, but i really don't think you could class them as mainstream media.
Interesting little piece from the canary
I didn't know you were from the US Bronco?
The media here are bias during the Election, it's very simple. The media is a huge part of "The Establishment" here and Corbyn is anti-Establishment, that's the "Top & bottom" of it. By "The Establishment" I mean The Royal Family, The House of Lords, The Political system, Public schools like Eton(in Royal Windsor) the "Ox-bridge" (Oxford/Cambridge) University elite, & of course the great British Broadcasting Company, known as the BBC, awash with people, many on one day per week contracts earning telephone number salaries! I could go on but will spare you, basically a system for the upper classes born into money, around 5% of the entire UK population but speaking out for all of us!
This morning Theresa May 'clarified' the party position on social care, having suffered over the weekend as some people clearly didn't understand it (Jeremy Corbyn was one of them) and others then realised that is was viewed as a hostile act against the very age group assumed to be safe Tory voters, ie anyone over 60 with a house worth more than £100,000. There was no cap, now there is a cap, there was a 'dementia tax' now there isn't.
It is probably too complex to lay out in full (see the first link below), but the point is that both the main parties have been exposed as inept in presenting their policies to the public. Blue Labour with fabulous policies at great expense, the Red Tories with policies without costs at all, unless you believe Boris Johnson who, when asked about the promise his campaign made in the EU Referendum, that leaving the EU would give the UK an extra £350 miilion a week to spend on the NHS, claimed this is in the manifesto, though only he can see it. Labour's defence spokesperson says they will renew Trident, the shadow Foreign Secretary says it is under review. Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green stated categorically on Sunday there will be no review of the social care policy, on Monday morning, Theresa May said there will be...
Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7746516.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7747376.html
You can add that one to 'strong and stable' and 'strengthen my hand'!Quote:
But Mrs May rejected claims she was making any sort of U-turn, telling reporters that “nothing has changed”.
In fairness, it has to be said, haven't seen a lot of tory bias today.
A step too far right?
Exactly, they made a mess of their social care proposals and there is nowhere to hide from it. One hopes that Andrew Neil will, in a manner of speaking, stick it to Mrs May at 7pm on BBC1 tonight. He doesn't usually let politicians get away with lame excuses, or makes them look silly when they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
In the meantime the Green Party has issued its manifesto with its 'Green Guarantee' that includes a universal basic income, a four-day working week (max 35 hours), tax reform to squeeze more from the rich (a 'Robin Hood' tax). They will abolish tuition fees, and return the railways to public ownership, invest in local rail networks at the expense of HS2, and cancel all airport expansion. They will cancel the Trident missile programme, develop an ethical foreign policy based on conflict resolution rather than war, and halt the sale of arms to 'oppressive regimes'. They will pass an Environmental Protection Act, engage in public works programmes for warmer homes and flood control, and begin phasing out fossil fuels with the wider growth of alternative and renewable energy sources.
This and much more here-
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...nifesto-launch
I was watching the leader of the Welsh Greens on TV, Sunday morning. He was very matter of fact, "If we retain our deposits, it's a victory", sort of thing. I remain unconverted, but I liked him, spoke a lot of sense.
According to Yahoo; this is the latest polling figures in Wales;
LAB 44%+9
CON 34%-7
PC 9%-2
LD 6%-1
UKIP 5%+1
Up the Welsh!
I'll give it as much credence as any other poll (betting odds are the ones to watch), but it is nice to know some of the stroppy druids around here are getting their act together!Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
Fair enough. The sentence you quoted is a fiction people tell you to get you to focus on the things you have most control over. As you say it's by no means a certainty that media bias cannot alter an election outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
But it's such a complicated issue because often the media are playing off perceptions people already have. So they start with the premise that their readers view Corbyn one way and then do anything to perpetuate the narrative because it already has traction and people like stories. In our elections our unfair narratives have targeted Al Gore, the eye-rolling intellectual who took credit for things he didn't do, John Kerry, the stiff patrician who vainly attempted to appeal to real Americans by talking about how much he loves sashimi. And you have Corbyn, the mealy-mouthed radical who can't give a straight statement, when in fact he's being asked questions that have complicated and multifaceted answers. So I've seen this kind of attack...it has nothing to do with the issues.
Maybe the answer is to have your own outlets, but you risk preaching to the choir, and when you try to convert the centrists they see you as being just as partisan as the other guys. And I think it's a trap if you find yourself pitted against people who you have small political differences with because you can't distinguish the people who criticize someone in good faith and those who are engaged in a smear campaign. Truthfully if you've concluded 70% of the public are acting in bad faith, you can't win anyway.
This is not directed at you, just a general statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I wonder what the impact of the terrorist attack in Manchester will have on the UK election. The last thing the Labor Party wants to do is appear that its weak on radical Islam.
That's a new one? What's that all about? Even the BBC haven't come out with that one yet? Corbyn as denounced this attack as deplorable on social media. He probably wasn't ask to appear on TV to denounce it?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
What is 'radical Islam'? I could interpret the phrase to refer to Muslims who wish to go the roots of Islam and revive the original purpose of their faith, which is the definition of the word Radical, and it is possible to do that without killing anyone or anything. Some may not be aware of it, but not all Salafi advocate violence; that many do is but an example of the lack of consensus within Islam in which those who kill in the name of their religion are in a minority, albeit one that can inflict terrible damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
As for Labour, the Conservatives today have said they see no reason to expand the police, a service they have bee cutting these past years: this is Amber Rudd, Home Secretary this morning:
Amid questions about whether there were enough armed officers to deal with incidents outside London, Rudd said she believed the police and security services had the right legislation and resources to tackle the threat facing the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-ramadan-abedi
In fact it is Labour who have proposed increasing the police service with 10,000 more officers over the life of the next Parliament, even if you set aside queries about their costing of this policy. As for Corbyn, he has stated-
“I am horrified by the horrendous events in Manchester last night. My thoughts are with families and friends of those who have died and been injured."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...terror-attack/
If anyone is facing criticism, it is the intelligence services in the USA who leaked the identity of the murderer at a time when the police and security services here had decided to keep it secret -Amber Rudd in language seen as an unusually robust and public rebuke of the Americans said
“The British police have been very clear that they want to control the flow of information in order to protect operational integrity, the element of surprise. So it is irritating if it gets released from other sources and I have been very clear with our friends that should not happen again.” [flagged at 10.15am]
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...cert-live-news
They(The Tories)have also cut Border Security too although I'm not sure what the figures are?
I don't get involved in the "media furore" when something like this happens, just watch the lunchtime and early evening bulletins for an update but I haven't I seen any reports about Arena Security in Manchester & why no one as asked the question how a bomb was allowed in to a venue holding 18,000 people, many of them so young? Surely "Head of Security" should be at least interviewed with such loss of life, or have I missed something? Is something being kept from us?
Strictly speaking, as the FT link argues, the attack took place just outside the Arena itself, while the other link focuses on the lack of security inside it. However, I think most security procedures in venues focus on preventing someone entering it, I am not sure they have factored in someone targeting people as they leave, but I suspect the bomber and his accomplices -I assume he was not acting alone- planned this after visiting the scene of their crime and calculating when and how to cause the most damage they could.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/23/people...s-ago-6656337/
https://www.ft.com/content/20f2c594-...6-896b95f30f58
Its how I refer to Muslims who commit terrorist attacks in order to spread their twisted view of their religion. I have also used the term jihadists and savages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
But why would one choose a usage of a term(in this case the term 'radical', and only when one uses it to modify 'Islam') that is contrary to its meaning and its traditional usage, unless one intended to pervert the correct usage in order to amplify one's own prejudice and encourage the prejudices of others?
I meant to do neither and I'm just going to leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
s'cool, didn't think it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Well, according to the Daily Scum, Jeremy Corbyn's directly responsible for the bombing...because he cosied up to the iRA (at least, in their first edition (they've made bigger fuck-ups since)). Well done, The Sun. Looks like you won't be selling any copies in Manchester, either!
Meanwhile, the major parties have agreed to halt electioneering, for the time being.
(Except the conservatives, who did another manifesto u-turn this morning).
Oh, and because of budget cuts, the police can't cope...So troops have been deployed!
The particular phrase radical Islam is one that some over here claim has a talismanic quality where simply uttering the phrase can prevent violence. It is a shame that one can be seen as weak on terrorism simply by not using the right phrase as any condemnation must be strong enough to condemn the acts and the motivating ideology without tarnishing completely innocent people. It's not an easy task and I'm not sure whether I've used radical Islam or Jihadist or religious extremist, but I guess the important thing is that we're mindful of both the aim of condemning the act and care not to attack those who have done nothing wrong. I can see how the phrase could be either innocent or used to imply that extremism is an inherent feature of Islam so I will also be careful about that.
I think you guys are right that anyone who attempts to exploit this tragedy for political attacks should lose voters. I hope that's the case. That's the kind of thing that should have a political price.
I wasn't criticising you personally, so I hope that is clear. I have become tired of the lexicon of blame and explanation that is being raided to find appropriate words, even when I have been using them myself. For example, in its pure form, Jihad is the struggle against the temptation to sin, and while one of its meanings may also be to struggle with non-believers or those attacking Islam, it may not even mean physically fighting, though sometimes it might (religious texts tend to have such ambiguities), and this is where the phrase 'Holy War' came from. And it was also used as a political weapon, for example when the Ottoman Empire sided with the German Empire in the First World War and attempted to rouse Muslims in India against Britain by declaring 'Holy War', to no real effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Radical is useful for some, but I think is too loosely used. For example, was the Civil Rights movement more radical than the Black Panther Party, or less? I would argue that it was more radical, because I see the Black Panthers as reactionary and anti-American, and however one explains it, it reduces the status of that party to a fringe movement, one too isolated from the communities it sought to represent to be effective. The Civil Rights movement was genuinely radical, it went to the root of the Constitution and argued that the rights enshrined there could not be denied to Americans because of the colour of their skin. And it was a radicalism that also rejected the violence endemic in, but not essential to being alive in the USA. Elijah Mohammed's Lost-Found Nation of Islam, and the Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan created when the former was dissolved were also too obscure to be radical, let alone popular. Indeed, Farrakhan's movement is middle class and conservative, and is part-funded by the Federal Government.
I think we can agree that when you peel away the ideology, most of these young men are ex-jailbirds who have been in and out of gangs, doing drugs and alcohol and generally becoming petty criminals. They are murderers, there is no other word for it, and it doesn't add meaning to pin so many extra words to emphasize how bad they are -evil, wicked, savage, mindless, and so on. To the extent that these murders are planned in advance, they are also psychopaths. Unfortunately, these attacks are going to happen, because there is enough resentment to cause them, one only hopes they will fail most of the time. And the words will continue to flow, but most people will not share my irritation with them when I think they are not the rights ones.
I suppose the term 'radicalized Muslim' would be apt...or radicalized version of Islam. Nothing is more 'radical' then killing massive amounts of people, so if the defense used in perpetrating the violent act is a form of religion that is commonly practiced and referred to as peaceful, then I guess the two descriptions I gave would suffice.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/radicalize
and I agree that black chubby didn't mean anything by it.
I guess we can just use the word murderer, or scum or terrorist...but we like our labels to differentiate them.
I'm fine with 'terrorist', but I suppose that does become a little confusing when ones own local politicians will go out of their way to grandize them at a parade...like they are at the NYC Puerto Rican Day Parade by giving special status to Oscar Lopez Rivera.
but of course...however burning anger (leaving out the craziness for a moment) 'sometimes' comes to naught unless it is channeled and abetted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/radical?s=tQuote:
Originally Posted by fred41
I know a lot has been exhausted on this topic, but when you look at M&W's definition of radical, I think one issue is the difference between definitions one and two. I believe Stavros is using the first listed definition (more of a technical definition), which raises the question of what is a root or origin of a belief system. Maybe the term becomes a little looser when definitions one and two are used interchangeably, because they don't always lead to the same conclusion. A reactionary can be radical (def. 2) etc.
'Terrorist' is a problem word as it has been ever since someone said 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. To the British in the 1930s and 1940s, there were 'Jewish terrorists' who today are celebrated as 'freedom fighters' by those who inherited the state of Israel, they even hold their ceremony at the King David Hotel that was bombed in 1946 by the Irgun, killing 91 people, including 17 Jews. To the British government in the 1970s and 1980s, there were IRA 'terrorists' described by their comrades (and Sinn Fein) as 'Volunteers'. The USA refers to Hezbollah in Lebanon as a 'terrorist' organization even though it is a social movement with 12 seats in Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
Or you could bring it all back home. In today's parlance, would Robert E. Lee be described as a terrorist?
The definitions show why it is a problem when they move away from the original 'technical' meaning as you put it, not least when you claim 'a reactionary can be radical' in which case both words lose their meaning. In fact the 'technical' meaning offers more in this context, because these so-called 'Islamic radicals' are convinced that they are restoring the original purpose and daily practice of Islam as it was in the 7th century, a prospect as daft as any Christian replacing their clothes for a white robe and being dunked in the River Jordan (the one in Palestine not the one in Utah, but hey...) to be baptized in the way it was done by 'John'. We cannot step back into the 7th century or the days of Jesus with any accuracy or authenticity any more than a Druid can wander around Stonehenge with some candles chanting some made-up gibberish and claim any link to that ancient world.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Consider the marginal becoming mainstream -this may be where the real issue assumes greater importance, because as long as a political group isolates itself from most of society because of its violent rhetoric or actual violence, because it appeals to only a narrowly defined segment of society, it can be tolerated in an open democracy but also monitored, much as MI5 always had -and has- informers in the IRA (and its successor groups), a wide assortment of neo-Nazi/fascist groups, the Marxist/Trotskyist left and some anarchist groups.
It is when the marginals come closer to the centre that we should be concerned, and in Europe the creeping influence of Saudi Arabia has offered to some Muslims an explanation for their confusion -not the natural cacophony of social and religious diversity that comes with living in a late modern state, but the simple argument -'they' are all wrong, including most Muslims. But the 'radical' ideas of Wahab that have been globalized by Saudi money were themselves the product of Wahab's ignorance. Denounced by his father, described as 'mad' by his brother, Wahab rejected everything that had happened in Islam since the 7th century, mostly because he didn't understand it. In its time the Saudi family used violence to grab land in the Arabian peninsula, and seized Mecca by force in 1925 destroying ancient monuments and shrines at the time. In fact this old adage, if you want something go out and get it, helps explain the growth of the Saudi state, but so too does the willingness of others to let them get away with it, most recently when the President of the US handed Saudi Arabia a free pass to slaughter as many people as it chooses to, in exchange for money. It is this correct to say that Islam 'in general' does not condone bomb attacks, let alone suicide as a means of expression, but does that mean 'all Muslims'? Evidently not, as Patrick Cockburn puts it in this article in today's Independent:
The real causes of “radicalisation” have long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately, that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers “have nothing to do with Islam”. This has been the track record of US and UK governments since 9/11. They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the causes of terrorism. President Trump has been justly denounced and derided in the US for last Sunday accusing Iran and, in effect, the Shia community of responsibility for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the region when it ultimately emanates from one small but immensely influential Sunni sect. One of the great cultural changes in the world over the last 50 years is the way in which Wahhabism, once an isolated splinter group, has become an increasingly dominant influence over mainstream Sunni Islam, thanks to Saudi financial support.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7754301.html
Interesting though it is to hear views on the ideas in the recent posts above, can I suggest we move back to the General Election?
Most parties will resume the campaign tomorrow, Friday 26th 2017, the one exception being UKIP which unveiled its manifesto this morning while declaring that Theresa May must share the blame for the attack in Manchester. Among their policy proposals are a reduction of net migration to zero in five years using a 'one in, one out' policy; a ban on the flying of the EU flag on public buildings after Brexit, and making June 23rd a public holiday as 'Independence Day'. They propose to 'pump' £11 billion into health and social care funded by cuts in foreign aid, and the abolition of the House of Lords, to be replaced by an English Parliament with the electoral system subject to proportional representation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7754996.html
It is hard to say right now if UKIP will benefit from the Manchester attacks, although one member of the public on the BBC's lunchtime news today argued 'something must be done' about Muslims in the UK, and once people are over their grief anger could play a role. However, the leader of UKIP, Paul Nuttall has been described as an 'idiot' by members of his own party -hardly a departure from the norm for this party of 'low grade' people as Farage described them- and net migration has already fallen in one year more than any since 2009 with substantial numbers of EU migrants returning home, and universities recording a decline in the number of students applying for a place in the UK declining by 32,000. If examined closely what proportion of the £11 billion will be spent on health, and what proportion on social care? It doesn't look good for UKIP right now, but the next two weeks will reveal if there is any new support for it, or whether or not we are finally seeing the end of this incoherent mess of a party.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7754796.html
The former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson is famous for having said 'A week is a long time in politics', and never was that more evident than in the interval that has passed since Monday when Theresa May was desperately trying to present her reversal of policy on social care as anything but a reversal, followed by the horrific attack in Manchester that night, and today, Friday when the Conservatives cancelled their re-launch of their election campaign. A YouGov poll taken before the atrocity in Manchester showed the gap between Labour and the Tories narrowing to five points with the even more astonishing leadership poll-
the Prime Minister’s lead over Jeremy Corbyn in personal approval ratings has shrunk from an astonishing 52 per cent at the start of the election campaign to just 17 per cent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7756976.html
Signs of panic in the Tory party, while Strong and Stable Theresa is away at the NATO/G7 summits have been evident all day as Defence Secretary Michael Fallon and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson lay into Jeremy Corbyn for making a speech in which he stated what has been obvious for the last 16 years, namely that the 'war on terror' has not succeeded in making the UK safe from the very kind of attack that took place last Monday night.
It seems almost impossible, but with less than two weeks to go before the election, the Tories look like they have lost the plot, and a lot now rests on how Theresa May and her advisers organize their response, not least because Corbyn, the centre of attention will be interviewed by Andrew Neil at 7pm on the BBC. Yes, the figures do not suggest the Tories are going to lose, not yet, but the assumption that fuelled the election itself, that Labour is hopeless and the SNP past their best, that this would give Mrs May a huge majority to negotiate her version of Brexit -is proving to be less than stable. The final irony might be that the next Parliament may look like the last one, with the Tories barely able to scrape in with a 10-15 seats majority. Or it could be that the Tories have had their mid-campaign crisis, and Labour will have their in the last days of the campaign to set everything back to where it was 10 days ago. But like the man said, a week is a long time in politics. And don't underestimate Labour's ability to screw it up.
On a side note, Defense Secretary Tillerson met up with Bojo today to discuss immigration. Good hair versus Bad hair
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/re...rticle/2624244