When you vote, do you vote Expressively, or Rationally? Most party activists and committed partizans will vote expressively, and assume that voters do likewise. However, many voters will vote rationally, seeking to maximise the impact their vote will have on the result. It is this tendency, that most activists find hard to relate to, that leads to the phenomena referred to as “tactical voting”. Still with me? Good, let me explain…Tactical Voting: Myths and reality - Voting TaKtiX
Personally, I doubt Blair will last 12 months or anything like it. Until he goes, civil war will reign in the Labour Party. Unlike Blair, too many people in the Labour Party have an interest in not losing the next election for that to happen. Unless they're really, really stupid. And I don't think they are. ... Brown will be a disaster as Labour leader. If Brown really had the capacity to be leader, he would have become so after the Granita restaurant, after Blair was clearly out of step with the country on the war, after Labour lost 50 seats at the General Election, etc., etc. He didn’t because he has no killer instinct and no real leadership skills. Brown likes to skulk in the corner and avoid difficult issuesHe goes on to analyse the state of the parties, the poll rankings, the likely effect on the next election, etc. It's one of those "I wish I'd written that" posts, well worth a read.
However, I do not think it would be appropriate to remain in government in these circumstances and return to the backbenches, where I will be a strong and active supporter of this government and the leadership of Tony Blair for his full parliamentary term.Do we detect a note of "well Gordon'll never give me a job" in the Safety Elephant's behaviour? In the meantime?
But the protest has had its critics, with Tory London Assembly member Brian Coleman calling them "sad, mad and bad".Well no you fool. That's the whole damned point!
"Is this really the image we want to give of London - tourists whose income we rely on for the jobs and prosperity of our city?"
"Bugger civil liberties, think of the tourist trade?" And in what universe would the tourist trade be adversely affected?Still busy, distracted and not in the mood for serious blogging. Week off next week, might, hopefully, clear my head. In the meantime, I await the reports of the event from those that were able to attend.
What a tedious cock.
He believes his removal was down to having a "Muslim-sounding name".Mr Ashraf? Good luck. Told a friend in Canada about it. His reaction is here. Summary:
Mr Ashraf, 28, a British Pakistani who was returning to his job as a pilot for one of Continental's partner airlines in the US, will lodge a formal complaint with Continental Airlines, with whom he was travelling, as well as with the US authorities.
That's right, they dragged a guy WHO FLIES *THEIR* JUMBO JETS FOR A LIVING off a plane because THEY WERE AFRAID HE MIGHT DO SOMETHING BAD WHILE HE WAS A PASSENGER ASLEEP IN BUSINESS CLASS.Tomorrow, when I go back into the office, I have to find accommodation for two lawyers planning to come study English with us for 6 months on an executive course. Normally, not a problem at all, executive long term bookings are sought after by our host families. Problem? They're from Kuwait. I shouldn't need to have to persuade people to let me pay them money, just because the client is from a muslim country; Kuwait is one of our major allies out there, right?
Hey, everyone who's afraid of brown people: Remember the terrorists?
They won, and you helped them do it.
Good job!
One aspect of the alleged bomb plot which has provided a tremedous boost to the atavists, is the so-called "Baby bottle bomb" ... there is nothing uniquely Islamic about infanticide. Indeed, in the last two days the news bulletins have covered prominently the stories of a British man who allegedly jumped from a balcony clutching his two children in Crete, and the inquest on a woman who threw herself under her train with her nine year old child.The leaks and spin coming from various "sources" bother me as well. If there is actually a plot, if there is evidence, have these guys got a chance of a fair trial? No. You know what that means? No conviction, we can't get the bastards. If they're actually guilty (and every day that if gets bigger), then we need to get them jailed. Trial by media is a bad idea, right?
Horrible? Yes. Have Muslims wreaked more horror on the World, either historically or in the last five years, than those professing other religions? No.
Thousands of pupils received their A-level results today, and amazingly the UK seems to be getting more intelligent than ever!Seriously, go read the rest. For the record, he thinks even less of Ruth Kelly than me. Seriously, it is possible. Anyway...
In the spirit of the occasion, the rest of this article will be multiple choice:
A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.(via)
In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.
The British official said the Americans also argued over the timing of the arrest of suspected ringleader ***** in Pakistan, warning that if he was not taken into custody immediately, the U.S. would "render" him or pressure the Pakistani government to arrest him.So, that could even cover arrested without due process and with the possibilty that a trial may not now be possible. I've deleted his name from the US based report as UK law is very strict about possibilities of prejudicing a trial.
British security was concerned that ***** be taken into custody "in circumstances where there was due process," according to the official, so that he could be tried in British courts. Ultimately, this official says, ***** was arrested over the objections of the British.
Almost 3000 people died September 11th.The Politics of Fear is getting to me. I grew up with the real and present danger of the IRA, and those nasty communists with their ICBM nukes. Now, in the absense of a new state based enemy, we're to fear "global islamic terror", and fear it so much that we're to give up a lot of the basic fundamental freedoms that make this country, and indeed much of the west.
They tell us to be afraid. I'm sure some of you recall that I often poke jibes at the bullshit society of fear here in the USA. It's been going on a long time, but it's been substantially worse since the towers fell.
They tell us to be afraid of Extremists for Allah. They tell us to be afraid of planes. They tell us to be afraid of buses. They tell us to be afraid of bombs. They tell us to be afraid of suitcase nukes. They tell us to fear death from above, fear the breown people, fear Islam, fear those who HATES TEH FREEDOM, fear the NAIL CLIPPERS and BOX CUTTERS, fear the MIDDLE EAST, FEAR MOTHERFUCKERS, BATHE IN IT, BREATHE IT, DREAM IT, BE BORN IN FEAR AND FUCKING DIE IN FEAR.
3000 people die of smoking-related disease every 3 days.
3000 people die in car accidents roughly every 29 days.
3000 people burn to death approximately every year or so, give or take some, in accidents involving smoke and fire. Every year, over and over.
And then one day you wake up and realize that you're less likely to die from a terrorist attack than you are from an infected wisdom tooth.
And you don't have to be afraid.
Right about then is when you take a look at the media and you get really, really pissed off.
Welcome to the fold, Rubix.
Following on from my aside mention earlier in the week, also worth linking to the more detailed analysis on of the Threat Levels bollocks on Europhobia. But Jack Thomas's version is much better. "We agree that the facts of this case fall clearly on the wrong side of the dividing line. The orders amounted to a deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 5.Putting someone under house arrest and only allowing them out between 10am and 4pm? Yup, that's deprivation of liberty. Restricting who can visit them and who they can associate with? Yup, that's deprivation of liberty as well.
"We consider that the reasons given by Mr Justice Sullivan for quashing the orders are compelling."
Dr Reid,Please write something similar to:
I know that you've met the author of the Rachel in North London website, a victim of the July bombings and organiser of Kings Cross United. You may or not be aware that her passport was either lost or stolen at the memorial commemoration, and she is due to be leaving the country at the end of this week.
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/07/lost-my-passport-losing-it-generally.html
If you are able to use any influence whatsoever in your position, given her status, a large number of people around the country would very much appreciate it; I'm sure that I will personally still disagree with you politically, but it would certainly up my respect for you personally.
Best regards, Mat
(full name, full address, full contact details as per formal letter)
first we really ought to see what Yasmin’s whining about…His analysis is spot on, go read. I'm not sure I buy into Tim's opinion that it's a conspiracy, I suspect it's more a case that, as Deek Deekster observes, the proverbial chattering classes have noticed that the internet is allowing us poor normal citizens to share our opinions with each other, debate, deconstruct and critique opinion columns, etc.
… which, sorry, doesn’t really amount to much.
In the past these true journal-ists would have been writing in isolation, but we contemporary writers are blessed with the modern miracle of interactivity - and frankly this is something that scares the Gucci pants off most hacks, whose idea of interactivity is submitting to an axe-wielding editor.The beauty of "blogging"? (and what is a blog if not simply a style of managing a website, a different type of publishing tool?) Interactivity, commenting, discourse, analysis.
In fact, the loans are actually only repayable six months after the lender specifically asks for them to be repaid. If the lender does not do so, the loan might conceivably never be repaid. It's almost as if the terms of the loans have been specifically written so that they could be turned into donations at a later date.In the meantime, Shaun Rolph has all the evidence pointing that Levy and Blair acted illegally if they did withhold details of the money to the elected party treasurer, Jack Dromey (via).
anyone who, with intent to deceive, concealed from Jack Dromey (i) the amount of any donation made to the party, or (ii) the person or body making such a donation, has committed a criminal offence.It's probably a good thing for tired Tony that he knows a few decent lawyers, right? When I wrote that post, I didn't even think to dream he'd be out because he broke a law he himself wrote.
