pink_triangle

I think as leader of the opposition he has full control in terms of who is deported.

I can’t see either Milan team winning the champions league. I fancy the winner of City v Madrid to win the final comfortably.

My main issue with the list system is it makes it really hard for voters to kick out a really unpopular incumbent. I almost feel the best system would be one where constituents have a say on the order of the list, but no way parties give up that kind of control. I think the trouble is it’s not a priority for most people, so the demand for change isn’t big enough.

Ask Mickey Thomas!

Unfortunately as a Wrexham fan I’m naturally pessimistic, 6 points in 3 games is definitely “if” and not “when” territory. We have a record of messing up the play offs so would have no confidence if we don’t get the job done. I’m not blind to the fact we are where we are in the league because of money. The fact we haven’t won the league on a points total that would win every season shows there are still no guarantees.

Arsenal are probably 5th biggest wage budget so to come 2nd is a good achievement. Man City have a better squad which really tells in the run in, that’s because they have spent a lot more money.

I feel the SNP supporters need to take some responsibility here. They bought into the philosophy of undivided loyalty to the leadership and not questioning those at the top is not a good thing. The fact we ended up with first minister and chief executive living in the same house was a clear conflict of interest, SNP supporters didn’t question this relationship as they were told it was fine.

Most of those who suggest the no compromise left wing rhetoric and no playing politics, are the ones who will be ok if the tories win. Starmer is trying to win an election not the title of most pure politician in the county. I hope he succeeds as the ones who really need help need a labour government, not people patting themselves on the back saying they fought a fair fight.

Did they have much detail in 1997 or just vague catchphrase like education, education, education. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. I honestly can’t remember.

Starmer is what he is. He isn’t particularly charismatic and is pretty much centre ground labour. I am not comvinced any other leader would be doing better, nor would a more radical platform be more popular. I think the 1997 landslide had labour 12 percent ahead of the torys. I pretty much ignore the polls, there is no way they are doing as well as 1997.

I have had an interest in politics for about 30 years and that time has told me that the public will be taken in by lies. I think the best we can hope for is they are just fed up with Torys in general and want a change. It may not be the radical change you would like, but it’s a pragmatic compromise people can vote for. To think the electorate is suddenly all going to become massively politically engaged, read manifestos and want complex political discussion is in my view setting you up for failure. Your right labour can say how they will make things better, they have to some extent now, but they aren’t going to produce a full policy platform now for the Torys to rip off. However there is a balance with what you can promise and what the electorate will vote for. If you want labour to go into an election talking about reducing sentences, reducing the amount going to prison, more focus instead on rehabilitation. It will be political suicide and quoted on conservative election material throughout the country. If you want action and not words then they need the tough on crime message and work on rehabilitation more in power.

Of course the polls are closing, that was inevitable. Anyone who thought labour would win by 20 points had unrealistic expectations. The worst thing they could do is panic.

Your strategy of being completely honest while conservatives tell the electorate what they want to hear will mean labour never win. They weren’t elected in 1997 with a radical message , they were elected with a pretty safe message. They then got in power and improved things and got voted back in 2 times. You can’t however prove yourself in power if you don’t get it in the first place.

So knowing that the conservatives will say anything to be elected. You want labour to be completely honest even if it costs them votes? What could possibly go wrong with that strategy? The reality is most of the electorate don’t want to know detailed information about policy. They just want to know the basic direction of travel. Labour have a weakness in terms of crime and they need to try and correct that weakness. There is no election win without a tough on crime message. However in power hopefully they will take a wider view of things.

Do you honestly believe that labour don’t know it’s not more complicated than that, unfortunately we have an electorate who doesn’t want complex and to actually do anything about these issues you have to get in power first. I believe that labour will do more than conservatives in power and for that reason I’m willing to accept playing politics. I don’t want to feel morally superior in second place. If you are Corbyn labour, greens, Lib Dem’s and happy to be in opposition you can say whatever you want. If you are Labour you need to try and build a coalition that can win power. I would love an electorate where everyone is like me, but don’t have the magic wand to make it that way.

I don’t think it’s just the blue wall types, but the middle class, liberals worried for their nice houses and cars. At the end of the day labour can go into an election talking about reducing sentences and rehabilitation and feel a nice warm fuzzy feeling when they come second.

His record with Rangers was decent , but if it had been Mark Warbuton who had won the league with them, we all know he wouldn’t have got the Villa job.

In some ways the detail is irrelevant from a political perspective. Labour want to get the message out that they are tough on crime to ease concerns of voters who think they are not. I think this campaign (in isolation) will make little difference. However the overall message could. Politicians (of all colours) have stretched and twisted statistics as far as I have known. Some people seem to want labour to fight this “fair” fight knowing if you have come second you have done the right thing. If you are a middle class lefty with a decent bank balance I can see why you may have that view. Those living on the line need a Labour government.

I assumed he sentenced to the law set by the legislature?

It’s funny how picking your manager based on his managerial achievements rather than his playing achievements gets better results!

It’s not a left/right issue, but it’s an issue that politicians have tried to turn in a culture wall. The debate is too often defined by people on either extreme, ignoring the view of those looking for some sensible middle ground which will make trans people feel a little more equal. Like Middle East politics, it’s not something that is going to resonate with the average person in an election.

I can guarantee all the swing voters in my office will never see this video. Those getting excited on twitter will generally be conservatives (who won’t vote labour) or Corbynites (some will, some won’t). As for Starmer being seen as a flip flopper. I think the default view of the public is all politicians are like this, I don’t see it doing much damage.

In British democratic history? How many years do you think that covers?

I did A level (admittedly not degree level like Owen) History. There were times when British politics was riddled (even more than now) with corruption. If we are talking most dishonest ever then even Boris probably isn’t in contention. It’s naive to think political dishonesty started with the smartphone and twitter. I have low expectations of Jones, but he should be better than this kind of sensationalist (click bait) bullshit.

The regression in VVD over the last couple of years is amazing. I think 2/3 years ago he was as good as any defender in the world, he is no longer in that conversation.