So for those keeping score, we are supposed to remember how opinion polls were WRONG WRONG WRONG in regards to the EU Referendum and US Presidential vote...but believe them wholeheartedly when they say Corbyn has no chance of winning an election or the Freed Reich Party of Austria could win a third of the parliamentary seats. I'm pretty sure that even Hollyoaks' writers would say a Narrative like that doesn't work...
The warning there is that in Austrian politics, the Freedom party success in their parliament may be a bigger prize than having their bod as president. The 2nd Obama term as USA president (with the Republicans effectively controlling the legislature) being a recent notable example of this. As for the UK, Labour on paper are neither a political joke nor dismissed out of hand by those morons who got the referendum/USA results so wrong. OTOH Corbyn by himself being a definite election loser is a good (open) question.
The main issue for those that don't like the Tories is that they're being given plenty of positive press and little opposition. Labour are portrayed as a shambles and are infighting, the Lib Dems have shrunk into insignificance and UKIP have shot their bolt. The SNP and Greens take left-wing votes from the main opposition party, while the kippers do the same from the working class and bigots. Despite May and her merry band of idiots making rather a mess of everything, they're not being blamed for it. They keep rising in the polls and being backed by the media, while everyone else flounders around putting out fires. Unless someone offers Murdoch even more than he's already getting, I can't see any of that changing.
You just have to look at the coverage of the Richmond Park by-election to see how we're being told to dismiss Labour out of hand, as the coverage fell into one of three Narratives: i.) Goldsmith lost ii.) Something something Britait iii.) Well this proves Corbyn doesn't stand a chance In terms of #3, it's telling that the only Labour MP that the papers seemed interesting in asking for a quote was Chuka Umunna - who is always on hand to give the papers plenty of anti-Corbyn soundbites. Yet what wasn't reported is what actually happened in Richmond Park, and it has nothing to do with the vote in June, Goldsmith's Mayor of London campaign or even how the Tories were nakedly supporting the supposedly "independent" Goldsmith: the Lib Dems always had a strong support in Richmond Park, receiving over 20,000 votes in 1997 (when they won the seat), 2001, 2005 and even 2010 when they lost it - the only time they didn't was in the 2015 Election, where they received a little over 11,000 votes, similar to what happened in constituencies across the UK where the Lib Dem vote slumped at the Lib Dems bore the brunt of voters' wrath against Cameron. It's telling that Sarah Olney was not a member of the Lib Dems during the coalition years, so isn't tainted by association, hence the Lib Dems received 20,000+ votes once again.
They also failed to mention that UKIP didn't run against Goldsmith and actually endorsed him. That's what they're for. Drag the Tories to the right, especially on immigration and try to nick votes from Labour.
Tbf, from what I know of Richmond, UKIP would go down like a pork chop at a Jewish wedding reception there.
They ran last year and got 2,464 votes. It was thought to be too risky this year, but Goldsmith lost anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park_by-election,_2016#Previous_polls
Pretty much what I expected. They got less votes than The Greens. They'd have probably lost their deposit this time too.
It's not a strong constituency for Labour, by any means. It's fairly new, but the four elections have all gone to either the Tories (1) or Lib Dems (3). The previous constituencies were basically Tory forever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_and_Barnes_(UK_Parliament_constituency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston-upon-Thames_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
And he's now back to complaining about the Saturday Night Live latest send-up with Alec Baldwin taking the piss out of .......... his inane Tweeting!!! http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...ersonation-unwatchable-post-cold-open-w453694 You couldn't make this stuff up - just difficult to know which is funnier, the send-up or the original!!!
It seems of load of ill informed MPs are now berating the Supreme Court for doing their job - even before they've made a decision! Shouldn't MPs be given some basic education in administrative and constitutional law to save them from the embarrassment of spouting nonsense?
I strongly suspect that most of them are well aware of what the Supreme Court process is. But there is the need to pander to the emotions of the rabble. After all, they have the vote nowadays, you know...
I prefer to use the reverse of Hanlon's Razor when approaching comments by politicians or journalists. Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice. They're not commenting on the decision, they're attempting to influence it and get ahead of it if it goes the other way. It's part of the current move towards a very dubious and authoritarian government, from what I can see.
Are you talking about MPs and the supreme court, or MPs and their right to have a say on when Article 50 is triggered ??
Pfizer fined for "marketing scam" (my assessment) that resulted in massive price hike for NHS: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38233852 Scarily the details for overpayment here are dated 2012. That suggests to me that the extra millions have been paid for three years since. My maths aren't great but is seems to me that if the distribution company were fined £5 million and sold the drugs for £50 million (in 2012), they have made a fortune over and above the competition watchdog fine. Not criticising the watchdog here - in fact it's good that they have got to grips with this - although Pfizer are appealing!!! A more important point is that NHS budgets are stretched to the maximum, particularly in staffing and having enough beds for everyone. (I have personal experience of this as my wife has worked for the NHS for over 20 years and every year has to make savings in staff.) I wonder how much effort is being made to find savings in the medicines bill? Or do with think this example is the only time the NHS has paid millions extra?
