ml1dch

The person she's referring to is Dougie Smith isn't it? Obviously she's nuts and he isn't an all-powerful mastermind controlling things, but I think that's who she's talking about.

The Kenneth patrols are slacking a bit today.

Think of that stamp duty.

That poll that suggested it might be close did seem a bit strange.

Thanks. And that colourful mice thing was happening in the same nutty ecosystem? I'm wondering if they've really thought through the public relations aspect of their message. As it doesn't seem like they've got the right strategy to rally the undecided to their cause.

I feel like I must have missed a couple of days of narrative. Why are there now crowds of people with Palestinian flags yelling at families in McDonalds?

Indeed. Some talk that it would probably lead to a legal challenge on ECHR grounds, so it just opens another avenue of "vote for me to be leader and I'll stop the horrid foreigns from telling us what we can and can't do".

Maybe they just had a problem with the Israeli government.

[quiet bit] "but make sure you marry the daughter of a billionaire or inherit an emerald mine first, just to be on the safe side" [/quiet bit]

I agree, but that isn't really a position that Israel can take. Publicly, at least.

It's one of those things that voters don't really care about though - the best at "winning" PMQs was always William Hague. Frequently had Blair over a barrel. Didn't do him much good in the 2001 election.

With the proviso that Hamas return the remaining 200 or so hostages still in Gaza to their homes, I'd say not. But unless they're willing to do that, should Israel just leave them there indefinitely?

There is another option - there are lots of people who think that calling for a ceasefire is counterproductive. That all it does is allow Hamas the time and space to regroup and carry out their next attack. That there is very little "...and then what?" if a ceasefire happens. I'm not saying that those people are correct, but he might be taking the position that he is, not because he's scared of upsetting potential voters, but just because he thinks that it's the right one. He wouldn't be the only one, even in his own party. There are no good options, and he's picked one of the many bad ones. But if it were as straightforward as just saying "have you thought of not bombing each other?", then this would all have been sorted a long time ago.

I'd also add that for an "amorphous blob" who just bends in line with whatever he thinks people want to hear, he's doing a pretty good job of sticking to the position that he appears to believe is the right one and explaining why he thinks it's the right one, when it would make things a lot easier for him to just give in and agree with what lots of the party are asking him to do.

That "Labour lose all muslim voters" narrative really doesn't seem to be translating to national / local polling very well

I'd add that I think it's been fairly well established that most Western leaders who hold any sway over the direction of travel are publicly backing the Israeli actions to the hilt, while privately pressuring them to not do all the stuff that they're doing. Whether that makes it any better or not, I don't know. It probably doesn't, but it's also not completely accurate to say that the UK, US et al "support" the current actions. They're having to do the same dance around how every option is a terrible option that we all are, but without the luxury that we have of our takes not having massive geopolitical consequences.

I appreciate that it's pedantic, but it is two different things. Bristow would be in the same predicament if he had publicy gone against the Government position on anything - HS2, the silly smoking ban, tax cuts. His is a policy disagreement (and if were being cynical, I'd guess that as an MP for a seat with a large muslim population this is more of a last-throw-of-the-dice for his chance of re-election than anything too noble) which means he can no longer serve in Government, whereas McDonald's is a (blown out of proportion) conduct issue.

They're not the same thing at all. Bristow's been removed from his (minor) Government job for publicly taking a position contrary to that of the Government. He's still a Tory MP. McDonald is no longer sitting as a Labour MP. Although I imagine he quietly will be again soon when they realise they've misread what he's said and massively overreacted.

Indeed. However it does *feel* that the people who don't want the first is restricted to the radical fringes of right-wing parties in Israel and abroad (admittedly, some of whom hold an unfortunate amount of power) Whereas the people who don't want the second, while holding a lot less power, are a lot more common.

As an avid follower of polls, People Polling should be avoided like the plague. It's Matt Goodwin's vehicle to push whatever story he wants pushing. Really not worth the paper it's printed on. Also - the big change, note that it's comparing with "data" from six months ago.

It could. However since that internet survey a few days ago there have been a number of elections that have happened, and it doesn't seem to have had any material impact on Labour's vote share. Some of them in areas with large Muslim communities. Also the national polls that have been released since don't seem to show any significant change. You'd think that if the UK's Muslim vote was deserting the Labour Party en masse that wouldn't result in Labour +0 or Labour +1 like most of them have. It's definitely going to have some impact. I just think that some isn't going to be all that much.

The worst politicians in the world are the ones who whisper to a journalist how they are THIS CLOSE to resigning on a point of principle only to do nothing. Either just do it, or stop trying to claim any emotional credit for something you're too cowardly to do.

So you keep saying, but still seem to be very short on the detail of how or why.

The swing away from Labour should be much larger if the numbers from that internet poll were in any way representative.

Well yes, all party leaders are temporary. And (likely) several years ahead of when they leave, it's usually difficult to predict who replaces them. If things carry on along this trajectory I think that MPs and members will find the "Labour have never had a female leader" calls too loud to ignore and it'll probably be Reeves.