Chaircat Meow

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Chaircat Meow

  • Rank
    70% wrong 30% right
  • Birthday 08/18/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

15,081 profile views
  1. Yea, 8 seats was John Curtice's prediction based on an average of the survation and panelbase polls. 14 was the number I heard thrown around for panelbase alone. You're totally correct that even if these polls are right and there isn't a big change before the election (both big ifs) the Tories could have most of those votes in the wrong places and thus fall well short of those forecasts.
  2. No one has mentioned the latest Panelbase poll from Scotland yet. Scottish Westminster voting intention: SNP: 44% (-3) CON: 33% (+5) LAB: 13% (-1) LDEM: 5% (+1) Changes from Jan 2017 Another poll from Scotland by Survation was not so favourable, but the Scottish Conservatives were still on 28%. With 33% of the vote we would be looking at taking 10-14 seats from the SNP, and maybe even taking out Angus Robertson, the SNP's leader in London. edit: that Welsh poll is quite something.
  3. He's MP for Surrey Heath. In the last election the Tories took 60% of the vote there and the runner up was UKIP! It would be a miracle if he lost his seat.
  4. I am so PUMPED UP about this election. Finally, we are going to settle accounts with Corbyn. I think the opinion polls may even be overestimating Labour's vote share. Historically, polls have very rarely underestimated Labour and the opposition's vote share tends to decrease as the election draws nearer . We also are miles ahead of Labour in terms of leadership and trust wrt the economy. It should also be remembered that Corbyn, Milne, McDonnell together with their collective incompetence are now going to have to run an election campaign with much of the PLP mutinous. It does not look like this ends well for them. As for all these people saying 'oh there are so many elections, we are apathetic' what a bunch of losers. Most of the population spends very little time thinking about politics. All they have to do is get themselves down to the polling station, read the papers and watch a few broadcasts. How hard can it be? I don't actually think there will be much apathy among the electorate at large, although it will be a different story among activists and the more interested voters, of course. This is just a GE we are talking about after all, not a referendum. On Scotland: doesn't matter. The SNP are going to win again. We might embarrass them in a couple of seats but realistically that's all that can be hoped for. If our plan is to push Indyref2 back beyond the next Holyrood elections, in order to give the Scottish unionist parties a shot at taking out the separatist majority, the SNP were always going to win a GE in Scotland on a pro-Indy platform before then because the GE was going to be held before the Holyrood election (saving unusual circumstances).
  5. Most people won't know what type of Brexit their mp wants, so I doubt it will matter that much.
  6. Stop being so daft. Just admit I said something you didn't understand and you can't let it go. This proves nothing of the sort. 1. From the articles: ''Garda sources last week said there has never been any evidence of an organisational link between the IRA and drugs criminals in the UK, but they are aware that former IRA members, including members of one well known family with both IRA and criminal links in south inner Dublin, has links to organised crime and drug dealers in Liverpool and the Midlands of Britain.'' ''Gardai believe that the "IRA" associates of the Liverpool gang, referred to in the Haigh trial, are almost certainly the "ordinary" Dublin traffickers and their associates who were formerly in the IRA but who have continued "trading" on the IRA name in order to scare opponents.'' 2. The links are also said to be from over the last two decades, and so prove no link for most of the troubles. 3. There is no evidence here that this happened because of sympathy for the IRA in Liverpudlian people of Irish descent. These gangs worked together for a number of reasons, including rubbing shoulders in the costa del sol because they had villas there. My statement shouldn't be controversial. It is pretty clear that substantial numbers of muslims in Britain live in communities where their beliefs/background make them vulnerable to extremist Islamic causes. This is a very different situation to that obtaining in communities with lots of people of Irish descent, in England, during the troubles. If you insist on a few links: (there is a link to the executive summary) This book is good on the second-generation immigrant issue, and the prevalence of British-Pakistanis among UK terrorist offenders. On universities and in particular the views of students in Isocs. Comprehensive. Radicalization in UK.pdf
  7. He was confronted about this on Question Time by Isabel Oakeshott.
  8. The comparison was between the compromise deal the IRA got and a hypothetical compromise we would make with Islamic terrorists. I can't boast links of any sort with members of the IRA, former or otherwise, that's true ... It is a question of degree/scale though. The overwhelming majority of people in the UK, especially in England, with Irish descent, will not have lived in communities with ties to the conflict. Glasgow and environs are the exception proving the rule. Places like Liverpool also had very substantial populations of Irish descent but the IRA weren't getting recruits or money there. Most muslims don't have links to ISIS but many live in communities where recruiting for ISIS or similar, albeit somewhat less extreme groups, has the terrain it needs to flourish. That's very different to most cities with populations boasting Irish descent in the UK during the troubles. I didn't use the rationality concept actually. My idea of what counts as rational is based on how beliefs are derived from each other and how consistent they are rather than their content. I myself do not have an issue with regarding ISIS as rational. However, it is odd left-wing posters are kicking up a fuss about this aspect of C4JS's argument (and I think he has a point). The IRA were waging what could be called an anti-colonial struggle for an end goal most people on the left would likely regard as somewhat legitimate (unification of Ireland), even if they did not always think the same about the methods. The IRA were also socialists or Marxists, so they said. ISIS, on the other hand, have a set of beliefs and goals totally beyond what would normally be regarded as rational in the thought-world of most denizens of this board, including millenarian/apocalyptic politico-theological beliefs. Contrary to James Arryn ISIS do not have clearly delineated territorial goals either. Conceivably they might settle for certain boundaries, in the unlikely event they survive the next few years, but their stated aim is world domination. By definition, hysteria is never justified.
  9. ISIS aren't Arab nationalists who propose to stop at the ethno-linguistic border of the Arab people. There are imitating the early Caliphate not Colonel Nasser. My line about the flag on designated days was obviously a reference to requests for the Union Jack only to be flown on certain days in NI. Although the black flag flying over x is a claim/demand that has been made by some British jihadists and by British ISIS supporting groups ... A poor comparison. By the time of the troubles people of Irish descent in England had no substantial ties to the Irish conflict. If they had you'd have seen aspects of the situation in the west of Scotland replicated in places like Liverpool. On demographics: The Irish population, including people with one Irish grandparent (most of whom would not identify as Irish - making this statistic totally useless) is about 10%. The Islamic population is about 6% but has a very young demographic profile, as roughly 1/10 babies in the UK (maybe just England) are Muslim. Most people, especially in England, will not be that bothered if Ireland unites. It won't be seen as a threat to their way of life or their constitution. I might regret that but that's the way it is. Witness how the latest NI election got hardly any coverage. So the ultimate objective of the IRA wasn't/isn't a massive threat to the people of the mainland UK. I'm not wheeling out every report/study I've ever read on the issue for your convenience, no. What I gave you is the general profile, wrt religious/ethnic background for a Islamic terrorist in the UK and pointed you towards further reading.
  10. I didn't say the Belfast Agreement was what the IRA wanted from the start. I was pointing to what they got. IS do not have limited territorial demands. ISIS and ISIL are, from their point of view, statements of fact not intent. I am pointing to the very different demographic base of the new kind of terrorism. The first was Irishmen from Ireland (usually NI) but the second are muslims living in the UK, a group that will make up an ever increasing share of the population and whose objectives won't be satisfied by chipping away part of the British state, on the other side of the Irish Sea, which few British people care about very deeply. You know about the Irish Catholic influence in the west of Scotland right? Heard of Celtic fc? The average home-grown terrorist will be of either south-Asian/African descent. Proving their parents were muslim is a little harder (not as much in the way of statistical evidence) and a few will be converts (although there appears to usually be an ethnic element to this). The recent report into the five wards in Birmingham responsible for a disproportionate amount of UK terrorist activity is a good place to start if you want to begin thinking about the background/upbringing of these people.
  11. The 'original statement' I made was that the IRA were Irish, something most people would accept as true regardless of whether they recruited a few oddballs from different nationalities (such as, for instance, Rose Dugdale) here and there. Bolded: I'm talking about the differences in the kind of threat posed to the UK (and others). NI was a dispute that could be (and was) settled in the enemy's favour without endangering anything most British people cared very much about. In the struggle with this enemy that might not be possible. Anyway, this is off topic for this thread really, so no more responses from me.
  12. You brought up the territorial demands of bin Laden and ISIS. At the time the IRA were an Irish paramilitary movement dedicated to reunifying Ireland. The fact it had one or two members drawn from elsewhere (presumably the self-loathing British Left) is irrelevant. FYI the police thought it was very odd that the two Englishmen were taken into confidence by the IRA. If you really think the IRA weren't Irish you're off the reservation. The point is that the current aggressors are drawn from a muslim population that lives on the British mainland as opposed to a distinct Irish population in Ireland (mostly NI) with a long-running religio-historical gievance. Depends how you define rational. I knew what C4JS meant though.
  13. I am not very interested in which doomed Islamic terrorist outfit is currently flavour of the month. Domestically, the crucial difference is that the IRA were Irish living in the province while the current aggressors don't come from Iraq/Syria or wherever but are home grown, being nearly always descendants of immigrants from the Islamic world.
  14. C4JS's statement does not merit a 'wow.' The NI conflict ended with provision for a future referendum in the province which could see the UK suffer a permanent territorial loss and the Protestant population brought under the control of a government in Dublin. What will it take to end this new conflict: the green/black flag of Islam flying over Buckingham Palace on designated days?
  15. A 75 year old man, injured in the attack, has now died.