Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
So... remember how the IM1 lunar lander had some sensors fail in space?
Allegedly, the reason is that before launch, they forgot to take the "Remove Before Launch" cover off the sensor...
If true, rather embarrassing. The lander landed safely, but toppled over for some reason.
Whoops! There’s a reason that, in aviation, temporary items such as pitot covers and landing gear pins are attached to bright red streamers, so that it’s impossible to miss them when walking around the plane.
I've just watched a rather good film if you're into the intersection between technology, flight, and industrial politics.
Black Box is a French film about an audio analyst working for an accident investigation team, who starts to realise his initial conclusion about the cause of a crash might have been incorrect.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Moving off topic (!), the latest effect of the crackdown on reproductive rights in the Southern USA - pretty much no IVF in Alabama, because the Alabama Supreme Court has decided that IVF embryos have full legal personhood.
Medical facilities are suspending all IVF treatments because of liability risks for medical staff.
A little under 250k women receive IVF treatments per annum in the USA. I make that probably 500k people immediately affected.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
If Lee Anderson had been a Labour MP this story would have led all the radio and TV news programmes, as well as all the front pages, and he would already have lost the Labour whip. The double standards are astounding - and entirely predictable.
Absolutely. I don’t know if it’s double standards or simply that it’s a dog bites man story. This is what the Tory party stands for now.
His interview certainly fails the edit:replace x with the word “Jew” test.
I've only encountered the story by logging in to PB. I don't know why the Tories keep trying the 'Khan is an islamic extremist' implication, people just don't buy it and it's one reason Goldsmith failed the first time, it's just not going to work.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
Well, I think you have identified Khan's issue. Mayor of London is as good as it is going to get, for him. The job has exposed him as dull and uninspiring, even duller than Starmer, and also he DOES have this troubling backstory, which would become much more problematic if he ever aimed higher - however his decidedly middling talents mean he is not going higher anyway. He's not senior minister material, let alone PM calibre
So he might as well stay as mayor. Nice job, lots of money, status and flunkeys, and Labour are so far ahead in the capital he will cruise to victory again - whyever not?
He must be annoying other possible Labour candidates tho. I imagine quite a few bright London Labourites fancy their chances at being mayor, but Khan is bed-blocking them
Why the F didn't HMG put term limits in the original mayoral legislation? DUH
I think this is going to be a major new problem for advanced high tax countries, especially ones with horrible rainswept winters, shitty dentistry, sluggish or zero growth, growing “cultural” problems and a plethora of ugly red brick semi detached houses making everyone depressed
Why work there when you can literally phone it in from a beach in south east Asia? I believe someone wrote about this, presciently, in the Spectator
Many organisations require their employees to be UK based, including my own, as part of their contract. Even if not if you choose to work in a nation with a much lower average wage your company might choose to pay you a much lower wage too for the same work
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
Well, I think you have identified Khan's issue. Mayor of London is as good as it is going to get, for him. The job has exposed him as dull and uninspiring, even duller than Starmer, and also he DOES have this troubling backstory, which would become much more problematic if he ever aimed higher - however his decidedly middling talents mean he is not going higher anyway. He's not senior minister material, let alone PM calibre
So he might as well stay as mayor. Nice job, lots of money, status and flunkeys, and Labour are so far ahead in the capital he will cruise to victory again - whyever not?
He must be annoying other possible Labour candidates tho. I imagine quite a few bright London Labourites fancy their chances at being mayor, but Khan is bed-blocking them
Why the F didn't HMG put term limits in the original mayoral legislation? DUH
I doubt the government wants to open the door to the idea of term limits. Granted, in the bear pit that is the House of Commons, and the way PMs are appointed not directly elected, lack of term limits has never really been a problem.
Look at the detail, the prismatic light, the refraction, it's magical. Sora is going to create magnificent movies, very soon, visually way beyond anything we have ever seen
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
Well, I think you have identified Khan's issue. Mayor of London is as good as it is going to get, for him. The job has exposed him as dull and uninspiring, even duller than Starmer, and also he DOES have this troubling backstory, which would become much more problematic if he ever aimed higher - however his decidedly middling talents mean he is not going higher anyway. He's not senior minister material, let alone PM calibre
So he might as well stay as mayor. Nice job, lots of money, status and flunkeys, and Labour are so far ahead in the capital he will cruise to victory again - whyever not?
He must be annoying other possible Labour candidates tho. I imagine quite a few bright London Labourites fancy their chances at being mayor, but Khan is bed-blocking them
Why the F didn't HMG put term limits in the original mayoral legislation? DUH
I know it’s Neon Fascist Imperialism to suggest it, but maybe someone could try being a better candidate than Khan?
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
Boris used Mayor of London as a springboard to PM
Yes, which if you noticed is why I added 'unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career', and how that may be more difficult the longer you spend in the mayoral role.
I think this is going to be a major new problem for advanced high tax countries, especially ones with horrible rainswept winters, shitty dentistry, sluggish or zero growth, growing “cultural” problems and a plethora of ugly red brick semi detached houses making everyone depressed
Why work there when you can literally phone it in from a beach in south east Asia? I believe someone wrote about this, presciently, in the Spectator
This issue is next on the OECD’s agenda after the BEPS project with the aim of making things easier and more standardised.
Very few people permanently work from paradise but there’s a lot of working from holiday / extended family home going on. Best approach is to ease the rules a bit.
Mostly involving self-employed or contractors, I'd expect. I asked one contractor friend - who has lived & worked in something like 11 countries over the past couple of years - how she dealt with all those different tax authorities. "What do you mean?" was her answer.
In her case, I think she's just putting all her earnings through her UK ltd company, and filling in her tax return as if she'd been living and working in the UK the whole time. She might even be paying more tax than she should. But what would there be to stop her from not declaring any of it?
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
Well, I think you have identified Khan's issue. Mayor of London is as good as it is going to get, for him. The job has exposed him as dull and uninspiring, even duller than Starmer, and also he DOES have this troubling backstory, which would become much more problematic if he ever aimed higher - however his decidedly middling talents mean he is not going higher anyway. He's not senior minister material, let alone PM calibre
So he might as well stay as mayor. Nice job, lots of money, status and flunkeys, and Labour are so far ahead in the capital he will cruise to victory again - whyever not?
He must be annoying other possible Labour candidates tho. I imagine quite a few bright London Labourites fancy their chances at being mayor, but Khan is bed-blocking them
Why the F didn't HMG put term limits in the original mayoral legislation? DUH
I know it’s Neon Fascist Imperialism to suggest it, but maybe someone could try being a better candidate than Khan?
Bailey exceeded expectations, maybe they should have stuck with him?
As things stand the flimsy justification for switching to FPTP does not seem like it will work.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
Well, I think you have identified Khan's issue. Mayor of London is as good as it is going to get, for him. The job has exposed him as dull and uninspiring, even duller than Starmer, and also he DOES have this troubling backstory, which would become much more problematic if he ever aimed higher - however his decidedly middling talents mean he is not going higher anyway. He's not senior minister material, let alone PM calibre
So he might as well stay as mayor. Nice job, lots of money, status and flunkeys, and Labour are so far ahead in the capital he will cruise to victory again - whyever not?
He must be annoying other possible Labour candidates tho. I imagine quite a few bright London Labourites fancy their chances at being mayor, but Khan is bed-blocking them
Why the F didn't HMG put term limits in the original mayoral legislation? DUH
I know it’s Neon Fascist Imperialism to suggest it, but maybe someone could try being a better candidate than Khan?
I entirely agree
Khan is beatable. That Tory came close last time despite being mediocre
It needs someone with chutzpah and charisma, befitting a great world city. I have no idea why the Tories or LDs are incapable of putting up a decent candidate to give Khan a test. I mean, Susan Hall? Really????
It's not like Mayor of London is a tough gig, either. Boris and Ken did it, successfully, which says quite a lot
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
Well, I think you have identified Khan's issue. Mayor of London is as good as it is going to get, for him. The job has exposed him as dull and uninspiring, even duller than Starmer, and also he DOES have this troubling backstory, which would become much more problematic if he ever aimed higher - however his decidedly middling talents mean he is not going higher anyway. He's not senior minister material, let alone PM calibre
So he might as well stay as mayor. Nice job, lots of money, status and flunkeys, and Labour are so far ahead in the capital he will cruise to victory again - whyever not?
He must be annoying other possible Labour candidates tho. I imagine quite a few bright London Labourites fancy their chances at being mayor, but Khan is bed-blocking them
Why the F didn't HMG put term limits in the original mayoral legislation? DUH
I know it’s Neon Fascist Imperialism to suggest it, but maybe someone could try being a better candidate than Khan?
I entirely agree
Khan is beatable. That Tory came close last time despite being mediocre
It needs someone with chutzpah and charisma, befitting a great world city. I have no idea why the Tories or LDs are incapable of putting up a decent candidate to give Khan a test. I mean, Susan Hall? Really????
It's not like Mayor of London is a tough gig, either. Boris and Ken did it, successfully, which says quite a lot
I still think the Tories need a Boris-esque figure to win in London. A bit maverick and atypical, someone comfortable with being loose with party policy, with a bit of flash. Labour can manage with a duller candidate, but (admittedly speaking as an outsider) I feel like the Tories cannot dull or scare their way into a win in London.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
Well, I think you have identified Khan's issue. Mayor of London is as good as it is going to get, for him. The job has exposed him as dull and uninspiring, even duller than Starmer, and also he DOES have this troubling backstory, which would become much more problematic if he ever aimed higher - however his decidedly middling talents mean he is not going higher anyway. He's not senior minister material, let alone PM calibre
So he might as well stay as mayor. Nice job, lots of money, status and flunkeys, and Labour are so far ahead in the capital he will cruise to victory again - whyever not?
He must be annoying other possible Labour candidates tho. I imagine quite a few bright London Labourites fancy their chances at being mayor, but Khan is bed-blocking them
Why the F didn't HMG put term limits in the original mayoral legislation? DUH
I know it’s Neon Fascist Imperialism to suggest it, but maybe someone could try being a better candidate than Khan?
I entirely agree
Khan is beatable. That Tory came close last time despite being mediocre
It needs someone with chutzpah and charisma, befitting a great world city. I have no idea why the Tories or LDs are incapable of putting up a decent candidate to give Khan a test. I mean, Susan Hall? Really????
It's not like Mayor of London is a tough gig, either. Boris and Ken did it, successfully, which says quite a lot
Obviously the cream of the Tory crop has gone to Westminster.
If Lee Anderson had been a Labour MP this story would have led all the radio and TV news programmes, as well as all the front pages, and he would already have lost the Labour whip. The double standards are astounding - and entirely predictable.
Absolutely. I don’t know if it’s double standards or simply that it’s a dog bites man story. This is what the Tory party stands for now.
His interview certainly fails the edit:replace x with the word “Jew” test.
I've only encountered the story by logging in to PB. I don't know why the Tories keep trying the 'Khan is an islamic extremist' implication, people just don't buy it and it's one reason Goldsmith failed the first time, it's just not going to work.
It does work with 10%, maybe 15% or so, and perhaps makes turnout slightly higher and Tory affliliation stronger amongst that group. On the flip side it probably solidifies another 15-20% of us boring centrist swing voters away from the Tories.
Electoral tactics wise it is pointless at best, self defeating in general.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
Well, I think you have identified Khan's issue. Mayor of London is as good as it is going to get, for him. The job has exposed him as dull and uninspiring, even duller than Starmer, and also he DOES have this troubling backstory, which would become much more problematic if he ever aimed higher - however his decidedly middling talents mean he is not going higher anyway. He's not senior minister material, let alone PM calibre
So he might as well stay as mayor. Nice job, lots of money, status and flunkeys, and Labour are so far ahead in the capital he will cruise to victory again - whyever not?
He must be annoying other possible Labour candidates tho. I imagine quite a few bright London Labourites fancy their chances at being mayor, but Khan is bed-blocking them
Why the F didn't HMG put term limits in the original mayoral legislation? DUH
I know it’s Neon Fascist Imperialism to suggest it, but maybe someone could try being a better candidate than Khan?
I entirely agree
Khan is beatable. That Tory came close last time despite being mediocre
It needs someone with chutzpah and charisma, befitting a great world city. I have no idea why the Tories or LDs are incapable of putting up a decent candidate to give Khan a test. I mean, Susan Hall? Really????
It's not like Mayor of London is a tough gig, either. Boris and Ken did it, successfully, which says quite a lot
Obviously the cream of the Tory crop has gone to Westminster.
Oh..
That's true though. And the better ones really have gotten into the Cabinet.
I think this is going to be a major new problem for advanced high tax countries, especially ones with horrible rainswept winters, shitty dentistry, sluggish or zero growth, growing “cultural” problems and a plethora of ugly red brick semi detached houses making everyone depressed
Why work there when you can literally phone it in from a beach in south east Asia? I believe someone wrote about this, presciently, in the Spectator
This issue is next on the OECD’s agenda after the BEPS project with the aim of making things easier and more standardised.
Very few people permanently work from paradise but there’s a lot of working from holiday / extended family home going on. Best approach is to ease the rules a bit.
Mostly involving self-employed or contractors, I'd expect. I asked one contractor friend - who has lived & worked in something like 11 countries over the past couple of years - how she dealt with all those different tax authorities. "What do you mean?" was her answer.
In her case, I think she's just putting all her earnings through her UK ltd company, and filling in her tax return as if she'd been living and working in the UK the whole time. She might even be paying more tax than she should. But what would there be to stop her from not declaring any of it?
If you’re a UK citizen and spend more than 90 days in the UK in the tax year, HMRC will expect their cut of everything you earn no matter where, and are very aggressive about it. They will disregard any income tax paid overseas, so long as you have the paperwork for it.
Even if you don’t spend more than 90 days in the UK, HMRC can still find you to be ‘domiciled’ there, and liable for tax on worldwide income. Having your wife and kids live in the UK is usually the giveaway for that one.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
Chief Exec of Havering council is £178k-185k for comparison.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
Khan is absolutely minting it, no wonder he fancies a third term. Another 4 years is another £600k, pre tax, and probably adds tons to his pension, and I imagine most of his daily life is paid for, so he's simply banking much of this cash
After 12 years as mayor he will have earned £1.8 MILLION
NEW: Strong stuff from Sadiq Khan in response to Lee Anderson's comments. Says there "shouldn't be a hierarchy of racism" and says his comments were Islamophobic and racist.
He says Sunak and the cabinet are condoning by not condemning the comments.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
The fact that you've had to literally make up something that you say is 'typical speech you commonly hear' tends to confirm that you are full of shit.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
Chief Exec of Havering council is £178k-185k for comparison.
But an MP only earns £85k, and a minister earns £120, and Keir Starmer as LOTO earns £144k - so Khan is making more than Starmer
If you're a bit lazy but sitll fancy a high profile political job (without too much scrutiny or grief), Mayor of London might be the best job in the UK
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
Chief Exec of Havering council is £178k-185k for comparison.
Why would we pay the chief executive of a small London Borough more than we do our Prime Minister?
No wonder we end up with such a bunch of useless shitheads.
Biden will most likely never satisfy those most horrified by his Middle East policies, but if he doesn’t do more to try, he’s in danger of losing Michigan in November, which would almost certainly cost him the election. The state has the country’s largest percentage of Arab American voters, and within that community — as well as among many non-Arab Muslims, young people and progressives — there’s a deep sense of betrayal and fury at Biden
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
The fact that you've had to literally make up something that you say is 'typical speech you commonly hear' tends to confirm that you are full of shit.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
Chief Exec of Havering council is £178k-185k for comparison.
Why would we pay the chief executive of a small London Borough more than we do our Prime Minister?
No wonder we end up with such a bunch of useless shitheads.
Move to nearby Waltham Forest and the Deputy Chief Exec is £177k, Chief Exec £201-217k.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
Chief Exec of Havering council is £178k-185k for comparison.
But an MP only earns £85k, and a minister earns £120, and Keir Starmer as LOTO earns £144k - so Khan is making more than Starmer
If you're a bit lazy but sitll fancy a high profile political job (without too much scrutiny or grief), Mayor of London might be the best job in the UK
without too much grief???
The guy has round-the-clock phalanx of protection officers for him and his family.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
Chief Exec of Havering council is £178k-185k for comparison.
But an MP only earns £85k, and a minister earns £120, and Keir Starmer as LOTO earns £144k - so Khan is making more than Starmer
If you're a bit lazy but sitll fancy a high profile political job (without too much scrutiny or grief), Mayor of London might be the best job in the UK
Err, you love giving Sadiq a lot of grief and are not alone!
NEW: Understand that Sajid Javid absolutely furious over Anderson remarks: anti-Muslim hate is just as unacceptable as anti-semitism.
No 10 under huge pressure to act. Am told he’s demanding either Anderson issue a sincere apology or have the whip removed. Watch this space
My guess is 'neither'...
From the raw politics aspect Anderson's remarks were idiotic. The anti-Semitic nutters in Labour were just starting to be seen as a serious chink in Sir Keir's armour. Anderson has now completely neutralized all that.
Biden will most likely never satisfy those most horrified by his Middle East policies, but if he doesn’t do more to try, he’s in danger of losing Michigan in November, which would almost certainly cost him the election. The state has the country’s largest percentage of Arab American voters, and within that community — as well as among many non-Arab Muslims, young people and progressives — there’s a deep sense of betrayal and fury at Biden
Surprise surprise, there's a mayoral election on the way so the bs accusations of Islamism start getting thrown by the Conservatives. Shame they didn't bother putting up a non loon candidate. I'm not exactly Kahn's biggest fan, but will hold my nose this time to stick it to the tories.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
Chief Exec of Havering council is £178k-185k for comparison.
Why would we pay the chief executive of a small London Borough more than we do our Prime Minister?
No wonder we end up with such a bunch of useless shitheads.
The one that looks off is the PM's salary, which looks low for what it is. Though more people want to be PM than want to be chief executive of Havering.
But this goes back to the pay = merit fallacy.
In terms of the stuff of politics, exercising power, thwarting enemies, running a place, it's a bit rubbish.
NEW: Understand that Sajid Javid absolutely furious over Anderson remarks: anti-Muslim hate is just as unacceptable as anti-semitism.
No 10 under huge pressure to act. Am told he’s demanding either Anderson issue a sincere apology or have the whip removed. Watch this space
My guess is 'neither'...
From the raw politics aspect Anderson's remarks were idiotic. The anti-Semitic nutters in Labour were just starting to be seen as a serious chink in Sir Keir's armour. Anderson has now completely neutralized all that.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h This is basically the mirror image of Rochdale and Azhar Ali for Rishi Sunak. He can’t just sit there and pretend it will go away. It won’t. And if he doesn’t recognise it won’t, it becomes about him and his political judgment.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Sadiq does okay at the Mr London thing, it's just that his style is much more everyman than showman.
Yes, he's bland - but he gets about as much attention from local media as his predecessors did. Hasn't been great for infrastructure projects, but that's due in roughly equal parts to a mixture of central govt opposition, Covid fallout, and the fares freeze in his first term - he can only be blamed for the last of these. I suspect he's more beloved by those who tend to travel by bus rather than tube.
We don't do term limits in the UK, but both Ken and Boris had established the two term pattern (though not by choice on Ken's part!) - I do think it's a pity that Sadiq hasn't followed suit.
Labour don't really have an obvious alternative right now, apart from maybe Len Duvall - they really ought to start building the profile of others who might be able to step up next time round. Perhaps Sem Moema?
Labour need to be a little careful with the Anderson row.
I seems to be to be at least possible, given the track record around Ashfield in recent years, that Anderson losing the whip and running as an Independent in GE will cost Lab winning back the seat.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h This is basically the mirror image of Rochdale and Azhar Ali for Rishi Sunak. He can’t just sit there and pretend it will go away. It won’t. And if he doesn’t recognise it won’t, it becomes about him and his political judgment.
The Hodge is right for once. Rishi must act, otherwise the Rochdale fiasco - hitherto a grisly embarrassment for Labour - will be turning Sir Keir into a political giant.
NEW: London Mayor Sadiq Khan responds to Lee Anderson
"Racism is racism. I'm unclear why Rishi Sunak and members of his cabinet aren't condemning this...the message it sends is, Muslims are fair game when it comes to racism."
Had a questionnaire on crime and policing delivered today (SW London marginal) , sheepish looking black guy, handed it over and mumbled something about returning it by post before making an exit.
Photos of local councillors, blue and green text but had to look at the small print for any mention of the Conservative Party.
Reading the comments, I'm trying to work out whether two views are reconcilable:
1. London is the greatest city on earth, a real powerhouse, and its recovery from the Covid pandemic has been remarkable. It's buzzing!
2. Ever since Sadiq Khan was elected as Mayor nearly 8 years ago, our great capital has been in terminal decline thanks to that useless, do-nothing, boring, bland, terrorist-sympathising Mayor.
Surprise surprise, there's a mayoral election on the way so the bs accusations of Islamism start getting thrown by the Conservatives. Shame they didn't bother putting up a non loon candidate. I'm not exactly Kahn's biggest fan, but will hold my nose this time to stick it to the tories.
I've never voted Labour in my life, but will be voting for Sadiq this time round. It would be crazy to do otherwise, given the new voting system that was imposed out of the blue by the Tories.
Biden will most likely never satisfy those most horrified by his Middle East policies, but if he doesn’t do more to try, he’s in danger of losing Michigan in November, which would almost certainly cost him the election. The state has the country’s largest percentage of Arab American voters, and within that community — as well as among many non-Arab Muslims, young people and progressives — there’s a deep sense of betrayal and fury at Biden
Reading the comments, I'm trying to work out whether two views are reconcilable:
1. London is the greatest city on earth, a real powerhouse, and its recovery from the Covid pandemic has been remarkable. It's buzzing!
2. Ever since Sadiq Khan was elected as Mayor nearly 8 years ago, our great capital has been in terminal decline thanks to that useless, do-nothing, boring, bland, terrorist-sympathising Mayor.
Also note he is completely responsible for every stabbing that occurs, but has had no involvement whatsoever in the success of public transport schemes.
Biden will most likely never satisfy those most horrified by his Middle East policies, but if he doesn’t do more to try, he’s in danger of losing Michigan in November, which would almost certainly cost him the election. The state has the country’s largest percentage of Arab American voters, and within that community — as well as among many non-Arab Muslims, young people and progressives — there’s a deep sense of betrayal and fury at Biden
Reading the comments, I'm trying to work out whether two views are reconcilable:
1. London is the greatest city on earth, a real powerhouse, and its recovery from the Covid pandemic has been remarkable. It's buzzing!
2. Ever since Sadiq Khan was elected as Mayor nearly 8 years ago, our great capital has been in terminal decline thanks to that useless, do-nothing, boring, bland, terrorist-sympathising Mayor.
Also note he is completely responsible for every stabbing that occurs, but has had no involvement whatsoever in the success of public transport schemes.
If Lee Anderson had been a Labour MP this story would have led all the radio and TV news programmes, as well as all the front pages, and he would already have lost the Labour whip. The double standards are astounding - and entirely predictable.
Absolutely. I don’t know if it’s double standards or simply that it’s a dog bites man story. This is what the Tory party stands for now.
His interview certainly fails the edit:replace x with the word “Jew” test.
I've only encountered the story by logging in to PB. I don't know why the Tories keep trying the 'Khan is an islamic extremist' implication, people just don't buy it and it's one reason Goldsmith failed the first time, it's just not going to work.
It does work with 10%, maybe 15% or so, and perhaps makes turnout slightly higher and Tory affliliation stronger amongst that group. On the flip side it probably solidifies another 15-20% of us boring centrist swing voters away from the Tories.
Electoral tactics wise it is pointless at best, self defeating in general.
My father (who usually votes Tory) voted for Khan at the last election because of the Goldsmith anti-Muslim attacks
Why did Sadiq Khan break ranks with Keir Starmer to demand a ceasefire all the way back in October? Foreign policy isn't devolved, for obvious reasons.
If Lee Anderson had been a Labour MP this story would have led all the radio and TV news programmes, as well as all the front pages, and he would already have lost the Labour whip. The double standards are astounding - and entirely predictable.
Absolutely. I don’t know if it’s double standards or simply that it’s a dog bites man story. This is what the Tory party stands for now.
His interview certainly fails the edit:replace x with the word “Jew” test.
I've only encountered the story by logging in to PB. I don't know why the Tories keep trying the 'Khan is an islamic extremist' implication, people just don't buy it and it's one reason Goldsmith failed the first time, it's just not going to work.
It does work with 10%, maybe 15% or so, and perhaps makes turnout slightly higher and Tory affliliation stronger amongst that group. On the flip side it probably solidifies another 15-20% of us boring centrist swing voters away from the Tories.
Electoral tactics wise it is pointless at best, self defeating in general.
My father (who usually votes Tory) voted for Khan at the last election because of the Goldsmith anti-Muslim attacks
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
Well, I think you have identified Khan's issue. Mayor of London is as good as it is going to get, for him. The job has exposed him as dull and uninspiring, even duller than Starmer, and also he DOES have this troubling backstory, which would become much more problematic if he ever aimed higher - however his decidedly middling talents mean he is not going higher anyway. He's not senior minister material, let alone PM calibre
So he might as well stay as mayor. Nice job, lots of money, status and flunkeys, and Labour are so far ahead in the capital he will cruise to victory again - whyever not?
He must be annoying other possible Labour candidates tho. I imagine quite a few bright London Labourites fancy their chances at being mayor, but Khan is bed-blocking them
Why the F didn't HMG put term limits in the original mayoral legislation? DUH
I know it’s Neon Fascist Imperialism to suggest it, but maybe someone could try being a better candidate than Khan?
I entirely agree
Khan is beatable. That Tory came close last time despite being mediocre
It needs someone with chutzpah and charisma, befitting a great world city. I have no idea why the Tories or LDs are incapable of putting up a decent candidate to give Khan a test. I mean, Susan Hall? Really????
It's not like Mayor of London is a tough gig, either. Boris and Ken did it, successfully, which says quite a lot
I still think the Tories need a Boris-esque figure to win in London. A bit maverick and atypical, someone comfortable with being loose with party policy, with a bit of flash. Labour can manage with a duller candidate, but (admittedly speaking as an outsider) I feel like the Tories cannot dull or scare their way into a win in London.
There are two prerequisites for being Mayor of London, and for the Tories you can add a third.
1.) Some form of local connection to the capital and its politics 2.) A high enough profile as a politician or in media to be heard.
The third if you are a Tory is to be more liberal and dissenting from the national party. Not that you need to be 'woke'. You can still run on traditional Tory messages like law and order- just less openly hostile and antagonistic to people who like their city and it being a melting pot and metropolitan.
Its big problems since 2016 - when it last ran a candidate with a serious chance of victory before the campaign - have been that the national message has shifted so far away from that a candidate starts at a huge disadvantage, and it's been hollowed out as a political force in lots of the capital. Secondly, lots of the kind of people who might be able to make Conservatism a bigger tent proposition than the right's bloviations, have been purged or marginalised.
So you've lost a large part of your talent pool, and made it deeply unattractive for those that remain to decide to run.
Hence you end up with those like Hall and Bailey - oddballs for whom this is the big chance - rather than a big hitter and well tailored to running in London.
A head honcho at OpenAI, Daniel Kokotajlo, has gone on record predicting AGI "any year now", presumably in the next 3 or4, then? He should know
More ominously, he predicts ASI will follow, within a year of AGI
ASI is Artificial Super Intelligence, AI so smart we might mot be able to comprehend why it does stuff, we will only know that it does amazing things. ASI will be like a god, it will surely transform human society completely, and possibly destroy it, if you're a technopessimist
And this is likely in the next 5 years, allegedly
I wonder if previous or future generations will envy us, or pity us?
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
The flip side to that notion can be applied to the Labour Party who conflate Benjamin Netanyahu's policy in Gaza with Luciana Berger.
I believe any terms of reference for "disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea such as Islam" (or indeed Judaism or Christianity- and the various flavours thereof) should be carefully considered. Anyway, why would you want to "disrespect" anyone's faith? You may have already tied yourself up in knots there Morris.
People should be allowed to have their own opinion , but they should not be allowed to push it on other people or threaten them in the streets , stop people going about their business or commit real crimes about it. In this country it seems you can abuse anything except Islam and Islamists who can do and say what they like with impunity. Police standby scared to say boo and they are allowed to blockade any street, business, school etc they like. Unless that is just a media apparition it does seem a bit off, best not to be a Jew or Christian in Britain any longer. People can interpret that how they like.
Morning Malc,
Sounds like you're at odds with the SNP over this one?
Hello GIN, I certainly am, they will not be getting my vote till the stables are mucked out of all the shit.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
Chief Exec of Havering council is £178k-185k for comparison.
Why would we pay the chief executive of a small London Borough more than we do our Prime Minister?
No wonder we end up with such a bunch of useless shitheads.
The one that looks off is the PM's salary, which looks low for what it is. Though more people want to be PM than want to be chief executive of Havering.
But this goes back to the pay = merit fallacy.
In terms of the stuff of politics, exercising power, thwarting enemies, running a place, it's a bit rubbish.
Isn't it the case that the PM would be on about £450k in today's money if the salary had kept pace with earnings?
We've had a series of comfortably-off PMs self-effacingly freezing their own pay in order to screw things up for their successor. We all saw how badly Boris was affected, even if we didn't all have much sympathy for him!
The Mayor of London is directly elected by more people than any other position in UK politics, and will has as much clout as anyone other than the PM and the FM(/DFM)s of Scotland/Wales/NI. The FM of Scotland is on £165k, so £152k for Sadiq feels about right...
NEW: Labour Chair @AnnelieseDodds has now written to Tory Party Chair to demand “serious, concrete action” from the Conservatives following what Labour call “racist and Islamophobic” comments by Lee Anderson about Sadiq Khan.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
The flip side to that notion can be applied to the Labour Party who conflate Benjamin Netanyahu's policy in Gaza with Luciana Berger.
I believe any terms of reference for "disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea such as Islam" (or indeed Judaism or Christianity- and the various flavours thereof) should be carefully considered. Anyway, why would you want to "disrespect" anyone's faith? You may have already tied yourself up in knots there Morris.
People should be allowed to have their own opinion , but they should not be allowed to push it on other people or threaten them in the streets , stop people going about their business or commit real crimes about it. In this country it seems you can abuse anything except Islam and Islamists who can do and say what they like with impunity. Police standby scared to say boo and they are allowed to blockade any street, business, school etc they like. Unless that is just a media apparition it does seem a bit off, best not to be a Jew or Christian in Britain any longer. People can interpret that how they like.
Morning Malc,
Sounds like you're at odds with the SNP over this one?
Hello GIN, I certainly am, they will not be getting my vote till the stables are mucked out of all the shit.
Kilmarnock and Loudon going blue with your vote Malcolm?
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
Nearly as much as Useless gets for F***ing over Scotland.
Why did Sadiq Khan break ranks with Keir Starmer to demand a ceasefire all the way back in October? Foreign policy isn't devolved, for obvious reasons.
If being Islamaphobic and racist was a sackable offence we'd lose the leader of the opposition. if we carried it on to PB.Com we'd lose some of our most prominent posters.
It struck me yesterday that denying Ms Begum the right to return because she chose to join a crackpot army on an immoral mission in a foreign land sounded quite wise if we could legally get away with it.
But what about those British adventurers who have joined the IDF? On their return do they lose their citizenship and if not why not? Suppose Israel are found guilty of genocide. Will that tip the balance?
We live in a very partial country at the moment and it's one of the reasons so many are so pissed off with the way things are.
Equating a terrorist organisation with the organised army of an independent state.
Have you got anything apart from guilt by association? Any islamist rhetoric from Khan himself?
I mean what do you want? He appears to be a muslim politician who is secular, democratic, believes in human rights, has distanced himself from people he once shared stages with. You should be celebrating him. But he's never going to pass the Leon purity test. What are muslims to make of this?
Would you make the same points about someone with past associations with neo-nazis?
If they themselves condemn neo-nazis, haven't said anything neo-nazi themselves, and have distanced themselves from people they once shared stages with, then yes the same points would be equally valid, of course.
Why do you ask? Do you have someone in mind?
Yes, you often hear this rhetoric of forgiveness from the Left
"Look, OK, this Tory mayoral candidate Herman Berlin has defended neo-Nazis in court. Including murderers. And yes OK his onetime brother in law is an actual Nazi. And yes OK in 2003 he shared a platform with multiple neo Nazis. And yes OK he did that again in 2004. Twice. And yes alright in 2005 he shared a platform five times with known neo-Nazis. And sure, alright, he did that again - attend rallies and speak alongside neo Nazis - in 2006, and 2007. And yes OK Mr Berlin also wrote to the government to say neoNazi Nick Griffin was actully a fine person who has been traduced and they should stop persecuting him. And yes OK Mister Berlin voluntarily became the legal representative for neoNazi group Britain First. But all this was ages ago and now he says he's sorry so it's totally fine"
That's a typical speech you commonly hear
OK.
Name three of these alleged Herman Berlins.
Not the lefty defences- but the incidents where the allegations were made.
I've already given one. Paul Marshall the owner of GB News
He has been accused by the Left (in the form of Hope not Hate) of using an anoymous Twitter account to retweet some stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric (but nothing illegal, as far as I can see)
They couldn't even find original tweets, just retweets. That's it. And on this basis (infinitely flimsier than all the years of stuff I've presented re Khan) they say he is not fit to own British media, he should be hounded out of public life, etc etc
"Sir Paul Marshall, GB News co-owner and would-be Telegraph owner, has been ‘liking’ and spreading some pretty vile things on @x This casts a different light on his desire to be a mini-Murdoch. My column."
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As I have said, I haven't referenced Anderson once
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
Not really sure why someone would want ot be mayor more than twice to be honest. It's not as powerful a position as most American mayors I expect, and whilst its high profile it's the end of the road career wise unless you can parlay it into a rejuvenated parliamentary career, and after 12 years that would be trickier.
The relative lack of power (you've got transport, a degree of planning, police though that's shared with the Home Secretary... that's about it, isn't it?) means it's not a great job.
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
Not a great job??
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
Really some high profile non-politician should go for it, much better than slogging it out on backbenches and having to deal with annoying constituents.
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
Nearly as much as Useless gets for F***ing over Scotland.
I don't pay much attention to Scottish politics and the first time I heard Yousaf was when he was on the Campbell and Stewart podcast 'Leading'. He was really impressive on that.
If being Islamaphobic and racist was a sackable offence we'd lose the leader of the opposition. if we carried it on to PB.Com we'd lose some of our most prominent posters.
It struck me yesterday that denying Ms Begum the right to return because she chose to join a crackpot army on an immoral mission in a foreign land sounded quite wise if we could legally get away with it.
But what about those British adventurers who have joined the IDF? On their return do they lose their citizenship and if not why not? Suppose Israel are found guilty of genocide. Will that tip the balance?
We live in a very partial country at the moment and it's one of the reasons so many are so pissed off with the way things are.
Equating a terrorist organisation with the organised army of an independent state.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h This is basically the mirror image of Rochdale and Azhar Ali for Rishi Sunak. He can’t just sit there and pretend it will go away. It won’t. And if he doesn’t recognise it won’t, it becomes about him and his political judgment.
The Hodge is right for once. Rishi must act, otherwise the Rochdale fiasco - hitherto a grisly embarrassment for Labour - will be turning Sir Keir into a political giant.
Gibberish. It’s absolutely nothing like Ali in Rochdale.
What Lee has said is 100% pushing conspiracy theory about a Mayor under spell of Islamic fundamentalism just like Theoden was under spell of Saruman. And what Lee said is 100% Islamophobia.
Now find and quote anything at all Ali has ever said that is antisemitic, not merely hostile to Netanyahu’s politics and extremist government.
The guilt of committing a crime was loaded on Labour councillors present with Ali for staying silent. What Lee and Braverman have said this week is as much pushing unfounded conspiracy theory as Ali, yet the media treating this very differently, there is barely a fraction of the same pressure being put on Sunak as Starmer got.
And the reason for this is 100% polling. If Sunak was far ahead and Starmer behind, the media pressure would be intense on Sunak today about the Tory Party being riddled with Islamophobia, whilst Ali would still be Labour candidate
Why did Sadiq Khan break ranks with Keir Starmer to demand a ceasefire all the way back in October? Foreign policy isn't devolved, for obvious reasons.
Er... because he has his own view on the matter?
Why do you think Khan did that?
Apart from anything else it was smart politics too - and I say that as someone who disagrees with one-sided ceasefire calls. Labour MPs who've stuck to the party's national line have faced concerted and sometimes very unpleasant campaigns against them.
They can likely ignore them given the national picture and fate of single issue campaigns in a GE. Khan, however, could find himself in trouble if he faced a significant 'don't vote Sadiq over Gaza' campaign. So of course it made sense to break ranks given mayors have always had leeway from the national parties and nip that in the bud.
If being Islamaphobic and racist was a sackable offence we'd lose the leader of the opposition. if we carried it on to PB.Com we'd lose some of our most prominent posters.
It struck me yesterday that denying Ms Begum the right to return because she chose to join a crackpot army on an immoral mission in a foreign land sounded quite wise if we could legally get away with it.
But what about those British adventurers who have joined the IDF? On their return do they lose their citizenship and if not why not? Suppose Israel are found guilty of genocide. Will that tip the balance?
We live in a very partial country at the moment and it's one of the reasons so many are so pissed off with the way things are.
Equating a terrorist organisation with the organised army of an independent state.
Charming
Shocking stuff, next they’ll be slandering the organised army of independent Russia!
There are benefits to this kind of adoption. For example, women who want children, but are unable to have them for whatever reason, can adopt a child at the very beginning of the child's life.
(For the record: I have long thought that Bill Clinton got it right for practical reasons when he said that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare".
But I admire people like the late Nat Hentoff, who opposed abortion for the same reason he opposed capital punishment (though I disagree with him on both). A Jewish atheist, he had come to the same position that many Catholic nuns have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff )
A reminder of what Rishi Sunak said two weeks ago re Keir Starmer and Azhar Ali …
“He was saying the most vile awful conspiracy theories” but the leader “stood by him and sent cabinet ministers to support him" and only changed his mind "under enormous media pressure"
Eleven companies dubbed the “Granolas” propelled European stocks to a record high this week, with their outsized contribution echoing the better-known “Magnificent Seven” in the US.
The crunchy acronym was coined by Goldman Sachs for pharma companies GSK and Roche, Dutch chip company ASML, Switzerland’s Nestlé and Novartis, Danish drugmaker Novo Nordisk, France’s L’Oréal and LVMH, the UK’s AstraZeneca, German software company SAP and French healthcare firm Sanofi.
On the Rochdale by election, if your betting, I suspect Ali is home and hosed in this one.
My working out. Many voters will vote on local UK politics, like cost of living, state of the NHS etc, not on the conflict across the Mediterranean Sea that’s barely in our news now anyway. If the war over there is a motivator factor, voters don’t have to turn to George if they got Ali, now suspended from labour for being like minded with themselves.
However, Starmer has two huge issues from Rochdale that can still very much hurt him. Firstly I see Ali such a shoe in to become Rochdale MP, I’m not even convinced he would lose to a Labour candidate at the General Election. Secondly, what was Ali actually suspended for that so many Labour MP’s and Candidates and councillors havn’t already said much the same? Starmer does not have power to throw someone out a party without winning appeal, and the founder of Islam against Anti Semitism hasn’t said nearly enough for the suspension to stick.
Comments
Much more recent and "didn't write it, just passed it on" isn't much of a defence.
Full marks for the chaff you're throwing, but Anderson dropped a bollock big time yesterday.
As with everything else in aviation, they do this because there were multiple incidents of planes taking off with pitot tubes covered and landing gear pins inserted!
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/aeroexec13-18382.php
Black Box is a French film about an audio analyst working for an accident investigation team, who starts to realise his initial conclusion about the cause of a crash might have been incorrect.
It is a really, really good taut thriller
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/black_box_2021
It's available on iPlayer:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001sftz/black-box
FWIW I will repeat my personal opinion given below. Do I think Khan is an Islamist? No, my firm guess is that he isn't. But he does have a long history of seriously dodgy associations and I can easily see why you could conclude differently. And I really do despise the constant attempt to shut down these debates with the word "Islamophobia": this technique is as fraudulent as it is tiresome
My main objection to Khan is much more pragmatic: he is a rubbish mayor. Boring, inert and clueless. A great city like London needs and deserves better - a dash of charisma and pzazz. Is that too much to ask?
Also there should be term limits on the mayoralty. Two is enough for anyone
They can take action to remove the risks, but until thent he gaslighting won't work.
IME he has small bollocks and a big BS generator.
So he might as well stay as mayor. Nice job, lots of money, status and flunkeys, and Labour are so far ahead in the capital he will cruise to victory again - whyever not?
He must be annoying other possible Labour candidates tho. I imagine quite a few bright London Labourites fancy their chances at being mayor, but Khan is bed-blocking them
Why the F didn't HMG put term limits in the original mayoral legislation? DUH
"a tortoise whose body is made of glass, with cracks that have been repaired using kintsugi, is walking on a black sand beach at sunset"
Video generated by Sora"
https://x.com/model_mechanic/status/1761198301482021084?s=20
Look at the detail, the prismatic light, the refraction, it's magical. Sora is going to create magnificent movies, very soon, visually way beyond anything we have ever seen
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579
In her case, I think she's just putting all her earnings through her UK ltd company, and filling in her tax return as if she'd been living and working in the UK the whole time. She might even be paying more tax than she should. But what would there be to stop her from not declaring any of it?
As things stand the flimsy justification for switching to FPTP does not seem like it will work.
Khan is beatable. That Tory came close last time despite being mediocre
It needs someone with chutzpah and charisma, befitting a great world city. I have no idea why the Tories or LDs are incapable of putting up a decent candidate to give Khan a test. I mean, Susan Hall? Really????
It's not like Mayor of London is a tough gig, either. Boris and Ken did it, successfully, which says quite a lot
Ken (who did both the showman and the knitting pretty well) wanted the job because it was personal- "as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted" and all that.
Boris (who did the showman but rather lost control of the knitting) wanted it because he was damaged goods and needed to work his passage back to the top.
Sadiq (who is mostly fine in a "you know the council is doing OK when you forget they exist" way, but no, doesn't do the Mr London thing)... harder to tell. Was it his way of escaping the Corbyn disaster at Westminster? But yes, his agenda has mostly played out. We could do with someone who has new things they want to do.
Really not obvious who that someone is, from any party or none.
NEW: Understand that Sajid Javid absolutely furious over Anderson remarks: anti-Muslim hate is just as unacceptable as anti-semitism.
No 10 under huge pressure to act. Am told he’s demanding either Anderson issue a sincere apology or have the whip removed. Watch this space
My guess is 'neither'...
https://youtu.be/MSHaCzb3yYk
Oh..
Electoral tactics wise it is pointless at best, self defeating in general.
Think about that.
Even if you don’t spend more than 90 days in the UK, HMRC can still find you to be ‘domiciled’ there, and liable for tax on worldwide income. Having your wife and kids live in the UK is usually the giveaway for that one.
The Mayor of London earns £152,000 a year. That's not far behind the PM - £167k, and well ahead of a Cabinet Minister
Plus there are innumerable perks, how often does he have to pay for his own dinner? I doubt he flies anything but First or Business. He will get invited all over the planet, he is the mayor of one of THE greatest cities in the world. And when he retires there is, no doubt, a big fat pension. So that £150k probably feels more like £250k, or £300k
And you don't have to do much. A few planning approvals. Faff about with buses. Pretend to tackle crime. That's it
It's a splendid job by the standards of 99.9999% of people
That's an absurd salary for the role though.
After 12 years as mayor he will have earned £1.8 MILLION
NEW: Strong stuff from Sadiq Khan in response to Lee Anderson's comments. Says there "shouldn't be a hierarchy of racism" and says his comments were Islamophobic and racist.
He says Sunak and the cabinet are condoning by not condemning the comments.
If you're a bit lazy but sitll fancy a high profile political job (without too much scrutiny or grief), Mayor of London might be the best job in the UK
No wonder we end up with such a bunch of useless shitheads.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/opinion/gaza-biden-michigan.html
The guy has round-the-clock phalanx of protection officers for him and his family.
But this goes back to the pay = merit fallacy.
In terms of the stuff of politics, exercising power, thwarting enemies, running a place, it's a bit rubbish.
Maybe he still is...
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
This is basically the mirror image of Rochdale and Azhar Ali for Rishi Sunak. He can’t just sit there and pretend it will go away. It won’t. And if he doesn’t recognise it won’t, it becomes about him and his political judgment.
Yes, he's bland - but he gets about as much attention from local media as his predecessors did. Hasn't been great for infrastructure projects, but that's due in roughly equal parts to a mixture of central govt opposition, Covid fallout, and the fares freeze in his first term - he can only be blamed for the last of these. I suspect he's more beloved by those who tend to travel by bus rather than tube.
We don't do term limits in the UK, but both Ken and Boris had established the two term pattern (though not by choice on Ken's part!) - I do think it's a pity that Sadiq hasn't followed suit.
Labour don't really have an obvious alternative right now, apart from maybe Len Duvall - they really ought to start building the profile of others who might be able to step up next time round. Perhaps Sem Moema?
I seems to be to be at least possible, given the track record around Ashfield in recent years, that Anderson losing the whip and running as an Independent in GE will cost Lab winning back the seat.
NEW: London Mayor Sadiq Khan responds to Lee Anderson
"Racism is racism. I'm unclear why Rishi Sunak and members of his cabinet aren't condemning this...the message it sends is, Muslims are fair game when it comes to racism."
Photos of local councillors, blue and green text but had to look at the small print for any mention of the Conservative Party.
1. London is the greatest city on earth, a real powerhouse, and its recovery from the Covid pandemic has been remarkable. It's buzzing!
2. Ever since Sadiq Khan was elected as Mayor nearly 8 years ago, our great capital has been in terminal decline thanks to that useless, do-nothing, boring, bland, terrorist-sympathising Mayor.
I mean, you would never have seen that in a Communist state like the USSR under Sta...ah.
1.) Some form of local connection to the capital and its politics
2.) A high enough profile as a politician or in media to be heard.
The third if you are a Tory is to be more liberal and dissenting from the national party. Not that you need to be 'woke'. You can still run on traditional Tory messages like law and order- just less openly hostile and antagonistic to people who like their city and it being a melting pot and metropolitan.
Its big problems since 2016 - when it last ran a candidate with a serious chance of victory before the campaign - have been that the national message has shifted so far away from that a candidate starts at a huge disadvantage, and it's been hollowed out as a political force in lots of the capital. Secondly, lots of the kind of people who might be able to make Conservatism a bigger tent proposition than the right's bloviations, have been purged or marginalised.
So you've lost a large part of your talent pool, and made it deeply unattractive for those that remain to decide to run.
Hence you end up with those like Hall and Bailey - oddballs for whom this is the big chance - rather than a big hitter and well tailored to running in London.
More ominously, he predicts ASI will follow, within a year of AGI
ASI is Artificial Super Intelligence, AI so smart we might mot be able to comprehend why it does stuff, we will only know that it does amazing things. ASI will be like a god, it will surely transform human society completely, and possibly destroy it, if you're a technopessimist
And this is likely in the next 5 years, allegedly
I wonder if previous or future generations will envy us, or pity us?
We've had a series of comfortably-off PMs self-effacingly freezing their own pay in order to screw things up for their successor. We all saw how badly Boris was affected, even if we didn't all have much sympathy for him!
The Mayor of London is directly elected by more people than any other position in UK politics, and will has as much clout as anyone other than the PM and the FM(/DFM)s of Scotland/Wales/NI. The FM of Scotland is on £165k, so £152k for Sadiq feels about right...
NEW: Labour Chair @AnnelieseDodds has now written to Tory Party Chair to demand “serious, concrete action” from the Conservatives following what Labour call “racist and Islamophobic” comments by Lee Anderson about Sadiq Khan.
“Have you been following this really important thing that has happened recently?”
Most men will reply yes…
Why do you think Khan did that?
Equating a terrorist organisation with the organised army of an independent state.
Charming
I answered "aware but not following"
What Lee has said is 100% pushing conspiracy theory about a Mayor under spell of Islamic fundamentalism just like Theoden was under spell of Saruman. And what Lee said is 100% Islamophobia.
Now find and quote anything at all Ali has ever said that is antisemitic, not merely hostile to Netanyahu’s politics and extremist government.
The guilt of committing a crime was loaded on Labour councillors present with Ali for staying silent. What Lee and Braverman have said this week is as much pushing unfounded conspiracy theory as Ali, yet the media treating this very differently, there is barely a fraction of the same pressure being put on Sunak as Starmer got.
And the reason for this is 100% polling. If Sunak was far ahead and Starmer behind, the media pressure would be intense on Sunak today about the Tory Party being riddled with Islamophobia, whilst Ali would still be Labour candidate
They can likely ignore them given the national picture and fate of single issue campaigns in a GE. Khan, however, could find himself in trouble if he faced a significant 'don't vote Sadiq over Gaza' campaign. So of course it made sense to break ranks given mayors have always had leeway from the national parties and nip that in the bud.
Liz Truss perhaps not, she is merely batshit.
Perhaps long Covid is to blame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_children
There are benefits to this kind of adoption. For example, women who want children, but are unable to have them for whatever reason, can adopt a child at the very beginning of the child's life.
(For the record: I have long thought that Bill Clinton got it right for practical reasons when he said that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare".
But I admire people like the late Nat Hentoff, who opposed abortion for the same reason he opposed capital punishment (though I disagree with him on both). A Jewish atheist, he had come to the same position that many Catholic nuns have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff )
Sadiq Khan: "The deafening silence from Rishi Sunak and from the cabinet is them condoning this racism."
A reminder of what Rishi Sunak said two weeks ago re Keir Starmer and Azhar Ali …
“He was saying the most vile awful conspiracy theories” but the leader “stood by him and sent cabinet ministers to support him" and only changed his mind "under enormous media pressure"
Eleven companies dubbed the “Granolas” propelled European stocks to a record high this week, with their outsized contribution echoing the better-known “Magnificent Seven” in the US.
The crunchy acronym was coined by Goldman Sachs for pharma companies GSK and Roche, Dutch chip company ASML, Switzerland’s Nestlé and Novartis, Danish drugmaker Novo Nordisk, France’s L’Oréal and LVMH, the UK’s AstraZeneca, German software company SAP and French healthcare firm Sanofi.
My working out. Many voters will vote on local UK politics, like cost of living, state of the NHS etc, not on the conflict across the Mediterranean Sea that’s barely in our news now anyway. If the war over there is a motivator factor, voters don’t have to turn to George if they got Ali, now suspended from labour for being like minded with themselves.
However, Starmer has two huge issues from Rochdale that can still very much hurt him. Firstly I see Ali such a shoe in to become Rochdale MP, I’m not even convinced he would lose to a Labour candidate at the General Election. Secondly, what was Ali actually suspended for that so many Labour MP’s and Candidates and councillors havn’t already said much the same? Starmer does not have power to throw someone out a party without winning appeal, and the founder of Islam against Anti Semitism hasn’t said nearly enough for the suspension to stick.