The Conservatives are the 1/10 favourites to win the next general election – politicalbetting.com
Next year one of the major elections will be the 45th Canadian federal election which has to be held on or by the 20th of October 2025 and the betting from Ladbrokes shows the expected trend of incumbents getting clobbered senseless.
That would be quite an amazing turnaround. I thought Canada had an in built 'progressive majority'?
If you look at their immigration statistics, it’s as if they speed-ran the last 25 years of the UK’s experience just in the time since Trudeau came to power.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
"Trump’s second coming marks a historic turning point, comparable in its geopolitical consequences with the Soviet collapse: the definitive end of a liberal world order. With regime change in the US, countries that relied on American protection face an unavoidable choice: arm and defend themselves, or else make peace with the rising authoritarian powers. There is no going back."
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
That would be quite an amazing turnaround. I thought Canada had an in built 'progressive majority'?
If you look at their immigration statistics, it’s as if they speed-ran the last 25 years of the UK’s experience just in the time since Trudeau came to power.
The idea that immigrants always vote for progressive parties, demographics is destiny etc, is not a good assumption.
I just woke up from a dream that the Official Monster Raving Loony Party had won the US election with Count Binface as president, and he was nominating a load of weirdos for the cabinet...
That would be quite an amazing turnaround. I thought Canada had an in built 'progressive majority'?
If you look at their immigration statistics, it’s as if they speed-ran the last 25 years of the UK’s experience just in the time since Trudeau came to power.
That is very true. My husband's home town which is an affluent suburb of Toronto is made up of something like 85% non Canadian born citizens. That makes UK numbers look miniscule in comparison. When he was back home recently even his commitedly liberal friends were fed up with immigration. Trudeau is a slippery customer though and has recently pivoted hard to the right with his full pause on immigration and banning TikTok. I wouldn't be surprised if he begins to gain in the polls.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Why am I thinking of the Plebgate meeting - where police officers came out of a meeting and immediately lied about what took place? Then tried to threaten prosecution, when it turned out they had been recorded
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
I took a second take on the headline but it seems odds on according to my eldest and Canadian daughter in law in Vancouver
On domestic politics, it seems Llandudno is going to be on the news today as farmers converge in convoys down the A55 from east and west and intend halting outside the conference centre Starmer where is to address Welsh labour
"Trump’s second coming marks a historic turning point, comparable in its geopolitical consequences with the Soviet collapse: the definitive end of a liberal world order. With regime change in the US, countries that relied on American protection face an unavoidable choice: arm and defend themselves, or else make peace with the rising authoritarian powers. There is no going back."
I think this is a good analysis by John Gray, but I am not persuaded that the situation is as catastrophic as he describes it. The liberal order was incoherant, consumed by contradictions; and in freefall. I think it very unlikely it would survive the next four years. The election of Trump just brings the future forward in a definitive way; the question of adaptation is also bought forward.
I took a second take on the headline but it seems odds on according to my eldest and Canadian daughter in law in Vancouver
On domestic politics, it seems Llandudno is going to be on the news today as farmers converge in convoys down the A55 from east and west and intend halting outside the conference centre Starmer where is to address Welsh labour
So the A55 will be a bit quicker than usual with all these tractor convoys on it?
Albeit a few people pointed out the headline wasn't nearly as funny as the fact that I was giving other people advice on how to not look like an arrogant out of touch elitist.
Can only answer for my cousin Mike in Vancouver, who is obsessed with them.
Mind you, he is an Emeritus Professor of geology and palaeontology at Simon Fraser University, so I suppose that’s understandable.
As noted by RT (?) yesterday, the eponymous Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology at Drumheller reflects the fossil riches of the west. Sadly I have never been.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
I took a second take on the headline but it seems odds on according to my eldest and Canadian daughter in law in Vancouver
On domestic politics, it seems Llandudno is going to be on the news today as farmers converge in convoys down the A55 from east and west and intend halting outside the conference centre Starmer where is to address Welsh labour
So the A55 will be a bit quicker than usual with all these tractor convoys on it?
Could well be, wqithout numpties speeding up and slowing down at random. It's surprising how damping out changes of speed can increase the average speed of traffic.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Since Pearson forgot that she did a racist tweet then forgot she deleted it, I wouldn't put much store by her memory.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Since Pearson forgot that she did a racist tweet then forgot she deleted it, I wouldn't put much store by her memory.
Since the police have been known to forget they were employing rapists and racists, I wouldn’t set much store by them either.
Everyone involved seems to have more memory issues than Nicola Sturgeon.
I just woke up from a dream that the Official Monster Raving Loony Party had won the US election with Count Binface as president, and he was nominating a load of weirdos for the cabinet...
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Since Pearson forgot that she did a racist tweet then forgot she deleted it, I wouldn't put much store by her memory.
Since the police have been known to forget they were employing rapists and racists, I wouldn’t set much store by them either.
They all seem to have more memory issues than Nicola Sturgeon.
Would be novel if they actually tried catching criminals rather than cosying up to nutters.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Since Pearson forgot that she did a racist tweet then forgot she deleted it, I wouldn't put much store by her memory.
Since the police have been known to forget they were employing rapists and racists, I wouldn’t set much store by them either.
They all seem to have more memory issues than Nicola Sturgeon.
Would be novel if they actually tried catching criminals rather than cosying up to nutters.
If anyone wants to know what the actual law on non-crime hate incidents is, Miller v College of Policing in the Court of Appeal has the answers. The police have not been complying with what the Court ruled in that case. And the politicians seem intent on ignoring it too.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Since Pearson forgot that she did a racist tweet then forgot she deleted it, I wouldn't put much store by her memory.
Since the police have been known to forget they were employing rapists and racists, I wouldn’t set much store by them either.
They all seem to have more memory issues than Nicola Sturgeon.
Would be novel if they actually tried catching criminals rather than cosying up to nutters.
They’re not cosying up to Pearson, so that’s one nutter they’ve decided is a step too far.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
That is a fair interpretation, it is pretty marginal. If I was a juror I would struggle with reasonable doubt on that one though, probably also Pearson's.
I took a second take on the headline but it seems odds on according to my eldest and Canadian daughter in law in Vancouver
On domestic politics, it seems Llandudno is going to be on the news today as farmers converge in convoys down the A55 from east and west and intend halting outside the conference centre Starmer where is to address Welsh labour
End up sharing a cell with the Just Stop Oil protestors. Cosy.
Only surprise is that they haven't been arrested already for planning the protest.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
So the police doorstop her on a Sunday morning, ask her about something she posted online more than a year ago, and now accuse her of not having 100% of her facts straight in that doorstop interview?
Reminds me of what the East German Stasi used to do.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Was that invoking racial hatred against the Palestinian people?
The answer to both questions is NO. They are both voicing an aspiration.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
So the police doorstop her on a Sunday morning, ask her about something she posted online more than a year ago, and now accuse her of not having 100% of her facts straight in that doorstop interview?
Reminds me of what the East German Stasi used to do.
Worse than that there is apparently some doubt as to whether she was the Alison Pearson who posted the tweet or whether it was posted by another Alison Pearson. There are about 70 people who have my combination of Christian Name and Surname in the UK, hence I always include my middle name - that reduces the combo to under 5.
Imagine being called Rachel Reeves and being mistaken for a liar who submitted a dishonest CV when applying for a job 15 years ago.
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
A: Trump
Eh ?
Trump was always there or thereabouts in the polling
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
I mean, what's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
Various phrases and statements sound innocuous, but have a history behind them.
In this case the original usage and intent was the elimination of Israel by force and the specific expulsion of all Jews from the area.
Amother is “How can I be Anti-Semitic? I am a Semite” - on the surface, reasonable. Aside from the historical ignorance.
Generally used by mouth breathing racists, of the kind who think that selling the Protocols of The Elders of Zion is a good business.
Or look at the various weasel phrases used by Otzma Yehudit to describe what they want to happen to Palestinians.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
Anyone involved knows it causes offence, regardless of whether that offence is justified or not. They can choose other words like in the region, in the area etc, but want to pick the one that causes significant offence.
Is it criminal, probably not. Is it bad politics for a mainstream party, absolutely.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
I mean, what's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
Various phrases and statements sound innocuous, but have a history behind them.
In this case the original usage and intent was the elimination of Israel by force and the specific expulsion of all Jews from the area.
Amother is “How can I be Anti-Semitic? I am a Semite” - on the surface, reasonable. Aside from the historical ignorance.
Generally used by mouth breathing racists, of the kind who think that selling the Protocols of The Elders of Zion is a good business.
Or look at the various weasel phrases used by Otzma Yehudit to describe what they want to happen to Palestinians.
One of the early uses was in Likuds 1977 manifesto "between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty".......
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
A: Trump
We went into the election with most of the national polls saying that it was very, very close, but Trump had an edge in a number of the swing states.
The result, in terms of EVs was on the high end of the range predicted, for Trump. But the number of votes the other way that would have switched it all back for Harris was tiny.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Was that invoking racial hatred against the Palestinian people?
The answer to both questions is NO. They are both voicing an aspiration.
We're in the age of hyperbole (or hyperbowl as I heard some member of the HoL describe it on the radio this morning), some lairy football fans getting their hair pulled is a pogrom, the sight of the Palestine flag presages a second Holocaust and being asked if there was a convenient time for an interview is the action of the Stasi.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
I mean, what's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
Various phrases and statements sound innocuous, but have a history behind them.
In this case the original usage and intent was the elimination of Israel by force and the specific expulsion of all Jews from the area.
Amother is “How can I be Anti-Semitic? I am a Semite” - on the surface, reasonable. Aside from the historical ignorance.
Generally used by mouth breathing racists, of the kind who think that selling the Protocols of The Elders of Zion is a good business.
Or look at the various weasel phrases used by Otzma Yehudit to describe what they want to happen to Palestinians.
One of the early uses was in Likuds 1977 manifesto "between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty".......
Which was deeply dodgy the other way since it implied annexation of the West Bank
Albeit a few people pointed out the headline wasn't nearly as funny as the fact that I was giving other people advice on how to not look like an arrogant out of touch elitist.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Was that invoking racial hatred against the Palestinian people?
The answer to both questions is NO. They are both voicing an aspiration.
We're in the age of hyperbole (or hyperbowl as I heard some member of the HoL describe it on the radio this morning), some lairy football fans getting their hair pulled is a pogrom, the sight of the Palestine flag presages a second Holocaust and being asked if there was a convenient time for an interview is the action of the Stasi.
Or a statute coming from your democratically elected British government in Westminster "shows that Scotland is just a colony of England" - that kind of hyperbole?
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
A: Trump
We went into the election with most of the national polls saying that it was very, very close, but Trump had an edge in a number of the swing states.
The result, in terms of EVs was on the high end of the range predicted, for Trump. But the number of votes the other way that would have switched it all back for Harris was tiny.
That is indeed all true but... Trump 2.0 appears to be very different from Trump 1.0.
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
A: Trump
Eh ?
Trump was always there or thereabouts in the polling
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
My view is that the law as drafted captures so many different scenarios, it prohibits a lot of speech and discourse. But the public order laws are not objectively enforced, they are enforced with state discretion for the purpose of maintaining 'order'. This is the point I am trying to make with this example. So it seems to be an inherently political tool, which people don't always see - they think instead of it being a law that everyone should just follow, like the law on shoplifting or something. Do the crime do the time etc.
Recently the law appears to have been selectively enforced against the 'far right' protesters. I don't object to this in principle as I can see that the state had to get the riots under control. But I think the prison sentences that followed were severely misjudged, they erode trust in the state amongst part of the population, and will lead to adverse political and even diplomatic consequences for the UK. This is in line with the view of the 'reform' party, I think.
Regarding 'from the river to the sea' a lot would depend on context. I was suprised walking around East London last year that people could freely chant 'from the river to the sea' and 'support the palestinian militias' in the aftermath of October 7th, and this would not fall foul of this law.
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
A: Trump
We went into the election with most of the national polls saying that it was very, very close, but Trump had an edge in a number of the swing states.
The result, in terms of EVs was on the high end of the range predicted, for Trump. But the number of votes the other way that would have switched it all back for Harris was tiny.
That is indeed all true but... Trump 2.0 appears to be very different from Trump 1.0.
But his Tump 2.0ness was hiding in plain sight. Plenty of people were describing that as hyperbole before the election. In fact, pointing out the likely awfulness of a Trump 2.0 government was a sign of how stoopid libz were.
We dinnae ken. Because we dinnae want to ken.
But it increasingly looks like we will ken, if not quite the noo, fairly shortly.
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
A: Trump
We went into the election with most of the national polls saying that it was very, very close, but Trump had an edge in a number of the swing states.
The result, in terms of EVs was on the high end of the range predicted, for Trump. But the number of votes the other way that would have switched it all back for Harris was tiny.
That is indeed all true but... Trump 2.0 appears to be very different from Trump 1.0.
That was what he said he would do. Repeatedly.
The man lies with the frequency of the rotation of the fan on an ergometer rowed by Mathew Pinsent. True.
However.
In this case, he was saying that he would get all those who he thinks thwarted him, out of the way. And replace them with MAGA loyalists.
Given that this is entirely in his own interest (as he sees it), why would he not do this?
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
My view is that the law as drafted captures so many different scenarios, it prohibits a lot of speech and discourse. But the public order laws are not objectively enforced, they are enforced with state discretion for the purpose of maintaining 'order'. This is the point I am trying to make with this example. So it seems to be an inherently political tool, which people don't always see - they think instead of it being a law that everyone should just follow, like the law on shoplifting or something. Do the crime do the time etc.
Recently the law appears to have been selectively enforced against the 'far right' protesters. I don't object to this in principle as I can see that the state had to get the riots under control. But I think the prison sentences that followed were severely misjudged, they erode trust in the state amongst part of the population, and will lead to adverse political and even diplomatic consequences for the UK. This is in line with the view of the 'reform' party, I think.
Regarding 'from the river to the sea' a lot would depend on context. I was suprised walking around East London last year that people could freely chant 'from the river to the sea' and 'support the palestinian militias' in the aftermath of October 7th, and this would not fall foul of this law.
Re your last paragraph, I agree with you regarding 'support the palestinian militias' but not 'from the river to the sea'.
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
A: Trump
We went into the election with most of the national polls saying that it was very, very close, but Trump had an edge in a number of the swing states.
The result, in terms of EVs was on the high end of the range predicted, for Trump. But the number of votes the other way that would have switched it all back for Harris was tiny.
That is indeed all true but... Trump 2.0 appears to be very different from Trump 1.0.
That was what he said he would do. Repeatedly.
The man lies with the frequency of the rotation of the fan on an ergometer rowed by Mathew Pinsent. True.
However.
In this case, he was saying that he would get all those who he thinks thwarted him, out of the way. And replace them with MAGA loyalists.
Given that this is entirely in his own interest (as he sees it), why would he not do this?
He said a lot of things last time he then didn't do.
I still think it's 50/50 whether his revolutionary zeal all fizzles out soon after January 20th tbh.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Was that invoking racial hatred against the Palestinian people?
The answer to both questions is NO. They are both voicing an aspiration.
We're in the age of hyperbole (or hyperbowl as I heard some member of the HoL describe it on the radio this morning), some lairy football fans getting their hair pulled is a pogrom, the sight of the Palestine flag presages a second Holocaust and being asked if there was a convenient time for an interview is the action of the Stasi.
Or a statute coming from your democratically elected British government in Westminster "shows that Scotland is just a colony of England" - that kind of hyperbole?
You’d have to address that the person that indulged in that conceit which certainly wasn’t me.
An example closer to home would be screeching about ‘endless bile’ and then scuttling off when asked to provide proof.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
A: Trump
We went into the election with most of the national polls saying that it was very, very close, but Trump had an edge in a number of the swing states.
The result, in terms of EVs was on the high end of the range predicted, for Trump. But the number of votes the other way that would have switched it all back for Harris was tiny.
That is indeed all true but... Trump 2.0 appears to be very different from Trump 1.0.
But his Tump 2.0ness was hiding in plain sight. Plenty of people were describing that as hyperbole before the election. In fact, pointing out the likely awfulness of a Trump 2.0 government was a sign of how stoopid libz were.
We dinnae ken. Because we dinnae want to ken.
But it increasingly looks like we will ken, if not quite the noo, fairly shortly.
True dat. And that is what I think might alter the Canadian polls and help Trudeau.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
My view is that the law as drafted captures so many different scenarios, it prohibits a lot of speech and discourse. But the public order laws are not objectively enforced, they are enforced with state discretion for the purpose of maintaining 'order'. This is the point I am trying to make with this example. So it seems to be an inherently political tool, which people don't always see - they think instead of it being a law that everyone should just follow, like the law on shoplifting or something. Do the crime do the time etc.
Recently the law appears to have been selectively enforced against the 'far right' protesters. I don't object to this in principle as I can see that the state had to get the riots under control. But I think the prison sentences that followed were severely misjudged, they erode trust in the state amongst part of the population, and will lead to adverse political and even diplomatic consequences for the UK. This is in line with the view of the 'reform' party, I think.
Regarding 'from the river to the sea' a lot would depend on context. I was suprised walking around East London last year that people could freely chant 'from the river to the sea' and 'support the palestinian militias' in the aftermath of October 7th, and this would not fall foul of this law.
One of the most outrageous examples of this Two Tier stuff is the case of the guys who drove around Jewish north London screaming out, with megaphones, "fuck the Jews" "fuck their mothers", "rape their Jewish daughters", while waving Palestinian flags etc - and much else
Is there a clearer example of intimidatory racism and anti-Semitism? It's far worse than "from the river to the sea"
You may presume these guys were banged up. They were not. All charges were dropped. "Not enough evidence". Apart from an actual video
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Unless they wish to arrest you on suspicion of a crime, do you not have a fundamental right to tell the police to piss off if they come to your door, just like you do anyone else?
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
A: Trump
We went into the election with most of the national polls saying that it was very, very close, but Trump had an edge in a number of the swing states.
The result, in terms of EVs was on the high end of the range predicted, for Trump. But the number of votes the other way that would have switched it all back for Harris was tiny.
That is indeed all true but... Trump 2.0 appears to be very different from Trump 1.0.
That was what he said he would do. Repeatedly.
The man lies with the frequency of the rotation of the fan on an ergometer rowed by Mathew Pinsent. True.
However.
In this case, he was saying that he would get all those who he thinks thwarted him, out of the way. And replace them with MAGA loyalists.
Given that this is entirely in his own interest (as he sees it), why would he not do this?
He said a lot of things last time he then didn't do.
I still think it's 50/50 whether his revolutionary zeal all fizzles out soon after January 20th tbh.
True, Trump's zeal might fizzle out, once he has suitably humiliated his foes.
The worry is the people around Trump who would carry on government in his effective absence.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
You are, of course, absolutely correct. That picturesque vision 'From the river to the sea' would be replaced by "What do we want? Ethnic Cleansing. When do we want it? 1948".
Poilievre's Conservatives are likely to win but the latest poll from EKOS has the Conservatives on 38% with Trudeau's Liberals on 28%.
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
Is swingback a thing in Canada? (Can't think why it wouldn't be, but you never know).
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The question is, as it was here, < b>does Trudeau have anything to pull it back with?
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
A: Trump
We went into the election with most of the national polls saying that it was very, very close, but Trump had an edge in a number of the swing states.
The result, in terms of EVs was on the high end of the range predicted, for Trump. But the number of votes the other way that would have switched it all back for Harris was tiny.
That is indeed all true but... Trump 2.0 appears to be very different from Trump 1.0.
That was what he said he would do. Repeatedly.
The man lies with the frequency of the rotation of the fan on an ergometer rowed by Mathew Pinsent. True.
However.
In this case, he was saying that he would get all those who he thinks thwarted him, out of the way. And replace them with MAGA loyalists.
Given that this is entirely in his own interest (as he sees it), why would he not do this?
He said a lot of things last time he then didn't do.
I still think it's 50/50 whether his revolutionary zeal all fizzles out soon after January 20th tbh.
The revolution will fizzle out due to the manifest incompetence of those he is choosing to enact it.
That goes double if he guts the permanent system of government.
What remains to be seen, is how much damage he will do in the process.
Comments
Canadians have been known to totally change their minds in the last 5 days.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
"Trump’s second coming marks a historic turning point, comparable in its geopolitical consequences with the Soviet collapse: the definitive end of a liberal world order. With regime change in the US, countries that relied on American protection face an unavoidable choice: arm and defend themselves, or else make peace with the rising authoritarian powers. There is no going back."
That would mean a hung parliament with the Conservatives largest party rather than the landslide Conservative win after nine years in opposition summer polls suggested
"Opinion polling for the 45th Canadian federal election - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_45th_Canadian_federal_election
Click bait
Nice one
I just woke up from a dream that the Official Monster Raving Loony Party had won the US election with Count Binface as president, and he was nominating a load of weirdos for the cabinet...
Can you cope with two massive elections at the same time?
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/01/can-you-cope-with-two-massive-elections-at-the-same-time/
and
No leads Yes by 28% in the latest independence poll
(It was a poll on Welsh independence.)
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/03/29/no-leads-yes-by-28-in-the-latest-independence-poll/
I took a second take on the headline but it seems odds on according to my eldest and Canadian daughter in law in Vancouver
On domestic politics, it seems Llandudno is going to be on the news today as farmers converge in convoys down the A55 from east and west and intend halting outside the conference centre Starmer where is to address Welsh labour
Mind you, he is an Emeritus Professor of geology and palaeontology at Simon Fraser University, so I suppose that’s understandable.
Rishi Sunak's chopper is going to get him into a lot of trouble
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/08/13/rishi-sunaks-chopper-is-going-to-get-him-into-a-lot-of-trouble/
Albeit a few people pointed out the headline wasn't nearly as funny as the fact that I was giving other people advice on how to not look like an arrogant out of touch elitist.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/world/pakistan-diplomat-gaza-interview-intl
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/18
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
Everyone involved seems to have more memory issues than Nicola Sturgeon.
Count Binface should sue.
The PTI have a history of senior people saying stuff like this.
I’d say that they are a bit of a mirror to Modi in India, in many ways.
British Tories can't currently be any more than 1/5...
Also, depending on how the Trump revolution works out, there could be a big impact on upcoming European elections, e.g. Germany 2025, France 2027...
It's almost as bad as having a party wanting to back to the 1950s calling itself Reform.
Do they wear bad hats, I wonder?
Only surprise is that they haven't been arrested already for planning the protest.
Still looks like Trudeau is on his way out.
Anyone waving their banners is not my friend.
If we've got to go back.
And Good Morning everybody!
The 70s were better. Vespasian was a good emperor.
Ten point lead for the opposition with nearly a year to go... I think here people would be stroking chins and saying 'good for the opposition, but probably not good enough- five point swing and that lead vanishes.'
The answer looks like no.
Edit: a big question is the accuracy of the polls, as here
Reminds me of what the East German Stasi used to do.
The answer to both questions is NO. They are both voicing an aspiration.
Pointing out the history of the PTI is simply providing a truth.
Something which Pearson (and the plover) need to do more often.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
Imagine being called Rachel Reeves and being mistaken for a liar who submitted a dishonest CV when applying for a job 15 years ago.
Trump was always there or thereabouts in the polling
In this case the original usage and intent was the elimination of Israel by force and the specific expulsion of all Jews from the area.
Amother is “How can I be Anti-Semitic? I am a Semite” - on the surface, reasonable. Aside from the historical ignorance.
Generally used by mouth breathing racists, of the kind who think that selling the Protocols of The Elders of Zion is a good business.
Or look at the various weasel phrases used by Otzma Yehudit to describe what they want to happen to Palestinians.
Is it criminal, probably not. Is it bad politics for a mainstream party, absolutely.
The result, in terms of EVs was on the high end of the range predicted, for Trump. But the number of votes the other way that would have switched it all back for Harris was tiny.
Being a bit hard on yourself, @TSE
You're so keen to appear like the ordinary man, you go so far as to live in... Sheffield
Whatever the British elite is, it sure don't live in Sheffield
Recently the law appears to have been selectively enforced against the 'far right' protesters. I don't object to this in principle as I can see that the state had to get the riots under control. But I think the prison sentences that followed were severely misjudged, they erode trust in the state amongst part of the population, and will lead to adverse political and even diplomatic consequences for the UK. This is in line with the view of the 'reform' party, I think.
Regarding 'from the river to the sea' a lot would depend on context. I was suprised walking around East London last year that people could freely chant 'from the river to the sea' and 'support the palestinian militias' in the aftermath of October 7th, and this would not fall foul of this law.
We dinnae ken. Because we dinnae want to ken.
But it increasingly looks like we will ken, if not quite the noo, fairly shortly.
The man lies with the frequency of the rotation of the fan on an ergometer rowed by Mathew Pinsent. True.
However.
In this case, he was saying that he would get all those who he thinks thwarted him, out of the way. And replace them with MAGA loyalists.
Given that this is entirely in his own interest (as he sees it), why would he not do this?
But I do get your point.
I still think it's 50/50 whether his revolutionary zeal all fizzles out soon after January 20th tbh.
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
https://merip.org/2013/06/the-greek-turkish-population-exchange/
An example closer to home would be screeching about ‘endless bile’ and then scuttling off when asked to provide proof.
Is there a clearer example of intimidatory racism and anti-Semitism? It's far worse than "from the river to the sea"
You may presume these guys were banged up. They were not. All charges were dropped. "Not enough evidence". Apart from an actual video
https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/23139381.finchley-road-convoy-antisemitism-charges-dropped/
Unwanted populations just had to leave, so as to ensure the stability of the State. It happened all over Eastern Europe, after 1945.
As the world reverts to older political ethics, I expect we’ll see that again.
The worry is the people around Trump who would carry on government in his effective absence.
That goes double if he guts the permanent system of government.
What remains to be seen, is how much damage he will do in the process.