Even if your model reasonably projects the GE score, the "multiplier" has changed significantly.
In 1979, a 7% win gave Thatcher a 44 seat majority. In 2010, with the same 7% Cameron was 18 seats short. The same could be said for the Tories in 2005.
Sounds like they're doing a favour to Dave if you ask me. I struggle to see why it's so hard to negotiate a new deal with an economy of two and a half trillion dollars, when they were prepared to do them with Colombia (a third of a trillion) and Panama (26 billion).
EDIT: Also, the Obama administration wouldn't be in power come 2017.
It sounds like Congress would be the issue. But in general the bigger the economy the tougher the negotiation. The EU one will be a nightmare to do, but at the end of it there's a big upside for both parties. Right now what does the US lose out on by not having a deal with us?
It loses out on not having as big a market for US exports. I study US politics closely, and I can't see why a trade deal would be hard to get through. Republicans always vote almost unanimously yes on free trade, so that's the House. It's also up to 45 votes in the Senate, so could Obama really not marshall ten or so Democratic votes? Hillary Clinton in her first year in office certainly could.
Utter garbage. The US will do trade deals with the UK in a flash and probably get it doen quicker than they will with the EU.
By the way if we were out of the EU but in EFTA we would now have a free trade deal with Canada and, far more importantly, could be like Iceland and have a FTA with China. Something we are still miles off getting with the EU as they are so archaically protectionist.
EFTA are far more advanced than the EU in negotiating Free trade deals with India and China.
There is a reason why China is interested in Iceland.
Not sure what the US gets out of a trade deal with us.
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Utter garbage. The US will do trade deals with the UK in a flash and probably get it doen quicker than they will with the EU.
Of course the US would - because the UK on their own would be a soft touch. The EU has the muscle to sue American companies for hundreds of millions for anti-competitive behaviour - would a solo UK?
Utter garbage. The US will do trade deals with the UK in a flash and probably get it doen quicker than they will with the EU.
By the way if we were out of the EU but in EFTA we would now have a free trade deal with Canada and, far more importantly, could be like Iceland and have a FTA with China. Something we are still miles off getting with the EU as they are so archaically protectionist.
EFTA are far more advanced than the EU in negotiating Free trade deals with India and China.
There is a reason why China is interested in Iceland.
Not sure what the US gets out of a trade deal with us.
What do you think the US gets out of a free trade deal with Panama? A damn sight less than they get with us.
In reality, we could probably just join NAFTA. I can't see Canada, Mexico or the US blocking us, and it would take very little negotiation because the terms are already there.
I do not dispute your methodology. Seems robust enough to me. However, I would question the "c" in y = mx +c. To me -0.1209 is too high !
I think you have answered this already. Had you only taken 1994 - 1997 period, the steepness of the line would have been reduced and the intersect would have been higher. Then the Tory 2010 performance would have been closer to the line, as would have their 2001 and 2005 performance.
It is the Labour performance which appears to have a far higher variation to the "mean". 1987 and 1992 would then be significantly worse and 1997 far better though less so than the current position in your graph.
But forecasts are there to be proven wrong ! If you went along with the batting average, no batsman would ever score a hundred. But they do.
It makes very little difference. If you use 18% for 1995-97 the R^2 rises to 98.5%. The c falls to 11.96, but the m also falls (significantly), meaning the 'forecast' for Labour in 2015 is in fact fractionally worse...
Great song but not as good as their own Freebird, there' s a YouTube clip of the performance on the Old Grey Whistle Test, amazing stuff.
Love that song. They claim they were just telling Neil Young to mind his own business when he slagged off Southerners in a couple of his songs, and that not all Southerners were racist segregationists just because the governed of Birmingham was.
Sounds like they're doing a favour to Dave if you ask me. I struggle to see why it's so hard to negotiate a new deal with an economy of two and a half trillion dollars, when they were prepared to do them with Colombia (a third of a trillion) and Panama (26 billion).
EDIT: Also, the Obama administration wouldn't be in power come 2017.
It sounds like Congress would be the issue. But in general the bigger the economy the tougher the negotiation. The EU one will be a nightmare to do, but at the end of it there's a big upside for both parties. Right now what does the US lose out on by not having a deal with us?
It loses out on not having as big a market for US exports. I study US politics closely, and I can't see why a trade deal would be hard to get through. Republicans always vote almost unanimously yes on free trade, so that's the House. It's also up to 45 votes in the Senate, so could Obama really not marshall ten or so Democratic votes? Hillary Clinton in her first year in office certainly could.
What US exports are affected? Do they balance the advantages our exporters would gain in the US?
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
Sounds like they're doing a favour to Dave if you ask me. I struggle to see why it's so hard to negotiate a new deal with an economy of two and a half trillion dollars, when they were prepared to do them with Colombia (a third of a trillion) and Panama (26 billion).
EDIT: Also, the Obama administration wouldn't be in power come 2017.
It sounds like Congress would be the issue. But in general the bigger the economy the tougher the negotiation. The EU one will be a nightmare to do, but at the end of it there's a big upside for both parties. Right now what does the US lose out on by not having a deal with us?
It loses out on not having as big a market for US exports. I study US politics closely, and I can't see why a trade deal would be hard to get through. Republicans always vote almost unanimously yes on free trade, so that's the House. It's also up to 45 votes in the Senate, so could Obama really not marshall ten or so Democratic votes? Hillary Clinton in her first year in office certainly could.
What US exports are affected? Do they balance the advantages our exporters would gain in the US?
They don't need to balance. As Adam Smith famously showed, trade is not a zero sum game.
Utter garbage. The US will do trade deals with the UK in a flash and probably get it doen quicker than they will with the EU.
By the way if we were out of the EU but in EFTA we would now have a free trade deal with Canada and, far more importantly, could be like Iceland and have a FTA with China. Something we are still miles off getting with the EU as they are so archaically protectionist.
EFTA are far more advanced than the EU in negotiating Free trade deals with India and China.
There is a reason why China is interested in Iceland.
Not sure what the US gets out of a trade deal with us.
Well last year even without a free trade agreement the US did 54 billion dollars worth of trade with the UK and the UK did a slightly higher amount with the US.
In addition UK investment in the US is worth 440 billion dollars according to the US Congress figures. We are the largest foreign investor in the US.
"With over $441 billion invested in the United States, the United Kingdom is the largest foreign direct investor. Japan is the second-largest foreign direct investor in the U.S. economy with about $289 billion in investments. Following the Japanese are the Dutch ($240 billion), the Germans ($215 billion), the Swiss ($212), the Canadians ($211 billion), the French ($199 billion) and Luxembourg ($190).
We are by far their most important foreign investor
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
Utter garbage. The US will do trade deals with the UK in a flash and probably get it doen quicker than they will with the EU.
By the way if we were out of the EU but in EFTA we would now have a free trade deal with Canada and, far more importantly, could be like Iceland and have a FTA with China. Something we are still miles off getting with the EU as they are so archaically protectionist.
EFTA are far more advanced than the EU in negotiating Free trade deals with India and China.
There is a reason why China is interested in Iceland.
Not sure what the US gets out of a trade deal with us.
What do you think the US gets out of a free trade deal with Panama? A damn sight less than they get with us.
In reality, we could probably just join NAFTA. I can't see Canada, Mexico or the US blocking us, and it would take very little negotiation because the terms are already there.
What the US gets from a deal with Panama or Colombia is the ability to dictate the terms. In both cases, one of the conditions of an agreement was the reframing of laws to better protect American IP. The US offered a take it or leave it proposition. They don't need us to change our IP laws, their companies can already acquire UK companies, they have pretty unfettered access to the City, a beneficial extradition treaty and so on.
Great song but not as good as their own Freebird, there' s a YouTube clip of the performance on the Old Grey Whistle Test, amazing stuff.
Love that song. They claim they were just telling Neil Young to mind his own business when he slagged off Southerners in a couple of his songs, and that not all Southerners were racist segregationists just because the governed of Birmingham was.
jury out...
Neil Young accepted the explanation and they have performed the song on stage together since. Not of course with the original line up due to the sad demise of most of the band in accidents.
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
I was summarising what the Guardian article reported.
Utter garbage. The US will do trade deals with the UK in a flash and probably get it doen quicker than they will with the EU.
By the way if we were out of the EU but in EFTA we would now have a free trade deal with Canada and, far more importantly, could be like Iceland and have a FTA with China. Something we are still miles off getting with the EU as they are so archaically protectionist.
EFTA are far more advanced than the EU in negotiating Free trade deals with India and China.
There is a reason why China is interested in Iceland.
Not sure what the US gets out of a trade deal with us.
What do you think the US gets out of a free trade deal with Panama? A damn sight less than they get with us.
In reality, we could probably just join NAFTA. I can't see Canada, Mexico or the US blocking us, and it would take very little negotiation because the terms are already there.
What the US gets from a deal with Panama or Colombia is the ability to dictate the terms. In both cases, one of the conditions of an agreement was the reframing of laws to better protect American IP. The US offered a take it or leave it proposition. They don't need us to change our IP laws, their companies can already acquire UK companies, they have pretty unfettered access to the City, a beneficial extradition treaty and so on.
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
I was summarising what the Guardian article reported.
Probably a good example of why you shouldn't trust the Guardian then.
Great song but not as good as their own Freebird, there' s a YouTube clip of the performance on the Old Grey Whistle Test, amazing stuff.
Love that song. They claim they were just telling Neil Young to mind his own business when he slagged off Southerners in a couple of his songs, and that not all Southerners were racist segregationists just because the governed of Birmingham was.
jury out...
Neil Young accepted the explanation and they have performed the song on stage together since. Not of course with the original line up due to the sad demise of most of the band in accidents.
Yes saw that in a documentary recently... I wanted to believe it and did instinctively, but thought maybe I was being gullible
Utter garbage. The US will do trade deals with the UK in a flash and probably get it doen quicker than they will with the EU.
By the way if we were out of the EU but in EFTA we would now have a free trade deal with Canada and, far more importantly, could be like Iceland and have a FTA with China. Something we are still miles off getting with the EU as they are so archaically protectionist.
EFTA are far more advanced than the EU in negotiating Free trade deals with India and China.
There is a reason why China is interested in Iceland.
Not sure what the US gets out of a trade deal with us.
Well last year even without a free trade agreement the US did 54 billion dollars worth of trade with the UK and the UK did a slightly higher amount with the US.
In addition UK investment in the US is worth 440 billion dollars according to the US Congress figures. We are the largest foreign investor in the US.
"With over $441 billion invested in the United States, the United Kingdom is the largest foreign direct investor. Japan is the second-largest foreign direct investor in the U.S. economy with about $289 billion in investments. Following the Japanese are the Dutch ($240 billion), the Germans ($215 billion), the Swiss ($212), the Canadians ($211 billion), the French ($199 billion) and Luxembourg ($190).
We are by far their most important foreign investor
So what's the incentive to do a deal? They have what they need from us already - pretty free access to the UK and plenty of UK cash coming in. What are they missing out on here that would force them to concede greater access there?
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
I was summarising what the Guardian article reported.
Your summary was we won't have a trade agreement because that's what the article stated. Nowhere did you say we may not, you inferred we would not and that's it.
Looking at the numbers I would suspect the US would much rather do a Free trade deal with the UK than, for example, Germany.
UK US trade is about 54 billion dollars each way. German US trade is 48 billion US exports to Germany but 108 billion dollars German exports to the US. So the US has a trade deficit with Germany of 59 billion dollars.
France is even less important with only 30 billion dollars worth of US exports going there. And again the US has a nasty trade deficit with France.
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
I was summarising what the Guardian article reported.
Your summary was we won't have a trade agreement because that's what the article stated. Nowhere did you say we may not, you inferred we would not and that's it.
Not one to form your own opinions are you?
It may have escaped your notice, but I am currently exchanging views with a couple of posters on here who are clearly much better informed than you. The one line summary if the Guardian article was the springboard into that. It's true, I do not have a fixed view on this, though I am inclined to an EU withdrawal precisely because I do not believe trade agreements would actually be that big a deal. If I thought otherwise, I might be more in favour of staying in.
Utter garbage. The US will do trade deals with the UK in a flash and probably get it doen quicker than they will with the EU.
By the way if we were out of the EU but in EFTA we would now have a free trade deal with Canada and, far more importantly, could be like Iceland and have a FTA with China. Something we are still miles off getting with the EU as they are so archaically protectionist.
EFTA are far more advanced than the EU in negotiating Free trade deals with India and China.
There is a reason why China is interested in Iceland.
Not sure what the US gets out of a trade deal with us.
Well last year even without a free trade agreement the US did 54 billion dollars worth of trade with the UK and the UK did a slightly higher amount with the US.
In addition UK investment in the US is worth 440 billion dollars according to the US Congress figures. We are the largest foreign investor in the US.
"With over $441 billion invested in the United States, the United Kingdom is the largest foreign direct investor. Japan is the second-largest foreign direct investor in the U.S. economy with about $289 billion in investments. Following the Japanese are the Dutch ($240 billion), the Germans ($215 billion), the Swiss ($212), the Canadians ($211 billion), the French ($199 billion) and Luxembourg ($190).
We are by far their most important foreign investor
So what's the incentive to do a deal? They have what they need from us already - pretty free access to the UK and plenty of UK cash coming in. What are they missing out on here that would force them to concede greater access there?
Well we keep being told that free trade deals are so important. Since we clearly are one of the US most important trade partners - and far more important than anyone else when it comes to direct investment - I would expect that the idea of alienating us would not exactly appeal to all those free trade advocates.
You can't have it both ways. You are using the same argument to try and convince us that we must stay in the EU as the basis for arguing against the importance of trade with the US.
This is a typical Europhile scare story which quickly backfires as it gives us an opportunity to highlight how large our trade and invetstment is with major players outside the EU.
I do not dispute your methodology. Seems robust enough to me. However, I would question the "c" in y = mx +c. To me -0.1209 is too high !
I think you have answered this already. Had you only taken 1994 - 1997 period, the steepness of the line would have been reduced and the intersect would have been higher. Then the Tory 2010 performance would have been closer to the line, as would have their 2001 and 2005 performance.
It is the Labour performance which appears to have a far higher variation to the "mean". 1987 and 1992 would then be significantly worse and 1997 far better though less so than the current position in your graph.
But forecasts are there to be proven wrong ! If you went along with the batting average, no batsman would ever score a hundred. But they do.
It makes very little difference. If you use 18% for 1995-97 the R^2 rises to 98.5%. The c falls to 11.96, but the m also falls (significantly), meaning the 'forecast' for Labour in 2015 is in fact fractionally worse...
I think Labour will lose the PV.
One more point: Are you saying that the average LE Labour lead in 1979 - 1983 was actually negative ? After 1982 maybe. But before that Thatcher was hugely unpopular.
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
I was summarising what the Guardian article reported.
Your summary was we won't have a trade agreement because that's what the article stated. Nowhere did you say we may not, you inferred we would not and that's it.
Not one to form your own opinions are you?
It may have escaped your notice, but I am currently exchanging views with a couple of posters on here who are clearly much better informed than you. The one line summary if the Guardian article was the springboard into that. It's true, I do not have a fixed view on this, though I am inclined to an EU withdrawal precisely because I do not believe trade agreements would actually be that big a deal. If I thought otherwise, I might be more in favour of staying in.
In that case apologies SO. I thought you were trying to push the normal scare stories so my last response was overly harsh.
Looking at the numbers I would suspect the US would much rather do a Free trade deal with the UK than, for example, Germany.
UK US trade is about 54 billion dollars each way. German US trade is 48 billion US exports to Germany but 108 billion dollars German exports to the US. So the US has a trade deficit with Germany of 59 billion dollars.
France is even less important with only 30 billion dollars worth of US exports going there. And again the US has a nasty trade deficit with France.
Isn't that a reason to want to do an EU deal? The Americans would get much greater access to markets they have struggled in, relatively speaking, up to now? They have not experienced the same problems with us so have no real incentive to offer anything to get a deal done.
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
I was summarising what the Guardian article reported.
Your summary was we won't have a trade agreement because that's what the article stated. Nowhere did you say we may not, you inferred we would not and that's it.
Not one to form your own opinions are you?
It may have escaped your notice, but I am currently exchanging views with a couple of posters on here who are clearly much better informed than you. The one line summary if the Guardian article was the springboard into that. It's true, I do not have a fixed view on this, though I am inclined to an EU withdrawal precisely because I do not believe trade agreements would actually be that big a deal. If I thought otherwise, I might be more in favour of staying in.
I've never professed to be the best informed person on here, but I am sick to death of the Europhile scaremongering that never has any basis in reality and is always dismissed by facts.
It seems I may have misread your posts, for which I sincerely apologise.
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
I was summarising what the Guardian article reported.
Your summary was we won't have a trade agreement because that's what the article stated. Nowhere did you say we may not, you inferred we would not and that's it.
Not one to form your own opinions are you?
It may have escaped your notice, but I am currently exchanging views with a couple of posters on here who are clearly much better informed than you. The one line summary if the Guardian article was the springboard into that. It's true, I do not have a fixed view on this, though I am inclined to an EU withdrawal precisely because I do not believe trade agreements would actually be that big a deal. If I thought otherwise, I might be more in favour of staying in.
In that case apologies SO. I thought you were trying to push the normal scare stories so my last response was overly harsh.
I don't believe the scare stories. I just don't believe we need to worry too much about trade deals with the US. What I'd like to see is a reworking of our previous Commonwealth agreements. They make mire sense to me economically, financially and culturally. Our US relationship will take care if itself, as will our European ones to a large extent.
That Rammstein video shows why Fascism is so much COOOOLER than predictable leftwing drivel.
Imagine: you are 18 years old. You therefore want to offend everyone and prove your individuality.
You have a choice
You can either
1. protest against, erm, the Queen and against, uhm, the bedroom tax and have all the 60 year olds on the Guardian nodding in approval, as you trot out the expected opinions held by almost everyone else in your age group
OR
2. you can be openly racist, misogynist and Nazi and have 99.999% of society united in genuine horror against you
Which is more exciting? Which stirs the blood? Which will offend your elders?
Thus the appeal, to some, of Islamism, a new version of Fascism. It shocks the bourgeois, in a way that leftwingery never can.
Except:
The song "Links 2-3-4" (Links being German for "left") was written as a riposte to these claims. According to Kruspe, it means, "'My heart beats on the left, two, three, four'. It's simple. If you want to put us in a political category, we're on the left side, and that's the reason we made the song".
Richard Z. Kruspe - lead guitar, backing vocals (Rammstein)
I love Rammstein, but they are not Nazis (Or on the right..) ;p
Looking at the numbers I would suspect the US would much rather do a Free trade deal with the UK than, for example, Germany.
UK US trade is about 54 billion dollars each way. German US trade is 48 billion US exports to Germany but 108 billion dollars German exports to the US. So the US has a trade deficit with Germany of 59 billion dollars.
France is even less important with only 30 billion dollars worth of US exports going there. And again the US has a nasty trade deficit with France.
Isn't that a reason to want to do an EU deal? The Americans would get much greater access to markets they have struggled in, relatively speaking, up to now? They have not experienced the same problems with us so have no real incentive to offer anything to get a deal done.
Given that we are currently part of the EU and so any trade between ourselves and the US is subject to the same EU protectionism as the rest of Europe, I suspect that the reason for the much larger trade between the UK and US is one of culture and language. That will not change after any separation.
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
I was summarising what the Guardian article reported.
Your summary was we won't have a trade agreement because that's what the article stated. Nowhere did you say we may not, you inferred we would not and that's it.
Not one to form your own opinions are you?
It may have escaped your notice, but I am currently exchanging views with a couple of posters on here who are clearly much better informed than you. The one line summary if the Guardian article was the springboard into that. It's true, I do not have a fixed view on this, though I am inclined to an EU withdrawal precisely because I do not believe trade agreements would actually be that big a deal. If I thought otherwise, I might be more in favour of staying in.
In that case apologies SO. I thought you were trying to push the normal scare stories so my last response was overly harsh.
I don't believe the scare stories. I just don't believe we need to worry too much about trade deals with the US. What I'd like to see is a reworking of our previous Commonwealth agreements. They make mire sense to me economically, financially and culturally. Our US relationship will take care if itself, as will our European ones to a large extent.
Very much agree with you. I am much more interested in trade deals with the BRICS and the Commonwealth than with the EU.
One more point: Are you saying that the average LE Labour lead in 1979 - 1983 was actually negative ? After 1982 maybe. But before that Thatcher was hugely unpopular.
That Rammstein video shows why Fascism is so much COOOOLER than predictable leftwing drivel.
Imagine: you are 18 years old. You therefore want to offend everyone and prove your individuality.
You have a choice
You can either
1. protest against, erm, the Queen and against, uhm, the bedroom tax and have all the 60 year olds on the Guardian nodding in approval, as you trot out the expected opinions held by almost everyone else in your age group
OR
2. you can be openly racist, misogynist and Nazi and have 99.999% of society united in genuine horror against you
Which is more exciting? Which stirs the blood? Which will offend your elders?
Thus the appeal, to some, of Islamism, a new version of Fascism. It shocks the bourgeois, in a way that leftwingery never can.
You're probably right about why Islamism attracts some people - the fact that Dad is shocked is part of the point. But the thing is, most 18 year olds just aren't political at all. They are generally socially liberal but it doesn't naturally occur to most of them to take a political stance at all, any more than they'd take up stamp-collecting (does anyone still do that?) or bowls. How many 18-year-olds do we have on this forum? Or even 25-year-olds?
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
I was summarising what the Guardian article reported.
Your summary was we won't have a trade agreement because that's what the article stated. Nowhere did you say we may not, you inferred we would not and that's it.
Not one to form your own opinions are you?
It may have escaped your notice, but I am currently exchanging views with a couple of posters on here who are clearly much better informed than you. The one line summary if the Guardian article was the springboard into that. It's true, I do not have a fixed view on this, though I am inclined to an EU withdrawal precisely because I do not believe trade agreements would actually be that big a deal. If I thought otherwise, I might be more in favour of staying in.
In that case apologies SO. I thought you were trying to push the normal scare stories so my last response was overly harsh.
I don't believe the scare stories. I just don't believe we need to worry too much about trade deals with the US. What I'd like to see is a reworking of our previous Commonwealth agreements. They make mire sense to me economically, financially and culturally. Our US relationship will take care if itself, as will our European ones to a large extent.
Very much agree with you. I am much more interested in trade deals with the BRICS and the Commonwealth than with the EU.
Absolutely. Far more powerful than aid we give to, say, African countries would be untrammelled access to the UK market, especially as with that would come far greater incentives for UK capital to invest over there. And as for NZ, Australia, Canada etc the current trading (and immigration) relationships we have are absurd given the depth of our social and cultural ties.
One more point: Are you saying that the average LE Labour lead in 1979 - 1983 was actually negative ? After 1982 maybe. But before that Thatcher was hugely unpopular.
Labour NEV leads
1980: +2% 1981: +3% 1982: -11% 1983: -3%
Average: -2.25%
As usual your research is meticulous. One further point: You currently state Labour's average LE lead is 3%. I make it closer to 4%. [ (-1 +6 +4 ) / 3 ]. But this not my point. Your "average" does not take into account the trend. Is the Tory lead of +1 in 2011 really relevant against Labour's lead later. But you give equal weights.
I am having difficulty squaring with the idea that Labour could lose the PV by 8 points. Also, post 1982, it was 3 sided politics. Now definitely 4 sided. Does the Tory lead of 8% include an element that belongs to UKIP ?
That Rammstein video shows why Fascism is so much COOOOLER than predictable leftwing drivel.
Imagine: you are 18 years old. You therefore want to offend everyone and prove your individuality.
You have a choice
You can either
1. protest against, erm, the Queen and against, uhm, the bedroom tax and have all the 60 year olds on the Guardian nodding in approval, as you trot out the expected opinions held by almost everyone else in your age group
OR
2. you can be openly racist, misogynist and Nazi and have 99.999% of society united in genuine horror against you
Which is more exciting? Which stirs the blood? Which will offend your elders?
Thus the appeal, to some, of Islamism, a new version of Fascism. It shocks the bourgeois, in a way that leftwingery never can.
How many 18-year-olds do we have on this forum? Or even 25-year-olds?
We have quite a few teenagers on pb of all political persuasions.
Oh wait you were talking about physical age, not mental age.
That Rammstein video shows why Fascism is so much COOOOLER than predictable leftwing drivel.
Imagine: you are 18 years old. You therefore want to offend everyone and prove your individuality.
You have a choice
You can either
1. protest against, erm, the Queen and against, uhm, the bedroom tax and have all the 60 year olds on the Guardian nodding in approval, as you trot out the expected opinions held by almost everyone else in your age group
OR
2. you can be openly racist, misogynist and Nazi and have 99.999% of society united in genuine horror against you
Which is more exciting? Which stirs the blood? Which will offend your elders?
Thus the appeal, to some, of Islamism, a new version of Fascism. It shocks the bourgeois, in a way that leftwingery never can.
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
I was summarising what the Guardian article reported.
Your summary was we won't have a trade agreement because that's what the article stated. Nowhere did you say we may not, you inferred we would not and that's it.
Not one to form your own opinions are you?
It may have escaped your notice, but I am currently exchanging views with a couple of posters on here who are clearly much better informed than you. The one line summary if the Guardian article was the springboard into that. It's true, I do not have a fixed view on this, though I am inclined to an EU withdrawal precisely because I do not believe trade agreements would actually be that big a deal. If I thought otherwise, I might be more in favour of staying in.
I've never professed to be the best informed person on here, but I am sick to death of the Europhile scaremongering that never has any basis in reality and is always dismissed by facts.
It seems I may have misread your posts, for which I sincerely apologise.
Didn't David Bowie flirt with fascism in the early 70s?
Sensible people no longer fall for this Ken Clarke type shit.
You haven't read the story have you?
Yes, I have.
Like I said people are no longer influenced by this pathetic, childish rubbish any longer. There is no substance to any of it, just scaremongering from an increasingly worried elite.
Next you'll be telling how we'll lose three million jobs WHEN we leave the EU?
I am not saying anything, I am linking to a newspaper report. Can you explain why it is wrong?
Others have already done that, but surely the fact that it's in the Super Europhile Guardian would be enough to raise your natural curiosity as to it's validity?
Why should i be more sceptical of claims reported in the pro-EU Guardian than of claims made by anti-EU UKIP supporters?
You shouldn't, but you should do your own research before telling us that we won't have a trade agreement with the US because it says so in the Guardian.
I was summarising what the Guardian article reported.
Your summary was we won't have a trade agreement because that's what the article stated. Nowhere did you say we may not, you inferred we would not and that's it.
Not one to form your own opinions are you?
It may have escaped your notice, but I am currently exchanging views with a couple of posters on here who are clearly much better informed than you. The one line summary if the Guardian article was the springboard into that. It's true, I do not have a fixed view on this, though I am inclined to an EU withdrawal precisely because I do not believe trade agreements would actually be that big a deal. If I thought otherwise, I might be more in favour of staying in.
I've never professed to be the best informed person on here, but I am sick to death of the Europhile scaremongering that never has any basis in reality and is always dismissed by facts.
It seems I may have misread your posts, for which I sincerely apologise.
No problem at all!
I agree about the scaremongering. Where we probably differ is on the urgency of withdrawal. On balance, I am in favour, but I don't see it as a huge priority right now.
Snow white and the seven sado-masochistic mining dwarves ? No doubt they do play on some pseudo-Naziistic imagery, but they aren't really political. I just don't see it in that video
That Rammstein video shows why Fascism is so much COOOOLER than predictable leftwing drivel.
Imagine: you are 18 years old. You therefore want to offend everyone and prove your individuality.
You have a choice
You can either
1. protest against, erm, the Queen and against, uhm, the bedroom tax and have all the 60 year olds on the Guardian nodding in approval, as you trot out the expected opinions held by almost everyone else in your age group
OR
2. you can be openly racist, misogynist and Nazi and have 99.999% of society united in genuine horror against you
Which is more exciting? Which stirs the blood? Which will offend your elders?
Thus the appeal, to some, of Islamism, a new version of Fascism. It shocks the bourgeois, in a way that leftwingery never can.
Rammstein claim to be apolitical, just interested in German history.
They are headlining at Download this year. Heavy Metal is the UKIP of music, backward looking and contemptuous of current metropolitan fashion, but not unpopular. Download is always packed, and very little trouble, but they like it load.
I would be more inclined to go along with a regression line which takes in the GE score and the LE score from a year back. So, Labour's 2014 score would be more relevant.
Regarding musicians on the centre-right/right, Gary Numan got a hard time in the eighties for being a Thatcher fan, very much against the grain for an eighties alternative musician in Britain.
That Rammstein video shows why Fascism is so much COOOOLER than predictable leftwing drivel.
Imagine: you are 18 years old. You therefore want to offend everyone and prove your individuality.
You have a choice
You can either
1. protest against, erm, the Queen and against, uhm, the bedroom tax and have all the 60 year olds on the Guardian nodding in approval, as you trot out the expected opinions held by almost everyone else in your age group
OR
2. you can be openly racist, misogynist and Nazi and have 99.999% of society united in genuine horror against you
Which is more exciting? Which stirs the blood? Which will offend your elders?
Thus the appeal, to some, of Islamism, a new version of Fascism. It shocks the bourgeois, in a way that leftwingery never can.
You're probably right about why Islamism attracts some people - the fact that Dad is shocked is part of the point. But the thing is, most 18 year olds just aren't political at all. They are generally socially liberal but it doesn't naturally occur to most of them to take a political stance at all, any more than they'd take up stamp-collecting (does anyone still do that?) or bowls. How many 18-year-olds do we have on this forum? Or even 25-year-olds?
But of course, most teenagers are far too well-adjusted to give a F about politics, they are more interested in, first, getting laid and, second, getting a job (they used to care about getting high but the Crash of the West put paid to that).
However a subset: consisting of the bored and smart, the intellectually restless, and the helplessly alienated, will always seek to annoy and provoke, and hopefully to horrify, and to do that, these days, you need to be on the far right, not the far left.
Being on the left shocks precisely no one, it's the intellectual equivalent of wearing jeans. 50 year olds do it, too. That's not good if you want to be a REAL rebel.
That's why the Woolwich murderers turned to Islamic Fascism: they wanted to show they had REALLY rejected society, in the most extreme, contemptuous and horrifying way. And they tragically succeeded. Joining the Greens or SWP doesn't really compare, does it?
There is some truth here. Both Woolwich suspects are from a Nigerian Christian background. The people being murdered by Islamists in Nigeria. They were not radicalised by their own families.
With the death of Socialism and Communism as credible world views the only alternative to the secular materialist democratic world view is that of the religious fundamentalist.
The poll for the Open Europe think tank also found that 39 per cent of those who had voted Tory in 2010 would back UKIP if the European election were held now.
In a general election, the poll suggested Labour would take 37 per cent of the votes. This would give Labour an 11-point lead over the Conservatives on 26 per cent, with UKIP on 20 per cent.
The Liberal Democrats would be trailing behind on 9 per cent.
If some are you are feeling adventurous, you ought to google their video for their song Pussy.
It is the most sexually explicit thing ever made.
Of course 32 years ago Soft Cell's masterwork "Sex Dwarf" was produced. They hired tranny hookers from Soho for the video, but completely grossed them out when they started flinging in the meat and milk filled with live maggots ;D
If some are you are feeling adventurous, you ought to google their video for their song Pussy.
It is the most sexually explicit thing ever made.
Of course 32 years ago Soft Cell's masterwork "Sex Dwarf" was produced. They hired tranny hookers from Soho for the video, but completely grossed them out when they started flinging in the meat and milk filled with live maggots ;D
And to think the BBC banned Frankie Goes to Hollywood's Relax.
"And, of course, Hitler would probably have put himself on "the Left" if given a choice. He was a National SOCIALIST."
Hmmm. In fact he expended so much energy redefining what 'socialism' meant that Tony Blair would have been proud of him.
The Strasserist faction of the Nazis might reasonably be described as socialist (up to a point) but they were long gone by the time Hitler came to power.
"And, of course, Hitler would probably have put himself on "the Left" if given a choice. He was a National SOCIALIST."
Hmmm. In fact he expended so much energy redefining what 'socialism' meant that Tony Blair would have been proud of him.
The Strasserist faction of the Nazis might reasonably be described as socialist (up to a point) but they were long gone by the time Hitler came to power.
" To be a socialist means to let the ego serve the neighbour, to sacrifice the self for the whole. In its deepest sense socialism equals service. The individual refrains and the commonwealth demands. "
(Actually I havent been to one of those in years, I dont think I have the constitution to survive one any more.)
Well that gives me a good reason should I ever have a well intentioned friend who is absolutely positive I would fully embrace the green party ethos if I would only give it a chance by attending their conference.
Judge not by their words but by their actions for verily will the evil man mouth beatitudes even while he stealeth your wallet,your wife and your life and explain in full why you should be grateful for this act of benevolence
Those results for some reason surprised me, I expected opening the sheet there to be a more lean to labour and the greens but I guess thats because I think of Cambridge as studenty and I guess most of them don't vote, or not in Cambridge at least
Whilst many talk of fear of the Syrian conflict spilling over borders they forget that it is already seeping into other countries. The biggest migration of trouble has been into the country itself rather than outwardly, but for how long?
Hizbollah, already with around 6 000 of its own committed appears to be putting more on the battlefield though it must soon be reaching a saturation point as it does not retain a large full time fighting force and is dependent on its part time fighters than it has sent over the borders. weakening its presence at home. . Its possible its own estimated numbers in Syria have been mixed with other Shi'ite imports from Lebanon. They have been joined by considerable numbers (low thousands) of Iranian militia and and also a decent contingent of Shi'te fighters from Iraq.
The insurgents have seen their ranks swelled by some Sunnis from Lebanon and a long standing influx of Sunni radicals from Iraq. In recent weeks there has been a reported second phase of movement over the Syrian-Iraqi border by such elements. For the Iraqi government its quite a handy bit of osmosis, taking some of its problem cases out.
The problem, particularly for Assad is that we are watching a force within a force being created. I reported months ago that Iran in particular had been controlling some militias raised in Syria itself, providing funding, organisation and support. With the increased presence f its surrogates from Lebanon and Iraq, a shadow element has built up, ostensibly fighting for Assad but a useful set of levers in case he doesn't personally survive or even if he does.
For the rebels, the same potential problem may come about in time, though the percentages of imports are less, your globally minded Takfiri rarely misses an opportunity to take his own agenda with him.
The influx of fighting troops for Assad. who havent hesitated to go and fight on the front line has given Assad something he has been lacking, bodies. Supported by the appearance of the 'Popular Committees' of local defense militias raised from Assad loyalists that can provide a local security role, the injection of such fighting forces has been felt on the battlefield in a number of strategic areas.
It remains to be seen, however, how decisive in the long term this boost has been.
For the West, still playing some kind of hokey cokey game, the conflict has spilled over if they choose to notice, it has bled inwards to Syria but the consequences of that continue to leak outwards with increasing pressure.
I'm pretty excited about Daft Punk's new album, which isn't surprising since the late 70s and early 80s is my favourite musical period, (although the mid-80s isn't bad either. I refer of course to Scritti Politti. And Five Star).
Just spent the entire day at Legoland. It was a freebie, cause I am writing about tourism in London.
Thank God - cause the price is just flabbergasting. If we had paid, the whole day out - with tickets for two adults and two kids, food and drinx, accelerated queue access, petrol, parking, and so on - would have cost about £300. For one day at a theme park. £300!
The place was so packed one of the biggest restaurants completely ran out of grub at about 2pm.
Recession, what recession, etc
My mother and I went to Legoland for a day in 1980. IIRC, the total cost for the two of us was £150... but that included the price of the plane tickets to fly to Denmark and back.
Comments
Even if your model reasonably projects the GE score, the "multiplier" has changed significantly.
In 1979, a 7% win gave Thatcher a 44 seat majority. In 2010, with the same 7% Cameron was 18 seats short. The same could be said for the Tories in 2005.
Labour percentages are "worth" more !
Not sure what the US gets out of a trade deal with us.
Labour in the 80s said
"The government has a worse record than Bucks Fizz"
In reality, we could probably just join NAFTA. I can't see Canada, Mexico or the US blocking us, and it would take very little negotiation because the terms are already there.
I think Labour will lose the PV.
Great song but not as good as their own Freebird, there' s a YouTube clip of the performance on the Old Grey Whistle Test, amazing stuff.
Love that song. They claim they were just telling Neil Young to mind his own business when he slagged off Southerners in a couple of his songs, and that not all Southerners were racist segregationists just because the governed of Birmingham was.
jury out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoV-awiHpuM
In addition UK investment in the US is worth 440 billion dollars according to the US Congress figures. We are the largest foreign investor in the US.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21857.pdf
"With over $441 billion invested in the United States, the United Kingdom is the largest foreign
direct investor. Japan is the second-largest foreign direct investor in the U.S. economy with about $289 billion in investments. Following the Japanese are the Dutch ($240 billion), the Germans ($215 billion), the Swiss ($212), the Canadians ($211 billion), the
French ($199 billion) and Luxembourg ($190).
We are by far their most important foreign investor
Neil Young accepted the explanation and they have performed the song on stage together since. Not of course with the original line up due to the sad demise of most of the band in accidents.
Not one to form your own opinions are you?
UK US trade is about 54 billion dollars each way.
German US trade is 48 billion US exports to Germany but 108 billion dollars German exports to the US. So the US has a trade deficit with Germany of 59 billion dollars.
France is even less important with only 30 billion dollars worth of US exports going there. And again the US has a nasty trade deficit with France.
You can't have it both ways. You are using the same argument to try and convince us that we must stay in the EU as the basis for arguing against the importance of trade with the US.
This is a typical Europhile scare story which quickly backfires as it gives us an opportunity to highlight how large our trade and invetstment is with major players outside the EU.
It seems I may have misread your posts, for which I sincerely apologise.
The song "Links 2-3-4" (Links being German for "left") was written as a riposte to these claims. According to Kruspe, it means, "'My heart beats on the left, two, three, four'. It's simple. If you want to put us in a political category, we're on the left side, and that's the reason we made the song".
Richard Z. Kruspe - lead guitar, backing vocals (Rammstein)
I love Rammstein, but they are not Nazis (Or on the right..) ;p
1980: +2%
1981: +3%
1982: -11%
1983: -3%
Average: -2.25%
Bloody wind farms spoiling the sea view there !
I am having difficulty squaring with the idea that Labour could lose the PV by 8 points. Also, post 1982, it was 3 sided politics. Now definitely 4 sided. Does the Tory lead of 8% include an element that belongs to UKIP ?
Oh wait you were talking about physical age, not mental age.
I agree about the scaremongering. Where we probably differ is on the urgency of withdrawal. On balance, I am in favour, but I don't see it as a huge priority right now.
No doubt they do play on some pseudo-Naziistic imagery, but they aren't really political. I just don't see it in that video
They are headlining at Download this year. Heavy Metal is the UKIP of music, backward looking and contemptuous of current metropolitan fashion, but not unpopular. Download is always packed, and very little trouble, but they like it load.
I would be more inclined to go along with a regression line which takes in the GE score and the LE score from a year back. So, Labour's 2014 score would be more relevant.
Ramm Stein? Sounds like an overpriced Cornish caff.
History repeats itself. The first as tragedy - then as rock'n'roll.
If some are you are feeling adventurous, you ought to google their video for their song Pussy.
It is the most sexually explicit thing ever made.
With the death of Socialism and Communism as credible world views the only alternative to the secular materialist democratic world view is that of the religious fundamentalist.
The poll for the Open Europe think tank also found that 39 per cent of those who had voted Tory in 2010 would back UKIP if the European election were held now.
In a general election, the poll suggested Labour would take 37 per cent of the votes.
This would give Labour an 11-point lead over the Conservatives on 26 per cent, with UKIP on 20 per cent.
The Liberal Democrats would be trailing behind on 9 per cent.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331759/UKIP-set-European-poll-success-powers-ahead-Tories-Labour.html#ixzz2UXQwmApt
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIxkqoNi8I4
*edit I give up no idea how to put a link in vanilla it seems
Hmmm. In fact he expended so much energy redefining what 'socialism' meant that Tony Blair would have been proud of him.
The Strasserist faction of the Nazis might reasonably be described as socialist (up to a point) but they were long gone by the time Hitler came to power.
This is the link he was trying to post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIxkqoNi8I4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4SmZkmLRjQ
We sing it at every Green party conference
(Actually I havent been to one of those in years, I dont think I have the constitution to survive one any more.)
" To be a socialist means to let the ego serve the neighbour, to sacrifice the self for the whole. In its deepest sense socialism equals service. The individual refrains and the commonwealth demands. "
Joseph Goebbels
Tony Blair
Judge not by their words but by their actions for verily will the evil man mouth beatitudes even while he stealeth your wallet,your wife and your life and explain in full why you should be grateful for this act of benevolence
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGR3MnV4ay1OSG5SemoxaVNab185SFE#gid=0
Those results for some reason surprised me, I expected opening the sheet there to be a more lean to labour and the greens but I guess thats because I think of Cambridge as studenty and I guess most of them don't vote, or not in Cambridge at least
Labour easily won the most votes in the Cambridge constituency which excludes the Queen Edith's division:
Lab 10150 (39.9%)
Lib Dem 7257 (28.5%)
Con 3684 (14.5%)
Green 2298 (9.0%)
UKIP 933 (3.7%)
Others 1142 (4.5%)
(Btw, Peterborough is missing from the Cambridgeshire elections because it's a unitary authority).
https://twitter.com/ConservativesYO
Iain Stewart MP was reselected by Milton Keynes South Conservatives on 10th May:
https://twitter.com/iainastewart
Not the EU's but certainly Lebanon's and Iraq's.
Whilst many talk of fear of the Syrian conflict spilling over borders they forget that it is already seeping into other countries. The biggest migration of trouble has been into the country itself rather than outwardly, but for how long?
Hizbollah, already with around 6 000 of its own committed appears to be putting more on the battlefield though it must soon be reaching a saturation point as it does not retain a large full time fighting force and is dependent on its part time fighters than it has sent over the borders. weakening its presence at home. . Its possible its own estimated numbers in Syria have been mixed with other Shi'ite imports from Lebanon. They have been joined by considerable numbers (low thousands) of Iranian militia and and also a decent contingent of Shi'te fighters from Iraq.
The insurgents have seen their ranks swelled by some Sunnis from Lebanon and a long standing influx of Sunni radicals from Iraq. In recent weeks there has been a reported second phase of movement over the Syrian-Iraqi border by such elements. For the Iraqi government its quite a handy bit of osmosis, taking some of its problem cases out.
The problem, particularly for Assad is that we are watching a force within a force being created. I reported months ago that Iran in particular had been controlling some militias raised in Syria itself, providing funding, organisation and support. With the increased presence f its surrogates from Lebanon and Iraq, a shadow element has built up, ostensibly fighting for Assad but a useful set of levers in case he doesn't personally survive or even if he does.
For the rebels, the same potential problem may come about in time, though the percentages of imports are less, your globally minded Takfiri rarely misses an opportunity to take his own agenda with him.
The influx of fighting troops for Assad. who havent hesitated to go and fight on the front line has given Assad something he has been lacking, bodies. Supported by the appearance of the 'Popular Committees' of local defense militias raised from Assad loyalists that can provide a local security role, the injection of such fighting forces has been felt on the battlefield in a number of strategic areas.
It remains to be seen, however, how decisive in the long term this boost has been.
For the West, still playing some kind of hokey cokey game, the conflict has spilled over if they choose to notice, it has bled inwards to Syria but the consequences of that continue to leak outwards with increasing pressure.
a much better song called Alabama
(although got to agree Neil Young should shut up. and play the guitar. love his guitar hate his voice. hence "Dead Man" soundtrack is album of choice)
Is it from 1978 or 2013?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBXv37PFcAQ&
a metaphor for modern politics..
or am i taking this game too seriously