Metro today claiming that Farage's views include making people on trains speak English and repatriating migrants.
Sounds a pretty racist policy to me.
The key word here appears to be "claims", I know we dont usually want to sully our elevated minds with anything as squalid as mere evidence, but it would be nice to know if he had actually said it, to whom and under what circumstances before we go and get all excited about it.
Also... when did your "race" affect your ability to speak English. Assuming that someone of a different race was less unable to speak English without evidence could actually be considered racist.
UKIP's eventual aim is to get rid of all migrants. I guess that means me to as I cannot prove to be 100% pure Anglo Saxon.. UKIP are racist, they just hide behind a façade. You would see the real UKIP if they every got their hands on the levers of power.. Heaven forbid.
There's a fabulous piece from Mr Aaronovitch in today's Times about the weaseling around Je Suis Charlie. And Alice Thompson's weasel column the previous day. Two bits of journalism that say almost everything about apologists and those that don't.
If you don't subscribe to the online edition - it's worth a £1 to read just them and the comments underneath.
The most interesting bit of Alice Thompson's article was her discovery that hostility towards free speech tended to be most common among young people, which seems counter-intuitive. I'm not sure that that is true of young people generally, but it is very true of student unions, who are keen to ban the Sun, or men who wish to debate abortion, or atheists who make fun of Islam, or UKIP speakers.
Young (particularly the educated middle-class) people are in favour of free speech on non-socio-cultural issues, such as economics. On the rest they're only in favour of free speech in so much as it loudly endorses the consensus.
However, there's an increasingly worrying tendency for 'alternative' views on economics to be redressed as being based on 'warped' socio-cultural beliefs (arise petitions to ban Myleene Klass from employment) in order to silence those discussions as well.
Most of my school chums were Vikings if their surnames were anything to go by - loads of Andersons et al. Us Geordies used to get ferry adverts for short breaks in Stavanger, Norway.
Metro today claiming that Farage's views include making people on trains speak English and repatriating migrants.
Sounds a pretty racist policy to me.
The key word here appears to be "claims", I know we dont usually want to sully our elevated minds with anything as squalid as mere evidence, but it would be nice to know if he had actually said it, to whom and under what circumstances before we go and get all excited about it.
Also... when did your "race" affect your ability to speak English. Assuming that someone of a different race was less unable to speak English without evidence could actually be considered racist.
UKIP's eventual aim is to get rid of all migrants. I guess that means me to as I cannot prove to be 100% pure Anglo Saxon.. UKIP are racist, they just hide behind a façade. You would see the real UKIP if they every got their hands on the levers of power.. Heaven forbid.
At least 50% (and almost certainly more) of my ancestors were "here" before the Anglo Saxons came. I also understand that I've strong reason to suspect some Viking genetic material.
The truest thing Henry G Manson has ever written: the Lab/Lib/Con parties haven't a new idea, thought or policy in their collective head. Actually they all act as if they were headless chickens. Chickens all.
Uniforms for taxi drivers and nationalise the railways - what wonderful new ideas.
Rock throwing - thats all there is from the purples.
Look who's throwing antiquated rocks and stones this morning. Got your hedjab on this morning?
Talk me through the top 5 Ukip policies that don't involve immigration and the EU then..
That's like saying what are the top five policies that don't involve local government in some way. It automatically rules out planning, education, transport, and a whole bunch of other areas. The EU has its fingers in nearly everything.
How predictable.
Nothing on education ? Nothing on defence ? Nothing on pensions ? Nothing on housing ? Nothing on IHT, IT, NI, VAT, corporation tax ? Nothing on law and order ? Nothing on energy policy ?
Just rocks ?
Why the space before the question mark ? And why the relentless 24/7 campaign to bore tory readers of this site into the arms of UKIP ?
It's because the Tories have so many spare votes, they should hire him to help get rid of a few more. The most inexplicable thing about Toryism to me, is the seeming belief that if you shout at people, bore and insult them, they will come and vote for you. Dave tried it with his core vote and right wing, hence his current position in the polls, some of his acolytes here appear to think this is a good idea and continue with it, I think the intention is to be on the opposition benches, but able to console themselves with an aura of ideological purity.
I'm a Tory as well at the moment, albeit of the BOO persuasion, but I might not be for much longer if I have to put up with the grindingly tedious horse shit that some members churn out every day presumably with the intention of pulling people back from UKIP to the Tories, but visibility having the opposite effect.
Suggest you bang on about 3 and 5 more rather than headscarves and languages used on train as they are moderately interesting
1 sounds like an unnecessary extra level of politicians - just have EVEL at Westminster, scrap MSPs and send Scottish MPs up to Holyrood on Thu/Fri to do Scottish business.
Oh, but then we wouldn't get the mouth-frothing reaction from anti-Kippers
You have interesting ideas for devolution, but, realistically, we're not getting rid of the separate Scottish parliament, and EVEL doesn't give us the English executive we need for non-statutory governance.
The truest thing Henry G Manson has ever written: the Lab/Lib/Con parties haven't a new idea, thought or policy in their collective head. Actually they all act as if they were headless chickens. Chickens all.
Uniforms for taxi drivers and nationalise the railways - what wonderful new ideas.
Rock throwing - thats all there is from the purples.
Look who's throwing antiquated rocks and stones this morning. Got your hedjab on this morning?
Talk me through the top 5 Ukip policies that don't involve immigration and the EU then..
That's like saying what are the top five policies that don't involve local government in some way. It automatically rules out planning, education, transport, and a whole bunch of other areas. The EU has its fingers in nearly everything.
But anyway:
- English parliament - No income tax on the minimum wage - No tuition fees for science students - Recall elections after 20% of constituents sign a petition - New apprenticeship qualification in place of GCSEs for those more vocationally minded
Grammar schools Referendums on local issues Fracking Sovereign wealth fund (copied by Tories already I believe) Raising 40% tax barrier (copied by Tories already)
Most of my school chums were Vikings if their surnames were anything to go by - loads of Andersons et al. Us Geordies used to get ferry adverts for short breaks in Stavanger, Norway.
Metro today claiming that Farage's views include making people on trains speak English and repatriating migrants.
Sounds a pretty racist policy to me.
The key word here appears to be "claims", I know we dont usually want to sully our elevated minds with anything as squalid as mere evidence, but it would be nice to know if he had actually said it, to whom and under what circumstances before we go and get all excited about it.
Also... when did your "race" affect your ability to speak English. Assuming that someone of a different race was less unable to speak English without evidence could actually be considered racist.
UKIP's eventual aim is to get rid of all migrants. I guess that means me to as I cannot prove to be 100% pure Anglo Saxon.. UKIP are racist, they just hide behind a façade. You would see the real UKIP if they every got their hands on the levers of power.. Heaven forbid.
At least 50% (and almost certainly more) of my ancestors were "here" before the Anglo Saxons came. I also understand that I've strong reason to suspect some Viking genetic material.
Will I still be OK!
When a student in the NE I drank with quite a lot of Norweigians. Mostly reading Marine Engineering or Naval Architecture.
The judgement of youngsters is infamously poor. It's based on hormones and absolutism. Oh and thinking they'll never die. And someone else pays for it all.
Older and wiser go together for a reason. Life isn't that simple.
There's a fabulous piece from Mr Aaronovitch in today's Times about the weaseling around Je Suis Charlie. And Alice Thompson's weasel column the previous day. Two bits of journalism that say almost everything about apologists and those that don't.
If you don't subscribe to the online edition - it's worth a £1 to read just them and the comments underneath.
The most interesting bit of Alice Thompson's article was her discovery that hostility towards free speech tended to be most common among young people, which seems counter-intuitive. I'm not sure that that is true of young people generally, but it is very true of student unions, who are keen to ban the Sun, or men who wish to debate abortion, or atheists who make fun of Islam, or UKIP speakers.
Young people are in favour of free speech on non-socio-cultural issues, such as economics. On the rest they're only in favour of free speech in so much as it loudly endorses the consensus.
However, there's an increasingly worrying tendency for 'alternative' views on economics to be redressed as being based on 'warped' socio-cultural beliefs (arise petitions to ban Myleene Klass from employment) in order to silence those discussions as well.
The truest thing Henry G Manson has ever written: the Lab/Lib/Con parties haven't a new idea, thought or policy in their collective head. Actually they all act as if they were headless chickens. Chickens all.
Uniforms for taxi drivers and nationalise the railways - what wonderful new ideas.
Rock throwing - thats all there is from the purples.
Look who's throwing antiquated rocks and stones this morning. Got your hedjab on this morning?
Talk me through the top 5 Ukip policies that don't involve immigration and the EU then..
That's like saying what are the top five policies that don't involve local government in some way. It automatically rules out planning, education, transport, and a whole bunch of other areas. The EU has its fingers in nearly everything.
How predictable.
Nothing on education ? Nothing on defence ? Nothing on pensions ? Nothing on housing ? Nothing on IHT, IT, NI, VAT, corporation tax ? Nothing on law and order ? Nothing on energy policy ?
Just rocks ?
Why the space before the question mark ? And why the relentless 24/7 campaign to bore tory readers of this site into the arms of UKIP ?
Because we never ever hear from Kippers on any subjects other than one. We don't even hear much about the EU anymore.
And the big surprise about this is....
Farage has said many times he doesnt want to run the country, he wants to get the UK out of the EU.
With our system the only way he can do that is to get some people elected and hope to get enough influence in parliament to make it happen.
In order to get into parliament UKIP needs to have a load of policies about things they dont really care about.
I dont think anyone can pretend that Dave would have made his 2017 referendum promise if UKIP weren't taking a chunk of the Tory vote, an chunk which your daily abuse ensures will continue to vote UKIP rather than come back and vote Tory.
The judgement of youngsters is infamously poor. It's based on hormones and absolutism. Oh and thinking they'll never die. And someone else pays for it all.
Older and wiser go together for a reason. Life isn't that simple.
There's a fabulous piece from Mr Aaronovitch in today's Times about the weaseling around Je Suis Charlie. And Alice Thompson's weasel column the previous day. Two bits of journalism that say almost everything about apologists and those that don't.
If you don't subscribe to the online edition - it's worth a £1 to read just them and the comments underneath.
The most interesting bit of Alice Thompson's article was her discovery that hostility towards free speech tended to be most common among young people, which seems counter-intuitive. I'm not sure that that is true of young people generally, but it is very true of student unions, who are keen to ban the Sun, or men who wish to debate abortion, or atheists who make fun of Islam, or UKIP speakers.
Young people are in favour of free speech on non-socio-cultural issues, such as economics. On the rest they're only in favour of free speech in so much as it loudly endorses the consensus.
However, there's an increasingly worrying tendency for 'alternative' views on economics to be redressed as being based on 'warped' socio-cultural beliefs (arise petitions to ban Myleene Klass from employment) in order to silence those discussions as well.
They're not comfortable with challenge on such things because they think there's no discussion to be had. Therefore they find such challenge offensive.
I would like young people to be taught that intellectual rigour and debate are not a threat but essential to a free society. To argue differently is like denying a guilty man defence counsel. Sooner or later it leads to laziness, poor decisions and systemic miscarriages of justice.
Good piece Henry with which I partly agree. The reality is that our politicians operate with much smaller parameters than they like to admit and their ability to change our world is modest.
Even in economic terms Labour is pretty much admitting that their policies will not be that different from what the Coalition is doing. Their target is to balance current spending rather than the overall budget during the next Parliament which makes a difference of about £35bn a year. This sounds a lot of money until you appreciate that by then government expenditure will probably be about £750bn a year making the difference less than 5% of government spending and just over 2% of GDP. Such is the scope of our sound and fury over economics.
No wonder parties who promise dramatic things in relation to the deficit or trade or whatever sound attractive even if what they are talking about would be impossible to deliver. On the other hand are you really saying our major parties should also indulge in such fantasy based policies which they know they can't deliver? It would explain some of Labour's indifference to serious policy making for the last 4 years.
................The habit of British parties of portraying each other as borderline criminal disasters while producing core policies in touching distance of each other does feed cynicism, and Patrick and Danny on this thread, and to some extent Southam Observer, are examples of voters yearning for something radically different...........
After the expenses and earlier scandals the public holds current MPs and past MPs in contempt. The brand image of MPs has been fundamentally damaged. Thus by attacking each other it just reinforces the attraction of alternatives. To enable a major party to reverse this trend needs a ruthless re-building of that party based on principles that it rigidly holds to and delivers on. None of the main 3 are re-building and instead operating short term "one last heave" tactics, which amount to "one more pile of sh*t" chucked at an opponent. UKIP have the "new kid" appeal but are undermined by the cult of one man and his court, all jockeying for position.
The truest thing Henry G Manson has ever written: the Lab/Lib/Con parties haven't a new idea, thought or policy in their collective head. Actually they all act as if they were headless chickens. Chickens all.
Uniforms for taxi drivers and nationalise the railways - what wonderful new ideas.
Rock throwing - thats all there is from the purples.
Look who's throwing antiquated rocks and stones this morning. Got your hedjab on this morning?
Talk me through the top 5 Ukip policies that don't involve immigration and the EU then..
That's like saying what are the top five policies that don't involve local government in some way. It automatically rules out planning, education, transport, and a whole bunch of other areas. The EU has its fingers in nearly everything.
How predictable.
Nothing on education ? Nothing on defence ? Nothing on pensions ? Nothing on housing ? Nothing on IHT, IT, NI, VAT, corporation tax ? Nothing on law and order ? Nothing on energy policy ?
Just rocks ?
Why the space before the question mark ? And why the relentless 24/7 campaign to bore tory readers of this site into the arms of UKIP ?
Because we never ever hear from Kippers on any subjects other than one. We don't even hear much about the EU anymore.
an chunk which your daily abuse ensures will continue to vote UKIP rather than come back and vote Tory.
Please. If someone's voting decision is wholly influenced by largely anonymous comments on a website, one wonders whether they're even bright enough to make it to the polling station without guidance.
We see it again on this thread.. As Ukip become more popular and more mainstream, the hate level rises from other parties... It can't be because if policy, as they have taken some of Ukips, it can't be because they think they are racist or xenophobic as Cameron's proposals are crueller to immigrNts than Ukips, it's just because they are losing votes and scared of losing power
I'm reaching the age where you start to think for the first time that maybe, just maybe, you might not live forever. And it's not a particularly pleasant process to go through.
The judgement of youngsters is infamously poor. It's based on hormones and absolutism. Oh and thinking they'll never die. And someone else pays for it all.
Older and wiser go together for a reason. Life isn't that simple.
There's a fabulous piece from Mr Aaronovitch in today's Times about the weaseling around Je Suis Charlie. And Alice Thompson's weasel column the previous day. Two bits of journalism that say almost everything about apologists and those that don't.
If you don't subscribe to the online edition - it's worth a £1 to read just them and the comments underneath.
The most interesting bit of Alice Thompson's article was her discovery that hostility towards free speech tended to be most common among young people, which seems counter-intuitive. I'm not sure that that is true of young people generally, but it is very true of student unions, who are keen to ban the Sun, or men who wish to debate abortion, or atheists who make fun of Islam, or UKIP speakers.
Young people are in favour of free speech on non-socio-cultural issues, such as economics. On the rest they're only in favour of free speech in so much as it loudly endorses the consensus.
However, there's an increasingly worrying tendency for 'alternative' views on economics to be redressed as being based on 'warped' socio-cultural beliefs (arise petitions to ban Myleene Klass from employment) in order to silence those discussions as well.
The parties seem in a race for the most mental policies. I think the Conservative plan to set fire to the internet was a good move, but Labour's twin policies of fixing prices at a high rate as oil prices crash and banning children from eating sweets is a good riposte.
However, both lag behind Scottish Labour's plan to tax London flats for Scottish nurses.
The judgement of youngsters is infamously poor. It's based on hormones and absolutism. Oh and thinking they'll never die. And someone else pays for it all.
Older and wiser go together for a reason. Life isn't that simple.
There's a fabulous piece from Mr Aaronovitch in today's Times about the weaseling around Je Suis Charlie. And Alice Thompson's weasel column the previous day. Two bits of journalism that say almost everything about apologists and those that don't.
If you don't subscribe to the online edition - it's worth a £1 to read just them and the comments underneath.
The most interesting bit of Alice Thompson's article was her discovery that hostility towards free speech tended to be most common among young people, which seems counter-intuitive. I'm not sure that that is true of young people generally, but it is very true of student unions, who are keen to ban the Sun, or men who wish to debate abortion, or atheists who make fun of Islam, or UKIP speakers.
Young people are in favour of free speech on non-socio-cultural issues, such as economics. On the rest they're only in favour of free speech in so much as it loudly endorses the consensus.
However, there's an increasingly worrying tendency for 'alternative' views on economics to be redressed as being based on 'warped' socio-cultural beliefs (arise petitions to ban Myleene Klass from employment) in order to silence those discussions as well.
Terrorist movements tend to be dominated by people in their teens and twenties, who have the necessary degree of self-righteous intolerance.
Fortunately most people gain wisdom as they grow older.
Totally agree. A very old anecdote of my own. We had a mock election when I was at primary school about how to spend £1000 or some equally enormous sum. I've no idea how I ended up being picked to debate this - but I argued from the lecturn that more text books were better than a skateboard park my opponent advocated.
I was amazed to win by a small margin. Now I don't think 10yrs olds are like Mr Gove - just more self-interested, like all other voters. And there weren't enough skateboarders in the constituency. This was 1976.
The judgement of youngsters is infamously poor. It's based on hormones and absolutism. Oh and thinking they'll never die. And someone else pays for it all.
Older and wiser go together for a reason. Life isn't that simple.
The most interesting bit of Alice Thompson's article was her discovery that hostility towards free speech tended to be most common among young people, which seems counter-intuitive. I'm not sure that that is true of young people generally, but it is very true of student unions, who are keen to ban the Sun, or men who wish to debate abortion, or atheists who make fun of Islam, or UKIP speakers.
Young people are in favour of free speech on non-socio-cultural issues, such as economics. On the rest they're only in favour of free speech in so much as it loudly endorses the consensus.
However, there's an increasingly worrying tendency for 'alternative' views on economics to be redressed as being based on 'warped' socio-cultural beliefs (arise petitions to ban Myleene Klass from employment) in order to silence those discussions as well.
They're not comfortable with challenge on such things because they think there's no discussion to be had. Therefore they find such challenge offensive.
I would like young people to be taught that intellectual rigour and debate are not a threat but essential to a free society. To argue differently is like denying a guilty man defence counsel. Sooner or later it leads to laziness, poor decisions and systemic miscarriages of justice.
Most of my school chums were Vikings if their surnames were anything to go by - loads of Andersons et al. Us Geordies used to get ferry adverts for short breaks in Stavanger, Norway.
Metro today claiming that Farage's views include making people on trains speak English and repatriating migrants.
Sounds a pretty racist policy to me.
The key word here appears to be "claims", I know we dont usually want to sully our elevated minds with anything as squalid as mere evidence, but it would be nice to know if he had actually said it, to whom and under what circumstances before we go and get all excited about it.
Also... when did your "race" affect your ability to speak English. Assuming that someone of a different race was less unable to speak English without evidence could actually be considered racist.
UKIP's eventual aim is to get rid of all migrants. I guess that means me to as I cannot prove to be 100% pure Anglo Saxon.. UKIP are racist, they just hide behind a façade. You would see the real UKIP if they every got their hands on the levers of power.. Heaven forbid.
At least 50% (and almost certainly more) of my ancestors were "here" before the Anglo Saxons came. I also understand that I've strong reason to suspect some Viking genetic material.
Will I still be OK!
When a student in the NE I drank with quite a lot of Norweigians. Mostly reading Marine Engineering or Naval Architecture.
My wife - who is Scots - is descended from Vikings. I am descended from Border rievers (cattle thieves) and had one ancestor hung for it.
So does this mean our children will be expelled as the offspring of an immigrant?
We see it again on this thread.. As Ukip become more popular and more mainstream, the hate level rises from other parties... It can't be because if policy, as they have taken some of Ukips, it can't be because they think they are racist or xenophobic as Cameron's proposals are crueller to immigrNts than Ukips, it's just because they are losing votes and scared of losing power
Metro today claiming that Farage's views include making people on trains speak English and repatriating migrants.
Sounds a pretty racist policy to me.
The key word here appears to be "claims", I know we dont usually want to sully our elevated minds with anything as squalid as mere evidence, but it would be nice to know if he had actually said it, to whom and under what circumstances before we go and get all excited about it. Also... when did your "race" affect your ability to speak English. Assuming that someone of a different race was less unable to speak English without evidence could actually be considered racist.
UKIP's eventual aim is to get rid of all migrants. I guess that means me to as I cannot prove to be 100% pure Anglo Saxon.. UKIP are racist, they just hide behind a façade. You would see the real UKIP if they every got their hands on the levers of power.. Heaven forbid.
Rubbish. UKIP has no main aims except at the top they want to stay on the gravy train of tax payer employment. Their other policies are subject to the whims of one man and depend upon his mood that day. They even openly trash their own manifesto from the previous election.
I'm reaching the age where you start to think for the first time that maybe, just maybe, you might not live forever. And it's not a particularly pleasant process to go through.
The judgement of youngsters is infamously poor. It's based on hormones and absolutism. Oh and thinking they'll never die. And someone else pays for it all.
Older and wiser go together for a reason. Life isn't that simple.
There's a fabulous piece from Mr Aaronovitch in today's Times about the weaseling around Je Suis Charlie. And Alice Thompson's weasel column the previous day. Two bits of journalism that say almost everything about apologists and those that don't.
If you don't subscribe to the online edition - it's worth a £1 to read just them and the comments underneath.
The most interesting bit of Alice Thompson's article was her discovery that hostility towards free speech tended to be most common among young people, which seems counter-intuitive. I'm not sure that that is true of young people generally, but it is very true of student unions, who are keen to ban the Sun, or men who wish to debate abortion, or atheists who make fun of Islam, or UKIP speakers.
Young people are in favour of free speech on non-socio-cultural issues, such as economics. On the rest they're only in favour of free speech in so much as it loudly endorses the consensus.
However, there's an increasingly worrying tendency for 'alternative' views on economics to be redressed as being based on 'warped' socio-cultural beliefs (arise petitions to ban Myleene Klass from employment) in order to silence those discussions as well.
The parties seem in a race for the most mental policies. I think the Conservative plan to set fire to the internet was a good move, but Labour's twin policies of fixing prices at a high rate as oil prices crash and banning children from eating sweets is a good riposte.
However, both lag behind Scottish Labour's plan to tax London flats for Scottish nurses.
"The unexpected decision to ditch the policy — which ensured the euro did not fall below 1.20 francs — sent the euro plummeting 28 percent against the Swiss currency.."
"The unexpected decision to ditch the policy — which ensured the euro did not fall below 1.20 francs — sent the euro plummeting 28 percent against the Swiss currency.."
breaking: firefighters fighting three major suspected arson attacks at South Oxfordshire council buildings....
27 crews involved.
report someone drove a car into reception with cas canisters: unconfirmed...
Ooh, must be radicalised immigrants then.
Or at a guess, a really pissed off local resident, hacked off with their business rates or a planning decision, which is far more likely.
all very close to RAF Benson...
A thatched cottage in Roke Marsh was torched too. Looks like a local dispute.
Or mistaken identity. Just attack something, anything?
As you say there are plenty of sensitive sites in the area. Why go for a thatched cottage, a funeral business and the council offices? That says 'local dispute', or random nutter.
From Colin Kaepernick to Lady Gaga - they can't get enough of Iain Duncan Smith in the States
After all the ridicule he suffered during his two unhappy years as Tory leader, the quiet man is at last gaining the recognition he deserves – and from major American celebrities
The oil price increased from 46 to 48 last night, but apparently it was something to do with traders jockeying for position for a particular contract or date or some such, and it's started to drop again this morning:
The Swiss have unpegged from the Euro because they were printing vast amounts of Swiss Francs, which were then used to buy Euros (and US Dollars indirectly) in an attempt to hold the value of the Swiss Franc down.
They had two choices: hold the Swiss Franc down via money printing, and drive domestic inflation, or allow the Swiss Franc to rise and hammer Swiss exporters.
At the end of the day, hedge funds kept buying Swiss Francs. Essentially, the bet was that the Swiss would not (and could not) continue to hold the value of the Franc down against market forces. (As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market.)
A lot of hedge funds will have made an awful lot of money today.
We see it again on this thread.. As Ukip become more popular and more mainstream, the hate level rises from other parties... It can't be because if policy, as they have taken some of Ukips, it can't be because they think they are racist or xenophobic as Cameron's proposals are crueller to immigrNts than Ukips, it's just because they are losing votes and scared of losing power
................The habit of British parties of portraying each other as borderline criminal disasters while producing core policies in touching distance of each other does feed cynicism, and Patrick and Danny on this thread, and to some extent Southam Observer, are examples of voters yearning for something radically different...........
After the expenses and earlier scandals the public holds current MPs and past MPs in contempt. The brand image of MPs has been fundamentally damaged. Thus by attacking each other it just reinforces the attraction of alternatives. To enable a major party to reverse this trend needs a ruthless re-building of that party based on principles that it rigidly holds to and delivers on. None of the main 3 are re-building and instead operating short term "one last heave" tactics, which amount to "one more pile of sh*t" chucked at an opponent. UKIP have the "new kid" appeal but are undermined by the cult of one man and his court, all jockeying for position.
I think there is quite a lot in that, but the real killer for me about politics is the conspicuous lack of integrity from senior politicians.
Yes, we know politicians lie, that isn't news. The the level of barefaced shameless whoppers the public have been asked to swallow on a regular basis from Blair onward is astonishing, and it hardly a surprise the public are cynical.
Blair wouldn't know the truth if it hit him around the face, the dodgy dossier was amongst the worst, but hardly the only one. Brown continued it with his abolishing boom and bust, but seemed to suffer from some scruples about it because his body language screamed "I'm a liar" when he was going off on one.
Cameron is truly the heir to Blair, endless silly whoppers told with a straight face, and his best patrician "you can trust Uncle Dave" look on, when it was patently obvious that he couldnt or wouldnt do what he was saying he was going to do. The immigration promise was the most egregious of this unhappy lot, no only did we get the "no if's no but's" idiocy, he even put in his party's election pledges (how many of those turned out to be lies!) that the public could sack him if he didn't do it, we know he couldn't do it when he said it, and now the public plans to take him up on his offer.
It started to happen to me when my parents died, then people I worked with in their 40s.
All of a sudden - it wasn't just Oldies like grandparents - but People Like Me.
And Obits are full of people I loved to watch as a kid or teenager. Lance Percival last week being another. It feels all a bit too close. It's a funny thing to realise that you have more time behind you than ahead.
From Colin Kaepernick to Lady Gaga - they can't get enough of Iain Duncan Smith in the States
After all the ridicule he suffered during his two unhappy years as Tory leader, the quiet man is at last gaining the recognition he deserves – and from major American celebrities
breaking: firefighters fighting three major suspected arson attacks at South Oxfordshire council buildings....
27 crews involved.
report someone drove a car into reception with cas canisters: unconfirmed...
Ooh, must be radicalised immigrants then.
Or at a guess, a really pissed off local resident, hacked off with their business rates or a planning decision, which is far more likely.
all very close to RAF Benson...
A thatched cottage in Roke Marsh was torched too. Looks like a local dispute.
Or mistaken identity. Just attack something, anything?
As you say there are plenty of sensitive sites in the area. Why go for a thatched cottage, a funeral business and the council offices? That says 'local dispute', or random nutter.
Inspector Barnaby has investigated plenty of mysterious fires in S Oxon.
I wouldn't seek to offend people deliberately, but now the Kouachis have struck a blow for the Prophet, and their adherents will see that it was successful. The media can be cowed. They achieved their aim.
Precisely. My concern is will be seen as the opening move. Our freedom of speech was challenged and we blinked, the pendulum has moved in their direction, now the media is going to be much more circumspect about stories involving Islam.
The question now is which part of our lifestyle is seen as the next target, which bit is offensive to the fundamentalists and they think a bit of well placed nit of violence will get us to blink again. Supposed for the sake of argument a cinema was asked to introduce segregated seating for men and women, it did it for a week or two but it was unpopular, so they reverted to normal seating, and then the cinema was bombed.. what would other cinemas do then, what would the government do, what would the press do.
Personally, I'm ignoring any "I'm offended" wailing from whatever quarter it comes. I will be good mannered to individuals. But this "offence" is being used as a political weapon and must be ignored and resisted.
We blinked over Rushdie, over the Danish cartoons etc. That's why this has happened now. That's why we should have stood firm then and why, more than ever, we need to stand firm now.
So now we see where this goes, don't we. It's not really about cartoons - even if we accept the premise that any depiction is offensive to Muslims. This was about someone objecting - violently - to another person expressing solidarity with the victims of terrorism. This was about someone wanting to stop them saying so. What next? You mustn't say that any victims were killed, maybe? Or that they were killed by Muslims, perhaps? Or pointing out that while the killers spared two women they did not spare the woman who was Jewish?
It's all bollocks. And all it shows is that this is about aggression, about aggressively wanting to impose your own world view on others. And as the late and much-lamented Christopher Hitchens pointed out in that Slate article written at the time of an earlier eruption of baby-ish tantrums about cartoons, I refuse to be spoken to in such a tone of voice, in such an offensive tone of voice.
Some people have made an utter fortune and some have lost an utter fortune today in Switzerland. I'm stunned they just let it go in one rather than a gradual announced wind-down.
Some papers are playing this as a 'Euro collapse' story whereas it is, of course, nothing of the sort. It is a CHF soars back to its real value story. In hindsight silly of the Swiss central bank to think it could afford to fight the market rate forever.
What it does do is take Switzerland out of the Euro sphere and back to being a clear competitor. And reinforces the underlying truth that incompatible currency unions can't work - market pressure breaks them in the end without political / transfer union.
The parties seem in a race for the most mental policies. I think the Conservative plan to set fire to the internet was a good move, but Labour's twin policies of fixing prices at a high rate as oil prices crash and banning children from eating sweets is a good riposte.
However, both lag behind Scottish Labour's plan to tax London flats for Scottish nurses.
Indeed. Perhaps you have some instrument available to deal with such people?
Not at all. Your thin skin on here is evident to anyone with eyes. I like reading your posts, but playing the victim too often does feel Boy Who Cried Wolf.
We see it again on this thread.. As Ukip become more popular and more mainstream, the hate level rises from other parties... It can't be because if policy, as they have taken some of Ukips, it can't be because they think they are racist or xenophobic as Cameron's proposals are crueller to immigrNts than Ukips, it's just because they are losing votes and scared of losing power
I think we're on course for the third government in a row to be elected on around 35% of the vote.
That in part explains why other parties are emerging.
I don't think FPTP will survive and the reality of PR will invigorate parties to deal with the issues Henry has identified.
I would like to think that the decline of the two-party share is inevitable, and that this will lead to an end to FPTP, but it doesn't have to be that way.
You can see from Greece that the emergence of a radical alternative - in their case Syriza - can act to polarise politics and recreate a two-party paradigm. In that case with a new party replacing one of the old parties. At the last election the two-party share in Greece was 56.6%, and at the election before, its low point, the two-party share was down to 35.7%, but the polls now give the two largest parties a combined 65% of the vote.
A similar thing sort-of happened in Australia when the National Party emerged - and I think the use of AV encouraged the recreation of a two-party system.
There is possibly only a relatively narrow window of opportunity to change the electoral system. If it doesn't happen in the next Parliament, the moment may have passed.
breaking: firefighters fighting three major suspected arson attacks at South Oxfordshire council buildings....
27 crews involved.
report someone drove a car into reception with cas canisters: unconfirmed...
Ooh, must be radicalised immigrants then.
Or at a guess, a really pissed off local resident, hacked off with their business rates or a planning decision, which is far more likely.
all very close to RAF Benson...
A thatched cottage in Roke Marsh was torched too. Looks like a local dispute.
Or mistaken identity. Just attack something, anything?
As you say there are plenty of sensitive sites in the area. Why go for a thatched cottage, a funeral business and the council offices? That says 'local dispute', or random nutter.
Inspector Barnaby has investigated plenty of mysterious fires in S Oxon.
I wouldn't seek to offend people deliberately, but now the Kouachis have struck a blow for the Prophet, and their adherents will see that it was successful. The media can be cowed. They achieved their aim.
Precisely. My concern is will be seen as the opening move. Our freedom of speech was challenged and we blinked, the pendulum has moved in their direction, now the media is going to be much more circumspect about stories involving Islam.
The question now is which part of our lifestyle is seen as the next target, which bit is offensive to the fundamentalists and they think a bit of well placed nit of violence will get us to blink again. Supposed for the sake of argument a cinema was asked to introduce segregated seating for men and women, it did it for a week or two but it was unpopular, so they reverted to normal seating, and then the cinema was bombed.. what would other cinemas do then, what would the government do, what would the press do.
Personally, I'm ignoring any "I'm offended" wailing from whatever quarter it comes. I will be good mannered to individuals. But this "offence" is being used as a political weapon and must be ignored and resisted.
We blinked over Rushdie, over the Danish cartoons etc. That's why this has happened now. That's why we should have stood firm then and why, more than ever, we need to stand firm now.
So now we see where this goes, don't we. It's not really about cartoons - even if we accept the premise that any depiction is offensive to Muslims. This was about someone objecting - violently - to another person expressing solidarity with the victims of terrorism. This was about someone wanting to stop them saying so. What next? You mustn't say that any victims were killed, maybe? Or that they were killed by Muslims, perhaps? Or pointing out that while the killers spared two women they did not spare the woman who was Jewish?
It's all bollocks. And all it shows is that this is about aggression, about aggressively wanting to impose your own world view on others. And as the late and much-lamented Christopher Hitchens pointed out in that Slate article written at the time of an earlier eruption of baby-ish tantrums about cartoons, I refuse to be spoken to in such a tone of voice, in such an offensive tone of voice.
Some people have made an utter fortune and some have lost an utter fortune today in Switzerland. I'm stunned they just let it go in one rather than a gradual announced wind-down.
Some papers are playing this as a 'Euro collapse' story whereas it is, of course, nothing of the sort. It is a CHF soars back to its real value story. In hindsight silly of the Swiss central bank to think it could afford to fight the market rate forever.
What it does do is take Switzerland out of the Euro sphere and back to being a clear competitor. And reinforces the underlying truth that incompatible currency unions can't work - market pressure breaks them in the end without political / transfer union.
Unfortunately, you can't really do a managed wind down. If you say "we are going to allow the CHF to go from $0.95 to $1.10 over the next year", then every hedge fund in existence will say: whopeee! free money, I'll keep buying the swiss franc as I know it's going to appreciate 15% in the next year
Imagine a world that still had Hitler and Stalin. And how overcrowded we'd be. And that Blair might still be PM. Food would be short, suffering could be immense, because people just wouldn't die.
Of course, I still want to be immortal on a personal level, but species-wide it'd be a disaster.
Miss Cyclefree, I quite agree. Apologists like Mehdi Hasan, on Question Time tonight, need showing up for what they are. Free speech trumps the over-sensitive and we must not allow violent maniacs to determine the limits of free speech.
Miss Cyclefree part 2: indeed. The solar death ray is a cheap, clean energy method of idiot disposal. It's win-win-win for all concerned (except the person being obliterated by the immense power of the sun, obviously, but there we are).
Not at all. Your thin skin on here is evident to anyone with eyes. I like reading your posts, but playing the victim too often does feel Boy Who Cried Wolf.
We see it again on this thread.. As Ukip become more popular and more mainstream, the hate level rises from other parties... It can't be because if policy, as they have taken some of Ukips, it can't be because they think they are racist or xenophobic as Cameron's proposals are crueller to immigrNts than Ukips, it's just because they are losing votes and scared of losing power
Truth hurts and you have no answer
So why do parties dislike Ukip more now than when Ukip were getting 3%?
The justification for the loons fruitcakes and racists comment was that it was true at the time as ukip were a v small party, and so there would be no need to apologise now as the 12% extra voters who have joined since, weren't insulted
The Tories policies recently have been heavily influenced by Ukips and so they can't claim a big ideological difference
And the prospect of losing power in any relationship causes anger in the incumbent.. Which is what we see from Cameroons on a daily basis
You have no answer so try and change the subject... Not gonna work here
I think we're on course for the third government in a row to be elected on around 35% of the vote.
That in part explains why other parties are emerging.
I don't think FPTP will survive and the reality of PR will invigorate parties to deal with the issues Henry has identified.
I would like to think that the decline of the two-party share is inevitable, and that this will lead to an end to FPTP, but it doesn't have to be that way.
You can see from Greece that the emergence of a radical alternative - in their case Syriza - can act to polarise politics and recreate a two-party paradigm. In that case with a new party replacing one of the old parties. At the last election the two-party share in Greece was 56.6%, and at the election before, its low point, the two-party share was down to 35.7%, but the polls now give the two largest parties a combined 65% of the vote.
A similar thing sort-of happened in Australia when the National Party emerged - and I think the use of AV encouraged the recreation of a two-party system.
There is possibly only a relatively narrow window of opportunity to change the electoral system. If it doesn't happen in the next Parliament, the moment may have passed.
My worse case scenario is Labour/Lib Dem coalition in May, where
1) Labour have polled fewer votes than the Tories, but have more seats
2) The Lib Dems are outpolled 2:1 by UKIP but have say 5 or 15 times as many MPs than UKIP
There'll be no incentive for them to change the system.
Great quote. I'm very fatalistic about life, and death doesn't bother me too much. I made a euthanasia pact with my mother, even if it meant prison for me. Her hospice doctors did it for me.
It's not something one can explain to another who doesn't get it.
I feel like Tuesday's vote in Parliament on "fiscal discipline" was a quite an accurate representation of politics at the moment: Ed Balls and George Osborne spending hours taking petty pot shots at eachother and trying to score points on technicalities, before they then voted the same way on the issue. Unattractive playground tittle-tattle on irrelevancies are dominating the debate, while on the substance there is no discernible choice: it's the worst of all worlds.
Is there a parallel with Morrisons here?
Their CEO has recently been fired following a dreadful Christmas, but they're looking to appoint a new CEO to follow the same strategy - just with fewer mistakes. Maybe the British public will end up doing the same thing in May.
Chris Huhne's inability to keep the snake inside the pet store, is still causing problems today
A disgraced judge could escape having to pay £90,000 in legal costs for lying to police about her role in the Chris Huhne speeding points scandal - because she is now penniless.
Imagine a world that still had Hitler and Stalin. And how overcrowded we'd be. And that Blair might still be PM. Food would be short, suffering could be immense, because people just wouldn't die.
Of course, I still want to be immortal on a personal level, but species-wide it'd be a disaster.
Miss Cyclefree, I quite agree. Apologists like Mehdi Hasan, on Question Time tonight, need showing up for what they are. Free speech trumps the over-sensitive and we must not allow violent maniacs to determine the limits of free speech.
Miss Cyclefree part 2: indeed. The solar death ray is a cheap, clean energy method of idiot disposal. It's win-win-win for all concerned (except the person being obliterated by the immense power of the sun, obviously, but there we are).
"Employees of Tower Hamlets Council were warned they may lose their jobs if they did not each illegally obtain 100 votes for Mayor Lutfur Rahman, according to court documents seen by BBC London."
On what affects to be a personal site, she should avoid the first person plural as in "about us", "contact us" and "our work" -- it smacks of "We are a grandmother." You'd think CCHQ would occasionally glance at PPCs' sites for this sort of thing.
Chris Huhne's inability to keep the snake inside the pet store, is still causing problems today
A disgraced judge could escape having to pay £90,000 in legal costs for lying to police about her role in the Chris Huhne speeding points scandal - because she is now penniless.
How is that Huhne’s fault? Or even responsibility? AFAIR the judge got together with VP, and from the look of it she was a bit of a fallen angel anyway!
And there you go yet again. I haven't said any of those things - and have agreed with bits of UKIP's libertarian agenda - yet you're so keen to play the victim that you're digging in against me as a reflex.
Just stop. It does your credibility no good to react like this. I'm being cruel to be kind - I hope you will eventually see this.
Enuff from me. I will continue to read your posts and hope you stand for the Kippers. Oh, and fewer betcha bets would be good too. Machismo on PB feels weird.
Not at all. Your thin skin on here is evident to anyone with eyes. I like reading your posts, but playing the victim too often does feel Boy Who Cried Wolf.
We see it again on this thread.. As Ukip become more popular and more mainstream, the hate level rises from other parties... It can't be because if policy, as they have taken some of Ukips, it can't be because they think they are racist or xenophobic as Cameron's proposals are crueller to immigrNts than Ukips, it's just because they are losing votes and scared of losing power
Truth hurts and you have no answer
So why do parties dislike Ukip more now than when Ukip were getting 3%?
The justification for the loons fruitcakes and racists comment was that it was true at the time as ukip were a v small party, and so there would be no need to apologise now as the 12% extra voters who have joined since, weren't insulted
The Tories policies recently have been heavily influenced by Ukips and so they can't claim a big ideological difference
And the prospect of losing power in any relationship causes anger in the incumbent.. Which is what we see from Cameroons on a daily basis
You have no answer so try and change the subject... Not gonna work here
I wouldn't seek to offend people deliberately, but now the Kouachis have struck a blow for the Prophet, and their adherents will see that it was successful. The media can be cowed. They achieved their aim.
Precisely. My concern is will be seen as the opening move. Our freedom of speech was challenged and we blinked, the pendulum has moved in their direction, now the media is going to be much more circumspect about stories involving Islam.
The question now is which part of our lifestyle is seen as the next target, which bit is offensive to the fundamentalists and they think a bit of well placed nit of violence will get us to blink again. Supposed for the sake of argument a cinema was asked to introduce segregated seating for men and women, it did it for a week or two but it was unpopular, so they reverted to normal seating, and then the cinema was bombed.. what would other cinemas do then, what would the government do, what would the press do.
The big idea of our age, in the West, is anti-prejudice. Whilst of course laudable it has become so axiomatic that almost anything that can be perceived, however tangentially, as potentially conflicting with it is now sacrificed at its altar, including freedom of speech.
Discrimination is a misunderstood concept IMO. Discriminating for irrelevant reasons is silly and wrong. But discrimination on the grounds of relevant factors is not wrong. And not silly. It is essential in fact.
We've forgotten this latter point hence the knots so many people tie themselves up in.
The truest thing Henry G Manson has ever written: the Lab/Lib/Con parties haven't a new idea, thought or policy in their collective head. Actually they all act as if they were headless chickens. Chickens all.
Uniforms for taxi drivers and nationalise the railways - what wonderful new ideas.
Rock throwing - thats all there is from the purples.
Look who's throwing antiquated rocks and stones this morning. Got your hedjab on this morning?
Talk me through the top 5 Ukip policies that don't involve immigration and the EU then..
That's like saying what are the top five policies that don't involve local government in some way. It automatically rules out planning, education, transport, and a whole bunch of other areas. The EU has its fingers in nearly everything.
How predictable.
Nothing on education ? Nothing on defence ? Nothing on pensions ? Nothing on housing ? Nothing on IHT, IT, NI, VAT, corporation tax ? Nothing on law and order ? Nothing on energy policy ?
Just rocks ?
Why the space before the question mark ? And why the relentless 24/7 campaign to bore tory readers of this site into the arms of UKIP ?
Because we never ever hear from Kippers on any subjects other than one. We don't even hear much about the EU anymore.
Yes you do, but you choose to read what suits your agenda.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
Chris Huhne's inability to keep the snake inside the pet store, is still causing problems today
A disgraced judge could escape having to pay £90,000 in legal costs for lying to police about her role in the Chris Huhne speeding points scandal - because she is now penniless.
How is that Huhne’s fault? Or even responsibility? AFAIR the judge got together with VP, and from the look of it she was a bit of a fallen angel anyway!
It isn't it his fault.
The majority of the blame is Justice Briscoe's fault.
It was more a reference to the Butterfly Theory.
I think the best example was Bill Clinton bombing Iraq when his problems re Monica Lewinsky became serious.
I believe some wag said "Bill Clinton opens his flies in Washington and people die in Iraq"
I cannot believe how committed the Conservatives are to this encryption lunacy. I imagine that this is going to start losing them young small l liberal votes at the very least given how much they have banged on about it.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
Your Mother sounds like an eminently sensible woman, and you should follow her lead and vote Tory!
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
Your Mother sounds like an eminently sensible woman, and you should follow her lead and vote Tory!
I have spent my entire life not doing things that my mother would like me to do.
- English parliament - No income tax on the minimum wage - No tuition fees for science students - Recall elections after 20% of constituents sign a petition - New apprenticeship qualification in place of GCSEs for those more vocationally minded
Chris Huhne's inability to keep the snake inside the pet store, is still causing problems today
A disgraced judge could escape having to pay £90,000 in legal costs for lying to police about her role in the Chris Huhne speeding points scandal - because she is now penniless.
How is that Huhne’s fault? Or even responsibility? AFAIR the judge got together with VP, and from the look of it she was a bit of a fallen angel anyway!
It isn't it his fault.
The majority of the blame is Justice Briscoe's fault.
It was more a reference to the Butterfly Theory.
I think the best example was Bill Clinton bombing Iraq when his problems re Monica Lewinsky became serious.
I believe some wag said "Bill Clinton opens his flies in Washington and people die in Iraq"
@JGForsyth: YouGov has Cameron with an 18 point lead over EdM on the best PM question. So, he’d have to ‘win’ a debate by +18 to make it worth his while
Well that's a non sequitur. I'm a Tory and against it. Who are all these group think people of whom you speak? And LibDems aren't liberal much at all either. Libertarians are.
And this feels like a random rock thrown at us. Try harder - it's so obvious.
I cannot believe how committed the Conservatives are to this encryption lunacy. I imagine that this is going to start losing them young small l liberal votes at the very least given how much they have banged on about it.
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
Your Mother sounds like an eminently sensible woman, and you should follow her lead and vote Tory!
I have spent my entire life not doing things that my mother would like me to do.
Irritation is the natural reaction to what is seen by non-Kippers as young upstarts.
I'm now an OAP, so my best (and only) suit is my "funeral suit" now.
Mortality is one of the issues I considered in the e-book wot I wrote; hence the title "An ever rolling stream" from the famous hymn ...'time like an ever rolling stream bears all its sons away'.
I thought it was thoughtful and a bit geeky but Wild Wolf, the publishers specialise in "dark and edgy".
I suspect any story concerning mortality and inevitable death is looked on as dark and edgy by the younger generations.
Chris Huhne's inability to keep the snake inside the pet store, is still causing problems today
A disgraced judge could escape having to pay £90,000 in legal costs for lying to police about her role in the Chris Huhne speeding points scandal - because she is now penniless.
There is peniless and there is peniless though, is she actually peniless or has a very good friend of hers made a recent extension to their house or some such ;p
On the topic of Charlie Hebdo, I had a curious conversation with my mum last night. She raised the subject, saying she was uncomfortable about it all. She absolutely agreed, obviously, that it was appalling for anyone to be killed. But she did not see the need for anyone to be so offensive to anyone else. My father (who was out at the time of the call, so I have only my mum's account) felt differently: that following the massacre, it was essential to protect freedom of speech.
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
How deeply held and sincere are such beliefs? There are quite a lot of examples of depictions of Mohammed in Islamic art and even Sir Iqbal Sacranie conceded on a recent Newsnight programme that there were representations of him in Mecca.
And why should their depth and sincerity matter anyway?
No doubt the South African church which supported apartheid held these beliefs deeply and sincerely. But so what?
Sometimes it is precisely that fact which needs challenging.
Well that's a non sequitur. I'm a Tory and against it. Who are all these group think people of whom you speak? And LibDems aren't liberal much at all either. Libertarians are.
And this feels like a random rock thrown at us. Try harder - it's so obvious.
I cannot believe how committed the Conservatives are to this encryption lunacy. I imagine that this is going to start losing them young small l liberal votes at the very least given how much they have banged on about it.
I meant the Conservative government, not Conservative voters.
@JGForsyth: YouGov has Cameron with an 18 point lead over EdM on the best PM question. So, he’d have to ‘win’ a debate by +18 to make it worth his while
Comments
However, there's an increasingly worrying tendency for 'alternative' views on economics to be redressed as being based on 'warped' socio-cultural beliefs (arise petitions to ban Myleene Klass from employment) in order to silence those discussions as well.
You have interesting ideas for devolution, but, realistically, we're not getting rid of the separate Scottish parliament, and EVEL doesn't give us the English executive we need for non-statutory governance.
http://www.amjadbashirmep.co.uk/
Referendums on local issues
Fracking
Sovereign wealth fund (copied by Tories already I believe)
Raising 40% tax barrier (copied by Tories already)
Or at a guess, a really pissed off local resident, hacked off with their business rates or a planning decision, which is far more likely.
Older and wiser go together for a reason. Life isn't that simple.
Farage has said many times he doesnt want to run the country, he wants to get the UK out of the EU.
With our system the only way he can do that is to get some people elected and hope to get enough influence in parliament to make it happen.
In order to get into parliament UKIP needs to have a load of policies about things they dont really care about.
I dont think anyone can pretend that Dave would have made his 2017 referendum promise if UKIP weren't taking a chunk of the Tory vote, an chunk which your daily abuse ensures will continue to vote UKIP rather than come back and vote Tory.
I think Nigel Farage would very much like to be Prime Minister
I would like young people to be taught that intellectual rigour and debate are not a threat but essential to a free society. To argue differently is like denying a guilty man defence counsel. Sooner or later it leads to laziness, poor decisions and systemic miscarriages of justice.
The parties seem in a race for the most mental policies. I think the Conservative plan to set fire to the internet was a good move, but Labour's twin policies of fixing prices at a high rate as oil prices crash and banning children from eating sweets is a good riposte.
However, both lag behind Scottish Labour's plan to tax London flats for Scottish nurses.
Fortunately most people gain wisdom as they grow older.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/nigel-farage-not-want-prime-4817391
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/paris-police-attack-live-updates-4981223#rlabs=2
I was amazed to win by a small margin. Now I don't think 10yrs olds are like Mr Gove - just more self-interested, like all other voters. And there weren't enough skateboarders in the constituency. This was 1976.
So does this mean our children will be expelled as the offspring of an immigrant?
Just asking...
Archbishop of Canterbury: Britain is too materialistic.
George Osborne: Britain can become the richest country in the world.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/anglican-archbishops-accuse-coalition-of-abandoning-poor-amid-culture-of-selfishness-9978980.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/14/britain-richest-country-world-george-osborne-fiscal-policy
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530044.500-pope-to-make-moral-case-for-action-on-climate-change.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.VLeVciusXw8
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/11347218/Swiss-franc-surges-after-scrapping-euro-peg.html
Analytical blunders that discredit UK Labour’s pitch - Error of party’s high command was one of hubris
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1bf43b8a-9bdf-11e4-b6cc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Osuwe7D7
If you don't have an FT subscription, google "Analytical blunders that discredit UK Labour’s pitch"
28%!
Surely an obituary is no different to reading, say, classical history. Everyone involved is dead.
Mr. Patrick, de-pegging (unpegging?) sounds pretty significant.
After all the ridicule he suffered during his two unhappy years as Tory leader, the quiet man is at last gaining the recognition he deserves – and from major American celebrities
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11335967/From-Colin-Kaepernick-to-Lady-Gaga-they-cant-get-enough-of-Iain-Ducan-Smith-in-the-States.html
https://thelearningprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/hardie_elect.jpg
Marks out of 10?
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
The Swiss have unpegged from the Euro because they were printing vast amounts of Swiss Francs, which were then used to buy Euros (and US Dollars indirectly) in an attempt to hold the value of the Swiss Franc down.
They had two choices: hold the Swiss Franc down via money printing, and drive domestic inflation, or allow the Swiss Franc to rise and hammer Swiss exporters.
At the end of the day, hedge funds kept buying Swiss Francs. Essentially, the bet was that the Swiss would not (and could not) continue to hold the value of the Franc down against market forces. (As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market.)
A lot of hedge funds will have made an awful lot of money today.
Yes, we know politicians lie, that isn't news. The the level of barefaced shameless whoppers the public have been asked to swallow on a regular basis from Blair onward is astonishing, and it hardly a surprise the public are cynical.
Blair wouldn't know the truth if it hit him around the face, the dodgy dossier was amongst the worst, but hardly the only one. Brown continued it with his abolishing boom and bust, but seemed to suffer from some scruples about it because his body language screamed "I'm a liar" when he was going off on one.
Cameron is truly the heir to Blair, endless silly whoppers told with a straight face, and his best patrician "you can trust Uncle Dave" look on, when it was patently obvious that he couldnt or wouldnt do what he was saying he was going to do. The immigration promise was the most egregious of this unhappy lot, no only did we get the "no if's no but's" idiocy, he even put in his party's election pledges (how many of those turned out to be lies!) that the public could sack him if he didn't do it, we know he couldn't do it when he said it, and now the public plans to take him up on his offer.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/pre-election-pledges-tories-are-trying-wipe-internet
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2505932/Tories-delete-pre-2010-speech-news-story-website-attempt-rewrite-history.html
All of a sudden - it wasn't just Oldies like grandparents - but People Like Me.
And Obits are full of people I loved to watch as a kid or teenager. Lance Percival last week being another. It feels all a bit too close. It's a funny thing to realise that you have more time behind you than ahead.
We blinked over Rushdie, over the Danish cartoons etc. That's why this has happened now. That's why we should have stood firm then and why, more than ever, we need to stand firm now.
But we know what the next target is because it has already happened - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11345258/East-London-cafe-threatened-for-placing-Je-Suis-Charlie-sign-outside.html.
So now we see where this goes, don't we. It's not really about cartoons - even if we accept the premise that any depiction is offensive to Muslims. This was about someone objecting - violently - to another person expressing solidarity with the victims of terrorism. This was about someone wanting to stop them saying so. What next? You mustn't say that any victims were killed, maybe? Or that they were killed by Muslims, perhaps? Or pointing out that while the killers spared two women they did not spare the woman who was Jewish?
It's all bollocks. And all it shows is that this is about aggression, about aggressively wanting to impose your own world view on others. And as the late and much-lamented Christopher Hitchens pointed out in that Slate article written at the time of an earlier eruption of baby-ish tantrums about cartoons, I refuse to be spoken to in such a tone of voice, in such an offensive tone of voice.
Some papers are playing this as a 'Euro collapse' story whereas it is, of course, nothing of the sort. It is a CHF soars back to its real value story. In hindsight silly of the Swiss central bank to think it could afford to fight the market rate forever.
What it does do is take Switzerland out of the Euro sphere and back to being a clear competitor. And reinforces the underlying truth that incompatible currency unions can't work - market pressure breaks them in the end without political / transfer union.
Less is more on this front.
You can see from Greece that the emergence of a radical alternative - in their case Syriza - can act to polarise politics and recreate a two-party paradigm. In that case with a new party replacing one of the old parties. At the last election the two-party share in Greece was 56.6%, and at the election before, its low point, the two-party share was down to 35.7%, but the polls now give the two largest parties a combined 65% of the vote.
A similar thing sort-of happened in Australia when the National Party emerged - and I think the use of AV encouraged the recreation of a two-party system.
There is possibly only a relatively narrow window of opportunity to change the electoral system. If it doesn't happen in the next Parliament, the moment may have passed.
The antithesis of Faux Charlie.
Imagine a world that still had Hitler and Stalin. And how overcrowded we'd be. And that Blair might still be PM. Food would be short, suffering could be immense, because people just wouldn't die.
Of course, I still want to be immortal on a personal level, but species-wide it'd be a disaster.
Miss Cyclefree, I quite agree. Apologists like Mehdi Hasan, on Question Time tonight, need showing up for what they are. Free speech trumps the over-sensitive and we must not allow violent maniacs to determine the limits of free speech.
Miss Cyclefree part 2: indeed. The solar death ray is a cheap, clean energy method of idiot disposal. It's win-win-win for all concerned (except the person being obliterated by the immense power of the sun, obviously, but there we are).
The justification for the loons fruitcakes and racists comment was that it was true at the time as ukip were a v small party, and so there would be no need to apologise now as the 12% extra voters who have joined since, weren't insulted
The Tories policies recently have been heavily influenced by Ukips and so they can't claim a big ideological difference
And the prospect of losing power in any relationship causes anger in the incumbent.. Which is what we see from Cameroons on a daily basis
You have no answer so try and change the subject... Not gonna work here
1) Labour have polled fewer votes than the Tories, but have more seats
2) The Lib Dems are outpolled 2:1 by UKIP but have say 5 or 15 times as many MPs than UKIP
There'll be no incentive for them to change the system.
My preference is multi-member STV
It's not something one can explain to another who doesn't get it.
Their CEO has recently been fired following a dreadful Christmas, but they're looking to appoint a new CEO to follow the same strategy - just with fewer mistakes. Maybe the British public will end up doing the same thing in May.
I'm more concerned about the price of chocolate.
Where does the name "Hodivala" come from? I'd probably guess somewhere like Hungary.
http://charlottehodivala.org/
A disgraced judge could escape having to pay £90,000 in legal costs for lying to police about her role in the Chris Huhne speeding points scandal - because she is now penniless.
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?public_id=39529
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30819561
Just stop. It does your credibility no good to react like this. I'm being cruel to be kind - I hope you will eventually see this.
Enuff from me. I will continue to read your posts and hope you stand for the Kippers. Oh, and fewer betcha bets would be good too. Machismo on PB feels weird.
We've forgotten this latter point hence the knots so many people tie themselves up in.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7Yn381CYAEaI0R.jpg
My mother wouldn't have disagreed with the principle that freedom of speech should be protected. She simply didn't see the need to use that freedom to offend someone's deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
I think isam would have agreed with her completely.
For general background, my father has in the past flirted with UKIP but now thinks that Nigel Farage is a moron ("like all the rest") and dislikes the present tone of UKIP's message - I have no idea who he will vote for in May. My mother is a very traditional Christian Conservative who regularly tells my father not to be so silly about his political views. She loves Boris Johnson (!) and William Hague.
The majority of the blame is Justice Briscoe's fault.
It was more a reference to the Butterfly Theory.
I think the best example was Bill Clinton bombing Iraq when his problems re Monica Lewinsky became serious.
I believe some wag said "Bill Clinton opens his flies in Washington and people die in Iraq"
@JGForsyth: YouGov has Cameron with an 18 point lead over EdM on the best PM question. So, he’d have to ‘win’ a debate by +18 to make it worth his while
And this feels like a random rock thrown at us. Try harder - it's so obvious.
Irritation is the natural reaction to what is seen by non-Kippers as young upstarts.
I'm now an OAP, so my best (and only) suit is my "funeral suit" now.
Mortality is one of the issues I considered in the e-book wot I wrote; hence the title "An ever rolling stream" from the famous hymn ...'time like an ever rolling stream bears all its sons away'.
I thought it was thoughtful and a bit geeky but Wild Wolf, the publishers specialise in "dark and edgy".
I suspect any story concerning mortality and inevitable death is looked on as dark and edgy by the younger generations.
And why should their depth and sincerity matter anyway?
No doubt the South African church which supported apartheid held these beliefs deeply and sincerely. But so what?
Sometimes it is precisely that fact which needs challenging.
Mr. JS, I'm entirely unsurprised. Will anything be done about it?