Amusing this morning to note some seasoned PB contributors simply don't understand the essential dynamics of a coalition that has lasted five years, namely :
Both parties gets some, but clearly not all, of their programme and have to compromise unless the policy is a red line deal breaker.
Once an agreement is reached all government business belongs to the Coalition and not just one party. Everything is political flim flam and posturing.
By "the essential dynamics of a coalition " you mean the job of a junior partner is to support the Tories. The Lib Dems did not realise until the boundary changes [ where suddenly their own survival was at stake ] vote, that they could veto Tory policies and the Tories could have done nothing about it !
I get you don't like the LibDems in coalition with the Conservatives although I have this outrageous perception that had the situation arisen you might have been more impartial and forgiving had the yellow peril flashed its bloomers at the Labour party.
Call my cynical ....
CYNICAL.
I would like any party helping Labour, officially or unofficially, get in government including the SNP.
I think the SNP, at least, for now, is more left leaning than Labour. So it would be a good help.
Regarding their quest for independence ? I support whatever the Scottish people chooses. But I would draw a line with extreme devolution and just about staying within the Union. That is the trap the three major parties fell into and the SNP are exploiting to the full.
Representation with very little taxation.
In Scotland today, it is like Christmas every day !
Bit weird saying the Clarkson is JUST a tedious saloon bar boor.
If read you anything about how and why Top Gear has become so successful (and why Clarkson has become so rich off the back of it), he isn't just the presenter. The format was his idea, the regular features are his concepts, he writes the show, he is involved direction and editing. Hence why the BBC are in a bad spot, it isn't simply replacing a presenter say with HIGNFY, where all the gags and content are written by a team for the presenter.
That isn't excusing what he may or may not have done, just stating that it isn't just oh get another presenter and nobody will notice. If he has smacked the guy, he has to go.
And I don't for a moment believe is on screen "character" is what he is like in real life. You think that people would invest huge amount of money in somebody who acts that way around the clock.
Chris Evans is another good example. His on screen persona, especially back in the day, was being a loud mouthed oik*. While off screen, he made mega bucks out of convincing people to invest a lot of money with him to buy Virgin Radio (and got out at the right time) and also assembling a huge property portfolio.
* he was for a period of time away from the cameras. But underneath is super sharp.
Clarkson is very good at what he does; of that there is absolutely no doubt.
In fact, what is the big deal of having no deficit at all ? How many countries other than oil gushing ones actually run a surplus ?
There are currently 50 countries in the world running a budget surplus, a number of those have a lot of oil, but quite a few don't: Poland, Germany, South Korea, Peru, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Singapore, Brazil, Greenland etc
The whole idea behind the deficit reduction plan is entirely different. It is to bring state spending as part of the GDP down - back to the 1930's levels.
I think you will find that has been revised the 2003 levels, or where Labour was when it abandoned Tory spending plans and started pissing money up the wall.
So you disagree that it was perfectly reasonable for the LDs to go into coalition with the Tories. Aren't you kind of arguing against yourself then
No. I've always said I think the coalition has worked reasonably well, and for the country's good. The Lib Dems are going to get hammered, but they don't deserve it IMHO. That's been my position for years. (*)
I'm not sure how you can think that the Lib Dems could have defended the coalition's policies without attacking Labour, who were leading the attacks on those policies. The 'standing shoulder to shoulder' that you complained about is just that.
(*) As it perhaps should be, as someone who is mostly a Lib Dem or Conservative voter, with some strays into Indy and Green territory)
In fact, what is the big deal of having no deficit at all ? How many countries other than oil gushing ones actually run a surplus ?
There are currently 50 countries in the world running a budget surplus, a number of those have a lot of oil, but quite a few don't: Poland, Germany, South Korea, Peru, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Singapore, Brazil, Greenland etc
The whole idea behind the deficit reduction plan is entirely different. It is to bring state spending as part of the GDP down - back to the 1930's levels.
I think you will find that has been revised the 2003 levels, or where Labour was when it abandoned Tory spending plans and started pissing money up the wall.
I get it: Azerbaijan [ oil ], Greenland [ seal oil ] are great examples. Oh, I forgot Botswana that industrial powerhouse.
Germany, yes ! And how is its economy doing lately ?
There's no secret about why the Daily Mail is so successful a newspaper - it understands its readership perfectly and delivers day after day. Dacre is a brilliant editor. Clarkson gets the Top Gear demographic too and delivers each and every time. Lefties that don't care to admit there is a big audience for right wing populism, stuff about cars, non-PC irreverance etc are just as ridiculous as right wingers who scream bias every time the BBC does not report soething in the way that they woule like.
I suppose it is time for me to admit when I am wrong. I felt that Cameron was being far too demanding in these debates, and would end up with egg on his face. But instead he's played a blinder. We've managed to get them spectacularly stacked in our favour and I'm shocked that the broadcasters have agreed to them. We've managed to get everything we wanted, and the other parties have got virtually nothing:
- No one on one between Cameron and Miliband - A first debate with so many people involved it's effectively a Q&A session - The only debate so far ahead of the elections it will be forgotten - Nick Clegg blocked from the second debate on entirely arbitrary grounds so we don't look bad by not attending - Farage being the only major party excluded from the BBC one-on-ones, which are probably the ones that matter the most, being on the biggest channel and the only one close to the election
Lynton Crosby must have some sort of dirt on the heads of the channels: he's basically got them all to agree to be part of our election campaign strategy! I'm particularly surprised by the BBC allowing UKIP to be excluded, but I suppose it plays to their own ideological preferences. I'm overjoyed, but supporters of the other parties must be fuming!
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
Bit weird saying the Clarkson is JUST a tedious saloon bar boor.
If read you anything about how and why Top Gear has become so successful (and why Clarkson has become so rich off the back of it), he isn't just the presenter. The format was his idea, the regular features are his concepts, he writes the show, he is involved direction and editing. Hence why the BBC are in a bad spot, it isn't simply replacing a presenter say with HIGNFY, where all the gags and content are written by a team for the presenter.
That isn't excusing what he may or may not have done, just stating that it isn't just oh get another presenter and nobody will notice. If he has smacked the guy, he has to go.
And I don't for a moment believe is on screen "character" is what he is like in real life. You think that people would invest huge amount of money in somebody who acts that way around the clock.
Chris Evans is another good example. His on screen persona, especially back in the day, was being a loud mouthed oik*. While off screen, he made mega bucks out of convincing people to invest a lot of money with him to buy Virgin Radio (and got out at the right time) and also assembling a huge property portfolio.
* he was for a period of time away from the cameras. But underneath is super sharp.
On the general question of the longevity of the debates. Don't bank on them lasting. Cameron has already brought them and the TV companies into disrepute with this tawdry piece of self serving politicking. The idea that the debates are in the pocket of the Prime Minister devalues them almost completely in terms of their democratic value not least because we know what the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have to say and have to say to each other. We have the misfortune of seeing their faces on our screens virtually daily and they debate each other at PMQ's more weeks in the year every year, than not. It is how they respond to other parties that is key and of course the TV companies have conspired with the Prime Minister to minimise our cowardly Prime Minister's exposure on such matters in a format that could hardly be better for him. In the confusion of 7 candidates likely spending most of the debate talking over each other (because there is insufficient time to get their points across) he will get a relatively easy ride.
Ultimately what will matter is viewing figures and I think it is more than likely they will be significantly down on last time.
For example I have no interest in the Dumb & Dumber show or the Three Stooges stitch up and will be boycotting the other two purely because of the stupidity of the TV stations in contemplating such biased (the exclusion of Northern Ireland) and impractical debates. Not only are the TV companies expecting 7 parties to put their point across in two hours when 3 parties in 2010 had 4 and a half hours last time which is ludicrous but how fairly can they divide the issues across the four shows? Last time there were clear demarcation lines in the topics discussed in each debate. How on earth can they do the same this time and hope to do so without wholsesale repetition and if there is no repetition it will almost inevitably lead to claims that the TV companies were manipulating the subject matter to suit certain parties dependent on what issues are debated in which debate.
All in all I would say after this shoddy set of half baked debates its 50/50 whether they will ever be repeated because the whole thing could blow up in the TV companies and be a complete failure
As for Boris Johnson, no matter how witty he can be, I think it matters not how he performs in the debates. Someone of his background (Eton/ Oxford / Bullingdon/ Westminster Bubble) with clear pro-European, pro big business, pro business and finance and pro immigration tendencies is not the change the country wants. What plays well in London does not necessarily play well outside London and he will find his term as Mayor will be as much a drag on his aspirations as it is a sign of his ability. He also exaggerates many of the negative characteristics of the Tory party. IMO he's not a good choice as leader.
So you disagree that it was perfectly reasonable for the LDs to go into coalition with the Tories. Aren't you kind of arguing against yourself then
No. I've always said I think the coalition has worked reasonably well, and for the country's good. The Lib Dems are going to get hammered, but they don't deserve it IMHO. That's been my position for years. (*)
I'm not sure how you can think that the Lib Dems could have defended the coalition's policies without attacking Labour, who were leading the attacks on those policies. The 'standing shoulder to shoulder' that you complained about is just that.
(*) As it perhaps should be, as someone who is mostly a Lib Dem or Conservative voter, with some strays into Indy and Green territory)
OK - so we both agree it was perfectly reasomable for the LDs to enter a coalition with the Tories, but disagree that the LDs made a mistake in attacking Labour shoulder to shoulder with the Tories instead of carving out a distinct identity. I suggest that this is not really worth much more of our time.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I didn't suggest Cameron lacked intelligence but then neither do I think Clarkson does. I just think beneath the image they each cultivate, they are similar characters.
Cameron is just an empty suit actually.He is good at reciting jokes written by someone else but lacks the ability to think on his feet or make intelligent remarks.I expect it all to come out after 2015 just how much like George W Bush he really is.
I agree that Cameron is similar to Bush although probably more intelligent. The spoilt privilege, the petulance, the snide bullying and the lack of curiousity.
I disagree actually.Atleast George W debated and by all accounts did rather well in the 3 debates.
W was very affable and related very well with ordinary people. Also had a higher IQ than Kerry. Always underrated.
Cameron is more like Bush senior, unable to relate to the common man.
Amusing this morning to note some seasoned PB contributors simply don't understand the essential dynamics of a coalition that has lasted five years, namely :
Both parties gets some, but clearly not all, of their programme and have to compromise unless the policy is a red line deal breaker.
Once an agreement is reached all government business belongs to the Coalition and not just one party. Everything is political flim flam and posturing.
By "the essential dynamics of a coalition " you mean the job of a junior partner is to support the Tories. The Lib Dems did not realise until the boundary changes [ where suddenly their own survival was at stake ] vote, that they could veto Tory policies and the Tories could have done nothing about it !
I get you don't like the LibDems in coalition with the Conservatives although I have this outrageous perception that had the situation arisen you might have been more impartial and forgiving had the yellow peril flashed its bloomers at the Labour party.
Call my cynical ....
CYNICAL.
I would like any party helping Labour, officially or unofficially, get in government including the SNP.
I think the SNP, at least, for now, is more left leaning than Labour. So it would be a good help.
Regarding their quest for independence ? I support whatever the Scottish people chooses. But I would draw a line with extreme devolution and just about staying within the Union. That is the trap the three major parties fell into and the SNP are exploiting to the full.
Representation with very little taxation.
In Scotland today, it is like Christmas every day !
I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
Something that isn't politically correct is not funny, so therefore laughing at it just shows stupidity. And by criticising, you are helping people escape their quagmire of ignorance.
Clarkson's character or supposed politics is a bit of a red herring here. His attraction lies in his pleasure in saying things that are now forbidden. Comedians used to enjoy doing that, although the advent of more left wing ones has stifled that a bit.
Al Murray is another one who's made a living out of it - even though he may be a bit of a po-faced lefty at heart.
I'm always surprised when people judge others on their political views. I've met obnoxious people from all over the political spectrum and pleasant ones too.
But Top Gear is a comedy show and it works well. But it makes enemies because it's funny in the wrong way for some. Incidentally, the 'Big Bang Theory' tends to be politically incorrect and is wildly popular. If the PC brigade got to it it, the ratings would plummet.
As we've discussed on here before, many of the most prominent of recent British comedians have been non-PC. You mention Al Murray, but Ricky Gervais and Sacha Cohen are even more successful - probably the most famous British "comics" worldwide, and they have made entire careers out of their taboo-breaking and their borderline *racism*.
But they do it is a very clever and ironic style, which, ironically, means they are beloved even by Guardianista, who do not realize their values are being viciously satirised.
Except if its our most successful comic export shown endlessly in almost every country around the world except the country of his birth - Benny Hill.
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
It's just SeanT drifting into sub-Clarkson again. Jezza does it a whole lot better. But that's because he is a genuine saloon bar boor.
I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
Something that isn't politically correct is not funny, so therefore laughing at it just shows stupidity. And by criticising, you are helping people escape their quagmire of ignorance.
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
IQ strongly correlates with income, all the wealthy areas have Conservative MPs.
Al Murray is another one who's made a living out of it - even though he may be a bit of a po-faced lefty at heart.
Al Murray is a bad example really. If you watch the talk he gave at Oxford Union, it is clear (at least his original intention) was poking fun at those that are the comedians stereotypical Daily Mail reading UKIP voting type person...i.e originally the idea was too stupid to get the gag is on them with their ridiculous views on immigration etc. A lot of the early material of written by Richard Herring, of [Stewart] Lee and Herring fame i.e could get more "right on" lefties.
A bit of a problem for Murray is, that the character is kinda of popular with the demographic that he original set out to take the micky out of...i.e the views he set out to mock, have become increasingly popular and there aren't really any comedians who cater for those people.
I actually prefer Al Murray when he is doing the sensible stuff, like the documentary series about Germany. Again his famous character kinda of beneath is intelligence, but what are you to do if you have created (slightly inadvertently) something so successful that it is a run away train.
I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
Something that isn't politically correct is not funny, so therefore laughing at it just shows stupidity. And by criticising, you are helping people escape their quagmire of ignorance.
If only the fools would see that!
Yep, that just about sums it up. Your self-doubt does you credit.
So you disagree that it was perfectly reasonable for the LDs to go into coalition with the Tories. Aren't you kind of arguing against yourself then
No. I've always said I think the coalition has worked reasonably well, and for the country's good. The Lib Dems are going to get hammered, but they don't deserve it IMHO. That's been my position for years. (*)
I'm not sure how you can think that the Lib Dems could have defended the coalition's policies without attacking Labour, who were leading the attacks on those policies. The 'standing shoulder to shoulder' that you complained about is just that.
(*) As it perhaps should be, as someone who is mostly a Lib Dem or Conservative voter, with some strays into Indy and Green territory)
OK - so we both agree it was perfectly reasomable for the LDs to enter a coalition with the Tories, but disagree that the LDs made a mistake in attacking Labour shoulder to shoulder with the Tories instead of carving out a distinct identity. I suggest that this is not really worth much more of our time.
Look, you are being ridiculous. Of course the Lib Dems have a distinct identity: the coalition did not remove that. It's just that Labour supporters such as yourself stupidly cannot see past the coalition.
Oh, and coincidentally you think Labour should have got an easier ride ...
So you disagree that it was perfectly reasonable for the LDs to go into coalition with the Tories. Aren't you kind of arguing against yourself then
No. I've always said I think the coalition has worked reasonably well, and for the country's good. The Lib Dems are going to get hammered, but they don't deserve it IMHO. That's been my position for years. (*)
I'm not sure how you can think that the Lib Dems could have defended the coalition's policies without attacking Labour, who were leading the attacks on those policies. The 'standing shoulder to shoulder' that you complained about is just that.
(*) As it perhaps should be, as someone who is mostly a Lib Dem or Conservative voter, with some strays into Indy and Green territory)
OK - so we both agree it was perfectly reasomable for the LDs to enter a coalition with the Tories, but disagree that the LDs made a mistake in attacking Labour shoulder to shoulder with the Tories instead of carving out a distinct identity. I suggest that this is not really worth much more of our time.
Look, you are being ridiculous. Of course the Lib Dems have a distinct identity: the coalition did not remove that. It's just that Labour supporters such as yourself stupidly cannot see past the coalition.
Oh, and coincidentally you think Labour should have got an easier ride ...
I see Alex Salmond has been helpful to Labour again
You mean the Marr interview. Shouldn't that be the policy of any party ? Support issue by issue. The opposite is what the Lib Dems have done: sell the soul of the party for nothing in return!
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
And right on cue...
You're normally a reasonably astute fellow, perhaps not the smartest of bears, but not evidently retarded. And yet here you are, posting a remark which makes you look a total fool.
QED.
Sean, I was down in your part of the world last week. Bought pasties from McFaddens in St Just and eat them overlooking Cape Cornwall, sad old bastard that I am these days but that is my idea of a perfect afternoon.
And the pasty may just be the best I have ever had.
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
IQ strongly correlates with income, all the wealthy areas have Conservative MPs.
No wealth in Scotland or North London then. Blimey, it must all be an illusion.
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
It's just SeanT drifting into sub-Clarkson again. Jezza does it a whole lot better. But that's because he is a genuine saloon bar boor.
Whilst I'm no fan of Clarkson and find this attempt to martyr him ridiculous a thought occurs to me. There were plenty of people, often liberals, prepared to defend Polanski who's actions were obviously far worse. It seems people's judgement can become very warped when it comes to people they admire.
The tank strikes me as more disturbing though. Are they just having a larffff, or is this about a bunch of instinctive fascists revealing their true colours? Not that I'm suggesting all Clarkson's fans are fascists. I'm sure some are libertarians or not interested in politics at all.
There are two reasons why UKIP might be understated.
1. There are shy UKIP supporters, who support the party, but don't wish to admit it. (Perhaps because of the "vilification" talked about by @Indigo.) 2. Because the way the pollsters works tends to systematically their share.
I don't believe in (1). I know a lot of UKIP supporters, and - like Scots nats - they are not in the least bit shy about their voting intentions.
I do believe in (2). I think UKIP is going to collect a lot of votes from people who didn't vote in 2010, and that that these people will see their votes down-waited. I also think that many people "remember" voting UKIP in 2010 (when actually they mean the Euro elections), which will also cause down-weighting.
For this reason, I suspect the final result could see the 'kippers a couple of points ahead of most pollsters.
As others have pointed out, your conclusion on 1 is deeply flawed, even allowing for the fact that it's anecdotal. The UKIP supporters you know to be UKIP supporters are by definition not shy kippers. It's like saying no-one's in the closet because the gay people you know aren't the least bit shy about their preference.
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
IQ strongly correlates with income, all the wealthy areas have Conservative MPs.
Do all University academics vote Tory ? Even Oxbridge one's. ? But then they must be stupid. They could have been Estate Agents !
I suppose it is time for me to admit when I am wrong. I felt that Cameron was being far too demanding in these debates, and would end up with egg on his face. But instead he's played a blinder. We've managed to get them spectacularly stacked in our favour and I'm shocked that the broadcasters have agreed to them. We've managed to get everything we wanted, and the other parties have got virtually nothing:
- No one on one between Cameron and Miliband - A first debate with so many people involved it's effectively a Q&A session - The only debate so far ahead of the elections it will be forgotten - Nick Clegg blocked from the second debate on entirely arbitrary grounds so we don't look bad by not attending - Farage being the only major party excluded from the BBC one-on-ones, which are probably the ones that matter the most, being on the biggest channel and the only one close to the election
Lynton Crosby must have some sort of dirt on the heads of the channels: he's basically got them all to agree to be part of our election campaign strategy! I'm particularly surprised by the BBC allowing UKIP to be excluded, but I suppose it plays to their own ideological preferences. I'm overjoyed, but supporters of the other parties must be fuming!
Well if you consider fixing the debates to suit one party is an achievement then it only goes to show how little the Tory party has learnt. Certainly in a short term way its a victory but in another its the same old grubby politics. A short term win that taints the party's reputation. Before the last election the Tories held the high moral ground on the question of democracy and our political system. Cameron claimed he would 'Fix our broken politics' but in this,.the EU referendum on/off/on farce and the unsavoury and largely non-sensical attempted manipulation of the constituency boundaries the Tory party has proved it is in the sewers with Labour.
Cameron has hardly fixed our broken politics but he's certainly made it more disreputable and a probably little more imbalanced and distorted. There again he has likely facilitated the break up of the Union (with that knee-jerk acceptance of Brown's transparent independence referendum further devolution bribe and the subsequent English question commitments) so not only has he broken it a little more he's probably fecked it for generations to come. And what for? A chance of a largely impotent zombie minority government when in all likelihood it would be better to sit in opposition.
Mr T, I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
That isn't a left-wing trait so much, you would be hard pressed to find it in any old school Labour supporter. Its the metro liberal elite ("Guardianista") type that introduced that into politics on an industrial scale.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
It's just SeanT drifting into sub-Clarkson again. Jezza does it a whole lot better. But that's because he is a genuine saloon bar boor.
Whilst I'm no fan of Clarkson and find this attempt to martyr him ridiculous a thought occurs to me. There were plenty of people, often liberals, prepared to defend Polanski who's actions were obviously far worse. It seems people's judgement can become very warped when it comes to people they admire.
The tank strikes me as more disturbing though. Are they just having a larffff, or is this about a bunch of instinctive fascists revealing their true colours? Not that I'm suggesting all Clarkson's fans are fascists. I'm sure some are libertarians or not interested in politics at all.
Polanski and Assange are prime examples of this. And let's not forget that many left-wingers will indulge and/or excuse the vile rantings of moslem fundamentalists because of their anti-American/anti-Western views. Likewise, there are right wingers who will exuse anyone or anything as long as it winds up lefties.
surbiton - as I've said the Lib Dems could have played their cards more strongly, in particular the strongest card they had which was the threat to pull out of the coalition. But that ignores a bigger point. The reality has dawned on me that although they fought three elections to the left of the Labour party, the Lib Dem leadership don't disagree very much with the children of Thatcher leading the Tories. The fact that the biggest defendrs of Clegg and Alexander in the media are soft Tories is rather apt.
Clegg and Alexander are Tories ! I would rather share a pint with Clarke than the terrible duo.
But I think Farron etc. are also culpable. Inheriting the crown with 20 MPs. Is that what he wanted rather than challenge Clegg in 2012 ?
What amuses me is they way the PB Labour luvvies are so keen to see any allegation about Clarkson as being the truth and showing what a terrible person he is.
Yet when there were similar allegations about the leader of their party pre-2010 (Nokias!), they took rather a different view.
And considering their are plenty of allegations about the current Labour leadership's past actions, I wonder if they're being a tad hypocritical.
Cameron has hardly fixed our broken politics but he's certainly made it more disreputable and a probably little more imbalanced and distorted. There again he has likely facilitated the break up of the Union (with that knee-jerk acceptance of Brown's transparent independence referendum further devolution bribe and the subsequent English question commitments) so not only has he broken it a little more he's probably fecked it for generations to come. And what for? A chance of a largely impotent zombie minority government when in all likelihood it would be better to sit in opposition.
The "vow" was accepted by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband - without having asked either their parties, or more importantly their voters. But the union was long got before that, the blame for that can be laid firmly at Blair's door with his idiotic interpretation of devolution.
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
It's just SeanT drifting into sub-Clarkson again. Jezza does it a whole lot better. But that's because he is a genuine saloon bar boor.
Whilst I'm no fan of Clarkson and find this attempt to martyr him ridiculous a thought occurs to me. There were plenty of people, often liberals, prepared to defend Polanski who's actions were obviously far worse. It seems people's judgement can become very warped when it comes to people they admire.
The tank strikes me as more disturbing though. Are they just having a larffff, or is this about a bunch of instinctive fascists revealing their true colours? Not that I'm suggesting all Clarkson's fans are fascists. I'm sure some are libertarians or not interested in politics at all.
Polanski and Assange are prime examples of this. And let's not forget that many left-wingers will indulge and/or excuse the vile rantings of moslem fundamentalists because of their anti-American/anti-Western views. Likewise, there are right wingers who will exuse anyone or anything as long as it winds up lefties.
I'm not left-wing and as far as I'm concerned Assange should walk. He is wanted for the rather disgusting (alleged) act of sleeping with a woman (consenting), then waking up the next morning and continuing whilst she was asleep, so she didn't consent. It is rape, it is a crime, but is it worth £10 million and counting in police guard to extradite someone for? How many of our own rapists could be convicted with that money?
It is purely and simply so he can be extradited from Sweden to the US because of wikileaks. Would they spend this proportion of their police budget indefinitely so they could catch someone we wanted? Would they heck. It should be a national scandal.
Mr T, I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
That isn't a left-wing trait so much, you would be hard pressed to find it in any old school Labour supporter. Its the metro liberal elite ("Guardianista") type that introduced that into politics on an industrial scale.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
Even more disturbing, if I were an Old Labour voter, would be the way the New Left is so eager to accommodate Islamofascism - with its misogyny and patriarchy and homophobia, all things Guardianistas utterly abhor in white people.
Indeed so eager is the Left to appease Islamism and defend Muslims at any cost, it will Actively ignore the mass racist gang rape of white working class daughters, and dismiss or bully those who try to expose the crime, rather than confront "difficult" problems related to race and culture.
It is quite mind bending, when you think about it. These days I prefer not to think about it, because it is too depressing.
It is rather interesting when FGM is campaigned upon by the likes of the Guardian (quite rightly so), but it stops at that. Rather less keen to push the debate onto how we got to a stage in this country where this has become such a widespread problem, who is doing this, how it is being setup, etc.
Without the wider debate, it isn't going to stop. Having spoken to some teachers recently, they know who are likely candidates in their class that this will be forced upon, the MO of how it is going to go down, but are s##t scarred of raising it.
Cameron has hardly fixed our broken politics but he's certainly made it more disreputable and a probably little more imbalanced and distorted. There again he has likely facilitated the break up of the Union (with that knee-jerk acceptance of Brown's transparent independence referendum further devolution bribe and the subsequent English question commitments) so not only has he broken it a little more he's probably fecked it for generations to come. And what for? A chance of a largely impotent zombie minority government when in all likelihood it would be better to sit in opposition.
The "vow" was accepted by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband - without having asked either their parties, or more importantly their voters. But the union was long got before that, the blame for that can be laid firmly at Blair's door with his idiotic interpretation of devolution.
Cameron is the Prime Minister. Nobody else. Trying to offload responsibility on his deputy or the leader of the opposition is risible and whilst I sympathise with your protestations about Blair's part in it all, that happened 17 years ago and is neither here nor there when people's view is so short termist. Cameron is here now. Blair is long gone. Cameron's only hope of not having the break up of the Union as his 'legacy' will be if somehow Scotland can be kept in the Union for a decade or more. Personally I don't see it.
I hadn't realised until this week, when chatting to a literary luvvie, that you are the fruit of the loins of the noted writer DM Thomas.
I confess to rather enjoying his work, especially some of the poetry. I hope he is enjoying good health as he broaches early middle age.
I wouldn't say the old boy is in tip top condition, but given that he is 80, on his fourth wife, drinks at least a bottle of wine a day, never exercises, and until recently used to smoke 70 cigs a day (now down to 10 plus e-cigs) I'd say his mere survival is a minor miracle, worthy perhaps of a CBE.
Mr T, I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
That isn't a left-wing trait so much, you would be hard pressed to find it in any old school Labour supporter. Its the metro liberal elite ("Guardianista") type that introduced that into politics on an industrial scale.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
Even more disturbing, if I were an Old Labour voter, would be the way the New Left is so eager to accommodate Islamofascism - with its misogyny and patriarchy and homophobia, all things Guardianistas utterly abhor in white people.
Indeed so eager is the Left to appease Islamism and defend Muslims at any cost, it will Actively ignore the mass racist gang rape of white working class daughters, and dismiss or bully those who try to expose the crime, rather than confront "difficult" problems related to race and culture.
It is quite mind bending, when you think about it. These days I prefer not to think about it, because it is too depressing.
It is rather interesting when FGM is campaigned upon by the likes of the Guardian (quite rightly so), but it stops at that. Rather less keen to push the debate onto how we got to a stage in this country where this has become such a widespread problem, who is doing this, how it is being setup, etc.
Without the wider debate, it isn't going to stop. Having spoken to some teachers recently, they know who are likely candidates in their class that this will be forced upon, the MO of how it is going to go down, but are s##t scarred of raising it.
Why aren't any other newspapers having the debate? Why is it up to the Guardian to do it?
I hadn't realised until this week, when chatting to a literary luvvie, that you are the fruit of the loins of the noted writer DM Thomas.
I confess to rather enjoying his work, especially some of the poetry. I hope he is enjoying good health as he broaches early middle age.
That I am.
I wouldn't say the old boy is in tip top condition, but given that he is 80, on his fourth wife, drinks at least a bottle of wine a day, never exercises, and until recently used to smoke 70 cigs a day (now down to 10 plus e-cigs) I'd say his mere survival is a minor miracle, worthy perhaps of a CBE.
He still writes rather fine poetry, incidentally. It's a skill that lasts until the end, it seems. Unlike novel writing, which requires a bit of youthful energy.
Talking of which, I must return to my own novel writing, as my next S K Tremayne book is in danger of suffering from very bad Second Album Syndrome.
Hasta
It rather sounds in some respects that you are most assuredly the son of your father.
Please pass on my regards and advise him that he has a fan among the Jacobite hordes.
FalseFlag Gore had a higher IQ than Bush W though, and in retrospect most Americans remember Bush Snr more fondly than W
Oh memories. Since we are talking about debates don't forget that the satire of the debate is very useful to gauge the public's opinion about them and the performance of the participators, as satire exaggerates reality to the point were everyone can understand it.
With the Gore VS Bush debates here is a prime example (oh and the guy who played Gore was in a straitjacket going to the hospital moments after they finished filming it) :
Mr T, I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
That isn't a left-wing trait so much, you would be hard pressed to find it in any old school Labour supporter. Its the metro liberal elite ("Guardianista") type that introduced that into politics on an industrial scale.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
Even more disturbing, if I were an Old Labour voter, would be the way the New Left is so eager to accommodate Islamofascism - with its misogyny and patriarchy and homophobia, all things Guardianistas utterly abhor in white people.
Indeed so eager is the Left to appease Islamism and defend Muslims at any cost, it will Actively ignore the mass racist gang rape of white working class daughters, and dismiss or bully those who try to expose the crime, rather than confront "difficult" problems related to race and culture.
It is quite mind bending, when you think about it. These days I prefer not to think about it, because it is too depressing.
It is rather interesting when FGM is campaigned upon by the likes of the Guardian (quite rightly so), but it stops at that. Rather less keen to push the debate onto how we got to a stage in this country where this has become such a widespread problem, who is doing this, how it is being setup, etc.
Without the wider debate, it isn't going to stop. Having spoken to some teachers recently, they know who are likely candidates in their class that this will be forced upon, the MO of how it is going to go down, but are s##t scarred of raising it.
Why aren't any other newspapers having the debate? Why is it up to the Guardian to do it?
Some are...but their headlines would be less to your taste.
e.g. Daily Mail
IMPORTED PROBLEM: WHAT IS FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION?, including a big map of where it is FGM is prevalent, where it is coming from and who is responsible for it.
Mr T, I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
That isn't a left-wing trait so much, you would be hard pressed to find it in any old school Labour supporter. Its the metro liberal elite ("Guardianista") type that introduced that into politics on an industrial scale.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
Even more disturbing, if I were an Old Labour voter, would be the way the New Left is so eager to accommodate Islamofascism - with its misogyny and patriarchy and homophobia, all things Guardianistas utterly abhor in white people.
Indeed so eager is the Left to appease Islamism and defend Muslims at any cost, it will Actively ignore the mass racist gang rape of white working class daughters, and dismiss or bully those who try to expose the crime, rather than confront "difficult" problems related to race and culture.
It is quite mind bending, when you think about it. These days I prefer not to think about it, because it is too depressing.
It is rather interesting when FGM is campaigned upon by the likes of the Guardian (quite rightly so), but it stops at that. Rather less keen to push the debate onto how we got to a stage in this country where this has become such a widespread problem, who is doing this, how it is being setup, etc.
Without the wider debate, it isn't going to stop. Having spoken to some teachers recently, they know who are likely candidates in their class that this will be forced upon, the MO of how it is going to go down, but are s##t scarred of raising it.
While I dislike the far right, I was surprised watching the Daily Politics earlier. Andrew Neil very quickly brought a conversation with Tommy Robinson to an end when Robinson moved from the specifics of the Dudley North case to ask why the police were not investigating allegations of corruption from British Pakistani politicians. Made me wonder whether he had a point.
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
IQ strongly correlates with income, all the wealthy areas have Conservative MPs.
Do all University academics vote Tory ? Even Oxbridge one's. ? But then they must be stupid. They could have been Estate Agents !
The problem with socialism and communism is that it does attract very intelligent people. People who love plans, and systems. They believe a sophisticated system can allocate resources more efficiently than the marketplace. Unfortunately they often see the economy as a machine with levers that can be pulled, buttons pushed etc.
It is said that communism is so manifestly stupid only a really intelligent person could think it was a good thing.
Mr T, I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
That isn't a left-wing trait so much, you would be hard pressed to find it in any old school Labour supporter. Its the metro liberal elite ("Guardianista") type that introduced that into politics on an industrial scale.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
Even more disturbing, if I were an Old Labour voter, would be the way the New Left is so eager to accommodate Islamofascism - with its misogyny and patriarchy and homophobia, all things Guardianistas utterly abhor in white people.
Indeed so eager is the Left to appease Islamism and defend Muslims at any cost, it will Actively ignore the mass racist gang rape of white working class daughters, and dismiss or bully those who try to expose the crime, rather than confront "difficult" problems related to race and culture.
It is quite mind bending, when you think about it. These days I prefer not to think about it, because it is too depressing.
It is rather interesting when FGM is campaigned upon by the likes of the Guardian (quite rightly so), but it stops at that. Rather less keen to push the debate onto how we got to a stage in this country where this has become such a widespread problem, who is doing this, how it is being setup, etc.
Without the wider debate, it isn't going to stop. Having spoken to some teachers recently, they know who are likely candidates in their class that this will be forced upon, the MO of how it is going to go down, but are s##t scarred of raising it.
While I dislike the far right, I was surprised watching the Daily Politics earlier. Andrew Neil very quickly brought a conversation with Tommy Robinson to an end when Robinson moved from the specifics of the Dudley North case to ask why the police were not investigating allegations of corruption from British Pakistani politicians. Made me wonder whether he had a point.
Is interesting how the mainstream media don't seem very interested in the fact a load of people have been disqualified from voting for PPC, due to concerns over vote rigging there. Just the odd tiny piece here and there.
I don't care what party it is, it needs stamping out.
All of the other parties would have done the same thing if they could have got away with it. As I said, I'm surprised the broadcasters have allowed themselves to be played by this, but politics is politics. We've come up trumps, and the other parties have lost out. If that means a Conservative Prime Minister over a Labour Prime Minister, I'm happy overall. But I can understand that you might be sore if you support one of our opponents.
Mr T, I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
That isn't a left-wing trait so much, you would be hard pressed to find it in any old school Labour supporter. Its the metro liberal elite ("Guardianista") type that introduced that into politics on an industrial scale.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
Even more disturbing, if I were an Old Labour voter, would be the way the New Left is so eager to accommodate Islamofascism - with its misogyny and patriarchy and homophobia, all things Guardianistas utterly abhor in white people.
Indeed so eager is the Left to appease Islamism and defend Muslims at any cost, it will Actively ignore the mass racist gang rape of white working class daughters, and dismiss or bully those who try to expose the crime, rather than confront "difficult" problems related to race and culture.
It is quite mind bending, when you think about it. These days I prefer not to think about it, because it is too depressing.
It is rather interesting when FGM is campaigned upon by the likes of the Guardian (quite rightly so), but it stops at that. Rather less keen to push the debate onto how we got to a stage in this country where this has become such a widespread problem, who is doing this, how it is being setup, etc.
Without the wider debate, it isn't going to stop. Having spoken to some teachers recently, they know who are likely candidates in their class that this will be forced upon, the MO of how it is going to go down, but are s##t scarred of raising it.
Why aren't any other newspapers having the debate? Why is it up to the Guardian to do it?
Some are...but their headlines would be less to your taste.
e.g. Daily Mail
IMPORTED PROBLEM: WHAT IS FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION?, including a big map of where it is FGM is prevalent, where it is coming from and who is responsible for it.
In whic case the debate is taking place. So what's the problem
Mr T, I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
That isn't a left-wing trait so much, you would be hard pressed to find it in any old school Labour supporter. Its the metro liberal elite ("Guardianista") type that introduced that into politics on an industrial scale.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
Even more disturbing, if I were an Old Labour voter, would be the way the New Left is so eager to accommodate Islamofascism - with its misogyny and patriarchy and homophobia, all things Guardianistas utterly abhor in white people.
Indeed so eager is the Left to appease Islamism and defend Muslims at any cost, it will Actively ignore the mass racist gang rape of white working class daughters, and dismiss or bully those who try to expose the crime, rather than confront "difficult" problems related to race and culture.
It is quite mind bending, when you think about it. These days I prefer not to think about it, because it is too depressing.
It is rather interesting when FGM is campaigned upon by the likes of the Guardian (quite rightly so), but it stops at that. Rather less keen to push the debate onto how we got to a stage in this country where this has become such a widespread problem, who is doing this, how it is being setup, etc.
Without the wider debate, it isn't going to stop. Having spoken to some teachers recently, they know who are likely candidates in their class that this will be forced upon, the MO of how it is going to go down, but are s##t scarred of raising it.
Why aren't any other newspapers having the debate? Why is it up to the Guardian to do it?
That would be the same Guardian which actively tried to scupper and repress the Times's investigation of Asian grooming, by Andrew Norfolk, with thinly-veiled accusations of racism?
In retrospect, a quite disgusting article by Libby Brooks.
If it were up to the Guardian, the Rotherham rapists would still be cruising around in their minicabs right now. The Guardian's record on this whole issue has been shameful and repellent.
The problem with socialism and communism is that it does attract very intelligent people. People who love plans, and systems. They believe a sophisticated system can allocate resources more efficiently than the marketplace.
the problem with free-market dogmatists is they are so wedded to their doctrine that they fail to notice that most every market is subject to rigging manipulation cartels and govt intervention to the extent that almost none of them are actually free at all, and to believe that this could be an efficient system would be folly in the extreme...
In whic case the debate is taking place. So what's the problem
As you know that wasn't the point being raised...it was the issue that many of the left wont face up to the wider problem. They will criticism the practice of FGM, but don't want to push it any further.
Rotherham is another good example. The BBC and the Guardian kept trying to push this away. The guy from the Times was treated like he was some sort of racist.
Even a couple of weeks ago they had an expert on and you heard the massive intake of breath when the expert just laid it out in clear terms.
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
It's just SeanT drifting into sub-Clarkson again. Jezza does it a whole lot better. But that's because he is a genuine saloon bar boor.
Whilst I'm no fan of Clarkson and find this attempt to martyr him ridiculous a thought occurs to me. There were plenty of people, often liberals, prepared to defend Polanski who's actions were obviously far worse. It seems people's judgement can become very warped when it comes to people they admire.
The tank strikes me as more disturbing though. Are they just having a larffff, or is this about a bunch of instinctive fascists revealing their true colours? Not that I'm suggesting all Clarkson's fans are fascists. I'm sure some are libertarians or not interested in politics at all.
Polanski and Assange are prime examples of this. And let's not forget that many left-wingers will indulge and/or excuse the vile rantings of moslem fundamentalists because of their anti-American/anti-Western views. Likewise, there are right wingers who will exuse anyone or anything as long as it winds up lefties.
I'm not left-wing and as far as I'm concerned Assange should walk. He is wanted for the rather disgusting (alleged) act of sleeping with a woman (consenting), then waking up the next morning and continuing whilst she was asleep, so she didn't consent. It is rape, it is a crime, but is it worth £10 million and counting in police guard to extradite someone for? How many of our own rapists could be convicted with that money?
It is purely and simply so he can be extradited from Sweden to the US because of wikileaks. Would they spend this proportion of their police budget indefinitely so they could catch someone we wanted? Would they heck. It should be a national scandal.
I thought the alleged crime of Assange was that he pressured a woman into not using a condom, when he wanted to?
Mr T, I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
That isn't a left-wing trait so much, you would be hard pressed to find it in any old school Labour supporter. Its the metro liberal elite ("Guardianista") type that introduced that into politics on an industrial scale.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
Even more disturbing, if I were an Old Labour voter, would be the way the New Left is so eager to accommodate Islamofascism - with its misogyny and patriarchy and homophobia, all things Guardianistas utterly abhor in white people.
Indeed so eager is the Left to appease Islamism and defend Muslims at any cost, it will Actively ignore the mass racist gang rape of white working class daughters, and dismiss or bully those who try to expose the crime, rather than confront "difficult" problems related to race and culture.
It is quite mind bending, when you think about it. These days I prefer not to think about it, because it is too depressing.
Did you see Trevor Phillips programme in Thursday... From the horses mouth, he practically admitted all that lefties defend in the name of PC was bullshit... And it was his idea!
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
It's just SeanT drifting into sub-Clarkson again. Jezza does it a whole lot better. But that's because he is a genuine saloon bar boor.
Whilst I'm no fan of Clarkson and find this attempt to martyr him ridiculous a thought occurs to me. There were plenty of people, often liberals, prepared to defend Polanski who's actions were obviously far worse. It seems people's judgement can become very warped when it comes to people they admire.
The tank strikes me as more disturbing though. Are they just having a larffff, or is this about a bunch of instinctive fascists revealing their true colours? Not that I'm suggesting all Clarkson's fans are fascists. I'm sure some are libertarians or not interested in politics at all.
Polanski and Assange are prime examples of this. And let's not forget that many left-wingers will indulge and/or excuse the vile rantings of moslem fundamentalists because of their anti-American/anti-Western views. Likewise, there are right wingers who will exuse anyone or anything as long as it winds up lefties.
I'm not left-wing and as far as I'm concerned Assange should walk. He is wanted for the rather disgusting (alleged) act of sleeping with a woman (consenting), then waking up the next morning and continuing whilst she was asleep, so she didn't consent. It is rape, it is a crime, but is it worth £10 million and counting in police guard to extradite someone for? How many of our own rapists could be convicted with that money?
It is purely and simply so he can be extradited from Sweden to the US because of wikileaks. Would they spend this proportion of their police budget indefinitely so they could catch someone we wanted? Would they heck. It should be a national scandal.
I thought the alleged crime of Assange was that he pressured a woman into not using a condom, when he wanted to?
When she wanted to you mean? That could have been part of it, because he may have done what he did without protection. Which makes it even more disgusting. But no more justifiable for the UK to fork out to keep him prisoner. We've invited people guilt of worse crimes for tea with the Queen.
Like you, I'm an ex-Labour voter and switched to the LDs when Blair came in. Now, I've either grown old or grown up, so I'm now a NOTA.
It could be my natural cynicism has replaced youthful enthusiasm. But I think Labour has changed too, and I lazily used Lefty for metropolitan/elite/liberal. At my age, I know I'm often wrong but then so are my supposed betters.
What probably drove my youthful lefty-ism was the feeling that right-wingers sneered at anyone not of their own class, when the truth was some did some did and some didn't. But that's a universal characteristic of every group.
The worst culprits now seem to be those metropolitan etc who have what I think is an intellectual snobbism. Sociologists seem to be worst - yet it's not even a proper ology is it?
When she wanted to you mean? That could have been part of it, because he may have done what he did without protection. Which makes it even more disgusting. But no more justifiable for the UK to fork out to keep him prisoner. We've invited people guilt of worse crimes for tea with the Queen.
SeanT - Bleating on about IQs again I see. One thing I notice is how few very clever people I meet are Tories. Maybe that's because all the really clever people who vote Tory are 'something in the city' so I don't meet them where I live. My own view is that clever people are generally the least susceptible to the propaganda of the right wing press and their desperation to avoid EdM in Downing St.
It's just SeanT drifting into sub-Clarkson again. Jezza does it a whole lot better. But that's because he is a genuine saloon bar boor.
Whilst I'm no fan of Clarkson and find this attempt to martyr him ridiculous a thought occurs to me. There were plenty of people, often liberals, prepared to defend Polanski who's actions were obviously far worse. It seems people's judgement can become very warped when it comes to people they admire.
The tank strikes me as more disturbing though. Are they just having a larffff, or is this about a bunch of instinctive fascists revealing their true colours? Not that I'm suggesting all Clarkson's fans are fascists. I'm sure some are libertarians or not interested in politics at all.
Polanski and Assange are prime examples of this. And let's not forget that many left-wingers will indulge and/or excuse the vile rantings of moslem fundamentalists because of their anti-American/anti-Western views. Likewise, there are right wingers who will exuse anyone or anything as long as it winds up lefties.
I'm not left-wing and as far as I'm concerned Assange should walk. He is wanted for the rather disgusting (alleged) act of sleeping with a woman (consenting), then waking up the next morning and continuing whilst she was asleep, so she didn't consent. It is rape, it is a crime, but is it worth £10 million and counting in police guard to extradite someone for? How many of our own rapists could be convicted with that money?
It is purely and simply so he can be extradited from Sweden to the US because of wikileaks. Would they spend this proportion of their police budget indefinitely so they could catch someone we wanted? Would they heck. It should be a national scandal.
I thought the alleged crime of Assange was that he pressured a woman into not using a condom, when he wanted to?
On the plus side if the SNP are hosing up in Berwickshire and Galloway then many of my various SNP bets should be winners.
Well it's difficult to find a seat where the SNP doesn't have a chance to win.
It'll struggle in Warwick and Leamington.
I'd have thought the best place for Labour to deploy resources would be Nuneaton. Given that N Warks is an almost certain gain, and Warwick and Leamington will be tough.
On the plus side if the SNP are hosing up in Berwickshire and Galloway then many of my various SNP bets should be winners.
Well it's difficult to find a seat where the SNP doesn't have a chance to win.
It'll struggle in Warwick and Leamington.
I'd have thought the best place for Labour to deploy resources would be Nuneaton. Given that N Warks is an almost certain gain, and Warwick and Leamington will be tough.
Like you, I'm an ex-Labour voter and switched to the LDs when Blair came in. Now, I've either grown old or grown up, so I'm now a NOTA.
It could be my natural cynicism has replaced youthful enthusiasm. But I think Labour has changed too, and I lazily used Lefty for metropolitan/elite/liberal. At my age, I know I'm often wrong but then so are my supposed betters.
What probably drove my youthful lefty-ism was the feeling that right-wingers sneered at anyone not of their own class, when the truth was some did some did and some didn't. But that's a universal characteristic of every group.
The worst culprits now seem to be those metropolitan etc who have what I think is an intellectual snobbism. Sociologists seem to be worst - yet it's not even a proper ology is it?
See, I can do hypocrisy too.
I may be shite but I am self-aware.
There is a liberal metropolitan elite that seems to straddle all three parties and which has similar views about most things except economics. The elite generally sneers at the folk below - they mock its manners, its accents, its attiudes. That happens from the left and the right; and it has always been the same.
Where the left generally went horribly wrong and where it has to stick its hands up is over issues such as grooming by moslem gangs and getting into bed with fundamentalists, so to speak. As someone on the left, what happendd in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale fills me with deep shame and real anger. It's something that everyone on the left should face up to and stop making excuses for. Do I put it all down to PC? Absolutely not - there was (and is) far more to it than that; but there is no doiubt in my mind that it aided and abetted evil people, and helped them to get away with crimes that destroyed countless lives.
On the plus side if the SNP are hosing up in Berwickshire and Galloway then many of my various SNP bets should be winners.
Well it's difficult to find a seat where the SNP doesn't have a chance to win.
It'll struggle in Warwick and Leamington.
I'd have thought the best place for Labour to deploy resources would be Nuneaton. Given that N Warks is an almost certain gain, and Warwick and Leamington will be tough.
I agree.
I agree too.
It makes no sense at all for the SNP to divert resources to Nuneaton.
Like you, I'm an ex-Labour voter and switched to the LDs when Blair came in. Now, I've either grown old or grown up, so I'm now a NOTA.
It could be my natural cynicism has replaced youthful enthusiasm. But I think Labour has changed too, and I lazily used Lefty for metropolitan/elite/liberal. At my age, I know I'm often wrong but then so are my supposed betters.
What probably drove my youthful lefty-ism was the feeling that right-wingers sneered at anyone not of their own class, when the truth was some did some did and some didn't. But that's a universal characteristic of every group.
The worst culprits now seem to be those metropolitan etc who have what I think is an intellectual snobbism. Sociologists seem to be worst - yet it's not even a proper ology is it?
See, I can do hypocrisy too.
I may be shite but I am self-aware.
There is a liberal metropolitan elite that seems to straddle all three parties and which has similar views about most things except economics. The elite generally sneers at the folk below - they mock its manners, its accents, its attiudes. That happens from the left and the right; and it has always been the same.
Where the left generally went horribly wrong and where it has to stick its hands up is over issues such as grooming by moslem gangs and getting into bed with fundamentalists, so to speak. As someone on the left, what happendd in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale fills me with deep shame and real anger. It's something that everyone on the left should face up to and stop making excuses for. Do I put it all down to PC? Absolutely not - there was (and is) far more to it than that; but there is no doiubt in my mind that it aided and abetted evil people, and helped them to get away with crimes that destroyed countless lives.
To be fair to Labour, some of the more old-fashioned MPs have condemned the Rotherham antics even though they know it will harm their ambitions in the party. And you're probably right about the metropolitan elite encompassing all three parties.
Even accounting for boundary changes which have sine narrowed the gap,you can`t rule out a Labour majority on the same votes despite the situation in Scotland.
On the plus side if the SNP are hosing up in Berwickshire and Galloway then many of my various SNP bets should be winners.
Well it's difficult to find a seat where the SNP doesn't have a chance to win.
It'll struggle in Warwick and Leamington.
If they campaigned hard in Warwick on a Scots Out ticket I expect they'd comfortably save their deposit. As I recall, YES got some reasonably good polling in England for some reason *cough*
Like you, I'm an ex-Labour voter and switched to the LDs when Blair came in. Now, I've either grown old or grown up, so I'm now a NOTA.
It could be my natural cynicism has replaced youthful enthusiasm. But I think Labour has changed too, and I lazily used Lefty for metropolitan/elite/liberal. At my age, I know I'm often wrong but then so are my supposed betters.
What probably drove my youthful lefty-ism was the feeling that right-wingers sneered at anyone not of their own class, when the truth was some did some did and some didn't. But that's a universal characteristic of every group.
The worst culprits now seem to be those metropolitan etc who have what I think is an intellectual snobbism. Sociologists seem to be worst - yet it's not even a proper ology is it?
See, I can do hypocrisy too.
I may be shite but I am self-aware.
There is a liberal metropolitan elite that seems to straddle all three parties and which has similar views about most things except economics. The elite generally sneers at the folk below - they mock its manners, its accents, its attiudes. That happens from the left and the right; and it has always been the same.
Where the left generally went horribly wrong and where it has to stick its hands up is over issues such as grooming by moslem gangs and getting into bed with fundamentalists, so to speak. As someone on the left, what happendd in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale fills me with deep shame and real anger. It's something that everyone on the left should face up to and stop making excuses for. Do I put it all down to PC? Absolutely not - there was (and is) far more to it than that; but there is no doiubt in my mind that it aided and abetted evil people, and helped them to get away with crimes that destroyed countless lives.
Agree Mr O. At our Islam course we asked the speaker, an ethnic Bengali, about iRotherham etc and he said that to him, and his community, it was as repulsive as it it the "ours". He had no hesitation in blaming immigrants from a particular community, naming that community, where there were "rules" about the seclusion of girls and women, and where girls and women who did'nt obey those rules were "without honour" and so fair game. As far as he was concerned, as a leader in his community, whatever happened to those men they'd deserved. He was also very censorious of the religious leaders in those communities, who had failed to point out to their "flock" that they were living in a different country and different rules applied.
I have a problem with FGM. Any competent school nurse, let alone a midwife,ought to be able to identify a reasonable number of cases; however, what do we, as a society, do then? Presumably the mother of the girl was party to the act; are we going to jail her? What does that do to the family?
Even accounting for boundary changes which have sine narrowed the gap,you can`t rule out a Labour majority on the same votes despite the situation in Scotland.
Level in England means that Labour are ahead in the GB poll though. Labour won't get a majority unless they are at least 3% ahead GB wide, and that's probably too optimistic from an efficiency point of view for Labour still.
Still the 30.0 Labour hit last night on Betfair was lunacy for a majority.
Mr T, I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
That isn't a left-wing trait so much, you would be hard pressed to find it in any old school Labour supporter. Its the metro liberal elite ("Guardianista") type that introduced that into politics on an industrial scale.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
Even more disturbing, if I were an Old Labour voter, would be the way the New Left is so eager to accommodate Islamofascism - with its misogyny and patriarchy and homophobia, all things Guardianistas utterly abhor in white people.
Indeed so eager is the Left to appease Islamism and defend Muslims at any cost, it will Actively ignore the mass racist gang rape of white working class daughters, and dismiss or bully those who try to expose the crime, rather than confront "difficult" problems related to race and culture.
It is quite mind bending, when you think about it. These days I prefer not to think about it, because it is too depressing.
Did you see Trevor Phillips programme in Thursday... From the horses mouth, he practically admitted all that lefties defend in the name of PC was bullshit... And it was his idea!
To be fair to Phillips, he was also one of the first to wonder if multiculti was a big mistake.
And so it is now proved, in the horriblest of ways. The idea that you can import millions of people from the most backward parts of Asia and Africa, people who cleave to a powerful supremacist religion, and NOT import many of their deeply unpleasant religious-cultural traits has turned out to be a calamitous error.
Saying that ten years ago could have cost you your job, and possibly lead to prosecution.
Like you, I'm an ex-Labour voter and switched to the LDs when Blair came in. Now, I've either grown old or grown up, so I'm now a NOTA.
It could be my natural cynicism has replaced youthful enthusiasm. But I think Labour has changed too, and I lazily used Lefty for metropolitan/elite/liberal. At my age, I know I'm often wrong but then so are my supposed betters.
What probably drove my youthful lefty-ism was the feeling that right-wingers sneered at anyone not of their own class, when the truth was some did some did and some didn't. But that's a universal characteristic of every group.
The worst culprits now seem to be those metropolitan etc who have what I think is an intellectual snobbism. Sociologists seem to be worst - yet it's not even a proper ology is it?
See, I can do hypocrisy too.
I may be shite but I am self-aware.
There is a liberal metropolitan elite that seems to straddle all three parties and which has similar views about most things except economics. The elite generally sneers at the folk below - they mock its manners, its accents, its attiudes. That happens from the left and the right; and it has always been the same.
Where the left generally went horribly wrong and where it has to stick its hands up is over issues such as grooming by moslem gangs and getting into bed with fundamentalists, so to speak. As someone on the left, what happendd in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale fills me with deep shame and real anger. It's something that everyone on the left should face up to and stop making excuses for. Do I put it all down to PC? Absolutely not - there was (and is) far more to it than that; but there is no doiubt in my mind that it aided and abetted evil people, and helped them to get away with crimes that destroyed countless lives.
I have a problem with FGM. Any competent school nurse, let alone a midwife,ought to be able to identify a reasonable number of cases; however, what do we, as a society, do then? Presumably the mother of the girl was party to the act; are we going to jail her? What does that do to the family?
I'd bet that, in almost 100% of cases, the mother of the girl is a victim too.
Mr T, I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
That isn't a left-wing trait so much, you would be hard pressed to find it in any old school Labour supporter. Its the metro liberal elite ("Guardianista") type that introduced that into politics on an industrial scale.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
Even more disturbing, if I were an Old Labour
Did you see Trevor Phillips programme in Thursday... From the horses mouth, he practically admitted all that lefties defend in the name of PC was bullshit... And it was his idea!
To be fair to Phillips, he was also one of the first to wonder if multiculti was a big mistake.
And so it is now proved, in the horriblest of ways. The idea that you can import millions of people from the most backward parts of Asia and Africa, people who cleave to a powerful supremacist religion, and NOT import many of their deeply unpleasant religious-cultural traits has turned out to be a calamitous error.
To quote Christopher Caldwell.
“We believe our diversity, our differences, when joined together by a common set of ideals, makes us stronger, makes us more creative, makes us different,” Barack Obama pronounced at a citizenship ceremony last Fourth of July. Until half a century ago most serious historians would have called such an opinion ignorant or naïve. Ethnic diversity implies cultural diversity—if it did not, ethnic diversity would soon disappear. Cultural diversity means division, division means weakness, and weakness means, eventually, unfreedom.
Such, at least, is the traditional view, and history appears to vindicate it. … Diversity has been the form of belonging that typifies empires, just as nationality has been the form that typifies republics. … The motto E pluribus unum is a sign that the founders saw diversity as a challenge to be mastered, not a resource to be tapped.
Like you, I'm an ex-Labour voter and switched to the LDs when Blair came in. Now, I've either grown old or grown up, so I'm now a NOTA.
It could be my natural cynicism has replaced youthful enthusiasm. But I think Labour has changed too, and I lazily used Lefty for metropolitan/elite/liberal. At my age, I know I'm often wrong but then so are my supposed betters.
What probably drove my youthful lefty-ism was the feeling that right-wingers sneered at anyone not of their own class, when the truth was some did some did and some didn't. But that's a universal characteristic of every group.
The worst culprits now seem to be those metropolitan etc who have what I think is an intellectual snobbism. Sociologists seem to be worst - yet it's not even a proper ology is it?
See, I can do hypocrisy too.
I may be shite but I am self-aware.
There is a liberal metropolitan elite that seems to straddle all three parties and which has similar views about most things except economics. The elite generally sneers at the folk below - they mock its manners, its accents, its attiudes. That happens from the left and the right; and it has always been the same.
Where the left generally went horribly wrong and where it has to stick its hands up is over issues such as grooming by moslem gangs and getting into bed with fundamentalists, so to speak. As someone on the left, what happendd in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale fills me with deep shame and real anger. It's something that everyone on the left should face up to and stop making excuses for. Do I put it all down to PC? Absolutely not - there was (and is) far more to it than that; but there is no doiubt in my mind that it aided and abetted evil people, and helped them to get away with crimes that destroyed countless lives.
I have a problem with FGM. Any competent school nurse, let alone a midwife,ought to be able to identify a reasonable number of cases; however, what do we, as a society, do then? Presumably the mother of the girl was party to the act; are we going to jail her? What does that do to the family?
I'd bet that, in almost 100% of cases, the mother of the girl is a victim too.
Not taking that Mr P; agree. So do we prosecute Granny ..... who is almost certainly also a victim?
Off topic: Greece. Here is an interesting editorial from the Cyprus Mail. Very interesting that an influential paper in Greece's closest erstwhile ally in the EU is calling out Tsipras and Varoufakis as empty-headed, populist charlatans who will destroy the country for their own political ends/inexperience/naivete (take your pick).
It appears ever more likely that we are heading towards Grexident. Although it still seems to me that there is an easy way out of the impasse - Greece comes up with credible reforms and austerity budget to meet the terms of the existing agreements, and the EU come up with a massive 'aid' package (not loan) to address the social crisis in Greece, giving the Tsipras government the ability to implement some of the social programmes it promised in the election campaign, while quietly backing down on the other issues. But that can only happen if Tsipras and Varoufakis get real on the reforms and budget, and there I am beginning to think that they simply do not have the wits to perform. Grexident here we come.
Even accounting for boundary changes which have sine narrowed the gap,you can`t rule out a Labour majority on the same votes despite the situation in Scotland.
Level in England means that Labour are ahead in the GB poll though. Labour won't get a majority unless they are at least 3% ahead GB wide, and that's probably too optimistic from an efficiency point of view for Labour still.
Still the 30.0 Labour hit last night on Betfair was lunacy for a majority.
Ofcourse only the swing counts.If Labour are only 2% behind the Tories in England,then that`s down from 11.2% meaning a 5% swing.
A lot of Tory seats become vulnerable at this point.
Given the Labour and Tories are tied in GB despite Labour losing votes in Scotland indicates they are doing rather well in England.
Comments
I think the SNP, at least, for now, is more left leaning than Labour. So it would be a good help.
Regarding their quest for independence ? I support whatever the Scottish people chooses. But I would draw a line with extreme devolution and just about staying within the Union. That is the trap the three major parties fell into and the SNP are exploiting to the full.
Representation with very little taxation.
In Scotland today, it is like Christmas every day !
I'm not sure how you can think that the Lib Dems could have defended the coalition's policies without attacking Labour, who were leading the attacks on those policies. The 'standing shoulder to shoulder' that you complained about is just that.
(*) As it perhaps should be, as someone who is mostly a Lib Dem or Conservative voter, with some strays into Indy and Green territory)
Germany, yes ! And how is its economy doing lately ?
- No one on one between Cameron and Miliband
- A first debate with so many people involved it's effectively a Q&A session
- The only debate so far ahead of the elections it will be forgotten
- Nick Clegg blocked from the second debate on entirely arbitrary grounds so we don't look bad by not attending
- Farage being the only major party excluded from the BBC one-on-ones, which are probably the ones that matter the most, being on the biggest channel and the only one close to the election
Lynton Crosby must have some sort of dirt on the heads of the channels: he's basically got them all to agree to be part of our election campaign strategy! I'm particularly surprised by the BBC allowing UKIP to be excluded, but I suppose it plays to their own ideological preferences. I'm overjoyed, but supporters of the other parties must be fuming!
On the general question of the longevity of the debates. Don't bank on them lasting. Cameron has already brought them and the TV companies into disrepute with this tawdry piece of self serving politicking. The idea that the debates are in the pocket of the Prime Minister devalues them almost completely in terms of their democratic value not least because we know what the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have to say and have to say to each other. We have the misfortune of seeing their faces on our screens virtually daily and they debate each other at PMQ's more weeks in the year every year, than not. It is how they respond to other parties that is key and of course the TV companies have conspired with the Prime Minister to minimise our cowardly Prime Minister's exposure on such matters in a format that could hardly be better for him. In the confusion of 7 candidates likely spending most of the debate talking over each other (because there is insufficient time to get their points across) he will get a relatively easy ride.
Ultimately what will matter is viewing figures and I think it is more than likely they will be significantly down on last time.
For example I have no interest in the Dumb & Dumber show or the Three Stooges stitch up and will be boycotting the other two purely because of the stupidity of the TV stations in contemplating such biased (the exclusion of Northern Ireland) and impractical debates. Not only are the TV companies expecting 7 parties to put their point across in two hours when 3 parties in 2010 had 4 and a half hours last time which is ludicrous but how fairly can they divide the issues across the four shows? Last time there were clear demarcation lines in the topics discussed in each debate. How on earth can they do the same this time and hope to do so without wholsesale repetition and if there is no repetition it will almost inevitably lead to claims that the TV companies were manipulating the subject matter to suit certain parties dependent on what issues are debated in which debate.
All in all I would say after this shoddy set of half baked debates its 50/50 whether they will ever be repeated because the whole thing could blow up in the TV companies and be a complete failure
As for Boris Johnson, no matter how witty he can be, I think it matters not how he performs in the debates. Someone of his background (Eton/ Oxford / Bullingdon/ Westminster Bubble) with clear pro-European, pro big business, pro business and finance and pro immigration tendencies is not the change the country wants. What plays well in London does not necessarily play well outside London and he will find his term as Mayor will be as much a drag on his aspirations as it is a sign of his ability. He also exaggerates many of the negative characteristics of the Tory party. IMO he's not a good choice as leader.
Cameron is more like Bush senior, unable to relate to the common man.
You are guilty as charged.
I think you forget that many left wing people see themselves as superior in judgement. They know they are right.
Something that isn't politically correct is not funny, so therefore laughing at it just shows stupidity. And by criticising, you are helping people escape their quagmire of ignorance.
If only the fools would see that!
A bit of a problem for Murray is, that the character is kinda of popular with the demographic that he original set out to take the micky out of...i.e the views he set out to mock, have become increasingly popular and there aren't really any comedians who cater for those people.
I actually prefer Al Murray when he is doing the sensible stuff, like the documentary series about Germany. Again his famous character kinda of beneath is intelligence, but what are you to do if you have created (slightly inadvertently) something so successful that it is a run away train.
Oh, and coincidentally you think Labour should have got an easier ride ...
And the pasty may just be the best I have ever had.
The tank strikes me as more disturbing though. Are they just having a larffff, or is this about a bunch of instinctive fascists revealing their true colours? Not that I'm suggesting all Clarkson's fans are fascists. I'm sure some are libertarians or not interested in politics at all.
Cameron has hardly fixed our broken politics but he's certainly made it more disreputable and a probably little more imbalanced and distorted. There again he has likely facilitated the break up of the Union (with that knee-jerk acceptance of Brown's transparent independence referendum further devolution bribe and the subsequent English question commitments) so not only has he broken it a little more he's probably fecked it for generations to come. And what for? A chance of a largely impotent zombie minority government when in all likelihood it would be better to sit in opposition.
If I was an old Labour type voter I would be repelled by the moral certainty, the sanctimony and the self-righteousness that emanates from many of the new left in quantities that makes one quite nauseous.... many seem to have been, to Mr Farage's benefit.
But I think Farron etc. are also culpable. Inheriting the crown with 20 MPs. Is that what he wanted rather than challenge Clegg in 2012 ?
1.7 way debate
2.5 way debate
3.3 way QT
4.Jeremy Paxman interview
Yet when there were similar allegations about the leader of their party pre-2010 (Nokias!), they took rather a different view.
And considering their are plenty of allegations about the current Labour leadership's past actions, I wonder if they're being a tad hypocritical.
It is purely and simply so he can be extradited from Sweden to the US because of wikileaks. Would they spend this proportion of their police budget indefinitely so they could catch someone we wanted? Would they heck. It should be a national scandal.
I hadn't realised until this week, when chatting to a literary luvvie, that you are the fruit of the loins of the noted writer DM Thomas.
I confess to rather enjoying his work, especially some of the poetry. I hope he is enjoying good health as he broaches early middle age.
Without the wider debate, it isn't going to stop. Having spoken to some teachers recently, they know who are likely candidates in their class that this will be forced upon, the MO of how it is going to go down, but are s##t scarred of raising it.
Please pass on my regards and advise him that he has a fan among the Jacobite hordes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai_Richler
Seems PB.com is lousy with famous fathers. Mine was a well-known street-bookie in Hackney. What about yours?
Not sure what the emoticon means!
A bit like saying my Uncle has more bollocks than my Aunty forgetting his sex change op in 2014.
Since we are talking about debates don't forget that the satire of the debate is very useful to gauge the public's opinion about them and the performance of the participators, as satire exaggerates reality to the point were everyone can understand it.
With the Gore VS Bush debates here is a prime example (oh and the guy who played Gore was in a straitjacket going to the hospital moments after they finished filming it) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDgRRVpemLo
e.g. Daily Mail
IMPORTED PROBLEM: WHAT IS FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION?, including a big map of where it is FGM is prevalent, where it is coming from and who is responsible for it.
It is said that communism is so manifestly stupid only a really intelligent person could think it was a good thing.
I don't care what party it is, it needs stamping out.
May 2015 has got Berwickshire Roxburgh Selkirk and Dumfries and Galloway going SNP.
Mundell hangs on.
All of the other parties would have done the same thing if they could have got away with it. As I said, I'm surprised the broadcasters have allowed themselves to be played by this, but politics is politics. We've come up trumps, and the other parties have lost out. If that means a Conservative Prime Minister over a Labour Prime Minister, I'm happy overall. But I can understand that you might be sore if you support one of our opponents.
However the records would seem to indicate that my ancestors had the odd brush with history - political, military and social.
Rotherham is another good example. The BBC and the Guardian kept trying to push this away. The guy from the Times was treated like he was some sort of racist.
Even a couple of weeks ago they had an expert on and you heard the massive intake of breath when the expert just laid it out in clear terms.
Like you, I'm an ex-Labour voter and switched to the LDs when Blair came in. Now, I've either grown old or grown up, so I'm now a NOTA.
It could be my natural cynicism has replaced youthful enthusiasm. But I think Labour has changed too, and I lazily used Lefty for metropolitan/elite/liberal. At my age, I know I'm often wrong but then so are my supposed betters.
What probably drove my youthful lefty-ism was the feeling that right-wingers sneered at anyone not of their own class, when the truth was some did some did and some didn't. But that's a universal characteristic of every group.
The worst culprits now seem to be those metropolitan etc who have what I think is an intellectual snobbism. Sociologists seem to be worst - yet it's not even a proper ology is it?
See, I can do hypocrisy too.
I may be shite but I am self-aware.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick 28m28 minutes ago
.@Afzal4Dudley's explanation of events in Dudley North. #tw2 http://bbc.in/15ui3T0
But they have a puncher's chance of taking the lot.
Where the left generally went horribly wrong and where it has to stick its hands up is over issues such as grooming by moslem gangs and getting into bed with fundamentalists, so to speak. As someone on the left, what happendd in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale fills me with deep shame and real anger. It's something that everyone on the left should face up to and stop making excuses for. Do I put it all down to PC? Absolutely not - there was (and is) far more to it than that; but there is no doiubt in my mind that it aided and abetted evil people, and helped them to get away with crimes that destroyed countless lives.
It makes no sense at all for the SNP to divert resources to Nuneaton.
Fancy a bet?
To be fair to Labour, some of the more old-fashioned MPs have condemned the Rotherham antics even though they know it will harm their ambitions in the party. And you're probably right about the metropolitan elite encompassing all three parties.
Labour 35.4% Seats-286
Tories 35.7% Seats-194
Even accounting for boundary changes which have sine narrowed the gap,you can`t rule out a Labour majority on the same votes despite the situation in Scotland.
As I recall, YES got some reasonably good polling in England for some reason *cough*
As far as he was concerned, as a leader in his community, whatever happened to those men they'd deserved. He was also very censorious of the religious leaders in those communities, who had failed to point out to their "flock" that they were living in a different country and different rules applied.
I have a problem with FGM. Any competent school nurse, let alone a midwife,ought to be able to identify a reasonable number of cases; however, what do we, as a society, do then? Presumably the mother of the girl was party to the act; are we going to jail her? What does that do to the family?
Still the 30.0 Labour hit last night on Betfair was lunacy for a majority.
“We believe our diversity, our differences, when joined together by a common set of ideals, makes us stronger, makes us more creative, makes us different,” Barack Obama pronounced at a citizenship ceremony last Fourth of July. Until half a century ago most serious historians would have called such an opinion ignorant or naïve. Ethnic diversity implies cultural diversity—if it did not, ethnic diversity would soon disappear. Cultural diversity means division, division means weakness, and weakness means, eventually, unfreedom.
Such, at least, is the traditional view, and history appears to vindicate it. … Diversity has been the form of belonging that typifies empires, just as nationality has been the form that typifies republics. … The motto E pluribus unum is a sign that the founders saw diversity as a challenge to be mastered, not a resource to be tapped.
Yet “diversity” today is a sacred term.
http://www.claremont.org/article/the-browning-of-america/#.VQtTT2TF9zB
http://cyprus-mail.com/2015/03/22/our-view-for-the-sake-of-greece-tsipras-has-to-admit-failure/
It appears ever more likely that we are heading towards Grexident. Although it still seems to me that there is an easy way out of the impasse - Greece comes up with credible reforms and austerity budget to meet the terms of the existing agreements, and the EU come up with a massive 'aid' package (not loan) to address the social crisis in Greece, giving the Tsipras government the ability to implement some of the social programmes it promised in the election campaign, while quietly backing down on the other issues. But that can only happen if Tsipras and Varoufakis get real on the reforms and budget, and there I am beginning to think that they simply do not have the wits to perform. Grexident here we come.
A lot of Tory seats become vulnerable at this point.
Given the Labour and Tories are tied in GB despite Labour losing votes in Scotland indicates they are doing rather well in England.