The male Magical Gay tends to be an expert on heterosexual relationships, even though he's never been in any kind of romantic or sexual relationship with a woman, and even gay romance seems suspiciously absent from his life.
The Magical Queer, by virtue of his/her status as both Closer to Earth and too good for it, tends to succumb to Bury Your Gays, even if it is to teach the straight characters or audience an aesop about homosexuality.
This trope runs into the same problems as Magical Negro, and Manic Pixie Dream Girl, because it can come off as more patronizing than honoring. Also, it depends on the validity of certain stereotypes which can be considered offensive to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. However, on the bright side, it's a less negative portrayal of homosexuals than certain other tropes.
If Morgan Freeman is the Magical Negro, then Harvey Fierstein is this trope.
"Maybe if we oppressed gays a bit they'd start voting for us again" "I was walking on Hampstead Heath the other day and I met a man called Colin. We fell into conversation and he said to me, 'Ed, what I want Labour to do is focus on jobs and fairness. Can I suck your ****?'"
Most people mocked DanHodges for years, but it turns out he called a lot of things correctly. Doesn't mean he always will be of course, but even for an ideological opposite how can Owen Jones, so soon after being so wrong himself, be so arrogant. And in that quite he is definitely wrong, as Hodges continually said what he thought Labour should do - perhaps it wasn't 'constructive' enough for Owen, but no-one could credibly argue he didn't slip in actual advice amidst the constant ' I don't think Ed M is a good leader' stuff on occasion.
The male Magical Gay tends to be an expert on heterosexual relationships, even though he's never been in any kind of romantic or sexual relationship with a woman, and even gay romance seems suspiciously absent from his life.
The Magical Queer, by virtue of his/her status as both Closer to Earth and too good for it, tends to succumb to Bury Your Gays, even if it is to teach the straight characters or audience an aesop about homosexuality.
This trope runs into the same problems as Magical Negro, and Manic Pixie Dream Girl, because it can come off as more patronizing than honoring. Also, it depends on the validity of certain stereotypes which can be considered offensive to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. However, on the bright side, it's a less negative portrayal of homosexuals than certain other tropes.
If Morgan Freeman is the Magical Negro, then Harvey Fierstein is this trope.
"Maybe if we oppressed gays a bit they'd start voting for us again" "I was walking on Hampstead Heath the other day and I met a man called Colin. We fell into conversation and he said to me, 'Ed, what I want Labour to do is focus on jobs and fairness. Can I suck your ****?'"
The idea that all gays can be characterised as basically the same, like all Sikhs and all Muslims, seems very lefty.
Most people mocked DanHodges for years, but it turns out he called a lot of things correctly. Doesn't mean he always will be of course, but even for an ideological opposite how can Owen Jones, so soon after being so wrong himself, be so arrogant. And in that quite he is definitely wrong, as Hodges continually said what he thought Labour should do - perhaps it wasn't 'constructive' enough for Owen, but no-one could credibly argue he didn't slip in actual advice amidst the constant ' I don't think Ed M is a good leader' stuff on occasion.
Dan's appreciation of leader ratings over polling was excellent in hindsight !
Right, now that we've established Gul Dukat's role in the Cardassian Empire, I must be off.
If I recall, keeping to the fantasy/sci-fi convention of trying to limit to only one kingdom/empire/confederation/etc at a time, it was termed the Cardassian Union officially, though like most non Federation 'empires' other than the freed Bajorans I don't know if any other species supposedly within its space ever appeared.
Ok, enough Star Trek.
No odds for 'capitalist pigdogs'?
'Tory deception' seems a possibility to me, given the comfort blanket of it that has been intermittently used.
Humans started well, but even half-way through the first episode it became depressingly predictable. All about the usual 'machines have started thinking for themselves, and are dangerous' and are going to rebel angle.
The more interesting (but much more disturbing) angle would be to keep them passive and subservient to their original programming but increasingly sentinent. Then to show how, in reality, such 'synths' would become widely physically, verbally and sexually abused and exploited. In fact, some might be bought for that purpose alone.
Having an exploitable 'slave' - all behind closed doors - can bring out the very worst and most base instincts of humanity.
CR's plotline would make for a very interesting study of the human condition. How would we react to the reintroduction of such slavery?
Far more interesting than the revolt of the machines.
Thanks. Of course, it'd make for some very uncomfortable viewing.
Plato: yes, I hope you're right. My wife loves it, so I'm stuck with watching the whole series anyway.
Most people mocked DanHodges for years, but it turns out he called a lot of things correctly. Doesn't mean he always will be of course, but even for an ideological opposite how can Owen Jones, so soon after being so wrong himself, be so arrogant. And in that quite he is definitely wrong, as Hodges continually said what he thought Labour should do - perhaps it wasn't 'constructive' enough for Owen, but no-one could credibly argue he didn't slip in actual advice amidst the constant ' I don't think Ed M is a good leader' stuff on occasion.
Spot on! "...how can Owen Jones, so soon after being so wrong himself, be so arrogant." He's a totally immersed party ideologue - it's what they do.
Most people mocked DanHodges for years, but it turns out he called a lot of things correctly. Doesn't mean he always will be of course, but even for an ideological opposite how can Owen Jones, so soon after being so wrong himself, be so arrogant. And in that quite he is definitely wrong, as Hodges continually said what he thought Labour should do - perhaps it wasn't 'constructive' enough for Owen, but no-one could credibly argue he didn't slip in actual advice amidst the constant ' I don't think Ed M is a good leader' stuff on occasion.
Dan Hodges has been completely vidicated by this election result. Even at times when he looked most wrong, he stuck to his guns and didn't start equivocating to cover himself.
Most people mocked DanHodges for years, but it turns out he called a lot of things correctly. Doesn't mean he always will be of course, but even for an ideological opposite how can Owen Jones, so soon after being so wrong himself, be so arrogant. And in that quite he is definitely wrong, as Hodges continually said what he thought Labour should do - perhaps it wasn't 'constructive' enough for Owen, but no-one could credibly argue he didn't slip in actual advice amidst the constant ' I don't think Ed M is a good leader' stuff on occasion.
Hodges did continually say that UKIP would poll about 6% and the Lib Dems would get about 15%, though
I don't know if someone knows something I don't, but European stock markets are rallying hard: almost everything is now up for the day having been down 2% earlier.
Child: "Daddy - who's that funny man over there? With all those musical instruments." Father: "Why! That’s Ivor Biggun the famous one man band." Child: "What's a one man band daddy?" Father "He's one man and he's banned by television and radio..."
Speaking of political commentators that called things right - and those who got it very wrong. - who said this of Ed’s 2014 Conference speech?
“I thought it was lamentable, weak, clichéd, embarrassing, uninspiring, stylistically inept, vacuous, unambitious, grandiose, cringeworthy, patronising, foolish, an unappetising blend of impossiblism and incrementalism, and a complete and final disaster for the Labour Party.”
Most people mocked DanHodges for years, but it turns out he called a lot of things correctly. Doesn't mean he always will be of course, but even for an ideological opposite how can Owen Jones, so soon after being so wrong himself, be so arrogant. And in that quite he is definitely wrong, as Hodges continually said what he thought Labour should do - perhaps it wasn't 'constructive' enough for Owen, but no-one could credibly argue he didn't slip in actual advice amidst the constant ' I don't think Ed M is a good leader' stuff on occasion.
Hodges did continually say that UKIP would poll about 6% and the Lib Dems would get about 15%, though
To be fair, he got the total % of UKIP + LibDems pretty much spot on.
How awesome is Dan Hodges (PBUH) slapping down Owen Jones
Jones: “You’ve never, ever, ever, ever come up with a single constructive policy proposal about what you’d like to see Labour doing. You don’t add anything constructive to the debate. What does Dan Hodges stand for?”
Hodges: “Actually, I did Owen. I said look at what Ed Miliband’s doing and do the opposite.”
How awesome is Dan Hodges (PBUH) slapping down Owen Jones
Jones: “You’ve never, ever, ever, ever come up with a single constructive policy proposal about what you’d like to see Labour doing. You don’t add anything constructive to the debate. What does Dan Hodges stand for?”
Hodges: “Actually, I did Owen. I said look at what Ed Miliband’s doing and do the opposite.”
Speaking of political commentators that called things right - and those who got it very wrong. - who said this of Ed’s 2014 Conference speech?
“I thought it was lamentable, weak, clichéd, embarrassing, uninspiring, stylistically inept, vacuous, unambitious, grandiose, cringeworthy, patronising, foolish, an unappetising blend of impossiblism and incrementalism, and a complete and final disaster for the Labour Party.”
Was it me? I had the misfortune to hear the whole thing as I was driving back from Scotland. That is a fair summary of my thoughts (with added "Hell yeah!!" as I thought the 2015 election looked like one we should now win...).
How awesome is Dan Hodges (PBUH) slapping down Owen Jones
Jones: “You’ve never, ever, ever, ever come up with a single constructive policy proposal about what you’d like to see Labour doing. You don’t add anything constructive to the debate. What does Dan Hodges stand for?”
Hodges: “Actually, I did Owen. I said look at what Ed Miliband’s doing and do the opposite.”
Just 31% of candidates in the Danish general election today are women. Since 29% of HoC MPs are female, that pretty much guarantees that the next Danish parliament will have fewer female members than the HoC. Well, not guarantees, but makes it likely.
Khan has done good work with Labour London but Labour just have to go for Tessa Jowell. Jowell has the recognition factor, the Olympics connection and could appeal more to those outside of Central London. Khan could still win but it'd be risky by Labour.
Just 31% of candidates in the Danish general election today are women. Since 29% of HoC MPs are female, that pretty much guarantees that the next Danish parliament will have fewer female members than the HoC.
Speaking of political commentators that called things right - and those who got it very wrong. - who said this of Ed’s 2014 Conference speech?
“I thought it was lamentable, weak, clichéd, embarrassing, uninspiring, stylistically inept, vacuous, unambitious, grandiose, cringeworthy, patronising, foolish, an unappetising blend of impossiblism and incrementalism, and a complete and final disaster for the Labour Party.”
Was it me? I had the misfortune to hear the whole thing as I was driving back from Scotland. That is a fair summary of my thoughts (with added "Hell yeah!!" as I thought the 2015 election looked like one we should now win...).
Afraid not MrMark – twas another equally insightful chap, but a less distinguished gentleman.
Just 31% of candidates in the Danish general election today are women. Since 29% of HoC MPs are female, that pretty much guarantees that the next Danish parliament will have fewer female members than the HoC.
Just 31% of candidates in the Danish general election today are women. Since 29% of HoC MPs are female, that pretty much guarantees that the next Danish parliament will have fewer female members than the HoC.
Why would female Danish candidates have a lower success rate than male ones?
I was assuming that in most places men are more likely to be elected than women but I should have checked the facts for Danish elections first.
I'm not sure its true. While its true that more men get elected it doesn't translate (even in the UK) to necessarily meaning a higher success rate for male candidates.
I suspect in fact that a higher-than-normal proportion of ego-driven no chance candidates (eg OMRLP, independents, Lib Dems) are male meaning that'd depress the success rate of male candidates. It wouldn't surprise me (though I've not seen the figures) that women are more likely to stand if they think they've a chance of winning.
Not sure if I'm better off with Khan or Jowell as candidate financially. Probabkly Khan... Khan vs Goldsmith brings the 11-4 on any Tory in nicely too (If it is Goldsmith)
Khan has done good work with Labour London but Labour just have to go for Tessa Jowell. Jowell has the recognition factor, the Olympics connection and could appeal more to those outside of Central London. Khan could still win but it'd be risky by Labour.
Tsipiras is trying to separate the Europeans from the IMF, by trying to make out the Europeans are American stooges if they fail to ditch the IMF and support Greece.
I am not convinced by the brilliance of this plan.
Right, now that we've established Gul Dukat's role in the Cardassian Empire, I must be off.
If I recall, keeping to the fantasy/sci-fi convention of trying to limit to only one kingdom/empire/confederation/etc at a time, it was termed the Cardassian Union officially, though like most non Federation 'empires' other than the freed Bajorans I don't know if any other species supposedly within its space ever appeared.
Ok, enough Star Trek.
No odds for 'capitalist pigdogs'?
'Tory deception' seems a possibility to me, given the comfort blanket of it that has been intermittently used.
Dark Matter seems pretty good. Nice twist at the end of the pilot which I hadn't expected and sets things up for some interesting storylines.
Only question is whether a Canadian show can flesh out its world enough or end up with every planet being the same quarry in Toronto/Vancouver whichever one it's made at.
Tsipiras is trying to separate the Europeans from the IMF, by trying to make out the Europeans are American stooges if they fail to ditch the IMF and support Greece.
I am not convinced by the brilliance of this plan.
The plan is so brilliant it has blinded its author to the obvious.
Helena Smith's interpretation that this means that Tsipras is readying his party for a deal is breathtakingly counterintuitive.
Speaking of political commentators that called things right - and those who got it very wrong. - who said this of Ed’s 2014 Conference speech?
“I thought it was lamentable, weak, clichéd, embarrassing, uninspiring, stylistically inept, vacuous, unambitious, grandiose, cringeworthy, patronising, foolish, an unappetising blend of impossiblism and incrementalism, and a complete and final disaster for the Labour Party.”
Was it me? I had the misfortune to hear the whole thing as I was driving back from Scotland. That is a fair summary of my thoughts (with added "Hell yeah!!" as I thought the 2015 election looked like one we should now win...).
Afraid not MrMark – twas another equally insightful chap, but a less distinguished gentleman.
I see the Conservative leadership has said they will "amend" the purdah rules to ban mailshots to households. This really is not good enough. The problem is not mailshots, but mass media coverage after the government releases taxpayer-funded reports and papers backing one side in the referendum. This is what must be controlled, or the referendum will not be seen as impartial. That will cause eurosceptics to demand a re-run under fair rules, and understandably so.
Tsipiras is trying to separate the Europeans from the IMF, by trying to make out the Europeans are American stooges if they fail to ditch the IMF and support Greece.
I am not convinced by the brilliance of this plan.
That's a bonkers strategy!
The more sensible of the European nations will sell Greece to Russia before they undermine the IMF as an institution, and Greece right now are taking the piss out of them!
Tsipras obviously expects the printing presses to start rolling in Brussels and Berlin to pay the IMF, it's either that now or Grexit from the Euro.
Right, now that we've established Gul Dukat's role in the Cardassian Empire, I must be off.
If I recall, keeping to the fantasy/sci-fi convention of trying to limit to only one kingdom/empire/confederation/etc at a time, it was termed the Cardassian Union officially, though like most non Federation 'empires' other than the freed Bajorans I don't know if any other species supposedly within its space ever appeared.
Ok, enough Star Trek.
No odds for 'capitalist pigdogs'?
'Tory deception' seems a possibility to me, given the comfort blanket of it that has been intermittently used.
Dark Matter seems pretty good. Nice twist at the end of the pilot which I hadn't expected and sets things up for some interesting storylines.
Only question is whether a Canadian show can flesh out its world enough or end up with every planet being the same quarry in Toronto/Vancouver whichever one it's made at.
So you've seen Stargate then? Those canadian forests pull some hard work as nearly every planet in 3 galaxies.
I see the Conservative leadership has said they will "amend" the purdah rules to ban mailshots to households. This really is not good enough. The problem is not mailshots, but mass media coverage after the government releases taxpayer-funded reports and papers backing one side in the referendum. This is what must be controlled, or the referendum will not be seen as impartial. That will cause eurosceptics to demand a re-run under fair rules, and understandably so.
Genuine question, do the TV and radio broadcast rules on impartiality automatically apply in the official referendum campaign period as they would for an election, or is this provision part of the legislation currently on its way through Parliament?
Right, now that we've established Gul Dukat's role in the Cardassian Empire, I must be off.
If I recall, keeping to the fantasy/sci-fi convention of trying to limit to only one kingdom/empire/confederation/etc at a time, it was termed the Cardassian Union officially, though like most non Federation 'empires' other than the freed Bajorans I don't know if any other species supposedly within its space ever appeared.
Ok, enough Star Trek.
No odds for 'capitalist pigdogs'?
'Tory deception' seems a possibility to me, given the comfort blanket of it that has been intermittently used.
Dark Matter seems pretty good. Nice twist at the end of the pilot which I hadn't expected and sets things up for some interesting storylines.
Only question is whether a Canadian show can flesh out its world enough or end up with every planet being the same quarry in Toronto/Vancouver whichever one it's made at.
So you've seen Stargate then? Those canadian forests pull some hard work as nearly every planet in 3 galaxies.
No EU vote on the same day as the locals next year. Good decision.
Are you applauding that because you think it's more democratic or because you reckon probably lower turnout may well help Out/No win ;p ?
As always I support things I think are more democratic. It is why I oppose PR even though it would help the party I support. It is also why I believe there should be a referendum on EU membership rather than just taking us out after a vote in Parliament.
This is an important constitutional issue - just as the Scottish referendum was - and it should be decided by people voting on the issue rather the tacked on the back of the local elections.
I see the Conservative leadership has said they will "amend" the purdah rules to ban mailshots to households. This really is not good enough. The problem is not mailshots, but mass media coverage after the government releases taxpayer-funded reports and papers backing one side in the referendum. This is what must be controlled, or the referendum will not be seen as impartial. That will cause eurosceptics to demand a re-run under fair rules, and understandably so.
Genuine question, do the TV and radio broadcast rules on impartiality automatically apply in the official referendum campaign period as they would for an election, or is this provision part of the legislation currently on its way through Parliament?
Impartiality is going to be a very tough ask as everyone has a considerable amount of skin in the game. Whitehall I believe is pro Union, pro EU... the No campaign will face alot of the same institutional bias that the Nats did.
The direction of the papers will be important too, particularly the Mail Online... I think that's the most important these days.
No EU vote on the same day as the locals next year. Good decision.
Are you applauding that because you think it's more democratic or because you reckon probably lower turnout may well help Out/No win ;p ?
I'd have thought it would make little difference to the turnout - unless it's held in November. If anything, the locals would have had a turnout boost with the referendum on the same day.
No EU vote on the same day as the locals next year. Good decision.
Are you applauding that because you think it's more democratic or because you reckon probably lower turnout may well help Out/No win ;p ?
I'd have thought it would make little difference to the turnout - unless it's held in November. If anything, the locals would have had a turnout boost with the referendum on the same day.
The Scottish turnout would be higher, and also London - those are two of the most pro EU areas. It's marginal but not having it on May 5th helps Out slightly.
O/T - but what does commenting on the UK government's migration policy have to do with Save the Children?
"Away from the Commons, the charity Save the Children has called on the government to offer refuge to its "fair share" of migrants who have arrived in Italy and Greece. It says Britain should home at least 1,500 of the children who have arrived unaccompanied in Italy. Its chief executive Justin Forsyth said:
The numbers being proposed are very small in comparison to the overall scale. The neighbouring countries are taking a huge burden so I think that the rest of Europe should be more generous.""
I can see the case for StC wanting all children to receive adequate care and attention, but shouldn't his comment be more that 'we don't take a view on migration policy at the UK or EU government level, but we do think that all unaccompanied children in our care should be adequately accommodated and looked after until more permanent arrangements can be found and we urge all governments to ensure this is included in their plans. We should also not be blind to the plight of children in their home countries who did not successfully arrive in Europe and would urge governments not to forget them either."
I see Justin Forsyth is a former spin doctor for Gordon Brown, and has not been shy of ultra political charitable activity in the past:
This seems like incredibly shoddy journalism from the Sunday Times on the Snowden story. The reporter was interviewed about his piece and asked how he confirmed the story, and he just said:
"Um... well... I don't know the answer to that, George. Um.... All we know is that... um... this is effectively the official position of the British government. Um.... we picked up on it... um... a while ago. And we've been working on it and trying to stand it up through multiple sources. And when we approached the British government late last week with our evidence, they confirmed, effectively, what you read today in the Sunday Times."
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Trump has no chance. He is a laughing stock outside his paid flunkies. He might appeal to non-voters.
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Disenfranchised is code for non-voters. Appealing to them is electoral suicide.
I find it really hard to donate to partisan charities like this now. Sadly, there are far too many of them.
Someone with a sufficient interest in the matter ought to apply for an injunction to restrain this sort of political activity. As Hoffmann J (as he then was) stated in Webb v O'Doherty (1 February 1991):
There is ... a clear distinction between the discussion of political matters, or the acquisition of information which may have a political content, and a campaign on a political issue. There is no doubt that campaigning, in the sense of seeking to influence public opinion on political matters, is not a charitable activity.
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Trump has no chance. He is a laughing stock outside his paid flunkies. He might appeal to non-voters.
I favour him as a candidate. My impression is that he's a powerful man in his own right, unlike Obama, Hillary etc. who are very much in the pocket of their sponsors, which is why I think so much effort has been put in to make him the laughingstock you describe.
If by some miracle Trump gets the nomination it might be worth looking at the Democrat odds on some reasonably deep red states. Hillary will be backable at pretty much any price for POTUS too.
I'm sure his price has shortened every time you've mentioned burning the betslips, Harry
Anyway I'm on Jowell, Goldsmith, Lammy (Small saver), the Tory field too :P
Trying to think of the circumstances at which Khan is good value at 3/1
Nope....
Well if he is the Labour candidate it certainly is value. The question is how do you price up who to be Labour candidate.
Do Lammy, Abbot and the other rags have a realistic chance ?
Should Jowell be ahead of Khan ?
Nobody has a realistic chance of the Labour nomination except Jowell and Khan. An important point that non-Labour punters may not realise - the number of nominations indicates little between them. Because of the way selection works, they've not really been tested against each other - Jowell mopped up most CLPs merely by beating Abbott, and the CLPs generally then picked Khan as best of the rest.
I think it's a toss-up myself - that poll will help Jowell, but most members IMO probably slightly prefer Khan (TGOHF is not a good subsample of Labour members). I'd think he ought to be about 2-1 or 9-4 overall to win the Mayoralty, with Jowell on 7-4.
This seems like incredibly shoddy journalism from the Sunday Times on the Snowden story. The reporter was interviewed about his piece and asked how he confirmed the story, and he just said:
"Um... well... I don't know the answer to that, George. Um.... All we know is that... um... this is effectively the official position of the British government. Um.... we picked up on it... um... a while ago. And we've been working on it and trying to stand it up through multiple sources. And when we approached the British government late last week with our evidence, they confirmed, effectively, what you read today in the Sunday Times."
'We just publish what we believe to be the position of the British Government.'
Worth repeating again and again till people listen. On Syria, on Ukraine, on Russia. What we read in our 'free press' isn't to be trusted - indeed it's dangerous to do so. Not figuratively dangerous either, it is warmongering propaganda that's leading us down a path that ends in armed conflict.
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Trump has no chance. He is a laughing stock outside his paid flunkies. He might appeal to non-voters.
I favour him as a candidate. My impression is that he's a powerful man in his own right, unlike Obama, Hillary etc. who are very much in the pocket of their sponsors, which is why I think so much effort has been put in to make him the laughingstock you describe.
I think the main thing that's made Trump a laughing stock is Trump.
Right, now that we've established Gul Dukat's role in the Cardassian Empire, I must be off.
If I recall, keeping to the fantasy/sci-fi convention of trying to limit to only one kingdom/empire/confederation/etc at a time, it was termed the Cardassian Union officially, though like most non Federation 'empires' other than the freed Bajorans I don't know if any other species supposedly within its space ever appeared.
Ok, enough Star Trek.
No odds for 'capitalist pigdogs'?
'Tory deception' seems a possibility to me, given the comfort blanket of it that has been intermittently used.
Dark Matter seems pretty good. Nice twist at the end of the pilot which I hadn't expected and sets things up for some interesting storylines.
Only question is whether a Canadian show can flesh out its world enough or end up with every planet being the same quarry in Toronto/Vancouver whichever one it's made at.
So you've seen Stargate then? Those canadian forests pull some hard work as nearly every planet in 3 galaxies.
It really is the killer for any mid-budget show of this type. Although to be fair, even big budget shows tend to restrict themselves in such a way. I guess it at least looks better than a Sound Stage - even today.
This seems like incredibly shoddy journalism from the Sunday Times on the Snowden story. The reporter was interviewed about his piece and asked how he confirmed the story, and he just said:
"Um... well... I don't know the answer to that, George. Um.... All we know is that... um... this is effectively the official position of the British government. Um.... we picked up on it... um... a while ago. And we've been working on it and trying to stand it up through multiple sources. And when we approached the British government late last week with our evidence, they confirmed, effectively, what you read today in the Sunday Times."
Go Trump...Talking to our American friends and family..they seem to think Trump stands a good chance.. he certainly appeals to the grass roots and disenfranchised .
Trump has no chance. He is a laughing stock outside his paid flunkies. He might appeal to non-voters.
I favour him as a candidate. My impression is that he's a powerful man in his own right, unlike Obama, Hillary etc. who are very much in the pocket of their sponsors, which is why I think so much effort has been put in to make him the laughingstock you describe.
I think the main thing that's made Trump a laughing stock is Trump.
Trump was born incredibly rich. And his exertions have made him... about as rich as he was when he was born. Despite being leveraged and long through the greatest property boom in history.
Comments
http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-4000-6327-7
There is a good trading bet of him becoming the flavour of the month.
The idea that all gays can be characterised as basically the same, like all Sikhs and all Muslims, seems very lefty.
Plato: yes, I hope you're right. My wife loves it, so I'm stuck with watching the whole series anyway.
"...how can Owen Jones, so soon after being so wrong himself, be so arrogant."
He's a totally immersed party ideologue - it's what they do.
Father: "Why! That’s Ivor Biggun the famous one man band."
Child: "What's a one man band daddy?"
Father "He's one man and he's banned by television and radio..."
“I thought it was lamentable, weak, clichéd, embarrassing, uninspiring, stylistically inept, vacuous, unambitious, grandiose, cringeworthy, patronising, foolish, an unappetising blend of impossiblism and incrementalism, and a complete and final disaster for the Labour Party.”
To be fair, he got the total % of UKIP + LibDems pretty much spot on.
It's very good, sure you'll enjoy.
http://www.netflix.com/wimovie/80018294?mqso=81640165&gclid=CKzft8CtlMYCFdMatAodTQwA0Q
Jones: "When Margaret Thatcher became Conservative leader Jim Callaghan's response was, "Well that's the Conservatives losing the next election...""
Hodges: "So Jeremy Corbyn is Labour's Margaret Thatcher?"
Hope this encourages Labour to pick Jowell over Khan.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/16/danish-election-guide-parties-candidates
I suspect in fact that a higher-than-normal proportion of ego-driven no chance candidates (eg OMRLP, independents, Lib Dems) are male meaning that'd depress the success rate of male candidates. It wouldn't surprise me (though I've not seen the figures) that women are more likely to stand if they think they've a chance of winning.
Tsipiras is trying to separate the Europeans from the IMF, by trying to make out the Europeans are American stooges if they fail to ditch the IMF and support Greece.
I am not convinced by the brilliance of this plan.
Only question is whether a Canadian show can flesh out its world enough or end up with every planet being the same quarry in Toronto/Vancouver whichever one it's made at.
Helena Smith's interpretation that this means that Tsipras is readying his party for a deal is breathtakingly counterintuitive.
Anyway I'm on Jowell, Goldsmith, Lammy (Small saver), the Tory field too :P
The more sensible of the European nations will sell Greece to Russia before they undermine the IMF as an institution, and Greece right now are taking the piss out of them!
Tsipras obviously expects the printing presses to start rolling in Brussels and Berlin to pay the IMF, it's either that now or Grexit from the Euro.
This is an important constitutional issue - just as the Scottish referendum was - and it should be decided by people voting on the issue rather the tacked on the back of the local elections.
The direction of the papers will be important too, particularly the Mail Online... I think that's the most important these days.
Nope....
Do Lammy, Abbot and the other rags have a realistic chance ?
Should Jowell be ahead of Khan ?
"Away from the Commons, the charity Save the Children has called on the government to offer refuge to its "fair share" of migrants who have arrived in Italy and Greece. It says Britain should home at least 1,500 of the children who have arrived unaccompanied in Italy. Its chief executive Justin Forsyth said:
The numbers being proposed are very small in comparison to the overall scale. The neighbouring countries are taking a huge burden so I think that the rest of Europe should be more generous.""
I can see the case for StC wanting all children to receive adequate care and attention, but shouldn't his comment be more that 'we don't take a view on migration policy at the UK or EU government level, but we do think that all unaccompanied children in our care should be adequately accommodated and looked after until more permanent arrangements can be found and we urge all governments to ensure this is included in their plans. We should also not be blind to the plight of children in their home countries who did not successfully arrive in Europe and would urge governments not to forget them either."
I see Justin Forsyth is a former spin doctor for Gordon Brown, and has not been shy of ultra political charitable activity in the past:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/justin-forsyth-has-far-more-to-apologise-for-than-tony-blairs-award-from-save-the-children/
I find it really hard to donate to partisan charities like this now. Sadly, there are far too many of them.
"Um... well... I don't know the answer to that, George. Um.... All we know is that... um... this is effectively the official position of the British government. Um.... we picked up on it... um... a while ago. And we've been working on it and trying to stand it up through multiple sources. And when we approached the British government late last week with our evidence, they confirmed, effectively, what you read today in the Sunday Times."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150615/11565531344/reporter-who-wrote-sunday-times-snowden-propaganda-admits-that-hes-just-writing-what-uk-govt-told-him.shtml
Lol
If by some miracle Labour were stupid enough to pick Khan - he would be thrashed by Zak.
I think it's a toss-up myself - that poll will help Jowell, but most members IMO probably slightly prefer Khan (TGOHF is not a good subsample of Labour members). I'd think he ought to be about 2-1 or 9-4 overall to win the Mayoralty, with Jowell on 7-4.
http://guernseypress.com/news/2015/06/16/ukip-leader-sails-into-town/
Incidentally, the two buildings in the background are the closest a pub comes to a church in the British Isles......
Worth repeating again and again till people listen. On Syria, on Ukraine, on Russia. What we read in our 'free press' isn't to be trusted - indeed it's dangerous to do so. Not figuratively dangerous either, it is warmongering propaganda that's leading us down a path that ends in armed conflict.