The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
I thought it was supposed to be the Daily Heil? The Daily Hail could just refer to one of the myriad weather delights of your fair land...
The closest analogy for how unexpected all this: imagine Ukip's only MP, Douglas Carswell, running for the Conservative leadership – and winning.
And even that is a stretch, Carswell is nothing like the most right-wing of MPs and mostly has sensible coherent views and policies that have some chance of working.Not to mention that Carswell has very rarely voted against the Conservatives. Notice the contrast with Mr Corbyn.
Like you, my experience of Muslims is that while a small group take the fundamentalists viewpoint most do not.
Sadly, I'm not sure you are correct.
"Islamic fundamentalism is widely spread WZB study shows significantly high numbers amongst Europe’s Muslims
Religious fundamentalism is not a marginal phenomenon in Western Europe. This conclusion is drawn in a study published by Ruud Koopmans from the WZB Berlin Social Science Center. The author analyzed data from a representative survey among immigrants and natives in six European countries. Two thirds of the Muslims interviewed say that religious rules are more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. Three quarters of the respondents hold the opinion that there is only one legitimate interpretation of the Koran.
These numbers are significantly higher than those from local Christians. Only 13 percent of this group put religious rules above national law; just under 20 percent refuse to accept differing interpretations of the Bible."
Mr @Morris_Dancer - you mentioned the timeliness of St Corbyn relics earlier, there's a prog you may enjoy on BBC4 Treasures of Heaven. Should be on your TV schedule this week or on iPlayer.
Following on from the earlier discussion of less and fewer:
MANY people insist on a bright-line distinction between “fewer” and “less”, and get quite agitated by the subject. David Foster Wallace’s novel “Infinite Jest” featured the Militant Grammarians of Massachusetts, who boycott stores with signs reading “12 items or less”. A few vigilantes have defaced such signs in real life. What is the distinction, and why does it matter?
The distinction between the use of fewer and less is simple. Use "fewer" before plural nouns and "less" before singular nouns. So: fewer eggs, less flour. It can matter for meaning. There is a difference between "fewer fish" and "less fish" for example.
Miss Plato, cheers, I'll see about giving it a look. Caught a smattering of a programme (on BBC2, rather than 4, oddly) yesterday about the building of Rome. Looked fairly interesting, although the aqueducts being super is hardly new information [was amused the Renaissance version was clearly inferior to those from a thousand years earlier, though].
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
Do you want any fish with those chips?
You are not fond of reality are you.
What's happened? You've thrown an insult and you haven't mentioned 'turnip'?
"History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.”
Most of the general public know this, all across the world, but our politicians are in denial and offer only appeasement.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
"History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.”
Most of the general public know this, all across the world, but our politicians are in denial and offer only appeasement.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
Why doesn't the Corbynator go for a land value tax? Would probably be doomed by opponents' misrepresentations (much like the alternative vote) but it has to be more convincing than the people's printy printy. Strike the 1% in a way which might actually be beneficial in the long run?
Would this land value tax also apply to agricultural land? I only ask because I wonder what the plan would be to maintain the uplands in areas like the Lake District and Yorkshire moors once all the farmers have been driven out of business.
I think the plan will be to drive people off the land especially the land under their own houses and into re-education centres where 'responsible adult patriots' can assess them for suitable retraining. I expect the flood of boat people will reverse - or at least we can all wave to the Somalis as we sail past in opposite directions. Of course people might just vote conservative. I mean how many insane people can there be in any one country.
"What did he do then? He'd already been an MP for two years at the time?"
I've no doubt he deplored etc Kinnock's speech, as he's always been consistently bonkers. I've no intention of searching through the archives to find out just so I can be accused of being on a "witch hunt".
Even if Jezza wears a pointy hat, keeps a feline familiar and dances naked round an inverted cross at midnight.
This sentence - "It laid the groundwork for the diversity and tolerance which we now take for granted in the capital." - cannot be allowed to stand.
Recent opinion polls have shown that there is less tolerance of homosexuality in the capital. Probably as a result of the increase in communities with a zero tolearance approach to it.
So an increase in religious diversity has led to reduced tolerance and an increase in homophobia.
The Left really cannot compute this because - strangely - for a party grounded in ideology they seem incapable of understanding the ideology which animates the groups they are fond of patronising.
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
Hello Malcolm,
It was a genuine question. The right to family life article might well be used to argue that, absent any threat to the child, there is no reason to have a state guardian interfering with how the parents bring up the child. Nor, on the face of it, does it seem necessary given that the authorities already have the power - subject to judicial scrutiny - to take action where a child is at risk of harm. I am not aware of the details but wouldn't any legislation need to be declared compatible with the provisions of the HRA in any case?
(PS I hope you are still enjoying your racing.)
Cyclefree, thanks , yes but await the jumping season which is my favourite. I have not read much about this law , been lots of opinions on it , having no young children I did not look in great depth. Government claim it is someone for a child to approach when they believe they need help and opposition say there will be strangers having parents arrested because the child does not like the wallpaper in their bedroom. I believe it came about through incompetence of all the public services to be able to discuss with each other and there were some high profile occasions where many services had seen children but never talked to each other and lots of abuse, neglect , etc took place. So it is well intentioned but whether government will get it right is hard to say.
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
ScotRail, Scotland's main operator, received the largest subsidy of all train companies at £261 million
As ever we get a portion ( small ) of our money back. We are forced to contribute to all London infrastructure , we have to pay all of our own and we get a meagre portion back in subsidies. Will be fine for you in your tax haven but not for the contributors in Scotland,
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
ScotRail, Scotland's main operator, received the largest subsidy of all train companies at £261 million
As transport is devolved I think this subsidy will come out of Holyrood, to an extent this just reflects that Scotland is 1/3rd of the UK's landmass, so maintaining a rail service without the economies of scale in the large conurbations of England is always going to be expensive. No doubt Calmac is also heavily subsidised to keep the island communities viable.
Cameron and Osbo are now openly admitting that for too long infrastructure spending has been focused on the South East, so to develop a Northern Powerhouse this imbalance needs to change. The irony of all of this is these guys are now echoing the SNP's claim of underinvestment in Scotland's infrastructure.
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
I thought it was supposed to be the Daily Heil? The Daily Hail could just refer to one of the myriad weather delights of your fair land...
It would not come near describing the summer this year. I was indeed fortunate to take a week at home and got the summer. Been exceptionally dire. So as well as stealing all our money you are now taking our sunshine.
Poor Don. A few days ago Mike quotes Janan Ganesh, thus;
"He can resign immediately on September 12 but the harm to Labour’s good name will still be measured in years. For a generation of swing voters, Labour will always be the party that elected “that guy”, and only ever one rush of blood to the head away from another folly. Anyone who thinks the election of Mr Corbyn is anything but a huge net benefit to the Conservatives is trying very, very hard to be interesting..."
Don is certainly trying very very hard, a veritable superlative of hardness....
Why doesn't the Corbynator go for a land value tax? Would probably be doomed by opponents' misrepresentations (much like the alternative vote) but it has to be more convincing than the people's printy printy. Strike the 1% in a way which might actually be beneficial in the long run?
Would this land value tax also apply to agricultural land? I only ask because I wonder what the plan would be to maintain the uplands in areas like the Lake District and Yorkshire moors once all the farmers have been driven out of business.
I think the plan will be to drive people off the land especially the land under their own houses and into re-education centres where 'responsible adult patriots' can assess them for suitable retraining. I expect the flood of boat people will reverse - or at least we can all wave to the Somalis as we sail past in opposite directions. Of course people might just vote conservative. I mean how many insane people can there be in any one country.
Mock ye not, Mr. Path! The idea of a Land Value Tax has support from some you would expect to know better, including some otherwise very sensible people on this site.
P.S. Re your comment earlier about Farage doing a King Canute: I don't think it meant what you think it meant, as you would know if your primary school history teaching had been up to snuff.
Oh turnips!!! As I saw the name before I scrolled down I thought 'oh no' And then as I read it I thought 'ah yes'. What a woman - she will get analogies put out of business. My career is in ruins. Still there does seem to be a real business op for an alternative line to the 'worse than virmin' tee shirts. Would a 12 bore make too big a mess of the skins BTW or should I use a point 22 ?? Perhaps we should ask the advice of the Green great white hunter?
I note that YouGov are polling people by their Party allegiance, membership/supporter status/left vs rightishness and asking who have voted in the Labour election.
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
I thought it was supposed to be the Daily Heil? The Daily Hail could just refer to one of the myriad weather delights of your fair land...
It would not come near describing the summer this year. I was indeed fortunate to take a week at home and got the summer. Been exceptionally dire. So as well as stealing all our money you are now taking our sunshine.
Apart from today, we have had a scottish summer full with rain this August. Are you the Nat who does not live in north britain?
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and Cooper hasn't ruled it out.
Most Labour people agree on the right response to two opposite outcomes: if Labour flourishes under Corbyn, almost nobody is going to try to get rid of him, and if Labour crashes and burns then there's a consensus deep into the left (including, I think, Corbyn himself) that we'll need to move on. There will be problems anyway with yesterday's old guard (Alan Milburn etc.), which I think we'll shrug off, but the main difficulty will be if we do middling well - winning this, losing that, roughly level in the polls, etc. An interesting question which Corbyn has raised himself is whether he can emulate the SNP's success in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
If the right were about to elect a leader who was best friends with Nazis, fascists, Zionist settlers, anti-abortion terrorists, pro-apartheid sympathisers, etc etc etc, you'd get personally quite abusive. You'd be very angry.
But the right isn't doing this. You are, in reverse. You, the Left, in general, and YOU, PERSONALLY
The abuse and derision will go on and on until you come to your senses, you shallow, ridiculous, desperately careerist nitwit.
Notice how some of the angriest rejection of your behaviour comes from your fellow Labourites, like Southam.
IDS was a key rebel in the early 1990s opposing Major on Maastricht etc from the backbenches. Nick Griffin's father was also exposed as an IDS backer
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and Cooper hasn't ruled it out.
Most Labour people agree on the right response to two opposite outcomes: if Labour flourishes under Corbyn, almost nobody is going to try to get rid of him, and if Labour crashes and burns then there's a consensus deep into the left (including, I think, Corbyn himself) that we'll need to move on. There will be problems anyway with yesterday's old guard (Alan Milburn etc.), which I think we'll shrug off, but the main difficulty will be if we do middling well - winning this, losing that, roughly level in the polls, etc. An interesting question which Corbyn has raised himself is whether he can emulate the SNP's success in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
If the right were about to elect a leader who was best friends with Nazis, fascists, Zionist settlers, anti-abortion terrorists, pro-apartheid sympathisers, etc etc etc, you'd get personally quite abusive. You'd be very angry.
But the right isn't doing this. You are, in reverse. You, the Left, in general, and YOU, PERSONALLY
The abuse and derision will go on and on until you come to your senses, you shallow, ridiculous, desperately careerist nitwit.
Notice how some of the angriest rejection of your behaviour comes from your fellow Labourites, like Southam.
IDS was a key rebel in the early 1990s opposing Major on Maastricht etc from the backbenchers. Nick Griffin's father was also exposed as an IDS backer
otternotter here... now in the mid 30s..it is a pleasure to see the sun drop down behind the mountains about 7,30 ..then we move out into the garden for drinks..
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
ScotRail, Scotland's main operator, received the largest subsidy of all train companies at £261 million
As transport is devolved I think this subsidy will come out of Holyrood
Via Holyrood, out of southern commuters:
The Government collects a subsidy from tickets sold for journeys on popular lines serving London and the southern areas to support less frequented routes
The scenes of migrants death in the media could shore up the Better Off out movement because the EC will be seen as incapable of addressing these challenges. It also can be argued that an EC policy, Schengen, encourages this.
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and Cooper hasn't ruled it out.
Most Labour people agree on the right response to two opposite outcomes: if Labour flourishes under Corbyn, almost nobody is going to try to get rid of him, and if Labour crashes and burns then there's a consensus deep into the left (including, I think, Corbyn himself) that we'll need to move on. There will be problems anyway with yesterday's old guard (Alan Milburn etc.), which I think we'll shrug off, but the main difficulty will be if we do middling well - winning this, losing that, roughly level in the polls, etc. An interesting question which Corbyn has raised himself is whether he can emulate the SNP's success in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
If the right were about to elect a leader who was best friends with Nazis, fascists, Zionist settlers, anti-abortion terrorists, pro-apartheid sympathisers, etc etc etc, you'd get personally quite abusive. You'd be very angry.
But the right isn't doing this. You are, in reverse. You, the Left, in general, and YOU, PERSONALLY
The abuse and derision will go on and on until you come to your senses, you shallow, ridiculous, desperately careerist nitwit.
Notice how some of the angriest rejection of your behaviour comes from your fellow Labourites, like Southam.
IDS was a key rebel in the early 1990s opposing Major on Maastricht etc from the backbenchers. Nick Griffin's father was also exposed as an IDS backer
So what?
Corbyn is Labour's IDS, Heseltine, Major, Mellor etc were just as anti IDS as Blair and Brown and Mandelson are anti Corbyn
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and Cooper hasn't ruled it out.
Most Labour people agree on the right response to two opposite outcomes: if Labour flourishes under Corbyn, almost nobody is going to try to get rid of him, and if Labour crashes and burns then there's a consensus deep into the left (including, I think, Corbyn himself) that we'll need to move on. There will be problems anyway with yesterday's old guard (Alan Milburn etc.), which I think we'll shrug off, but the main difficulty will be if we do middling well - winning this, losing that, roughly level in the polls, etc. An interesting question which Corbyn has raised himself is whether he can emulate the SNP's success in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
If the right were about to elect a leader who was best friends with Nazis, fascists, Zionist settlers, anti-abortion terrorists, pro-apartheid sympathisers, etc etc etc, you'd get personally quite abusive. You'd be very angry.
But the right isn't doing this. You are, in reverse. You, the Left, in general, and YOU, PERSONALLY
The abuse and derision will go on and on until you come to your senses, you shallow, ridiculous, desperately careerist nitwit.
Notice how some of the angriest rejection of your behaviour comes from your fellow Labourites, like Southam.
IDS was a key rebel in the early 1990s opposing Major on Maastricht etc from the backbenchers. Nick Griffin's father was also exposed as an IDS backer
So what?
Corbyn is Labour's IDS, Heseltine, Major, Mellor etc were just as anti IDS as Blair and Brown and Mandelson are anti Corbyn
I'd be extremely careful and cautious about citing the Mellorphant Man in ever sustaining an argument if you want to be seen as credible.
YAB is an immigrant who was delivered from the hell hole that was Africa and gives her thanks as an immigrant who wants to destroy the British culture.
Greetings from rural Hungary. I did spot some obvious migrants in Budapest. The views of average Hungarians on the subject would bring a smile to Nigel Farage.
On topic, Don Brind is advocating the Stephen Stills approach (if you can't be with the one that you love, love the one you're with). I can see where he's coming from. The risk is that any association with him will leave other major Labour figures tainted.
All options from here look poor. Those who are unreconciled to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of Labour would do better to let him fail than to be seen to wield the knife. I think my choice would be to sulk in my tent. The irreconcilables should, therefore, call their grouping Hector's House.
Andy Burnham is Continuity Miliband. He is also from the North, which he seems to think automatically qualifies him to be Prime Minister. If elected leader I give him two weeks before he is photographed pulling a pint in the Rovers Return. He keeps telling us that he is “not a Westminster politician”, which is either a lie or he has genuinely been turning up to the Irish Dáil for the last twenty years trying to get a word in. Perhaps he is unaware of who he truly is – wandering around in a fantasy of northern conviviality that masks a truth he dare not admit to. I’m beginning to suspect that Andy has actually never been to the north. He was born Andrew Tristam Burnham in Pembury, Kent. He is related to the Prime Minister.
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
I thought it was supposed to be the Daily Heil? The Daily Hail could just refer to one of the myriad weather delights of your fair land...
It would not come near describing the summer this year. I was indeed fortunate to take a week at home and got the summer. Been exceptionally dire. So as well as stealing all our money you are now taking our sunshine.
Apart from today, we have had a scottish summer full with rain this August. Are you the Nat who does not live in north britain?
I don't live in North Britain for sure, I am in Scotland. Rabbie Burns country.
YAB is an immigrant who was delivered from the hell hole that was Africa and gives her thanks as an immigrant who wants to destroy the British culture.
I don't think that's fair. She has written several columns arguing Muslims need to start adopting Western liberal beliefs. She's one of the few on the list that actually takes the intolerance in the Muslim community seriously, probably because she's seen it first hand.
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
Hello Malcolm,
It was a genuine question. The right to family life article might well be used to argue that, absent any threat to the child, there is no reason to have a state guardian interfering with how the parents bring up the child. Nor, on the face of it, does it seem necessary given that the authorities already have the power - subject to judicial scrutiny - to take action where a child is at risk of harm. I am not aware of the details but wouldn't any legislation need to be declared compatible with the provisions of the HRA in any case?
(PS I hope you are still enjoying your racing.)
Cyclefree, thanks , yes but await the jumping season which is my favourite. I have not read much about this law , been lots of opinions on it , having no young children I did not look in great depth. Government claim it is someone for a child to approach when they believe they need help and opposition say there will be strangers having parents arrested because the child does not like the wallpaper in their bedroom. I believe it came about through incompetence of all the public services to be able to discuss with each other and there were some high profile occasions where many services had seen children but never talked to each other and lots of abuse, neglect , etc took place. So it is well intentioned but whether government will get it right is hard to say.
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
ScotRail, Scotland's main operator, received the largest subsidy of all train companies at £261 million
As transport is devolved I think this subsidy will come out of Holyrood
Via Holyrood, out of southern commuters:
The Government collects a subsidy from tickets sold for journeys on popular lines serving London and the southern areas to support less frequented routes
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
I thought it was supposed to be the Daily Heil? The Daily Hail could just refer to one of the myriad weather delights of your fair land...
It would not come near describing the summer this year. I was indeed fortunate to take a week at home and got the summer. Been exceptionally dire. So as well as stealing all our money you are now taking our sunshine.
If it's any consolation the second half of August has been largely despicable down here, as well (though July was nice and it's briefly sunny now).
One of the reasons I'm looking forward to my trip to Greenland on Monday is that I will be escaping to a better climate.
Sun is shining just now mind you but windy, rained all night as well.
YAB is an immigrant who was delivered from the hell hole that was Africa and gives her thanks as an immigrant who wants to destroy the British culture.
To make it even better, it was a Tory government which recognised our 'moral duty' and welcomed some thirty thousand Ugandan asian refugees to the UK. The vast majority of them, unlike Ms Alibhai-Brown, have settled in extremely well and made a great contribution to Britain.
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
If the right were about to elect a leader who was best friends with Nazis, fascists, Zionist settlers, anti-abortion terrorists, pro-apartheid sympathisers, etc etc etc, you'd get personally quite abusive. You'd be very angry.
But the right isn't doing this. You are, in reverse. You, the Left, in general, and YOU, PERSONALLY
The abuse and derision will go on and on until you come to your senses, you shallow, ridiculous, desperately careerist nitwit.
Notice how some of the angriest rejection of your behaviour comes from your fellow Labourites, like Southam.
IDS was a key rebel in the early 1990s opposing Major on Maastricht etc from the backbenchers. Nick Griffin's father was also exposed as an IDS backer
So what?
Corbyn is Labour's IDS, Heseltine, Major, Mellor etc were just as anti IDS as Blair and Brown and Mandelson are anti Corbyn
Corbyn is far worse than IDS, for reasons you are surely bright enough to understand (e.g. IDS never espoused policies as insane as quit NATO, abolish Trident, and so forth)
On a basic party political level, IDS was initially supported by many of his MPs, and didn't frighten donors. None of this applies to Corbyn - most of his fellow Labour MPs reject his views or dislike his disloyalty, and Labour donors will run a mile from the party (apart from the unions, but the Tories are about to make union funding much more problematic for Labour).
Corbyn is a disaster. That's all there is to it, as the FT said t'other day.
IDS was merely a nadir.
Corbyn can at least rouse the core IDS could not even give a conference speech without mockery, remember 'the quiet man'. IDS did at least unite the right as Corbyn would get the left behind him but in the IDS years the main opposition were the LDs and in the Corbyn years it could be UKIP ,
The scenes of migrants death in the media could shore up the Better Off out movement because the EC will be seen as incapable of addressing these challenges. It also can be argued that an EC policy, Schengen, encourages this.
If the No campaign are reduced to that then its already over for them.
YAB is an immigrant who was delivered from the hell hole that was Africa and gives her thanks as an immigrant who wants to destroy the British culture.
I don't think that's fair. She has written several columns arguing Muslims need to start adopting Western liberal beliefs. She's one of the few on the list that actually takes the intolerance in the Muslim community seriously, probably because she's seen it first hand.
Yes - there was an article she wrote recently in the Sunday Times magazine about the appalling abuse done to girls and some men (mainly gay men) in the name of Islam and Pakistani culture. She was unsparing in her criticism.
But the there is this other YAB who comes out with stuff such as this or makes silly anti-Jewish comments. So a bit of a curate's egg, I think.
otternotter here... now in the mid 30s..it is a pleasure to see the sun drop down behind the mountains about 7,30 ..then we move out into the garden for drinks..
Flying to California this afternoon for the weekend*
Weather predicted to be in the mid 80s and sunny
(* not from London. Obviously. Currently enjoying the delights of Michigan's state capital before heading down to Kansas on Monday)
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
If the right were about to elect a leader who was best friends with Nazis, fascists, Zionist settlers, anti-abortion terrorists, pro-apartheid sympathisers, etc etc etc, you'd get personally quite abusive. You'd be very angry.
But the right isn't doing this. You are, in reverse. You, the Left, in general, and YOU, PERSONALLY
The abuse and derision will go on and on until you come to your senses, you shallow, ridiculous, desperately careerist nitwit.
Notice how some of the angriest rejection of your behaviour comes from your fellow Labourites, like Southam.
IDS was a key rebel in the early 1990s opposing Major on Maastricht etc from the backbenchers. Nick Griffin's father was also exposed as an IDS backer
So what?
Corbyn is Labour's IDS, Heseltine, Major, Mellor etc were just as anti IDS as Blair and Brown and Mandelson are anti Corbyn
I'd be extremely careful and cautious about citing the Mellorphant Man in ever sustaining an argument if you want to be seen as credible.
Mellor was sharp at least and did not mince his words on IDS who he called 'the worst leader in the history of the Tory Party.' IDS has now found his niche on welfare reform but as leader he was not up to it
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
I thought it was supposed to be the Daily Heil? The Daily Hail could just refer to one of the myriad weather delights of your fair land...
It would not come near describing the summer this year. I was indeed fortunate to take a week at home and got the summer. Been exceptionally dire. So as well as stealing all our money you are now taking our sunshine.
Apart from today, we have had a scottish summer full with rain this August. Are you the Nat who does not live in north britain?
I don't live in North Britain for sure, I am in Scotland.
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
I thought it was supposed to be the Daily Heil? The Daily Hail could just refer to one of the myriad weather delights of your fair land...
It would not come near describing the summer this year. I was indeed fortunate to take a week at home and got the summer. Been exceptionally dire. So as well as stealing all our money you are now taking our sunshine.
Apart from today, we have had a scottish summer full with rain this August. Are you the Nat who does not live in north britain?
I don't live in North Britain for sure, I am in Scotland.
Following news of Corbyn relics making amazing prices it appears a Jezzbollah supporter has gone to considerable lengths to secure the seat of the Dear Leader following a rally in Northampton :
Greetings from rural Hungary. I did spot some obvious migrants in Budapest. The views of average Hungarians on the subject would bring a smile to Nigel Farage.
On topic, Don Brind is advocating the Stephen Stills approach (if you can't be with the one that you love, love the one you're with). I can see where he's coming from. The risk is that any association with him will leave other major Labour figures tainted.
All options from here look poor. Those who are unreconciled to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of Labour would do better to let him fail than to be seen to wield the knife. I think my choice would be to sulk in my tent. The irreconcilables should, therefore, call their grouping Hector's House.
Less "bulk", fewer "numbers" is a useful way of remembering the rule.
'Fewer girls, less sex' is snappier.
For you maybe Mr N!!! But I learnt the rule at school and I doubt that my English grammar teacher - a ferocious woman - would have drilled a rule like that into our heads.
I think Jim’s and Tim's articles highlight the parallel universe which many LibDems appear to be living in at the moment, where folks seem oblivious to the fact that the LibDems having been roundly rejected by the UK electorate, seem unable to spot the irony in that the party’s main avenue to influence political events is through the unelected H of L, which they're committed to abolishing. When Jim boasts about increasing this influence by adding yet more peers, this leaves us looking in from the outside scratching our heads as to where the LibDems are headed.
Turning to Scotland, if the LibDems can’t make headway in the polls, they face heavy loses of both MSPs and Councillors in the 2016 and 2017 elections. At this rate Scottish LibDem peers could eventually outnumber their elected representatives.
Corbyn is a disaster. That's all there is to it, as the FT said t'other day.
IDS was merely a nadir.
Precisely. IDS was simply out of his depth as leader - the nearest equivalent in Labour would be Andy Burnham, not Corbyn.
The nearest Tory equivalent to Corbyn would perhaps be Bill Cash or Teresa Gorman, but even they don't - or didn't - have his grotesque associations with extremists, terrorists etc, nor his absurd economic policies.
Incidentally when googling just now, in search of mad stupid Tories, I found this pre-election gem from Ken Clarke.
"The Tories are too right-wing to win a general election, Conservative grandee Ken Clarke says"
JEO.. We are all seeing Muslim intolerance at first hand..we would need to be blind not to..
I'm not sure that we see the Muslim intolerance which goes on behind closed doors. It's worth remembering that often the first victims of Muslim fanaticism and intolerance are Muslims themselves. People like YAB have spoken up for those (largely female) victims and that is something worth doing and for which she should be praised, however much she can be criticised for her other stupidities.
The scenes of migrants death in the media could shore up the Better Off out movement because the EC will be seen as incapable of addressing these challenges. It also can be argued that an EC policy, Schengen, encourages this.
Being Our would mean having to actually be In Schengen as a prerequisite for getting back In to any trade deal. As it is by being In we are safely Out. Additionally if we were simply In the EEA and somehow managed to say Out of Schengen then in all other respects we would be In the EU single market and free movement but withOut the votes or vetoes.
Maybe he will be a disaster for the Labour Party, however on some issues I think he strikes a cord with many people even those who would not naturally be Labour supporters under any leader. Of course, as is typical with his political tribe he correctly identifies the problem then proposes a simplistic or wrong, if not downright bat-shit crazy solution.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
Another example might be the idea of a maximum wage. Work done in the USA showed there was no correlation between the salaries paid to CEOs and the performance of their companies. So why do some business people command remuneration packages so totally out of kilter with the people the are supposed to be leading whilst delivering company performance that is, often, antipathetical to the interests of their employers? There is, I think, a huge issue here of systems of corporate governance fit for the 21st century that no government wants to get a grips with. In that absence is the idea of proposing a cap of say 50 times the company median wage that outrageous? Who knows it might even be popular with shareholders.
Corbyn may be all the things that people say he is but, like Farage, he might be articulating some of the concerns of quite a chunk of the electorate.
Cyclefree..Add what goes on behind closed doors and what we see on the TV bulletins,plus personal experiences in the UK then we should all be shouting it from the roof tops..and YAB is in the paramount position of publishing it further, not debasing her political currency with ridiculous attacks on so called gun wielding fox hunting toffs.
The scenes of migrants death in the media could shore up the Better Off out movement because the EC will be seen as incapable of addressing these challenges. It also can be argued that an EC policy, Schengen, encourages this.
If the No campaign are reduced to that then its already over for them.
They do not need to do that or say much about it. This could be the back drop to the vote.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
It would both be highly immoral and politically reckless to allow collective deterrence to collapse by not defending our European allies against aggression.
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and Cooper hasn't ruled it out.
Most Labour people agree on the right response to two opposite outcomes: if Labour flourishes under Corbyn, almost nobody is going to try to get rid of him, and if Labour crashes and burns then there's a consensus deep into the left (including, I think, Corbyn himself) that we'll need to move on. There will be problems anyway with yesterday's old guard (Alan Milburn etc.), which I think we'll shrug off, but the main difficulty will be if we do middling well - winning this, losing that, roughly level in the polls, etc. An interesting question which Corbyn has raised himself is whether he can emulate the SNP's success in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
If the right were about to elect a leader who was best friends with Nazis, fascists, Zionist settlers, anti-abortion terrorists, pro-apartheid sympathisers, etc etc etc, you'd get personally quite abusive. You'd be very angry.
But the right isn't doing this. You are, in reverse. You, the Left, in general, and YOU, PERSONALLY
The abuse and derision will go on and on until you come to your senses, you shallow, ridiculous, desperately careerist nitwit.
Notice how some of the angriest rejection of your behaviour comes from your fellow Labourites, like Southam.
IDS was a key rebel in the early 1990s opposing Major on Maastricht etc from the backbenches. Nick Griffin's father was also exposed as an IDS backer
Leaving aside the bizarre 'Nick Griffin's father' comment - so what? - are you suggesting that the fact that the Tories elected IDS means that the lesson Labour should learn from that experience is that they should follow suit?
I think Jim’s and Tim's articles highlight the parallel universe which many LibDems appear to be living in at the moment, where folks seem oblivious to the fact that the LibDems having been roundly rejected by the UK electorate, seem unable to spot the irony in that the party’s main avenue to influence political events is through the unelected H of L, which they're committed to abolishing. When Jim boasts about increasing this influence by adding yet more peers, this leaves us looking in from the outside scratching our heads as to where the LibDems are headed.
Turning to Scotland, if the LibDems can’t make headway in the polls, they face heavy loses of both MSPs and Councillors in the 2016 and 2017 elections. At this rate Scottish LibDem peers could eventually outnumber their elected representatives.
Comment on the former:
"Mick Taylor 26th Aug '15 - 8:29pm
What actually counts is votes in the House of Commons to change the mandate of the 2nd chamber. The target must be to get a majority in the House of Commons for that reform. The Lords can’t stop it because under the Parliament Act (passed by a Liberal Government) the Lords can delay but not stop legislation. So Donor K.Bob’s comments are totally fatuous. "
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
It would both be highly immoral and politically reckless to allow collective deterrence to collapse by not defending our European allies against aggression.
So you think the UK would go to war to defend Latvia against Russia?
HL.. Britain should be prepared to go to war to defend our NATO allies.. or we just hand over all of the East oF Europe to Russia..and that also includes Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland..to name just a few..NATO is no place for fickle friends or weak knees.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
It would both be highly immoral and politically reckless to allow collective deterrence to collapse by not defending our European allies against aggression.
So you think the UK would go to war to defend Latvia against Russia?
Yes. Even Nigel Farage has clearly confirmed he would do this. Only the real out there extremists like Natalie Bennett and Jeremy Corbyn would not.
The scenes of migrants death in the media could shore up the Better Off out movement because the EC will be seen as incapable of addressing these challenges. It also can be argued that an EC policy, Schengen, encourages this.
Being Our would mean having to actually be In Schengen as a prerequisite for getting back In to any trade deal. As it is by being In we are safely Out. Additionally if we were simply In the EEA and somehow managed to say Out of Schengen then in all other respects we would be In the EU single market and free movement but withOut the votes or vetoes.
I've now been convinced by eurosceptics on here that we could get a trade deal without either Schengen or free movement. The British public simply wouldn't allow us to re-open uncontrolled borders after a No vote, so it would be a red line in any trade negotiation. A red line Germany would accept.
Good morning all. My preferred obscure-historical-reference for Jeremy Corbyn is that he is Labour's Nongqawuse, and will lead them to electoral disaster.
As a right winger (to use an increasingly lazy and freight-laden term) I object to this. It's never great to feel you have no alternative to vote for.
This government is not doing well on some of the key measures that matter to me (finances, immigration, housing), yet no one is holding them to account (Cooper's completely incoherent criticism of the migration figures doesn't count, though it's representative of Labour's confused thinking on a range of topics "it's too high, yet too low").
Labour should have held on for a year, and left Hattie H in charge whilst they sorted themselves out. Frankly, I'm baffled as to why they didn't.
Ignoring her flip-flap-floundering over the election process, Harman's proved to be a safe and able pair of hands and would have kept the good ship Opposition on a steady course.
Not so - her response to Osborne's Budget has been the making of Corbyn!
The EU is going to come down to immigration (Out) vs jobs (In) for the public debate.
Out people will argue that jobs aren't going to be lost if we go out, but it will be In's core argument. In people will argue that immigration can be controlled if we stay in, but it will be Out's core argument.
At the end of the day I think job security trump immigration for the public, so In will win.
This place really has tipped over from being a very right wing but bearable place for ribald discourse to a completely insufferable hard right circle jerk in the last few months. Shame.
I think you will find the tone of the site is being fuelled by Labour's terrible leadership contest. The rightwingers have not only won the General Election but can see the prospect of years without a real threat to them running the country. Hardly surprising they want to crow about it.
They should enjoy it while they can , the useless lot they worship will not last 5 minutes when any decent opposition appears.
T
If Labour implode, how long before another party can emerge to challenge the government? Well, when the Liberals collapsed in 1916 between Lloyd George and Asquith's infighting, the Tories held power for all but three of the next 29 years, and came second in just one election in all that time (and then, only very narrowly). Very little has changed in our political system - indeed if anything the opposition vote is somewhat more fragmented. There is no reason why a similar timeframe should be considered unrealistic now.
The thought of Osborne being the de facto ruler of the country until 2040 is not a pleasant one. And it would be the fault of Labour for electing Corbyn. It is the most unbelievable unforced error.
ydoethur, Whilst he has some dodgy ideas , at least he is invoking some thinking, if any of the other candidates are elected then Labour is guaranteed to wither and die, they are all Tories in sheep's clothing. Corbyn at least will upset the apple cart and will either get the same result as the 3 stooges would realise or it will transform Labour into a worthwhile opposition. To me if I was a Labour supporter he is the only option , even if a dangerous one.
I think the GE demonstrated that the electorate doesn't care for dangerous options i.e. possible Labour/ SNP "co-operation"
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
It would both be highly immoral and politically reckless to allow collective deterrence to collapse by not defending our European allies against aggression.
So you think the UK would go to war to defend Latvia against Russia?
Hurst , the sad truth is we could not go to war with anybody even if we wanted to.
Maybe he will be a disaster for the Labour Party, however on some issues I think he strikes a cord with many people even those who would not naturally be Labour supporters under any leader. Of course, as is typical with his political tribe he correctly identifies the problem then proposes a simplistic or wrong, if not downright bat-shit crazy solution.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
I'd bloody well hope we'd be prepared to defend Poland and to publicly be unambivalent about that. It was our ambivalence towards being prepared to defend our allies like Poland that was a key contributory factor to WWII.
As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.
The scenes of migrants death in the media could shore up the Better Off out movement because the EC will be seen as incapable of addressing these challenges. It also can be argued that an EC policy, Schengen, encourages this.
Being Our would mean having to actually be In Schengen as a prerequisite for getting back In to any trade deal. As it is by being In we are safely Out. Additionally if we were simply In the EEA and somehow managed to say Out of Schengen then in all other respects we would be In the EU single market and free movement but withOut the votes or vetoes.
The point is that when it comes to sovereignty people often vote emotionally, not *logically* (as we saw in indyref - the NOs had all the economic arguments but YES still got 45% of the vote).
All the BOO-ers have to say is
"Look at the billions of people pouring into the EU, the dead in the lorries, the terrorists in Sweden, once they are in the EU they can come to Britain, do you want that? If not, vote OUT, and let us secure our island borders once and for all. Pull up the drawbridge. Britain for the British."
In the middle of a truly horrendous immigration crisis - and it is hideous, with hundreds dying every day - such an argument is going to be very powerful, whether it is logical or not.
If I was running BOO I'd go on the immigration issue every time. Bang it home. Relentlessly. It would be ugly, but it could win the vote. With two years to go, Europhiles are dangerously complacent ("it'll be IN by 2 to 1"), just like the NO campaign, at the same stage, in Scotland
The latest Eurotrack poll for Yougov has In ahead now by just 2%. In all likelihood, that means Out is marginally ahead in England.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
It would both be highly immoral and politically reckless to allow collective deterrence to collapse by not defending our European allies against aggression.
So you think the UK would go to war to defend Latvia against Russia?
Hurst , the sad truth is we could not go to war with anybody even if we wanted to.
And?
We haven't been able to embark on a major war without someone else's collaboration for the last 100 years.
The scenes of migrants death in the media could shore up the Better Off out movement because the EC will be seen as incapable of addressing these challenges. It also can be argued that an EC policy, Schengen, encourages this.
Being Our would mean having to actually be In Schengen as a prerequisite for getting back In to any trade deal. As it is by being In we are safely Out. Additionally if we were simply In the EEA and somehow managed to say Out of Schengen then in all other respects we would be In the EU single market and free movement but withOut the votes or vetoes.
Christ on a bike. You never waste an opportunity to spout this complete load of old cobblers do you. Wrong in every important respect as usual, still keep whistling it if it makes you feel happier.
The EU is going to come down to immigration (Out) vs jobs (In) for the public debate.
Out people will argue that jobs aren't going to be lost if we go out, but it will be In's core argument. In people will argue that immigration can be controlled if we stay in, but it will be Out's core argument.
At the end of the day I think job security trump immigration for the public, so In will win.
I'd have agreed with you a year ago. Now as 100,000 "swarm" into Greece every weekend, Calais turns into a concentration camp, and Britain experiences the highest net migration since Hengist and Horsa, I'm not so sure at all.
It will depend on the depth of the migration crisis when we have the vote. Europhiles need to pray that it gets better. But it could easily get WORSE.
As of this moment the migrants in Greece etc aren’t EU citizens. Therefore they can’t come to Britain. If they are not given citizenship documents in Germany or wherever, does it matter whether swell the Calais Jungle?
Maybe he will be a disaster for the Labour Party, however on some issues I think he strikes a cord with many people even those who would not naturally be Labour supporters under any leader. Of course, as is typical with his political tribe he correctly identifies the problem then proposes a simplistic or wrong, if not downright bat-shit crazy solution.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
I'd bloody well hope we'd be prepared to defend Poland and to publicly be unambivalent about that. It was our ambivalence towards being prepared to defend our allies like Poland that was a key contributory factor to WWII.
when you signing up or do you plan to support from behind the sofa
As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.
Comments
"Islamic fundamentalism is widely spread
WZB study shows significantly high numbers amongst Europe’s Muslims
Religious fundamentalism is not a marginal phenomenon in Western Europe. This conclusion is drawn in a study published by Ruud Koopmans from the WZB Berlin Social Science Center. The author analyzed data from a representative survey among immigrants and natives in six European countries. Two thirds of the Muslims interviewed say that religious rules are more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. Three quarters of the respondents hold the opinion that there is only one legitimate interpretation of the Koran.
These numbers are significantly higher than those from local Christians. Only 13 percent of this group put religious rules above national law; just under 20 percent refuse to accept differing interpretations of the Bible."
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/how_prevalent_is_islamic_fundamentalism_in_europe_its_alarming-152350
They need to convert voters. Adding the "Did-not-vote" people is just icing on the cake.
(1) Using some simple, reliable tools in Microsoft Excel
I expect the flood of boat people will reverse - or at least we can all wave to the Somalis as we sail past in opposite directions.
Of course people might just vote conservative. I mean how many insane people can there be in any one country.
"What did he do then? He'd already been an MP for two years at the time?"
I've no doubt he deplored etc Kinnock's speech, as he's always been consistently bonkers. I've no intention of searching through the archives to find out just so I can be accused of being on a "witch hunt".
Even if Jezza wears a pointy hat, keeps a feline familiar and dances naked round an inverted cross at midnight.
https://twitter.com/y_alibhai/status/637202840524615680
Recent opinion polls have shown that there is less tolerance of homosexuality in the capital. Probably as a result of the increase in communities with a zero tolearance approach to it.
So an increase in religious diversity has led to reduced tolerance and an increase in homophobia.
The Left really cannot compute this because - strangely - for a party grounded in ideology they seem incapable of understanding the ideology which animates the groups they are fond of patronising.
So it is well intentioned but whether government will get it right is hard to say.
Less qualified people vs fewer qualified people.
OK. Missed that. But point remains - just using "less" for everything is not on!
Cameron and Osbo are now openly admitting that for too long infrastructure spending has been focused on the South East, so to develop a Northern Powerhouse this imbalance needs to change. The irony of all of this is these guys are now echoing the SNP's claim of underinvestment in Scotland's infrastructure.
"He can resign immediately on September 12 but the harm to Labour’s good name will still be measured in years. For a generation of swing voters, Labour will always be the party that elected “that guy”, and only ever one rush of blood to the head away from another folly. Anyone who thinks the election of Mr Corbyn is anything but a huge net benefit to the Conservatives is trying very, very hard to be interesting..."
Don is certainly trying very very hard, a veritable superlative of hardness....
As Joe Strummer (rip) once wrote.
"If Adolph Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway."
P.S. Re your comment earlier about Farage doing a King Canute: I don't think it meant what you think it meant, as you would know if your primary school history teaching had been up to snuff.
As I saw the name before I scrolled down I thought 'oh no'
And then as I read it I thought 'ah yes'.
What a woman - she will get analogies put out of business. My career is in ruins.
Still there does seem to be a real business op for an alternative line to the 'worse than virmin' tee shirts.
Would a 12 bore make too big a mess of the skins BTW or should I use a point 22 ??
Perhaps we should ask the advice of the Green great white hunter?
Some fun stats to come out over the BH methinks!
The Government collects a subsidy from tickets sold for journeys on popular lines serving London and the southern areas to support less frequented routes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11829610/Northern-rail-services-cost-commuters-1-billion.html
On topic, Don Brind is advocating the Stephen Stills approach (if you can't be with the one that you love, love the one you're with). I can see where he's coming from. The risk is that any association with him will leave other major Labour figures tainted.
All options from here look poor. Those who are unreconciled to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of Labour would do better to let him fail than to be seen to wield the knife. I think my choice would be to sulk in my tent. The irreconcilables should, therefore, call their grouping Hector's House.
,
But the there is this other YAB who comes out with stuff such as this or makes silly anti-Jewish comments. So a bit of a curate's egg, I think.
Weather predicted to be in the mid 80s and sunny
(* not from London. Obviously. Currently enjoying the delights of Michigan's state capital before heading down to Kansas on Monday)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-34084116
http://www.libdemvoice.org/lord-jim-wallace-writes-new-lib-dem-colleagues-will-campaign-with-me-to-reform-house-of-lords-47261.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farron-mp-writesliberal-democrats-will-work-with-anyone-to-reform-the-house-of-lords-47283.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
Turning to Scotland, if the LibDems can’t make headway in the polls, they face heavy loses of both MSPs and Councillors in the 2016 and 2017 elections. At this rate Scottish LibDem peers could eventually outnumber their elected representatives.
As it is by being In we are safely Out.
Additionally if we were simply In the EEA and somehow managed to say Out of Schengen then in all other respects we would be In the EU single market and free movement but withOut the votes or vetoes.
Maybe he will be a disaster for the Labour Party, however on some issues I think he strikes a cord with many people even those who would not naturally be Labour supporters under any leader. Of course, as is typical with his political tribe he correctly identifies the problem then proposes a simplistic or wrong, if not downright bat-shit crazy solution.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
Another example might be the idea of a maximum wage. Work done in the USA showed there was no correlation between the salaries paid to CEOs and the performance of their companies. So why do some business people command remuneration packages so totally out of kilter with the people the are supposed to be leading whilst delivering company performance that is, often, antipathetical to the interests of their employers? There is, I think, a huge issue here of systems of corporate governance fit for the 21st century that no government wants to get a grips with. In that absence is the idea of proposing a cap of say 50 times the company median wage that outrageous? Who knows it might even be popular with shareholders.
Corbyn may be all the things that people say he is but, like Farage, he might be articulating some of the concerns of quite a chunk of the electorate.
Meanwhile Tomkins original article, possibly somewhat more interesting than James pet peeve of the day:
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/i-am-seeking-election-to-the-scottish-parliament-heres-why/
"Mick Taylor 26th Aug '15 - 8:29pm
What actually counts is votes in the House of Commons to change the mandate of the 2nd chamber. The target must be to get a majority in the House of Commons for that reform. The Lords can’t stop it because under the Parliament Act (passed by a Liberal Government) the Lords can delay but not stop legislation. So Donor K.Bob’s comments are totally fatuous.
"
I have to admire optimism.
Fewer Corbynistas, less insanity.
I think its worth remembering that the British public are not opposed to immigration.
They are very much in favour of the 'right kind' of immigration.
Conversely, they are very much against the 'wrong kind'
Its real Jekyll and Hyde stuff, for me.
Collectively, the rest of NATO.
Out people will argue that jobs aren't going to be lost if we go out, but it will be In's core argument.
In people will argue that immigration can be controlled if we stay in, but it will be Out's core argument.
At the end of the day I think job security trump immigration for the public, so In will win.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-to-blame-for-tory-win-bollocks-says-nicola-sturgeon-1-3870838
We haven't been able to embark on a major war without someone else's collaboration for the last 100 years.