The 'centre ground' is not a fixed place but a movable destination depending on where thenpolitical parties are currently and have been in recent history. You get to move it by winning elections with a position away from the centre. The more right wing the Tory party is when it wins in 2020 the further right the centre ground will shift.
In the early 00s the progressive consensus - including the BBC - was very strongly in favour of the Euro. At one time, around 2001-2003*, I had a real concern the debate was slipping through eurosceptic fingers; I felt very much on the fringe.
For us to ever join is now totally unthinkable.
*It was also the high water mark of mass immigration, EU integration (more broadly) and multiculturalist zealotry. A truly deeply depressing time to be a Conservative.
I hope they resign and fight a by-election. That is the noble thing to do these days.
Shame it isn't actual parliamentary rules.
100 years ago it was even more extreme when anyone appointed to the cabinet had to resign and fight a by-election! Never really understood the thinking behind that. Churchill lost his seat in 1908 due to this.
Prediction: Labour will go pro-EU, pro-NATO, anti-Trident and 50% top income tax rate. Some of that already confirmed, but it's the whole package that will be judged.
Also note: "There were also cultural concerns that the girls’ future prospects of being regarded as a good candidate for arranged marriages could be damaged."
Oh wow, that judge needs to be sacked immediately. What utter garbage she is spouting.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936. To quote him "why pay €17 per month to be told my country is as bad as Germany under Hitler?"
Bloody hell - just look at this. It's clear that a very large number of these men (and they are mainly men) feel a sense of entitlement to walk into Germany unhindered, and are angry these border countries are putting obstacles in their way.
Serbia, Croatia and Hungary should hold Merkel responsible for this - and send her the bill:
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
This is therapy for them.
To quote him "why pay €17 per month to be told my country is as bad as Germany under Hitler?"
I don't want the election of Corbyn to tack the Conservative Party to the Left.
I think JEO put it very well the other day: the Conservatives should stay where they are, and pursue the manifesto and principles they believe in.
When a sensible Labour leader is (eventually) elected, they will have that much further to travel to meet them to regain power. So, if they want to reshape the British political landscape, it's in the Conservatives interests to pull the middle-ground as close to the Right as possible.
I've said it too, I think the Tories should stick on the centre/one-nation ground that they currently occupy.
It is so successful that they can win a majority with UKIP polling 13%
Osborne must be very clever: he has both you and me convinced.
I read a manifesto promising big tax income and inheritance tax cuts, protection of defence spending, immigration controls, EU renegotiation, a reform of human rights law, a repeal of the fox hunting ban, a neo-thatcherite extension of the right to buy, and English votes for English laws.
It got my vote.
I reckon that's why it has to be Osborne to replace Dave.
Yes.
I should also add that Ed gave me the heebie jeebies.
So you're more amenable to Ed's replacement?
Well, I thought Ed might conceivably win ;-)
I agree with you: I don't think any Tory should have got involved in the Labour leadership election.
You should always be careful what you wish for. If the election of Corbyn drags the Conservatives left by default, I will not consider that a victory.
The 'centre ground' is not a fixed place but a movable destination depending on where thenpolitical parties are currently and have been in recent history. You get to move it by winning elections with a position away from the centre. The more right wing the Tory party is when it wins in 2020 the further right the centre ground will shift.
In the early 00s the progressive consensus - including the BBC - was very strongly in favour of the Euro. At one time, around 2001-2003*, I had a real concern the debate was slipping through eurosceptic fingers; I felt very much on the fringe.
For us to ever join is now totally unthinkable.
*It was also the high water mark of mass immigration, EU integration (more broadly) and multiculturalist zealotry. A truly deeply depressing time to be a Conservative.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
This is therapy for them.
Which is a load of self-obsessed nonsense.
They'd be generous if they were taking people safely and legally into Germany. Saying you'll take people if they make it there is a sickly Darwinian survival of the fittest and will ensure that only the fittest get there - while simultaneously relying upon Hungary to do what they're doing to stem the flow while you sound self-righteous.
Can't imagine that Mr Corbyn's recent election to Labour leader will have any impact on local elections, at least not yet.
Demonstrably, the present Labour party wouldn't touch a mild-left-wing person like me with a barge-pole; they'd be insulted by a vote as impure as mine.
"Owes more to Methodism than Marxism"? Not this lot. I'm not much of a one for ill-wishing anyone or any organisation; but (sorry, @NickPalmer) I hope this lot crash & burn. They don't know what they're throwing down the drain.
Honestly Anne, I think you'd have more leverage if you joined the Conservatives and tried to steer them leftwards. As currently constituted, the Labour party is almost certain to elect left wing successors to Corbyn.
Other commentators have already pointed it out - the Tories should be sprawling all over the centre ground and killing soft left supporters with kindness.
The counter argument is that without an effective and credible opposition, there will be a tendency for the administration to drift right, and I think that will be counter-productive in the medium term.
Not everyone can join the Conservatives. They will always be constrained to be a certain degree of right-wing by their donors, in the same way that Labour will always be constrained to be a certain degree of left-wing by their donors (a constraint that is not currently binding). If you believe that the financial sector or industrialists or top professionals should be taxed more, the Conservatives are not for you.
That's a fair point, but I'm invoking the POWER OF ANECDOTE to argue that many right thinking right-of-centre people (e.g. yours truly) are fiscally dry but socially sopping wet. I want sound finances and a strong economy while prioritising care for the sick, disabled and the mentally ill (and by prioritising, I mean over pensioners - or at least the wealthy ones).
I would imagine that would be palatable across the a wide range of the political spectrum.
I think you are absolutely right John. The trouble is that in the eyes of many on the left that sort of thinking smacks too much of means testing which appears to be one of the new bete noir's amongst socialists - except of course when it allows them to obviously wealthy.
Thank you Richard. Means testing is a necessity; I know socialists are often keen to use the language of the '30s to stifle debate, but it's just common sense, surely? If there is less public largesse, it needs to be targeted at those who truly need it.
Bloody hell - just look at this. It's clear that a very large number of these men (and they are mainly men) feel a sense of entitlement to walk into Germany unhindered, and are angry these border countries are putting obstacles in their way.
Serbia, Croatia and Hungary should hold Merkel responsible for this - and send her the bill:
I linked an article from the Swedish media where migrants refused to get off the bus in a small town because they insisted on living in a big city with lots of amenities. The entitlement is strong. And when they're not let in they start shouting "Allah akhbar" at the police forces of the Christian countries they demand to be able to access.
I'm not sympathetic to the idea that claiming to be a refugee gives you an international passport to settle in the country of your choice on whatever terms suit you.
The 'centre ground' is not a fixed place but a movable destination depending on where thenpolitical parties are currently and have been in recent history. You get to move it by winning elections with a position away from the centre. The more right wing the Tory party is when it wins in 2020 the further right the centre ground will shift.
In the early 00s the progressive consensus - including the BBC - was very strongly in favour of the Euro. At one time, around 2001-2003*, I had a real concern the debate was slipping through eurosceptic fingers; I felt very much on the fringe.
For us to ever join is now totally unthinkable.
*It was also the high water mark of mass immigration, EU integration (more broadly) and multiculturalist zealotry. A truly deeply depressing time to be a Conservative.
It has led to today's situation where we have a broadly centrist Tory party, a strong chance of leaving the EU altogether and Labour in complete disarray being unable to come up with a non-New Labour answer to the Tories parking themselves in the centre.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
Just wait until public opinion turns in Germany,the establishment will sh!t themselves.
The USA has spent $500 million to train just 4-5 syrians to fight for them according to the commander of the U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin.
That's about 65 million pounds per soldier.
It's an open secret that Obama doesn't want to do anything in the middle east. He's doing as little as possible to provide poitical cover to his party and will pass the problem on to his successor.
Bloody hell - just look at this. It's clear that a very large number of these men (and they are mainly men) feel a sense of entitlement to walk into Germany unhindered, and are angry these border countries are putting obstacles in their way.
Serbia, Croatia and Hungary should hold Merkel responsible for this - and send her the bill:
By the way I hope you all know who Mephistopheles is.
I was going to make a joke about him being a footballer or something, but it turns out 'footballer Mephistopheles' in google produces a first result of an article on Lionel Messi.
Bloody hell - just look at this. It's clear that a very large number of these men (and they are mainly men) feel a sense of entitlement to walk into Germany unhindered, and are angry these border countries are putting obstacles in their way.
Serbia, Croatia and Hungary should hold Merkel responsible for this - and send her the bill:
The fact that someone gets a longer sentence for assaulting a particular type of person is the most fuckwitted, fucked-up, ridiculous piece of law in the history of the universe, and it needs to be reversed as soon as possible by people with some brain cells.
If everyone is equal before the law, that needs to be reflected in sentencing.
I had to do a double-take when I saw who wrote that.
I'm a wee bit torn on this. If Asian people assault a white person because they're white, then they too can be done for a racially aggravated attack. So this isn't inherently racist legislation in the way your post suggests. Similarly if a gay guy gets beaten to a pulp because of something that has nothing at all to do with him being gay, then he doesn't gain any extra "protection" (not that that matters, after the event) with his assailant facing aggravated charges, whereas if he was attacked in an act of homophobia, then his assailant will.
But beating someone to a pulp is surely morally egregious anyway, regardless of the motivation. I don't think the correct lens to view things through is "is it right to place specially protected status on some classes of people", more "is it right to punish some crimes more heavily than others because we find their certain types of motive more repugnant". Anyhow, that's from a legal point of view only. From a political point of view, the reason these "aggravated" forms came about was precisely because politicians were pandering to (let's be fair about this, marginalised and self-perceived as vulnerable) subgroups. Which is an aspect I'm particularly uncomfortable about.
The 'centre ground' is not a fixed place but a movable destination depending on where thenpolitical parties are currently and have been in recent history. You get to move it by winning elections with a position away from the centre. The more right wing the Tory party is when it wins in 2020 the further right the centre ground will shift.
In the early 00s the progressive consensus - including the BBC - was very strongly in favour of the Euro. At one time, around 2001-2003*, I had a real concern the debate was slipping through eurosceptic fingers; I felt very much on the fringe.
For us to ever join is now totally unthinkable.
*It was also the high water mark of mass immigration, EU integration (more broadly) and multiculturalist zealotry. A truly deeply depressing time to be a Conservative.
It has led to today's situation where we have a broadly centrist Tory party, a strong chance of leaving the EU altogether and Labour in complete disarray being unable to come up with a non-New Labour answer to the Tories parking themselves in the centre.
The current Conservative Party isn't far off where I'd want it to be - except not tough enough on tightening immigration restrictions, and far too lenient and unambitious on the EU.
My main criticism, now, would be on the soft continuation of new Labour social policy, and a creeping metropolitanism in certain parts of the party.
I don't want the election of Corbyn to tack the Conservative Party to the Left.
I think JEO put it very well the other day: the Conservatives should stay where they are, and pursue the manifesto and principles they believe in.
When a sensible Labour leader is (eventually) elected, they will have that much further to travel to meet them to regain power. So, if they want to reshape the British political landscape, it's in the Conservatives interests to pull the middle-ground as close to the Right as possible.
I've said it too, I think the Tories should stick on the centre/one-nation ground that they currently occupy.
It is so successful that they can win a majority with UKIP polling 13%
Osborne must be very clever: he has both you and me convinced.
I read a manifesto promising big tax income and inheritance tax cuts, protection of defence spending, immigration controls, EU renegotiation, a reform of human rights law, a repeal of the fox hunting ban, a neo-thatcherite extension of the right to buy, and English votes for English laws.
It got my vote.
I reckon that's why it has to be Osborne to replace Dave.
Yes. I should also add that Ed gave me the heebie jeebies.
Osborne's the Govt Nr 2; the deputy PM. He's the Chancellor. He's the right age. He's effective. He's become accepted by the public. He's got the trust of the current PM. Assuming he's successful then he's probably going to be the next Tory leader. The inevitable corollary of a tory victory at the election was Osborne becoming the next tory leader. Thats because it, the victory, had proved him right.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
Just wait until public opinion turns in Germany,the establishment will sh!t themselves.
It already has from what I have read and been told.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
This is therapy for them.
Which is a load of self-obsessed nonsense.
They'd be generous if they were taking people safely and legally into Germany. Saying you'll take people if they make it there is a sickly Darwinian survival of the fittest and will ensure that only the fittest get there - while simultaneously relying upon Hungary to do what they're doing to stem the flow while you sound self-righteous.
By the way I hope you all know who Mephistopheles is.
The Tory party boss.
Well according to the Tory attack ad, it was meant to be Peter Mandelson wasn't it? (From the New Labour, New Danger era. I'm sure everyone here knows the one I mean. Can't find it on Youtube unfortunately?)
The fact that someone gets a longer sentence for assaulting a particular type of person is the most fuckwitted, fucked-up, ridiculous piece of law in the history of the universe, and it needs to be reversed as soon as possible by people with some brain cells.
If everyone is equal before the law, that needs to be reflected in sentencing.
I had to do a double-take when I saw who wrote that.
I'm a wee bit torn on this. If Asian people assault a white person because they're white, then they too can be done for a racially aggravated attack. So this isn't inherently racist legislation in the way your post suggests. Similarly if a gay guy gets beaten to a pulp because of something that has nothing at all to do with him being gay, then he doesn't gain any extra "protection" (not that that matters, after the event) with his assailant facing aggravated charges, whereas if he was attacked in an act of homophobia, then his assailant will.
But beating someone to a pulp is surely morally egregious anyway, regardless of the motivation. I don't think the correct lens to view things through is "is it right to place specially protected status on some classes of people", more "is it right to punish some crimes more heavily than others because we find their certain types of motive more repugnant". Anyhow, that's from a legal point of view only. From a political point of view, the reason these "aggravated" forms came about was precisely because politicians were pandering to (let's be fair about this, marginalised and self-perceived as vulnerable) subgroups. Which is an aspect I'm particularly uncomfortable about.
All crimes are hate crimes is how I feel about it. Nice and simple.
Bloody hell - just look at this. It's clear that a very large number of these men (and they are mainly men) feel a sense of entitlement to walk into Germany unhindered, and are angry these border countries are putting obstacles in their way.
Serbia, Croatia and Hungary should hold Merkel responsible for this - and send her the bill:
The USA has spent $500 million to train just 4-5 syrians to fight for them according to the commander of the U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin.
That's about 65 million pounds per soldier.
It's an open secret that Obama doesn't want to do anything in the middle east. He's doing as little as possible to provide poitical cover to his party and will pass the problem on to his successor.
I'm not sure that's a bad strategy. It's certainly a better one than the ominshambles caused by his predecessor. The USA needs to accept that there are limits in remoulding the world to its image. The Middle East will be a disaster whatever we do, so we may as well avoid the blame.
I hope they resign and fight a by-election. That is the noble thing to do these days.
Shame it isn't actual parliamentary rules.
100 years ago it was even more extreme when anyone appointed to the cabinet had to resign and fight a by-election! Never really understood the thinking behind that. Churchill lost his seat in 1908 due to this.
Appointment to the Cabinet was like appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds.
Office of Profit resulting in forfeiture of seat, but eligible to re-contest...
The 'centre ground' is not a fixed place but a movable destination depending on where thenpolitical parties are currently and have been in recent history. You get to move it by winning elections with a position away from the centre. The more right wing the Tory party is when it wins in 2020 the further right the centre ground will shift.
In the early 00s the progressive consensus - including the BBC - was very strongly in favour of the Euro. At one time, around 2001-2003*, I had a real concern the debate was slipping through eurosceptic fingers; I felt very much on the fringe.
For us to ever join is now totally unthinkable.
*It was also the high water mark of mass immigration, EU integration (more broadly) and multiculturalist zealotry. A truly deeply depressing time to be a Conservative.
It has led to today's situation where we have a broadly centrist Tory party, a strong chance of leaving the EU altogether and Labour in complete disarray being unable to come up with a non-New Labour answer to the Tories parking themselves in the centre.
Well I'm socially conservative and economically on the centre left, I'm the worst fit for the conservative party. Corbyn is less sh*t than the other candidates however I still don't rate him high, in fact he's very good at defying expectations but for the worst, unfortunately all the other prospective candidates are worse than him at every level. I'm simply sticking with Labour because the Tory attacks are so ridiculous they insult my intelligence.
By the way I hope you all know who Mephistopheles is.
The Tory party boss.
Well according to the Tory attack ad, it was meant to be Peter Mandelson wasn't it? (From the New Labour, New Danger era. I'm sure everyone here knows the one I mean. Can't find it on Youtube unfortunately?)
Well the devil has many faces but shares the same policies and attitude. I supported the Tories and the LD's in 1997 because I knew that Blair was a very bad apple.
The USA has spent $500 million to train just 4-5 syrians to fight for them according to the commander of the U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin.
That's about 65 million pounds per soldier.
It's an open secret that Obama doesn't want to do anything in the middle east. He's doing as little as possible to provide poitical cover to his party and will pass the problem on to his successor.
I'm not sure that's a bad strategy. It's certainly a better one than the ominshambles caused by his predecessor. The USA needs to accept that there are limits in remoulding the world to its image. The Middle East will be a disaster whatever we do, so we may as well avoid the blame.
Can you name anywhere in the world where relations with the US are better now than they were when Obama came in? That's the problem.
The union is dead is when not if it ends... English politicians need to wake up and ensure the split is on English terms.
An England which has no distinct culture, no coherent sense of nationhood, no wealth, no industry, no resources and is on the brink of electrical and water shortages is hardly in a position of strength in the negotiation. England is weak, poor and backward looking.
One thing is certain about the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It will not be on England's terms.
The union is dead is when not if it ends... English politicians need to wake up and ensure the split is on English terms.
An England which has no distinct culture, no coherent sense of nationhood, no wealth, no industry, no resources and is on the brink of electrical and water shortages is hardly in a position of strength in the negotiation. England is weak, poor and backward looking.
Scotland's biggest problem is what to do when the hyperbole mines run out.
With regards to being fiscally dry, Thatcher's victories made a 60% income tax rate become intolerably left wing. Why don't we use this opportunity to do the same for a one time need for housing causing you and your descendants get a house at below market rent in perpetuity?
The fact that someone gets a longer sentence for assaulting a particular type of person is the most fuckwitted, fucked-up, ridiculous piece of law in the history of the universe, and it needs to be reversed as soon as possible by people with some brain cells.
If everyone is equal before the law, that needs to be reflected in sentencing.
I had to do a double-take when I saw who wrote that.
I'm a wee bit torn on this. If Asian people assault a white person because they're white, then they too can be done for a racially aggravated attack. So this isn't inherently racist legislation in the way your post suggests. Similarly if a gay guy gets beaten to a pulp because of something that has nothing at all to do with him being gay, then he doesn't gain any extra "protection" (not that that matters, after the event) with his assailant facing aggravated charges, whereas if he was attacked in an act of homophobia, then his assailant will.
But beating someone to a pulp is surely morally egregious anyway, regardless of the motivation. I don't think the correct lens to view things through is "is it right to place specially protected status on some classes of people", more "is it right to punish some crimes more heavily than others because we find their certain types of motive more repugnant". Anyhow, that's from a legal point of view only. From a political point of view, the reason these "aggravated" forms came about was precisely because politicians were pandering to (let's be fair about this, marginalised and self-perceived as vulnerable) subgroups. Which is an aspect I'm particularly uncomfortable about.
In this case it was an Asian abusing Asians and he got a longer sentence because it is apparently worse for an Asian child to be sexually assaulted than a white child... Worst of all worlds
I don't want the election of Corbyn to tack the Conservative Party to the Left.
I think JEO put it very well the other day: the Conservatives should stay where they are, and pursue the manifesto and principles they believe in.
When a sensible Labour leader is (eventually) elected, they will have that much further to travel to meet them to regain power. So, if they want to reshape the British political landscape, it's in the Conservatives interests to pull the middle-ground as close to the Right as possible.
I've said it too, I think the Tories should stick on the centre/one-nation ground that they currently occupy.
It is so successful that they can win a majority with UKIP polling 13%
Osborne must be very clever: he has both you and me convinced.
I read a manifesto promising big tax income and inheritance tax cuts, protection of defence spending, immigration controls, EU renegotiation, a reform of human rights law, a repeal of the fox hunting ban, a neo-thatcherite extension of the right to buy, and English votes for English laws.
It got my vote.
I reckon that's why it has to be Osborne to replace Dave.
Yes. I should also add that Ed gave me the heebie jeebies.
Osborne's the Govt Nr 2; the deputy PM. He's the Chancellor. He's the right age. He's effective. He's become accepted by the public. He's got the trust of the current PM. Assuming he's successful then he's probably going to be the next Tory leader. The inevitable corollary of a tory victory at the election was Osborne becoming the next tory leader. Thats because it, the victory, had proved him right.
If Osborne can get the budget into surplus this Parliament as planned then I'd love to see what an Osborne-led Tory party would do from that starting point rather than the starting point of a deficit over £150bn.
Other reforms the Tories should do on the economic side of things is merging national insurance and income tax and allowing married couples to reallocate tax bands between them.
@bbclaurak: McDonnell also says it is not Labour policy to leave NATO and upper rate income tax should be 50% #bbcqt at 2235
So what's left of Corbyn's manifesto?
Biding its time until they get elected to government.
As time goes by the Corbyn manifesto is quickly morphing into a New Labour one, it took him only 3 days to ditch the EU renegotiation, NATO, and tax rises. Tony Blair needed 6 years to ditch those since he was first elected in 1983.
The union is dead is when not if it ends... English politicians need to wake up and ensure the split is on English terms.
An England which has no distinct culture, no coherent sense of nationhood, no wealth, no industry, no resources and is on the brink of electrical and water shortages is hardly in a position of strength in the negotiation. England is weak, poor and backward looking.
Scotland's biggest problem is what to do when the hyperbole mines run out.
or until the price of oil increases significantly.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
Just wait until public opinion turns in Germany,the establishment will sh!t themselves.
It already has from what I have read and been told.
Can you imagine having a front row seat at next Wednesday's emergency EU Leader's summit
The 'centre ground' is not a fixed place but a movable destination depending on where thenpolitical parties are currently and have been in recent history. You get to move it by winning elections with a position away from the centre. The more right wing the Tory party is when it wins in 2020 the further right the centre ground will shift.
In the early 00s the progressive consensus - including the BBC - was very strongly in favour of the Euro. At one time, around 2001-2003*, I had a real concern the debate was slipping through eurosceptic fingers; I felt very much on the fringe.
For us to ever join is now totally unthinkable.
*It was also the high water mark of mass immigration, EU integration (more broadly) and multiculturalist zealotry. A truly deeply depressing time to be a Conservative.
It has led to today's situation where we have a broadly centrist Tory party, a strong chance of leaving the EU altogether and Labour in complete disarray being unable to come up with a non-New Labour answer to the Tories parking themselves in the centre.
The current Conservative Party isn't far off where I'd want it to be - except not tough enough on tightening immigration restrictions, and far too lenient and unambitious on the EU. My main criticism, now, would be on the soft continuation of new Labour social policy, and a creeping metropolitanism in certain parts of the party. I am a traditional Right-wing Conservative.
You worry about - ''the soft continuation of new Labour social policy'' - well yes agreed - but .... Tories are being attacked for cutting billions of welfare. By Labour.
The USA has spent $500 million to train just 4-5 syrians to fight for them according to the commander of the U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin.
That's about 65 million pounds per soldier.
It's an open secret that Obama doesn't want to do anything in the middle east. He's doing as little as possible to provide poitical cover to his party and will pass the problem on to his successor.
I'm not sure that's a bad strategy. It's certainly a better one than the ominshambles caused by his predecessor. The USA needs to accept that there are limits in remoulding the world to its image. The Middle East will be a disaster whatever we do, so we may as well avoid the blame.
Can you name anywhere in the world where relations with the US are better now than they were when Obama came in? That's the problem.
Iran. Their nuclear capacity expanded greatly under Bush and Cheney. It is now going to diminish.
Relations with European nations are often much better. Then there's Cuba too.
The fact that someone gets a longer sentence for assaulting a particular type of person is the most fuckwitted, fucked-up, ridiculous piece of law in the history of the universe, and it needs to be reversed as soon as possible by people with some brain cells.
If everyone is equal before the law, that needs to be reflected in sentencing.
I had to do a double-take when I saw who wrote that.
I'm a wee bit torn on this. If Asian people assault a white person because they're white, then they too can be done for a racially aggravated attack. So this isn't inherently racist legislation in the way your post suggests. Similarly if a gay guy gets beaten to a pulp because of something that has nothing at all to do with him being gay, then he doesn't gain any extra "protection" (not that that matters, after the event) with his assailant facing aggravated charges, whereas if he was attacked in an act of homophobia, then his assailant will.
But beating someone to a pulp is surely morally egregious anyway, regardless of the motivation. I don't think the correct lens to view things through is "is it right to place specially protected status on some classes of people", more "is it right to punish some crimes more heavily than others because we find their certain types of motive more repugnant". Anyhow, that's from a legal point of view only. From a political point of view, the reason these "aggravated" forms came about was precisely because politicians were pandering to (let's be fair about this, marginalised and self-perceived as vulnerable) subgroups. Which is an aspect I'm particularly uncomfortable about.
In this case it was an Asian abusing Asians and he got a longer sentence because it is apparently worse for an Asian child to be sexually assaulted than a white child... Worst of all worlds
Trauma from child abuse doesn't help anyone find a partner does it, white or black or Asian? I thought that decision was really poor. It also seemed to stereotype "if someone is an Asian child, they will have to have a marriage arranged for them; Asian people are not morally capable to understand that rape and sexual assault is involuntary, so anybody who has suffered from it is 'tainted goods' and will have poor prospects in the marital market." There are aspects of that generalisation, particularly if it is essentially getting written into policy, which are verging on the racist themselves.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
Just wait until public opinion turns in Germany,the establishment will sh!t themselves.
It already has from what I have read and been told.
Can you imagine having a front row seat at next Wednesday's emergency EU Leader's summit
They will probably just ignore it and blame it all on Hungary, Croatia, Greece and the UK. We will cast as the ringleaders and be given most of the blame by the EU, I'm sure.
Other reforms the Tories should do on the economic side of things is merging national insurance and income tax and allowing married couples to reallocate tax bands between them.
Only if income tax contributions are taken to determine contributory JSA allowance or the state pension as NI was
Scotland's biggest problem is what to do when the hyperbole mines run out.
Salmond is a renewable source. As long as you feed (taxpayer funded) curry in one end, you get a continuous supply of light, sweet Hyperbole flowing freely
The union is dead is when not if it ends... English politicians need to wake up and ensure the split is on English terms.
An England which has no distinct culture, no coherent sense of nationhood, no wealth, no industry, no resources and is on the brink of electrical and water shortages is hardly in a position of strength in the negotiation. England is weak, poor and backward looking.
One thing is certain about the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It will not be on England's terms.
I may regret saying this, but, although I think Cameron is essentially a flexible political arbitrator with sharp presentational skills, I think he is more of a "traditional" Conservative than Osborne is. I don't think Cameron necessarily believes very much, but he is a Shire Tory through background and upbringing, and has Conservatives instincts.
Cameron came late to the modernisation project, but did so because he's a pragmatist and felt a strong sense of duty - and personal ambition - in advancing Conservative electoral success. But I think he's been a notably better Conservative PM (so far) than he was in coalition, which is not what I expected.
I think Osborne (and to a lesser extent Boris - who really knows what Boris is about?) is more metropolitan, and socially liberal. His obsession with politics is strategic: like a game of chess. I think he's perhaps a bit drier than Cameron economically, but probably quite a bit closer to TSE in his politics.
For example, I don't think Osborne is very socially Conservative, and he probably wouldn't have introduced a married couple tax allowance, which I support.
So, for me, given he's also a winner, I want Cameron to remain PM for as long as possible.
The union is dead is when not if it ends... English politicians need to wake up and ensure the split is on English terms.
An England which has no distinct culture, no coherent sense of nationhood, no wealth, no industry, no resources and is on the brink of electrical and water shortages is hardly in a position of strength in the negotiation. England is weak, poor and backward looking.
One thing is certain about the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It will not be on England's terms.
Dear old Dair, bumping his gums.
How's Scotland getting on in the great Arc of Prosperity?
Meanwhile Brent Crude hovers at $49.32 You're going to have to sell a lot of shortbread and ginger wigs to make up the loss.
The USA has spent $500 million to train just 4-5 syrians to fight for them according to the commander of the U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin.
That's about 65 million pounds per soldier.
It's an open secret that Obama doesn't want to do anything in the middle east. He's doing as little as possible to provide poitical cover to his party and will pass the problem on to his successor.
I'm not sure that's a bad strategy. It's certainly a better one than the ominshambles caused by his predecessor. The USA needs to accept that there are limits in remoulding the world to its image. The Middle East will be a disaster whatever we do, so we may as well avoid the blame.
Can you name anywhere in the world where relations with the US are better now than they were when Obama came in? That's the problem.
Iran. Their nuclear capacity expanded greatly under Bush and Cheney. It is now going to diminish.
Relations with European nations are often much better. Then there's Cuba too.
Most obviously, Cuba. (Not that that seems to be having any effect on the human rights situation there. Now that most of Latin America is, at least nominally and in many cases weakly, supposedly democratic, I wonder why so many Latin American states still rush to defend what is the only explicit and self-proclaimed one-party dictatorship in the region.)
May I introduce you to the Fiscally Dry Social Liberal Not Obsessed by the Gays or EU New Conservative Party that Scrapheap, RobD and I have formed?
Membership is growing faster even than Labour's... In percentage terms... we too are open to disaffected red bookers unless named Ben Bradshaw. We also frown on any one defecting to us on the day of labour conference opening... aka doing a pigdog reckless. Unlike some people's armies, we have certain standards.
By the way I hope you all know who Mephistopheles is.
The Tory party boss.
Well according to the Tory attack ad, it was meant to be Peter Mandelson wasn't it? (From the New Labour, New Danger era. I'm sure everyone here knows the one I mean. Can't find it on Youtube unfortunately?)
Well the devil has many faces but shares the same policies and attitude. I supported the Tories and the LD's in 1997 because I knew that Blair was a very bad apple.
I voted Tory too, for the only time in my life, in 1997.
i) against the undeserved coming landslide. ii) I always try to vote for the underdog, in the hope of making the outcome closer, and therefore more interesting. iii) I always try to end up on the losing side, so there's no chance of buyer's remorse. iv) sympathy for John Major, a decent guy, and for doing the real spadework in Northern Ireland. v) I knew Blair was a slimy con-artist from the get-go.
QT audience seems a bit rightwing for a change tonight, questioners already accused McDonnell because of his 'assassinate Thatcher' comments and of being an IRA sympathiser
I don't want the election of Corbyn to tack the Conservative Party to the Left.
I think JEO put it very well the other day: the Conservatives should stay where they are, and pursue the manifesto and principles they believe in.
When a sensible Labour leader is (eventually) elected, they will have that much further to travel to meet them to regain power. So, if they want to reshape the British political landscape, it's in the Conservatives interests to pull the middle-ground as close to the Right as possible.
I've said it too, I think the Tories should stick on the centre/one-nation ground that they currently occupy.
It is so successful that they can win a majority with UKIP polling 13%
Osborne must be very clever: he has both you and me convinced.
I read a manifesto promising big tax income and inheritance tax cuts, protection of defence spending, immigration controls, EU renegotiation, a reform of human rights law, a repeal of the fox hunting ban, a neo-thatcherite extension of the right to buy, and English votes for English laws.
It got my vote.
I reckon that's why it has to be Osborne to replace Dave.
Yes. I should also add that Ed gave me the heebie jeebies.
Osborne's the Govt Nr 2; the deputy PM.
The first, yes, the second, no. It is indeed a trivial distinction, but it is still the case he is not the deputy PM in name, even if he is in deed. I do take the overall point about Osborne, an though I still question if he will be accepted further by the public, he's managed better on that score than I'd have thought he would if he's even considered a frontrunner for being Cameron's successor, so I cannot rule it out.
The union is dead is when not if it ends... English politicians need to wake up and ensure the split is on English terms.
An England which has no distinct culture, no coherent sense of nationhood, no wealth, no industry, no resources and is on the brink of electrical and water shortages is hardly in a position of strength in the negotiation. England is weak, poor and backward looking.
One thing is certain about the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It will not be on England's terms.
May I introduce you to the Fiscally Dry Social Liberal Not Obsessed by the Gays or EU New Conservative Party that Scrapheap, RobD and I have formed?
Membership is growing faster even than Labour's... In percentage terms... we too are open to disaffected red bookers unless named Ben Bradshaw. We also frown on any one defecting to us on the day of labour conference opening... aka doing a pigdog reckless.
@gabyhinsliff: And now we're on to the quite lengthy part of the evening where John McDonnell blithely explains away all the stuff he's ever said. #bbcqt
The fact that someone gets a longer sentence for assaulting a particular type of person is the most fuckwitted, fucked-up, ridiculous piece of law in the history of the universe, and it needs to be reversed as soon as possible by people with some brain cells.
If everyone is equal before the law, that needs to be reflected in sentencing.
I had to do a double-take when I saw who wrote that.
I'm a wee bit torn on this. If Asian people assault a white person because they're white, then they too can be done for a racially aggravated attack. So this isn't inherently racist legislation in the way your post suggests. Similarly if a gay guy gets beaten to a pulp because of something that has nothing at all to do with him being gay, then he doesn't gain any extra "protection" (not that that matters, after the event) with his assailant facing aggravated charges, whereas if he was attacked in an act of homophobia, then his assailant will.
But beating someone to a pulp is surely morally egregious anyway, regardless of the motivation. I don't think the correct lens to view things through is "is it right to place specially protected status on some classes of people", more "is it right to punish some crimes more heavily than others because we find their certain types of motive more repugnant". Anyhow, that's from a legal point of view only. From a political point of view, the reason these "aggravated" forms came about was precisely because politicians were pandering to (let's be fair about this, marginalised and self-perceived as vulnerable) subgroups. Which is an aspect I'm particularly uncomfortable about.
In this case it was an Asian abusing Asians and he got a longer sentence because it is apparently worse for an Asian child to be sexually assaulted than a white child... Worst of all worlds
Trauma from child abuse doesn't help anyone find a partner does it, white or black or Asian? I thought that decision was really poor. It also seemed to stereotype "if someone is an Asian child, they will have to have a marriage arranged for them; Asian people are not morally capable to understand that rape and sexual assault is involuntary, so anybody who has suffered from it is 'tainted goods' and will have poor prospects in the marital market." There are aspects of that generalisation, particularly if it is essentially getting written into policy, which are verging on the racist themselves.
Well yes I agree
The lefts Infantilisation of non whites and the condescending attitude it takes with them has astonished me all my life. It surprises me that ethnic minorities didn't tell them to fuck off decades ago
I don't want the election of Corbyn to tack the Conservative Party to the Left.
I think JEO put it very well the other day: the Conservatives should stay where they are, and pursue the manifesto and principles they believe in.
When a sensible Labour leader is (eventually) elected, they will have that much further to travel to meet them to regain power. So, if they want to reshape the British political landscape, it's in the Conservatives interests to pull the middle-ground as close to the Right as possible.
I've said it too, I think the Tories should stick on the centre/one-nation ground that they currently occupy.
It is so successful that they can win a majority with UKIP polling 13%
Osborne must be very clever: he has both you and me convinced.
I read a manifesto promising big tax income and inheritance tax cuts, protection of defence spending, immigration controls, EU renegotiation, a reform of human rights law, a repeal of the fox hunting ban, a neo-thatcherite extension of the right to buy, and English votes for English laws.
It got my vote.
I reckon that's why it has to be Osborne to replace Dave.
Yes. I should also add that Ed gave me the heebie jeebies.
Osborne's the Govt Nr 2; the deputy PM.
The first, yes, the second, no. It is indeed a trivial distinction, but it is still the case he is not the deputy PM in name, even if he is in deed. I do take the overall point about Osborne, an though I still question if he will be accepted further by the public, he's managed better on that score than I'd have thought he would if he's even considered a frontrunner for being Cameron's successor, so I cannot rule it out.
He's First Secretary of State which is virtually deputy PM.
I may regret saying this, but, although I think Cameron is essentially a flexible political arbitrator with sharp presentational skills, I think he is more of a "traditional" Conservative than Osborne is. I don't think Cameron necessarily believes very much, but he is a Shire Tory through background and upbringing, and has Conservatives instincts.
Cameron came late to the modernisation project, but did so because he's a pragmatist and felt a strong sense of duty - and personal ambition - in advancing Conservative electoral success. But I think he's been a notably better Conservative PM (so far) than he was in coalition, which is not what I expected.
I think Osborne (and to a lesser extent Boris - who really knows what Boris is about?) is more metropolitan, and socially liberal. His obsession with politics is strategic: like a game of chess. I think he's perhaps a bit drier than Cameron economically, but probably quite a bit closer to TSE in his politics.
For example, I don't think Osborne is very socially Conservative, and he probably wouldn't have introduced a married couple tax allowance, which I support.
So, for me, given he's also a winner, I want Cameron to remain PM for as long as possible.
We forget that Cameron wasn't Michael Howard's preferred successor it was George Osborne.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
Just wait until public opinion turns in Germany,the establishment will sh!t themselves.
It already has from what I have read and been told.
Can you imagine having a front row seat at next Wednesday's emergency EU Leader's summit
They will probably just ignore it and blame it all on Hungary, Croatia, Greece and the UK. We will cast as the ringleaders and be given most of the blame by the EU, I'm sure.
Agreed but there is going to be a lot of bad blood and some very heated exchanges and just how in that environment can they achieve agreement. Most of the Countries in Europe will close their borders causing economic mayhem and the end of free movement.
@GoodwinMJ: Labour has a shadow chancellor on national television explaining his sympathetic remarks toward the IRA. Who would have thought it #bbcqt
@johnmcternan: John McDonnelll claims the Good Friday Agreement still needed to be signed in 2003 - four years after it was signed and endorsed by a vote
@gabyhinsliff: If only there'd been other ppl prepared bravely to engage in peace process. Some govt, maybe. But no, they left it ALL to John McDonnell.
The union is dead is when not if it ends... English politicians need to wake up and ensure the split is on English terms.
An England which has no distinct culture, no coherent sense of nationhood, no wealth, no industry, no resources and is on the brink of electrical and water shortages is hardly in a position of strength in the negotiation. England is weak, poor and backward looking.
One thing is certain about the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It will not be on England's terms.
Ignoring the various other delicious insanities, I can assure you that England is not facing a water shortage.
*stares out at the seventy-fourth rainy night in a row*
I suspect this is what they indoctrinate them with at Nat Camp. A few months ago the same poster was telling us that England was wholly reliant on Scotland for its food supply. They must be getting told this stuff from somewhere.
Watching QT for the first time in ages and I'm shocked how poor my political knowledge is, I never knew John McDonnell was so instrumental to the Northern Ireland peace process.
The 'centre ground' is not a fixed place but a movable destination depending on where thenpolitical parties are currently and have been in recent history. You get to move it by winning elections with a position away from the centre. The more right wing the Tory party is when it wins in 2020 the further right the centre ground will shift.
In the early 00s the progressive consensus - including the BBC - was very strongly in favour of the Euro. At one time, around 2001-2003*, I had a real concern the debate was slipping through eurosceptic fingers; I felt very much on the fringe.
For us to ever join is now totally unthinkable.
*It was also the high water mark of mass immigration, EU integration (more broadly) and multiculturalist zealotry. A truly deeply depressing time to be a Conservative.
It has led to today's situation where we have a broadly centrist Tory party, a strong chance of leaving the EU altogether and Labour in complete disarray being unable to come up with a non-New Labour answer to the Tories parking themselves in the centre.
The current Conservative Party isn't far off where I'd want it to be - except not tough enough on tightening immigration restrictions, and far too lenient and unambitious on the EU. My main criticism, now, would be on the soft continuation of new Labour social policy, and a creeping metropolitanism in certain parts of the party. I am a traditional Right-wing Conservative.
You worry about - ''the soft continuation of new Labour social policy'' - well yes agreed - but .... Tories are being attacked for cutting billions of welfare. By Labour.
Thanks - I mean on genderism, free speech v. "offensiveness" and the ilk.
The union is dead is when not if it ends... English politicians need to wake up and ensure the split is on English terms.
An England which has no distinct culture, no coherent sense of nationhood, no wealth, no industry, no resources and is on the brink of electrical and water shortages is hardly in a position of strength in the negotiation. England is weak, poor and backward looking.
One thing is certain about the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It will not be on England's terms.
Actually this post is so wonderfully mad it has sonewhat cheered me up, after that incredible, desolatingly depressing Guardian "white-girls-are-worth-less" child sex story.
Agreed. Normally I'd get really worked up about it, but it's so absurd it's actually perfectly inoffensive.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
Just wait until public opinion turns in Germany,the establishment will sh!t themselves.
It already has from what I have read and been told.
Can you imagine having a front row seat at next Wednesday's emergency EU Leader's summit
They will probably just ignore it and blame it all on Hungary, Croatia, Greece and the UK. We will cast as the ringleaders and be given most of the blame by the EU, I'm sure.
"This is a problem for the whole of Europe and we need a coordinated solution from the whole of Europe. It is important that the EU as a whole has a single solution for this, and works together. We are actively talking about how we can work together moving forward in coming up with a solution to this serious problem."
Sounds good and says absolutely nothing. Classic EU. EU - feel free to use it.
I may regret saying this, but, although I think Cameron is essentially a flexible political arbitrator with sharp presentational skills, I think he is more of a "traditional" Conservative than Osborne is. I don't think Cameron necessarily believes very much, but he is a Shire Tory through background and upbringing, and has Conservatives instincts.
Cameron came late to the modernisation project, but did so because he's a pragmatist and felt a strong sense of duty - and personal ambition - in advancing Conservative electoral success. But I think he's been a notably better Conservative PM (so far) than he was in coalition, which is not what I expected.
I think Osborne (and to a lesser extent Boris - who really knows what Boris is about?) is more metropolitan, and socially liberal. His obsession with politics is strategic: like a game of chess. I think he's perhaps a bit drier than Cameron economically, but probably quite a bit closer to TSE in his politics.
For example, I don't think Osborne is very socially Conservative, and he probably wouldn't have introduced a married couple tax allowance, which I support.
So, for me, given he's also a winner, I want Cameron to remain PM for as long as possible.
I'm not sure that's right, if only because any good politician changes tack with the wind. As you mentioned, Cameron has.
It's one reason I'm fairly convinced that Corbyn isn't a good politician.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
Just wait until public opinion turns in Germany,the establishment will sh!t themselves.
It already has from what I have read and been told.
Can you imagine having a front row seat at next Wednesday's emergency EU Leader's summit
They will probably just ignore it and blame it all on Hungary, Croatia, Greece and the UK. We will cast as the ringleaders and be given most of the blame by the EU, I'm sure.
At some point Cameron needs to stand up and tell the other EU leaders where to get off, remind them that he is the only one of them to have visited the Syrian refugee camps, that the UK is donating more than the rest of them put together and get them to meet their commitments of 0.7% GDP funding for international aid so that the refugee camps can be properly supported.
I may regret saying this, but, although I think Cameron is essentially a flexible political arbitrator with sharp presentational skills, I think he is more of a "traditional" Conservative than Osborne is. I don't think Cameron necessarily believes very much, but he is a Shire Tory through background and upbringing, and has Conservatives instincts.
Cameron came late to the modernisation project, but did so because he's a pragmatist and felt a strong sense of duty - and personal ambition - in advancing Conservative electoral success. But I think he's been a notably better Conservative PM (so far) than he was in coalition, which is not what I expected.
I think Osborne (and to a lesser extent Boris - who really knows what Boris is about?) is more metropolitan, and socially liberal. His obsession with politics is strategic: like a game of chess. I think he's perhaps a bit drier than Cameron economically, but probably quite a bit closer to TSE in his politics.
For example, I don't think Osborne is very socially Conservative, and he probably wouldn't have introduced a married couple tax allowance, which I support.
So, for me, given he's also a winner, I want Cameron to remain PM for as long as possible.
We forget that Cameron wasn't Michael Howard's preferred successor it was George Osborne.
I'm glad it was Cameron that ran for leader of the pair.
I don't want the election of Corbyn to tack the Conservative Party to the Left.
I think JEO put it very well the other day: the Conservatives should stay where they are, and pursue the manifesto and principles they believe in.
When a sensible Labour leader is (eventually) elected, they will have that much further to travel to meet them to regain power. So, if they want to reshape the British political landscape, it's in the Conservatives interests to pull the middle-ground as close to the Right as possible.
I've said it too, I think the Tories should stick on the centre/one-nation ground that they currently occupy.
It is so successful that they can win a majority with UKIP polling 13%
Osborne must be very clever: he has both you and me convinced.
I read a manifesto promising big tax income and inheritance tax cuts, protection of defence spending, immigration controls, EU renegotiation, a reform of human rights law, a repeal of the fox hunting ban, a neo-thatcherite extension of the right to buy, and English votes for English laws.
It got my vote.
I reckon that's why it has to be Osborne to replace Dave.
Yes. I should also add that Ed gave me the heebie jeebies.
Osborne's the Govt Nr 2; the deputy PM.
The first, yes, the second, no. It is indeed a trivial distinction, but it is still the case he is not the deputy PM in name, even if he is in deed. I do take the overall point about Osborne, an though I still question if he will be accepted further by the public, he's managed better on that score than I'd have thought he would if he's even considered a frontrunner for being Cameron's successor, so I cannot rule it out.
He's First Secretary of State which is virtually deputy PM.
I totally agree - he is Cameron's deputy, and in effect may as well be Deputy PM (except he is more powerful than most such people who held the position), hence why I said it is a trivial distinction, but legally he is not 'The Deputy PM', that post is currently vacant (as it notes here https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/deputy-prime-ministers-office) even though he is the guy who deputises for Cameron. I enjoy such minor distinctions. Why didn't he also make Osborne the actual deputy PM?
Watching QT for the first time in ages and I'm shocked how poor my political knowledge is, I never knew John McDonnell was so instrumental to the Northern Ireland peace process.
The union is dead is when not if it ends... English politicians need to wake up and ensure the split is on English terms.
An England which has no distinct culture, no coherent sense of nationhood, no wealth, no industry, no resources and is on the brink of electrical and water shortages is hardly in a position of strength in the negotiation. England is weak, poor and backward looking.
One thing is certain about the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It will not be on England's terms.
Dair old chap - have you ever been to Engerland ?
Many times and it is quite a nice place to visit, however the undrinkable water does take the shine of the experience. Food is a bit iffy too.
But the scenery is often lovely, London is quite fun and the pubs are good.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
Just wait until public opinion turns in Germany,the establishment will sh!t themselves.
It already has from what I have read and been told.
Can you imagine having a front row seat at next Wednesday's emergency EU Leader's summit
They will probably just ignore it and blame it all on Hungary, Croatia, Greece and the UK. We will cast as the ringleaders and be given most of the blame by the EU, I'm sure.
"This is a problem for the whole of Europe and we need a coordinated solution from the whole of Europe. It is important that the EU as a whole has a single solution for this, and works together. We are actively talking about how we can work together moving forward in coming up with a solution to this serious problem."
Sounds good and says absolutely nothing. Classic EU. EU - feel free to use it.
For a minute I actually thought that was a real EU statement.
I may regret saying this, but, although I think Cameron is essentially a flexible political arbitrator with sharp presentational skills, I think he is more of a "traditional" Conservative than Osborne is. I don't think Cameron necessarily believes very much, but he is a Shire Tory through background and upbringing, and has Conservatives instincts.
Cameron came late to the modernisation project, but did so because he's a pragmatist and felt a strong sense of duty - and personal ambition - in advancing Conservative electoral success. But I think he's been a notably better Conservative PM (so far) than he was in coalition, which is not what I expected.
I think Osborne (and to a lesser extent Boris - who really knows what Boris is about?) is more metropolitan, and socially liberal. His obsession with politics is strategic: like a game of chess. I think he's perhaps a bit drier than Cameron economically, but probably quite a bit closer to TSE in his politics.
For example, I don't think Osborne is very socially Conservative, and he probably wouldn't have introduced a married couple tax allowance, which I support.
So, for me, given he's also a winner, I want Cameron to remain PM for as long as possible.
We forget that Cameron wasn't Michael Howard's preferred successor it was George Osborne.
I'm glad it was Cameron that ran for leader of the pair.
I may regret saying this, but, although I think Cameron is essentially a flexible political arbitrator with sharp presentational skills, I think he is more of a "traditional" Conservative than Osborne is. I don't think Cameron necessarily believes very much, but he is a Shire Tory through background and upbringing, and has Conservatives instincts.
Cameron came late to the modernisation project, but did so because he's a pragmatist and felt a strong sense of duty - and personal ambition - in advancing Conservative electoral success. But I think he's been a notably better Conservative PM (so far) than he was in coalition, which is not what I expected.
I think Osborne (and to a lesser extent Boris - who really knows what Boris is about?) is more metropolitan, and socially liberal. His obsession with politics is strategic: like a game of chess. I think he's perhaps a bit drier than Cameron economically, but probably quite a bit closer to TSE in his politics.
For example, I don't think Osborne is very socially Conservative, and he probably wouldn't have introduced a married couple tax allowance, which I support.
So, for me, given he's also a winner, I want Cameron to remain PM for as long as possible.
I'm not sure that's right, if only because any good politician changes tack with the wind. As you mentioned, Cameron has.
It's one reason I'm fairly convinced that Corbyn isn't a good politician.
I think that's fair. I think a good politician would have the full set of political skills, in terms of negotiating, compromising to get things done, all sorts of things. Corbyn is very good at some things, and utterly lacking in skills in other areas and some of that lack makes him more appealing, but it is still a lack of skill in areas associated with political activity.
The union is dead is when not if it ends... English politicians need to wake up and ensure the split is on English terms.
An England which has no distinct culture, no coherent sense of nationhood, no wealth, no industry, no resources and is on the brink of electrical and water shortages is hardly in a position of strength in the negotiation. England is weak, poor and backward looking.
One thing is certain about the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It will not be on England's terms.
Dair old chap - have you ever been to Engerland ?
Many times and it is quite a nice place to visit, however the undrinkable water does take the shine of the experience. Food is a bit iffy too.
But the scenery is often lovely, London is quite fun and the pubs are good.
Drink San Pellegrino. Food in Scotland is all fried, beige and bland. Shit.
The talking heads of Fox News and CNN (who are STILL camped out at the Reagan Library for the fourth day) have proclaimed Fiorina and somewhat behind, Rubio, as debate winners.
That was also the instant post-debate assessment on both networks.
Coverage of Trump has been noticeably more negative today.
May I introduce you to the Fiscally Dry Social Liberal Not Obsessed by the Gays or EU New Conservative Party that Scrapheap, RobD and I have formed?
Membership is growing faster even than Labour's... In percentage terms... we too are open to disaffected red bookers unless named Ben Bradshaw. We also frown on any one defecting to us on the day of labour conference opening... aka doing a pigdog reckless.
I'm in too...
Welcome indeed. There were but 3 questions new joiners have to negotiate but I've forgotten them so you are in provided your surname isn't reckless.
Watching QT for the first time in ages and I'm shocked how poor my political knowledge is, I never knew John McDonnell was so instrumental to the Northern Ireland peace process.
He obviously single handedly managed it himself.
The thing I can't work out was he made his comments in 2003, five years after the Good Friday Agreement.
A Hungarian friend of mine has cancelled his subscription to German cable because the German media portrayal of the refugee crisis paints Germany as the great humanitarian nation and everyone else as some kind of Nazi-alikes with the refugees in the same situation as Jews in 1936.
Just wait until public opinion turns in Germany,the establishment will sh!t themselves.
It already has from what I have read and been told.
Can you imagine having a front row seat at next Wednesday's emergency EU Leader's summit
They will probably just ignore it and blame it all on Hungary, Croatia, Greece and the UK. We will cast as the ringleaders and be given most of the blame by the EU, I'm sure.
"This is a problem for the whole of Europe and we need a coordinated solution from the whole of Europe. It is important that the EU as a whole has a single solution for this, and works together. We are actively talking about how we can work together moving forward in coming up with a solution to this serious problem."
Sounds good and says absolutely nothing. Classic EU. EU - feel free to use it.
For a minute I actually thought that was a real EU statement.
The union is dead is when not if it ends... English politicians need to wake up and ensure the split is on English terms.
An England which has no distinct culture, no coherent sense of nationhood, no wealth, no industry, no resources and is on the brink of electrical and water shortages is hardly in a position of strength in the negotiation. England is weak, poor and backward looking.
One thing is certain about the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It will not be on England's terms.
Dair old chap - have you ever been to Engerland ?
Many times and it is quite a nice place to visit, however the undrinkable water does take the shine of the experience. Food is a bit iffy too.
But the scenery is often lovely, London is quite fun and the pubs are good.
Drink San Pellegrino. Food in Scotland is all fried, beige and bland. Shit.
Comments
For us to ever join is now totally unthinkable.
*It was also the high water mark of mass immigration, EU integration (more broadly) and multiculturalist zealotry. A truly deeply depressing time to be a Conservative.
100 years ago it was even more extreme when anyone appointed to the cabinet had to resign and fight a by-election! Never really understood the thinking behind that. Churchill lost his seat in 1908 due to this.
I agree with you: I don't think any Tory should have got involved in the Labour leadership election.
You should always be careful what you wish for. If the election of Corbyn drags the Conservatives left by default, I will not consider that a victory.
They'd be generous if they were taking people safely and legally into Germany. Saying you'll take people if they make it there is a sickly Darwinian survival of the fittest and will ensure that only the fittest get there - while simultaneously relying upon Hungary to do what they're doing to stem the flow while you sound self-righteous.
It's bulls**t.
We all understand that. That's why I highlighted what I did - cause and effect.
If you spell his name very badly, he wrote "The Frogs"
I'm a wee bit torn on this. If Asian people assault a white person because they're white, then they too can be done for a racially aggravated attack. So this isn't inherently racist legislation in the way your post suggests. Similarly if a gay guy gets beaten to a pulp because of something that has nothing at all to do with him being gay, then he doesn't gain any extra "protection" (not that that matters, after the event) with his assailant facing aggravated charges, whereas if he was attacked in an act of homophobia, then his assailant will.
But beating someone to a pulp is surely morally egregious anyway, regardless of the motivation. I don't think the correct lens to view things through is "is it right to place specially protected status on some classes of people", more "is it right to punish some crimes more heavily than others because we find their certain types of motive more repugnant". Anyhow, that's from a legal point of view only. From a political point of view, the reason these "aggravated" forms came about was precisely because politicians were pandering to (let's be fair about this, marginalised and self-perceived as vulnerable) subgroups. Which is an aspect I'm particularly uncomfortable about.
My main criticism, now, would be on the soft continuation of new Labour social policy, and a creeping metropolitanism in certain parts of the party.
I am a traditional Right-wing Conservative.
The inevitable corollary of a tory victory at the election was Osborne becoming the next tory leader. Thats because it, the victory, had proved him right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/484738.stm
Office of Profit resulting in forfeiture of seat, but eligible to re-contest...
I'm simply sticking with Labour because the Tory attacks are so ridiculous they insult my intelligence.
One thing is certain about the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It will not be on England's terms.
Relations with European nations are often much better. Then there's Cuba too.
Cameron came late to the modernisation project, but did so because he's a pragmatist and felt a strong sense of duty - and personal ambition - in advancing Conservative electoral success. But I think he's been a notably better Conservative PM (so far) than he was in coalition, which is not what I expected.
I think Osborne (and to a lesser extent Boris - who really knows what Boris is about?) is more metropolitan, and socially liberal. His obsession with politics is strategic: like a game of chess. I think he's perhaps a bit drier than Cameron economically, but probably quite a bit closer to TSE in his politics.
For example, I don't think Osborne is very socially Conservative, and he probably wouldn't have introduced a married couple tax allowance, which I support.
So, for me, given he's also a winner, I want Cameron to remain PM for as long as possible.
How's Scotland getting on in the great Arc of Prosperity?
Meanwhile Brent Crude hovers at $49.32 You're going to have to sell a lot of shortbread and ginger wigs to make up the loss.
Fiorina – 33%
Trump – 21%
Rubio – 16%
Carson – 8%
Cruz – 5%
Christie – 4%
Bush – 4%
Kasich – 3%
Paul – 2%
Walker – 2%
Huckabee – 2%
And now, the losers:
Paul – 32%
Trump – 17%
Kasich – 11%
Bush – 9%
Huckabee – 8%
Walker – 6%
Carson – 5%
Fiorina – 4%
Christie – 4%
Cruz – 3%
Rubio – 2%
http://www.scribd.com/doc/281579691/One-America-News-Gravis-Marketing-Post-Debate
May I introduce you to the Fiscally Dry Social Liberal Not Obsessed by the Gays or EU New Conservative Party that Scrapheap, RobD and I have formed?
Membership is growing faster even than Labour's... In percentage terms... we too are open to disaffected red bookers unless named Ben Bradshaw. We also frown on any one defecting to us on the day of labour conference opening... aka doing a pigdog reckless. Unlike some people's armies, we have certain standards.
i) against the undeserved coming landslide.
ii) I always try to vote for the underdog, in the hope of making the outcome closer, and therefore more interesting.
iii) I always try to end up on the losing side, so there's no chance of buyer's remorse.
iv) sympathy for John Major, a decent guy, and for doing the real spadework in Northern Ireland.
v) I knew Blair was a slimy con-artist from the get-go.
@WikiGuido: @KateEMcCann 'Salmond Shares Platform With Extremist'
@MichaelPDeacon: "A kinder-to-the-IRA politics"
The lefts Infantilisation of non whites and the condescending attitude it takes with them has astonished me all my life. It surprises me that ethnic minorities didn't tell them to fuck off decades ago
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424209/joe-biden-josh-alcorn
@johnmcternan: John McDonnelll claims the Good Friday Agreement still needed to be signed in 2003 - four years after it was signed and endorsed by a vote
@gabyhinsliff: If only there'd been other ppl prepared bravely to engage in peace process. Some govt, maybe. But no, they left it ALL to John McDonnell.
Good night all.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-mps-unhappy-with-corbyn-calling-and-texting-lib-dem-leader-tim-farron-with-threats-of-a2949546.html
Sounds good and says absolutely nothing. Classic EU. EU - feel free to use it.
It's one reason I'm fairly convinced that Corbyn isn't a good politician.
At some point Cameron needs to stand up and tell the other EU leaders where to get off, remind them that he is the only one of them to have visited the Syrian refugee camps, that the UK is donating more than the rest of them put together and get them to meet their commitments of 0.7% GDP funding for international aid so that the refugee camps can be properly supported.
Refugee Crisis In Germany: Immigration Official Resigns.
#Brexit #EUref
http://www.ibtimes.com/refugee-crisis-germany-immigration-official-resigns-amid-concerns-over-resettlement-2101495 …
Perhaps the German government will chuck out merkel.
But the scenery is often lovely, London is quite fun and the pubs are good.
Goodnight.
That was also the instant post-debate assessment on both networks.
Coverage of Trump has been noticeably more negative today.