That is what I continually found about south Asia - the more I learnt, I realised I understood less than I thought I did about the place.
I know the feeling. I think it's probably true of most places and cultures, particularly anywhere we have pre-defined stereotype about, but there are definitely places where people in Britain generally seem to accept "it's complex" (e.g. if people were asked to summarise the Middle East in one word, then once we get passed all those synonyms for "screwed-up" I think "complex" would be well up there). But with South Asia, people often seem to think "oh, it's simple" and that it basically boils down to Indians vs Pakistanis and that this straightforward binary relationship can somehow used to understand the associated ethnic minorities the UK. (With a few hundred millions Bangladeshis thrown in that they don't really know how to classify, and a vague awareness that Sri Lanka might be a bit messy.)
Even places like Scandinavia that we often tend to think of in very homogeneous and straightforward terms are really far more complex. I think a good few lefties would get a shock if they understood how the Scandinavian economies are actually structured, for instance.
“The Conservatives will drag England’s schools into the past by reviving grammar schools, demoralising teachers and cutting resources, according to the new shadow education secretary. Lucy Powell, who took over the education role last week following Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership victory, said Labour would fiercely contest any move by the government to allow the revival of selective schools. A decision on the proposed expansion of a Kent grammar school is expected soon.” http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/25/labour-lucy-powell-tories-selective-schools-education
I've never understood, the Lefts passion on this issue, especially as they made no effort to abolish them when in power.
Given that schooling is provided by Locale Government for locale people, why the expansion, retention, or abolition of Grammar schools could not be left entirely to Local Government is also beyond me.
The example from NI where until recently grammar schools where widespread, does indicate that when there are enough of them, they do as their advocates say and enables a larger proportion of children form lower socio-economic backgrounds to get to university.
However given the now large and growing importance of free schools/academies, I would think the arguments over grammar schools to die down.
I think if its Trump v Sanders, then Bloomberg would have a very good chance.
However if ether party picks somebody else then I'm less convinced it would work.
If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, yes, it is unlikely to work, same if Jeb Bush or Rubio end up the GOP nominee. However Trump v Sanders would be ideal for Bloomberg, he could win over minorities by being more pro immigration than Trump, and moderate suburbanites by being more fiscally conservative than Sanders
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
“The Conservatives will drag England’s schools into the past by reviving grammar schools, demoralising teachers and cutting resources, according to the new shadow education secretary. Lucy Powell, who took over the education role last week following Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership victory, said Labour would fiercely contest any move by the government to allow the revival of selective schools. A decision on the proposed expansion of a Kent grammar school is expected soon.” http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/25/labour-lucy-powell-tories-selective-schools-education
I've never understood, the Lefts passion on this issue, especially as they made no effort to abolish them when in power.
Given that schooling is provided by Locale Government for locale people, why the expansion, retention, or abolition of Grammar schools could not be left entirely to Local Government is also beyond me.
The example from NI where until recently grammar schools where widespread, does indicate that when there are enough of them, they do as their advocates say and enables a larger proportion of children form lower socio-economic backgrounds to get to university.
However given the now large and growing importance of free schools/academies, I would think the arguments over grammar schools to die down.
Indeed, no reason why you cannot have ballots to open new grammar schools as well as close them
Corbyn arriving at Brighton says "Party United for a decent society"
Oh wait a minute.......
I thought it amusing he apparently said 'more united Labour than divided it' like that is some grand achievement. I'm certainly not one who thinks parties should be ideologically monolithic entities or expel their awkward squads automatically, but I would have thought it a bare minimum that more unites a party than divides it for it to functionally exist, it doesn't exactly refute serious divisions which could well cripple a party. Perhaps it will not be crippled, we shall see, but stating more unites than divides them is pretty weaksauce stuff.
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
Yes, but strong candidates do not come along that regularly, in UK or US politics
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Joe Lieberman 2004, John McCain 2000, Bill Clinton 1992, Ronald Reagan 1980
Whenever I've expressed a degree of admiration for McCain (in the company of Brits), I've got very peculiar looks.
I would have happily voted for McCain over Gore in 2000, he would have been a far better president than Bush. The failure of Bobby Kennedy to become president in 1968 and John McCain to become President in 2000 produced the Nixon and George W Bush presidencies, two of the worst presidencies in recent times. I would also add had Reagan beaten Ford and then Carter in 1976 that would also have saved the US from the 3rd worst president of the postwar era, even if it had meant Ronnie becoming president 4 years early!
It's one of those pointless but endlessly fascinating hypothetical questions, but I do wonder what the world would have been like today had McCain won in 2000. Whether his policy on Afghanistan and Iraq would have been different had he been in charge, to the positions he took on the issue when the course of national politics was being set by others, and whether their implementation would have been any more successful.
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
Yes, but strong candidates do not come along that regularly, in UK or US politics
Curious why you didn't pop Obama into your list. I thought DavidL's position was pretty nuanced (good candidate, shame about the administration). It was evident he was a superstar as early as the primaries. I can accept that may not mean you classify him as "strong"!
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
I had to say I wouldn't have considered any of the Republican candidates in 2012 that I can recall - Santorum, McCain, Huckabee, Perry, Romney, etc strong. In 2008 I can only recall Clinton, Obama, and John McCain - and while I'm not a fan of his presidency, he did strike me as a strong candidate at the time, though I was pretty young then (14).
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
I had to say I wouldn't have considered any of the Republican candidates in 2012 that I can recall - Santorum, McCain, Huckabee, Perry, Romney, etc strong. In 2008 I can only recall Clinton, Obama, and John McCain - and while I'm not a fan of his presidency, he did strike me as a strong candidate at the time, though I was pretty young then (14).
How about historically?
Probably harder to judge people you've only read about - you miss the sense of "what could have been" that you have from being there at the time, overshadowed by "what actually was"; someone on here pointed out that this is the advantage of reading contemporary biographies when someone is in mid-career rather than those written as "evaluations" at the end. That was sage advice. (Can't remember who administered it though, was it David H?)
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Joe Lieberman 2004, John McCain 2000, Bill Clinton 1992, Ronald Reagan 1980
Whenever I've expressed a degree of admiration for McCain (in the company of Brits), I've got very peculiar looks.
I would have happily voted for McCain over Gore in 2000, he would have been a far better president than Bush. The failure of Bobby Kennedy to become president in 1968 and John McCain to become President in 2000 produced the Nixon and George W Bush presidencies, two of the worst presidencies in recent times. I would also add had Reagan beaten Ford and then Carter in 1976 that would also have saved the US from the 3rd worst president of the postwar era, even if it had meant Ronnie becoming president 4 years early!
It's one of those pointless but endlessly fascinating hypothetical questions, but I do wonder what the world would have been like today had McCain won in 2000. Whether his policy on Afghanistan and Iraq would have been different had he been in charge, to the positions he took on the issue when the course of national politics was being set by others, and whether their implementation would have been any more successful.
He would have certainly have been more open to action on climate change and would not have tried to get an amendment to ban gay marriage. He would also not have pushed through a huge tax cut for the rich expanding the deficit. On international policy there would have been fewer differences, although if McCain did go into Iraq it may have been better planned
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
Yes, but strong candidates do not come along that regularly, in UK or US politics
Curious why you didn't pop Obama into your list. I thought DavidL's position was pretty nuanced (good candidate, shame about the administration). It was evident he was a superstar as early as the primaries. I can accept that may not mean you classify him as "strong"!
Indeed, Obama was a great candidate, as a president he has just been OK in my view
Would be rather amusing if the Japanese economy started to take off just after they banned teaching of economics. Amusing, but probably not unprecedented ...
Would be rather amusing if the Japanese economy started to take off just after they banned teaching of economics. Amusing, but probably not unprecedented ...
Well much Japanese teaching of economics is based on Keynesian theory
Well this might pop a few ambitions. Is this bravado , wishful thinking or fact. In effect they seem to be giving up on 2025 as well.
Deputy Labour leader Tom Watson has warned unruly backbenchers not to plot against Jeremy Corbyn as he will be their leader for another decade. His advice comes as Labour's autumn conference gets underway on Sunday - the first since Mr Corbyn's landslide victory. Mr Watson called on disgruntled MPs to show unity and support the man they had put in charge.
Would be rather amusing if the Japanese economy started to take off just after they banned teaching of economics. Amusing, but probably not unprecedented ...
Well much Japanese teaching of economics is based on Keynesian theory
If their university were teaching Keynesian rubbish is university, it might explain with after nearly 3 decades of stagnation all they have to show is a big pile of case.
To misquote Thatcher 'The thing about Keyneists is that eventually they run out of other peoples money to borrow'
Quite pleased that Peter Whittle will be the UKIP Mayoral candidate. Nothing at all against Suzanne Evans, but I think this is a good move
For one, it means another Kipper gets some attention, Suzanne is already an established media performer, and also it seems more authentic to have a Londoner who stood in a London seat as the candidate
Lets be fair we could have Mother Theresa as our candidate and we wouldn't win, so whoever would do best isn't really a factor
That sounds like quite desperate straw clutching.
Another example of the dysfunctional, amateur and backstabbing nature of UKIP and it's leaving you "quite pleased".
I guess you can at least hope he is better than David Coburn and doesn't leave UKIP as toxic in London as they now are in Scotland.
Ok Just for you, I am gutted it wasn't Suzanne Evans despite saying for the last month or two I thought it should be Whittle, even though neither could possibly win
Why should it have been Evans do you think? Because people on here have seen her on telly?
Would be rather amusing if the Japanese economy started to take off just after they banned teaching of economics. Amusing, but probably not unprecedented ...
Well much Japanese teaching of economics is based on Keynesian theory
If their university were teaching Keynesian rubbish is university, it might explain with after nearly 3 decades of stagnation all they have to show is a big pile of case.
To misquote Thatcher 'The thing about Keyneists is that eventually they run out of other peoples money to borrow'
Indeed, sometimes no economics is better than the wrong economics
Hopefully the public is being kept well back in case there are explosives hidden inside.
Fat chance of that, unless the mosque has been bombed by an extremist group (not unknown in Pakistan). The Ahmadis are probably the most liberal, tolerant and modern Muslim denomination in Britain, though their unusual theology places them outside the Islamic mainstream. The group is fiercely opposed to violence, has no record of supporting militancy even in the face of really quite brutal persecution, and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad argued that this far after the age of Mohammed, "jihad" must be interpreted as a form of non-violent struggle and could not be used to justify bloodshed. They are also relatively liberal on social issues, for instance female Ahmadi teens have to attend workshops where they are encouraged to pursue university education and an independent professional career.
Ironically one of the reasons they attract so much vituperation from other Muslim groups in the UK is that their level of integration and westernisation has rendered them "sell-outs", and that they are working against Pakistani and other Muslim interests. Even in Britain they are often abused by other Muslims as "Qadianis" (literally, inhabitants of the Indian town where Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born, but seen as a derogatory slur) or even "Kafir" (non-believer). In Tooting, Sunni Muslim religious groups have been campaigning for other British-Pakistanis to boycott Ahmadi-owned shops and services. Pakistani internet forums often contain gossip about political, business and military leaders who are "secretly Qadianis", and are acting in concert with the USA and Israel.
Really interesting stuff (and a tad more credible than JackW's story about root canals). Many thanks.
David, what a spoilsport , Jack's factoids were great
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
I have to say I wouldn't have considered any of the Republican candidates in 2012 that I can recall - Santorum, McCain, Huckabee, Perry, Romney, etc strong. In 2008 I can only recall Clinton, Obama, and John McCain - and while I'm not a fan of his presidency, he did strike me as a strong candidate at the time, though I was pretty young then (14).
How about historically?
Probably harder to judge people you've only read about - you miss the sense of "what could have been" that you have from being there at the time, overshadowed by "what actually was"; someone on here pointed out that this is the advantage of reading contemporary biographies when someone is in mid-career rather than those written as "evaluations" at the end. That was sage advice. (Can't remember who administered it though, was it David H?)
If I'm quite honest, I don't know much historically, regarding previous candidates in primaries than occurred in 2008 and before that. When I'm not studying I'll do some research on this issue.
I myself am convinced that voters' Clinton-reluctance is even starker this year than previously. It becomes more difficult to see scenarios where she wins against likely Republican candidates (even Trump). Sadly the only two real alternatives are Biden (candidate-reluctance) and Sanders (a bubble; even weaker than Clinton among non-whites). O'Malley was governor of Maryland but was replaced by a Republican, suggesting that something was seriously wrong with Maryland under him; that was like a Conservative winning in Gower; not unimaginable, but a sign something is really going badly.
I myself am convinced that voters' Clinton-reluctance is even starker this year than previously. It becomes more difficult to see scenarios where she wins against likely Republican candidates (even Trump). Sadly the only two real alternatives are Biden (candidate-reluctance) and Sanders (a bubble; even weaker than Clinton among non-whites). O'Malley was governor of Maryland but was replaced by a Republican, suggesting that something was seriously wrong with Maryland under him; that was like a Conservative winning in Gower; not unimaginable, but a sign something is really going badly.
She still beats Trump in most polls and he still leads polls for the GOP nomination, so that may be her saving grace
James Monroe must get an honourable mention as a president who, though not an independent, was elected without opposition because there was only one effective political party at the time, the old Republicans.
I think if its Trump v Sanders, then Bloomberg would have a very good chance.
However if ether party picks somebody else then I'm less convinced it would work.
If it's Trump vs Sanders I'm going to start building a nuclear shelter in the garden.
Ha Ha. Shows exactly why such a race would be ideal for a sane independent like Bloomberg
I fully agree on the 'Sane independent' but he has some other qualities as well:
He successfully ran a vey big city, showing he can exercise executive authority.
He has been is both party's at different times, so he is non dogmatic.
He has reasonable name recognition.
He has sufficient funds himself to not be 'owned' by any special interest group.
Does anybody know what odds you can get on him to be the next President?
Indeed and he went to Harvard Business School and is richer than Trump, with a net worth of $37 billion to Trump's $4 billion.
He is 50/1 with paddy power
Many thanks for the odds.
P.S. does HYUDF stand for anything?
Good luck, it stands for whatever you want it to stand for!
It always reminds me of the tune to "Allelulia, Sing to Jesus", called Hyfrydol, due to similar bemusement about the pronunciation.
Every English choir I have sung in knows the latter colloquially as "Hydrofoil", in the best John of "Gaunt" tradition.
Huv-rud-ol is an approximate stab at the pronunciation. Means cheerful I believe ( but without first choice scrum half, goal kicker, centre, and a prop with one half of rugby in 7 months one doubts it frankly).
Well this might pop a few ambitions. Is this bravado , wishful thinking or fact. In effect they seem to be giving up on 2025 as well.
Deputy Labour leader Tom Watson has warned unruly backbenchers not to plot against Jeremy Corbyn as he will be their leader for another decade. His advice comes as Labour's autumn conference gets underway on Sunday - the first since Mr Corbyn's landslide victory. Mr Watson called on disgruntled MPs to show unity and support the man they had put in charge.
I think if its Trump v Sanders, then Bloomberg would have a very good chance.
However if ether party picks somebody else then I'm less convinced it would work.
If it's Trump vs Sanders I'm going to start building a nuclear shelter in the garden.
Ha Ha. Shows exactly why such a race would be ideal for a sane independent like Bloomberg
I fully agree on the 'Sane independent' but he has some other qualities as well:
He successfully ran a vey big city, showing he can exercise executive authority.
He has been is both party's at different times, so he is non dogmatic.
He has reasonable name recognition.
He has sufficient funds himself to not be 'owned' by any special interest group.
Does anybody know what odds you can get on him to be the next President?
Indeed and he went to Harvard Business School and is richer than Trump, with a net worth of $37 billion to Trump's $4 billion.
He is 50/1 with paddy power
Many thanks for the odds.
P.S. does HYUDF stand for anything?
Good luck, it stands for whatever you want it to stand for!
It always reminds me of the tune to "Allelulia, Sing to Jesus", called Hyfrydol, due to similar bemusement about the pronunciation.
Every English choir I have sung in knows the latter colloquially as "Hydrofoil", in the best John of "Gaunt" tradition.
Huv-rud-ol is an approximate stab at the pronunciation. Means cheerful I believe ( but without first choice scrum half, goal kicker, centre, and a prop with one half of rugby in 7 months one doubts it frankly).
Well this might pop a few ambitions. Is this bravado , wishful thinking or fact. In effect they seem to be giving up on 2025 as well.
Deputy Labour leader Tom Watson has warned unruly backbenchers not to plot against Jeremy Corbyn as he will be their leader for another decade. His advice comes as Labour's autumn conference gets underway on Sunday - the first since Mr Corbyn's landslide victory. Mr Watson called on disgruntled MPs to show unity and support the man they had put in charge.
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Joe Lieberman 2004, John McCain 2000, Bill Clinton 1992, Ronald Reagan 1980
Whenever I've expressed a degree of admiration for McCain (in the company of Brits), I've got very peculiar looks.
I would have happily voted for McCain over Gore in 2000, he would have been a far better president than Bush. The failure of Bobby Kennedy to become president in 1968 and John McCain to become President in 2000 produced the Nixon and George W Bush presidencies, two of the worst presidencies in recent times. I would also add had Reagan beaten Ford and then Carter in 1976 that would also have saved the US from the 3rd worst president of the postwar era, even if it had meant Ronnie becoming president 4 years early!
It's one of those pointless but endlessly fascinating hypothetical questions, but I do wonder what the world would have been like today had McCain won in 2000. Whether his policy on Afghanistan and Iraq would have been different had he been in charge, to the positions he took on the issue when the course of national politics was being set by others, and whether their implementation would have been any more successful.
He would have certainly have been more open to action on climate change and would not have tried to get an amendment to ban gay marriage. He would also not have pushed through a huge tax cut for the rich expanding the deficit. On international policy there would have been fewer differences, although if McCain did go into Iraq it may have been better planned
911would have happened no matter who was President.
@HYUFD: re Bloomberg, I would point out that I've been indicating he was up for a run for some time.
This is his last chance, really. He's in great shape, and smart as a whip. But he's getting on. 2016 is his one and only chance to be President.
After stepping down as Mayor of New York he's gone back to running Bloomberg, Inc., and I think it bores him... And he could sell his stake in the company (or even just half of it), in a heartbeat.
I reckon that if it's a weak Democrat vs a weak Republican, then he'll stand. And I think he might win.
"A review to be unveiled at the party's annual conference in Brighton could lead to the end of the National Policy Forum and give power over policies to its members and registered supporters. It will examine how technology could be used to decide policy."
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Joe Lieberman 2004, John McCain 2000, Bill Clinton 1992, Ronald Reagan 1980
Whenever I've expressed a degree of admiration for McCain (in the company of Brits), I've got very peculiar looks.
I would have happily voted for McCain over Gore in 2000, he would have been a far better president than Bush. The failure of Bobby Kennedy to become president in 1968 and John McCain to become President in 2000 produced the Nixon and George W Bush presidencies, two of the worst presidencies in recent times. I would also add had Reagan beaten Ford and then Carter in 1976 that would also have saved the US from the 3rd worst president of the postwar era, even if it had meant Ronnie becoming president 4 years early!
It's one of those pointless but endlessly fascinating hypothetical questions, but I do wonder what the world would have been like today had McCain won in 2000. Whether his policy on Afghanistan and Iraq would have been different had he been in charge, to the positions he took on the issue when the course of national politics was being set by others, and whether their implementation would have been any more successful.
He would have certainly have been more open to action on climate change and would not have tried to get an amendment to ban gay marriage. He would also not have pushed through a huge tax cut for the rich expanding the deficit. On international policy there would have been fewer differences, although if McCain did go into Iraq it may have been better planned
911would have happened no matter who was President.
There is only one way for Merkel from here, the acceleration will be wondrous.
Conservative supporters hate a successful election winning conservative Prime Minister.
Not at all when she is successful but her migrant decision was arrogant, undemocratic, and just wrong. Add in VW and she deserves all the criticism she gets
Well this might pop a few ambitions. Is this bravado , wishful thinking or fact. In effect they seem to be giving up on 2025 as well.
Deputy Labour leader Tom Watson has warned unruly backbenchers not to plot against Jeremy Corbyn as he will be their leader for another decade. His advice comes as Labour's autumn conference gets underway on Sunday - the first since Mr Corbyn's landslide victory. Mr Watson called on disgruntled MPs to show unity and support the man they had put in charge.
@HYUFD: re Bloomberg, I would point out that I've been indicating he was up for a run for some time.
This is his last chance, really. He's in great shape, and smart as a whip. But he's getting on. 2016 is his one and only chance to be President.
After stepping down as Mayor of New York he's gone back to running Bloomberg, Inc., and I think it bores him... And he could sell his stake in the company (or even just half of it), in a heartbeat.
I reckon that if it's a weak Democrat vs a weak Republican, then he'll stand. And I think he might win.
Indeed, he must be praying for a Trump v Sanders race, it would be like the heavens have aligned to show him to his destiny! Anyway, off to watch the big match
This weeks announcement by both Scottish Labour and the LibDems that they would allow free votes in a 2nd indyref come 4 years to late - sadly nobody believes their London masters would allow them to follow through. The thought that this move will benefit the Scottish Tories as the final remaining truly Unionist party is fanciful.
Quite pleased that Peter Whittle will be the UKIP Mayoral candidate. Nothing at all against Suzanne Evans, but I think this is a good move
For one, it means another Kipper gets some attention, Suzanne is already an established media performer, and also it seems more authentic to have a Londoner who stood in a London seat as the candidate
Lets be fair we could have Mother Theresa as our candidate and we wouldn't win, so whoever would do best isn't really a factor
That sounds like quite desperate straw clutching.
Another example of the dysfunctional, amateur and backstabbing nature of UKIP and it's leaving you "quite pleased".
I guess you can at least hope he is better than David Coburn and doesn't leave UKIP as toxic in London as they now are in Scotland.
Ok Just for you, I am gutted it wasn't Suzanne Evans despite saying for the last month or two I thought it should be Whittle, even though neither could possibly win
Why should it have been Evans do you think? Because people on here have seen her on telly?
The Mayoralty is all about the individual. The Conservatives won when they had a well known candidate who was well liked. Which is why Zac will have the best chance of all the Conservative options. UKIP have chosen a person less well known than Suzanne and probably less well liked. I am glad UKIP have not chosen her and UKIP have made another mistake. She would have also dragged up a by a few % the Assembly UKIP votes so 1 or 2 others may have become members as a consequence.
This weeks announcement by both Scottish Labour and the LibDems that they would allow free votes in a 2nd indyref come 4 years to late - sadly nobody believes their London masters would allow them to follow through. The thought that this move will benefit the Scottish Tories as the final remaining truly Unionist party is fanciful.
Quite pleased that Peter Whittle will be the UKIP Mayoral candidate. Nothing at all against Suzanne Evans, but I think this is a good move
For one, it means another Kipper gets some attention, Suzanne is already an established media performer, and also it seems more authentic to have a Londoner who stood in a London seat as the candidate
Lets be fair we could have Mother Theresa as our candidate and we wouldn't win, so whoever would do best isn't really a factor
That sounds like quite desperate straw clutching.
Another example of the dysfunctional, amateur and backstabbing nature of UKIP and it's leaving you "quite pleased".
I guess you can at least hope he is better than David Coburn and doesn't leave UKIP as toxic in London as they now are in Scotland.
Ok Just for you, I am gutted it wasn't Suzanne Evans despite saying for the last month or two I thought it should be Whittle, even though neither could possibly win
Why should it have been Evans do you think? Because people on here have seen her on telly?
The Mayoralty is all about the individual. The Conservatives won when they had a well known candidate who was well liked. Which is why Zac will have the best chance of all the Conservative options. UKIP have chosen a person less well known than Suzanne and probably less well liked. I am glad UKIP have not chosen her and UKIP have made another mistake. She would have also dragged up a by a few % the Assembly UKIP votes so 1 or 2 others may have become members as a consequence.
Oh I remember you were arguing about this before! You have no idea what you are talking about, and are just spouting nonsense/arguing for the sake of it, but in the spirit of goodwill I will admit that I do that too occasionally, and I hope Zac wins
'‘Many women have felt the need to sleep in their clothes... they won’t go to the toilet at night because rapes and assaults have taken place on their way to, or from, there. Even in daylight, a walk through the camp is fraught with fear.’
Controversially, the letter suggests that in the migrants’ culture, women are viewed differently: ‘It is a fact that women and children are unprotected. This situation is opportune for those men who already regard women as their inferiors and treat unaccompanied women as “fair game”.’
Many migrant women have fled here to escape forced marriages or female genital mutilation, which are rife in some African and Middle Eastern countries. ‘They believe they have found safety in Germany,’ says the letter, ‘and realise it’s not the case.’'
Quite pleased that Peter Whittle will be the UKIP Mayoral candidate. Nothing at all against Suzanne Evans, but I think this is a good move
For one, it means another Kipper gets some attention, Suzanne is already an established media performer, and also it seems more authentic to have a Londoner who stood in a London seat as the candidate
Lets be fair we could have Mother Theresa as our candidate and we wouldn't win, so whoever would do best isn't really a factor
That sounds like quite desperate straw clutching.
Another example of the dysfunctional, amateur and backstabbing nature of UKIP and it's leaving you "quite pleased".
I guess you can at least hope he is better than David Coburn and doesn't leave UKIP as toxic in London as they now are in Scotland.
Ok Just for you, I am gutted it wasn't Suzanne Evans despite saying for the last month or two I thought it should be Whittle, even though neither could possibly win
Why should it have been Evans do you think? Because people on here have seen her on telly?
The Mayoralty is all about the individual. The Conservatives won when they had a well known candidate who was well liked. Which is why Zac will have the best chance of all the Conservative options. UKIP have chosen a person less well known than Suzanne and probably less well liked. I am glad UKIP have not chosen her and UKIP have made another mistake. She would have also dragged up a by a few % the Assembly UKIP votes so 1 or 2 others may have become members as a consequence.
Oh I remember you were arguing about this before! You have no idea what you are talking about, and are just spouting nonsense/arguing for the sake of it, but in the spirit of goodwill I will admit that I do that too occasionally, and I hope Zac wins
"We were no match for their untamed wit......" P. Weller
Quite pleased that Peter Whittle will be the UKIP Mayoral candidate. Nothing at all against Suzanne Evans, but I think this is a good move
For one, it means another Kipper gets some attention, Suzanne is already an established media performer, and also it seems more authentic to have a Londoner who stood in a London seat as the candidate
Lets be fair we could have Mother Theresa as our candidate and we wouldn't win, so whoever would do best isn't really a factor
That sounds like quite desperate straw clutching.
Another example of the dysfunctional, amateur and backstabbing nature of UKIP and it's leaving you "quite pleased".
I guess you can at least hope he is better than David Coburn and doesn't leave UKIP as toxic in London as they now are in Scotland.
Ok Just for you, I am gutted it wasn't Suzanne Evans despite saying for the last month or two I thought it should be Whittle, even though neither could possibly win
Why should it have been Evans do you think? Because people on here have seen her on telly?
The Mayoralty is all about the individual. The Conservatives won when they had a well known candidate who was well liked. Which is why Zac will have the best chance of all the Conservative options. UKIP have chosen a person less well known than Suzanne and probably less well liked. I am glad UKIP have not chosen her and UKIP have made another mistake. She would have also dragged up a by a few % the Assembly UKIP votes so 1 or 2 others may have become members as a consequence.
Oh I remember you were arguing about this before! You have no idea what you are talking about, and are just spouting nonsense/arguing for the sake of it, but in the spirit of goodwill I will admit that I do that too occasionally, and I hope Zac wins
"We were no match for their untamed wit......" P. Weller
So what's wrong with the religious and racial hatred act? It doesn't seem so bad in principle but perhaps others know more about the law than I do.
It enshrines thought crime into English law
Personally, I think if a young man beats up a granny they deserve to be punished. It doesn't matter to me whether she was black and he was white and screaming racial epitepths or vice versa. It's the *act* that deserves punishment, not the motive.
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
Yes, but strong candidates do not come along that regularly, in UK or US politics
Curious why you didn't pop Obama into your list. I thought DavidL's position was pretty nuanced (good candidate, shame about the administration). It was evident he was a superstar as early as the primaries. I can accept that may not mean you classify him as "strong"!
Indeed, Obama was a great candidate, as a president he has just been OK in my view
His speeches when he first stood were the best since Kennedy. Technically brilliant. Beautiful balanced sentences, soaring rhetoric and a genuine engagement with ideas. "Ok" as President strikes me as pretty seriously generous.
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
Yes, but strong candidates do not come along that regularly, in UK or US politics
Curious why you didn't pop Obama into your list. I thought DavidL's position was pretty nuanced (good candidate, shame about the administration). It was evident he was a superstar as early as the primaries. I can accept that may not mean you classify him as "strong"!
Indeed, Obama was a great candidate, as a president he has just been OK in my view
His speeches when he first stood were the best since Kennedy. Technically brilliant. Beautiful balanced sentences, soaring rhetoric and a genuine engagement with ideas. "Ok" as President strikes me as pretty seriously generous.
Because you don't think he has achieved anything, or because you don't agree with/like what he has achieved?
Hopefully the public is being kept well back in case there are explosives hidden inside.
Even in Britain they are often abused by other Muslims as "Qadianis" (literally, inhabitants of the Indian town where Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born, but seen as a derogatory slur) or even "Kafir" (non-believer). In Tooting, Sunni Muslim religious groups have been campaigning for other British-Pakistanis to boycott Ahmadi-owned shops and services. Pakistani internet forums often contain gossip about political, business and military leaders who are "secretly Qadianis", and are acting in concert with the USA and Israel.
Really interesting stuff (and a tad more credible than JackW's story about root canals). Many thanks.
I'm unsure why you couldn't get your teeth into my essentially jaw dropping account?
Most British Muslims would deny that the affected building is a "mosque" at all.
That's very interesting. Your outsider characterisation of them has not made it as far as the Telegraph, though, who use the word mosque a dozen times in their report or the London Fire Brigade twitter feed who similarly don't bother with such nuances.
In fact the way you choose to define them hasn't made it to the website of their mosque itself, which describes itself as the "the largest mosque in western europe" http://www.baitulfutuh.org/
Um. Its not the way MBE 'chooses' to define them. It is the way they are defined both by themselves and the rest of the muslim world. Are you that utterly anti-islamic that you cannot conceive that there might be factions who have genuine peaceful intent?
I'm going by their own website which defines their own building as "the largest mosque in western europe" against someone on the internet who says it isn't.
Sure I accept that every grouping has factions.
Althought, if I understood MBE correctly, they regard themselves as Muslims (hence mosque) but most Muslims reject that.
It's analagous to how Mormons regard themselves as Christians, but many Christians view them as a separate religion.
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
Yes, but strong candidates do not come along that regularly, in UK or US politics
Curious why you didn't pop Obama into your list. I thought DavidL's position was pretty nuanced (good candidate, shame about the administration). It was evident he was a superstar as early as the primaries. I can accept that may not mean you classify him as "strong"!
Indeed, Obama was a great candidate, as a president he has just been OK in my view
His speeches when he first stood were the best since Kennedy. Technically brilliant. Beautiful balanced sentences, soaring rhetoric and a genuine engagement with ideas. "Ok" as President strikes me as pretty seriously generous.
Indeed, mind you JFK was really a B+ president rather than A list himself. FDR, IKE, Reagan and Clinton are the best presidents of the last 100 years in my view
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
Yes, but strong candidates do not come along that regularly, in UK or US politics
Curious why you didn't pop Obama into your list. I thought DavidL's position was pretty nuanced (good candidate, shame about the administration). It was evident he was a superstar as early as the primaries. I can accept that may not mean you classify him as "strong"!
Indeed, Obama was a great candidate, as a president he has just been OK in my view
His speeches when he first stood were the best since Kennedy. Technically brilliant. Beautiful balanced sentences, soaring rhetoric and a genuine engagement with ideas. "Ok" as President strikes me as pretty seriously generous.
Indeed, mind you JFK was really a B+ president rather than A list himself. FDR, IKE, Reagan and Clinton are the best presidents of the last 100 years in my view
What did Clinton achieve as President? Or is your view basically "ran a decent economy and did nothing" = good (not a disreputable viewpoint)
If Lab is now going to set policy by a vote of all those eligible to vote for the leader it must be very likely they will endorse the Corbyn agenda - ie:
- Scrap Trident - No welfare cap
Leaving NATO may be a closer run thing but 60:40 they go for it.
If Lab is now going to set policy by a vote of all those eligible to vote for the leader it must be very likely they will endorse the Corbyn agenda - ie:
- Scrap Trident - No welfare cap
Leaving NATO may be a closer run thing but 60:40 they go for it.
If the potential Con vote maxes out in the low 40s, and Labour are going to pursue a 20% strategy, it really is quite difficult to work out where the rest of the votes end up!
If Lab is now going to set policy by a vote of all those eligible to vote for the leader it must be very likely they will endorse the Corbyn agenda - ie:
- Scrap Trident - No welfare cap
Leaving NATO may be a closer run thing but 60:40 they go for it.
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
Yes, but strong candidates do not come along that regularly, in UK or US politics
Curious why you didn't pop Obama into your list. I thought DavidL's position was pretty nuanced (good candidate, shame about the administration). It was evident he was a superstar as early as the primaries. I can accept that may not mean you classify him as "strong"!
Indeed, Obama was a great candidate, as a president he has just been OK in my view
His speeches when he first stood were the best since Kennedy. Technically brilliant. Beautiful balanced sentences, soaring rhetoric and a genuine engagement with ideas. "Ok" as President strikes me as pretty seriously generous.
Indeed, mind you JFK was really a B+ president rather than A list himself. FDR, IKE, Reagan and Clinton are the best presidents of the last 100 years in my view
What did Clinton achieve as President? Or is your view basically "ran a decent economy and did nothing" = good (not a disreputable viewpoint)
Well, that and a balanced budget and cut unemployment and the welfare rolls and a general record of peace overseas too.
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
Yes, but strong candidates do not come along that regularly, in UK or US politics
Curious why you didn't pop Obama into your list. I thought DavidL's position was pretty nuanced (good candidate, shame about the administration). It was evident he was a superstar as early as the primaries. I can accept that may not mean you classify him as "strong"!
Indeed, Obama was a great candidate, as a president he has just been OK in my view
His speeches when he first stood were the best since Kennedy. Technically brilliant. Beautiful balanced sentences, soaring rhetoric and a genuine engagement with ideas. "Ok" as President strikes me as pretty seriously generous.
Indeed, mind you JFK was really a B+ president rather than A list himself. FDR, IKE, Reagan and Clinton are the best presidents of the last 100 years in my view
What did Clinton achieve as President? Or is your view basically "ran a decent economy and did nothing" = good (not a disreputable viewpoint)
Well, that and a balanced budget and cut unemployment and the welfare rolls and a general record of peace overseas too.
Or alternatively, he shied away from confronting difficult issues and his inaction sowed the seeds for what followed once he had left office.
There is definitely an enthusiasm gap among Democrats about Hillary. Sanders rallies far outdraw hers for example.
She seems to have the big money donors sown up. But that can change if her candidacy is perceived to be in trouble.
It is hard to see her journey to the nomination stopped - at present it seems unlikely either Sanders or Biden could beat her, but that too could change over time.
Her main threat is not political but legal - prosecution over her email server. Over the last week or so the news networks have been reporting that the FBI has recovered 'many' of her deleted emails and expects to recover 'most' of them. State has asked for copies of them all.
The hole she has dug herself is getting much. much deeper.
Lessons for football from the rugby - the control by the referee is impressive and they even treat players while the game goes on. That is needed in football
Lessons for football from the rugby - the control by the referee is impressive and they even treat players while the game goes on. That is needed in football
Treatment on the pitch is not really feasible in football.
If Lab is now going to set policy by a vote of all those eligible to vote for the leader it must be very likely they will endorse the Corbyn agenda - ie:
- Scrap Trident - No welfare cap
Leaving NATO may be a closer run thing but 60:40 they go for it.
If the potential Con vote maxes out in the low 40s, and Labour are going to pursue a 20% strategy, it really is quite difficult to work out where the rest of the votes end up!
Evening all. I think people will just not bother voting. I can't see Corbyn breaking 30% in the election. Having said that, I can at least bail out of the UK if the worst happens .
Hopefully the public is being kept well back in case there are explosives hidden inside.
Fat chance of that, unless the mosque has been bombed by an extremist group (not unknown in Pakistan). The Ahmadis are probably the most liberal, tolerant and modern Muslim denomination in Britain, though their unusual theology places them outside the Islamic mainstream. The group is fiercely opposed to violence, has no record of supporting militancy even in the face of really quite brutal persecution, and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad argued that this far after the age of Mohammed, "jihad" must be interpreted as a form of non-violent struggle and could not be used to justify bloodshed. They are also relatively liberal on social issues, for instance female Ahmadi teens have to attend workshops where they are encouraged to pursue university education and an independent professional career.
Ironically one of the reasons they attract so much vituperation from other Muslim groups in the UK is that their level of integration and westernisation has rendered them "sell-outs", and that they are working against Pakistani and other Muslim interests. Even in Britain they are often abused by other Muslims as "Qadianis" (literally, inhabitants of the Indian town where Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born, but seen as a derogatory slur) or even "Kafir" (non-believer). In Tooting, Sunni Muslim religious groups have been campaigning for other British-Pakistanis to boycott Ahmadi-owned shops and services. Pakistani internet forums often contain gossip about political, business and military leaders who are "secretly Qadianis", and are acting in concert with the USA and Israel.
Yes, I've told the story here before of the time when I tried to get some Home Office funding for a website that a branch of the Ahmadis wanted to set up, propagating a peaceful and inclusive version of Islam and drawing attention to passages in the Koran urging engagement and tolerance. The chap in Broxtowe who approached me was (and still is) as peaceful and open-minded as anyone I've ever met - I remember he wanted to organise a vigil outside synagogues to protect them at a time there were fears that they might be attacked by extremists. The Home Office declined to help - "This group is highly moderate so we don't see them as a problem, and therefore we don't feel it needs us to get involved."
The fact that they're seen as eccentric and at most borderline Muslims (perhaps more like the Quakers than the Mormons) might have been a stronger argument. But I felt that the "You're too moderate so we won't help you" line was ridiculous. (I'd have said so in public but, characteristically, my constituent politely accepted the decision and didn't want to make a fuss.)
Lessons for football from the rugby - the control by the referee is impressive and they even treat players while the game goes on. That is needed in football
Treatment on the pitch is not really feasible in football.
Virtually all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican races for 2016 are mediocre to pretty dire. I feel sorry for the Americans.
Who were the last few presidential candidates (don't mean party nominee necessarily, anyone running in the primaries) who you would have identified as "strong", regardless of whether you agreed with their policies?
Are you referring to 2016 or previous primaries in 2012 and 2008? I personally would agree with Hilary most out of all the candidates, but given the sheer lack of trust many Americans have on her I don't think she's a strong candidate.
Well since you said nobody in 2016, I was asking for the last few before that - but that might be some way back! (HYUFD's answer was very interesting and he left decade-long gaps between some "strong" candidates...)
Yes, but strong candidates do not come along that regularly, in UK or US politics
Curious why you didn't pop Obama into your list. I thought DavidL's position was pretty nuanced (good candidate, shame about the administration).
Indeed, Obama was a great candidate, as a president he has just been OK in my view
His speeches when he first stood were the best since Kennedy..
Indeed, mind you JFK was really a B+ president rather than A list himself. FDR, IKE, Reagan and Clinton are the best presidents of the last 100 years in my view
What did Clinton achieve as President? Or is your view basically "ran a decent economy and did nothing" = good (not a disreputable viewpoint)
Well, that and a balanced budget and cut unemployment and the welfare rolls and a general record of peace overseas too.
Or alternatively, he shied away from confronting difficult issues and his inaction sowed the seeds for what followed once he had left office.
He did send missiles against Bin Laden if I recall but as 9/11 did not occur on his watch I don't think you can really speculate on how he would have reacted. Overall though his domestic and overseas record was a good one (in foreign affairs too he played a role in the successful NI peace process too and NAFTA was signed on his watch too)
Yes, I've told the story here before of the time when I tried to get some Home Office funding for a website that a branch of the Ahmadis wanted to set up, propagating a peaceful and inclusive version of Islam and drawing attention to passages in the Koran urging engagement and tolerance. The chap in Broxtowe who approached me was (and still is) as peaceful and open-minded as anyone I've ever met - I remember he wanted to organise a vigil outside synagogues to protect them at a time there were fears that they might be attacked by extremists. The Home Office declined to help - "This group is highly moderate so we don't see them as a problem, and therefore we don't feel it needs us to get involved."
The fact that they're seen as eccentric and at most borderline Muslims (perhaps more like the Quakers than the Mormons) might have been a stronger argument. But I felt that the "You're too moderate so we won't help you" line was ridiculous. (I'd have said so in public but, characteristically, my constituent politely accepted the decision and didn't want to make a fuss.)
The thing that worries me most about Muslims is seeing the way moderates like Maajid Nawaz, Irshad Manji, and, apparently, the Ahmadis are ostracised. I have no problem accepting Quakers as fellow Christians. Why can't Muslims accept Ahmadis as the same?
Comments
Even places like Scandinavia that we often tend to think of in very homogeneous and straightforward terms are really far more complex. I think a good few lefties would get a shock if they understood how the Scandinavian economies are actually structured, for instance. Seconded.
Given that schooling is provided by Locale Government for locale people, why the expansion, retention, or abolition of Grammar schools could not be left entirely to Local Government is also beyond me.
The example from NI where until recently grammar schools where widespread, does indicate that when there are enough of them, they do as their advocates say and enables a larger proportion of children form lower socio-economic backgrounds to get to university.
However given the now large and growing importance of free schools/academies, I would think the arguments over grammar schools to die down.
Probably harder to judge people you've only read about - you miss the sense of "what could have been" that you have from being there at the time, overshadowed by "what actually was"; someone on here pointed out that this is the advantage of reading contemporary biographies when someone is in mid-career rather than those written as "evaluations" at the end. That was sage advice. (Can't remember who administered it though, was it David H?)
He successfully ran a vey big city, showing he can exercise executive authority.
He has been is both party's at different times, so he is non dogmatic.
He has reasonable name recognition.
He has sufficient funds himself to not be 'owned' by any special interest group.
Does anybody know what odds you can get on him to be the next President?
Deputy Labour leader Tom Watson has warned unruly backbenchers not to plot against Jeremy Corbyn as he will be their leader for another decade. His advice comes as Labour's autumn conference gets underway on Sunday - the first since Mr Corbyn's landslide victory. Mr Watson called on disgruntled MPs to show unity and support the man they had put in charge.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3250007/Don-t-disrespect-Jeremy-s-going-charge-decade-Corbyn-s-deputy-warns-unruly-Labour-backbenchers.html#ixzz3mrp3fhR2
To misquote Thatcher 'The thing about Keyneists is that eventually they run out of other peoples money to borrow'
He is 50/1 with paddy power
Why should it have been Evans do you think? Because people on here have seen her on telly?
P.S. does HYUDF stand for anything?
Thanks for the reference
Punted a fiver on Bloomberg @350, though.
Every English choir I have sung in knows the latter colloquially as "Hydrofoil", in the best John of "Gaunt" tradition.
Meantime when everyone was moaning about £3m for football they forgot it was for a repressed region.
This is his last chance, really. He's in great shape, and smart as a whip. But he's getting on. 2016 is his one and only chance to be President.
After stepping down as Mayor of New York he's gone back to running Bloomberg, Inc., and I think it bores him... And he could sell his stake in the company (or even just half of it), in a heartbeat.
I reckon that if it's a weak Democrat vs a weak Republican, then he'll stand. And I think he might win.
Labour need to be very careful:
"A review to be unveiled at the party's annual conference in Brighton could lead to the end of the National Policy Forum and give power over policies to its members and registered supporters.
It will examine how technology could be used to decide policy."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34369166
Let's have an Internet poll to decide Labour's policy!
Has anyone looked at German opinion polls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_German_federal_election), they are extraordinarily stable. Why are opinion polls so much more volatile?
This weeks announcement by both Scottish Labour and the LibDems that they would allow free votes in a 2nd indyref come 4 years to late - sadly nobody believes their London masters would allow them to follow through. The thought that this move will benefit the Scottish Tories as the final remaining truly Unionist party is fanciful.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/647805416030793728
'‘Many women have felt the need to sleep in their clothes... they won’t go to the toilet at night because rapes and assaults have taken place on their way to, or from, there. Even in daylight, a walk through the camp is fraught with fear.’
Controversially, the letter suggests that in the migrants’ culture, women are viewed differently: ‘It is a fact that women and children are unprotected. This situation is opportune for those men who already regard women as their inferiors and treat unaccompanied women as “fair game”.’
Many migrant women have fled here to escape forced marriages or female genital mutilation, which are rife in some African and Middle Eastern countries. ‘They believe they have found safety in Germany,’ says the letter, ‘and realise it’s not the case.’'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249667/Germany-state-SIEGE-Merkel-cheered-opened-floodgates-migrants-gangs-men-roaming-streets-young-German-women-told-cover-mood-s-changing.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline
P. Weller
S.Knowles
Personally, I think if a young man beats up a granny they deserve to be punished. It doesn't matter to me whether she was black and he was white and screaming racial epitepths or vice versa. It's the *act* that deserves punishment, not the motive.
It's analagous to how Mormons regard themselves as Christians, but many Christians view them as a separate religion.
- Scrap Trident
- No welfare cap
Leaving NATO may be a closer run thing but 60:40 they go for it.
He's not a Corbyn man at all here.
For example, Pakistan has had a law since 1974 declarnig Ahmadis to be non-Muslims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis#1974_riots_and_constitutional_amendment
There were riots etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Anti-Ahmadiyya_riots
Jezza is going to appoint Danny Blanchflower as one of his economic advisers according to the Times
And
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!
She seems to have the big money donors sown up. But that can change if her candidacy is perceived to be in trouble.
It is hard to see her journey to the nomination stopped - at present it seems unlikely either Sanders or Biden could beat her, but that too could change over time.
Her main threat is not political but legal - prosecution over her email server. Over the last week or so the news networks have been reporting that the FBI has recovered 'many' of her deleted emails and expects to recover 'most' of them. State has asked for copies of them all.
The hole she has dug herself is getting much. much deeper.
The fact that they're seen as eccentric and at most borderline Muslims (perhaps more like the Quakers than the Mormons) might have been a stronger argument. But I felt that the "You're too moderate so we won't help you" line was ridiculous. (I'd have said so in public but, characteristically, my constituent politely accepted the decision and didn't want to make a fuss.)
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/lib-dems-hand-out-better-in-than-out-condoms-to-students/
Clegg's LDs were hated, Farron's LDs are just a joke, which is arguably worse!
Gotta hand it to them. Half lame, but brave !!