It suddenly strikes me that Cameron's opponents are betting very heavily politically on tax credit cuts returning the poor to the 1930s.
They had better be correct.
The same people are desperately hoping for a cold Winter and thousands of extra deaths in the NHS.
Don't forget a recession next year, too.
Nah, 2017 or maybe 2018 is when the next downturn will likely hit, maybe 2019 at a pinch. They normally happen roughly every ten years or so, we dodged the one we should have had at about the turn of the century but that, probably, just made the next one early and worse.
I think ( and hope ) you are a bit too quick off the mark Mr L.
In normal circumstances your 10 year cycle would be spot on, but since the last downturn was late and quite severe I suspect we'll hit this one that bit later so say 2019 or 2020.
Re steel, we actually import very little steel from China - about 750,000 tonnes, out of total steel imports of perhaps 10x that. We also export about 8,000,000 tonnes of steel in a typical year.
It's very easy to say "oh, our steel industry is disadvantaged because of expensive energy". But if that's the sole factor, it's hard to reconcile with the fact that we import twice as much steel from Germany as from China, and Germany is a much, much more expensive energy market than the UK. We also import more steel from Spain, which is also a much more expensive energy market.
World steel demand, given the slowdown in China, is shrinking. This means that prices everywhere are down, and marginal plants are going to get shut. This means older plants, plants which pay a lot for energy, plants with expensive workforces, plants in high tax countries, plants which make only commodity rolled steel, and plants where it is cheap to shut down.
Solely blaming high energy prices, when we actually have energy prices that are lower than - for example - Germany, Spain, France, and Japan, is just lazy.
You are making a point I have made several time re UK manufacturing. Our issue isn't so called LCCs we have large slabs of our manufactures deficit importing medium technology items from high cost coutries, Our deficit problems are structural ones rather than simply cost driven.
It remains to be seen what HMG will actually do to tackle the issue, so far GO has done very lttle.
Would you care for a modest wager, Mr. Brooke? I will bet you a bottle of decent whisky that between now and 2020 Osborne, and HMG as a whole, will do nothing aimed at addressing the balance of trade in manufactured goods.
Osborne is a political chancellor in the Brown mould, lots of clever ideas for trapping his enemies and moving money around but no interest in or clue about generating wealth.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
He had a few decent ones. Religion is relief from the grinding misery of day to day life and the promise of better to come: as long as you do what you are told and accept your fate in this life. Cover yourself in a veil and obey your husband, you'll go to heaven; accept you have nothing while the bloke in the castle has everything, including full control of your life, and you'll go to heaven. Don't kick up a fuss, take every knock you get, life is shit, but who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.
Re steel, we actually import very little steel from China - about 750,000 tonnes, out of total steel imports of perhaps 10x that. We also export about 8,000,000 tonnes of steel in a typical year.
It's very easy to say "oh, our steel industry is disadvantaged because of expensive energy". But if that's the sole factor, it's hard to reconcile with the fact that we import twice as much steel from Germany as from China, and Germany is a much, much more expensive energy market than the UK. We also import more steel from Spain, which is also a much more expensive energy market.
World steel demand, given the slowdown in China, is shrinking. This means that prices everywhere are down, and marginal plants are going to get shut. This means older plants, plants which pay a lot for energy, plants with expensive workforces, plants in high tax countries, plants which make only commodity rolled steel, and plants where it is cheap to shut down.
Solely blaming high energy prices, when we actually have energy prices that are lower than - for example - Germany, Spain, France, and Japan, is just lazy.
You are making a point I have made several time re UK manufacturing. Our issue isn't so called LCCs we have large slabs of our manufactures deficit importing medium technology items from high cost coutries, Our deficit problems are structural ones rather than simply cost driven.
It remains to be seen what HMG will actually do to tackle the issue, so far GO has done very lttle.
Would you care for a modest wager, Mr. Brooke? I will bet you a bottle of decent whisky that between now and 2020 Osborne, and HMG as a whole, will do nothing aimed at addressing the balance of trade in manufactured goods.
Osborne is a political chancellor in the Brown mould, lots of clever ideas for trapping his enemies and moving money around but no interest in or clue about generating wealth.
Incidentally, on the Opinium poll, it's interesting to see the breakdown of best PM (vs Corbyn) by party. Amongst Conservative voters, Boris does better than Osborne, with May in third place.
This is why I was mystified a few weeks ago, during the Tory conference, when people were saying Osborne would be the "centrist" choice while Theresa May would be the "core vote" choice.
May would surely have much more floating-voter appeal than Osborne.
May is more traditional and small-C conservative on social issues, and the daughter of a vicar, Osborne is a metropolitan liberal on social issues. In that sense May is probably more in tune with the classic 'Tory shire' party members, however they haven't forgiven her for giving Labour a free attack line with her 'nasty party' remarks.
On economic issues, I wouldn't have thought there was much difference between the two.
Correct.
Although I have a long-standing bet on May, I do wonder about her ability to be a political strategist. Osborne has this in spades. Indeed, arguably he has become too inthrall to the 'game'.
They both have their failings.
May is a poor communicator, as evidenced by the hole she dug herself into with her nasty party comments in the first place, arguably another one with her migration speech, and she waffles and sounds evasive in answering questions.
Osborne doesn't really do empathy. He sees politics as a clinical game of chess and, although he's smart with both money and tactics, looks far too pleased with himself whilst he's doing it too: he doesn't always understand the (non-political) implications of his moves.
Boris is charismatic, writes well but only really believes in himself and his ambition and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him - he's a real narcissist.
Tough choice. Who else is there?
Not Javid that's for sure. No idea why he is often touted as future leader.
Re steel, we actually import very little steel from China - about 750,000 tonnes, out of total steel imports of perhaps 10x that. We also export about 8,000,000 tonnes of steel in a typical year.
It's very easy to say "oh, our steel industry is disadvantaged because of expensive energy". But if that's the sole factor, it's hard to reconcile with the fact that we import twice as much steel from Germany as from China, and Germany is a much, much more expensive energy market than the UK. We also import more steel from Spain, which is also a much more expensive energy market.
World steel demand, given the slowdown in China, is shrinking. This means that prices everywhere are down, and marginal plants are going to get shut. This means older plants, plants which pay a lot for energy, plants with expensive workforces, plants in high tax countries, plants which make only commodity rolled steel, and plants where it is cheap to shut down.
Solely blaming high energy prices, when we actually have energy prices that are lower than - for example - Germany, Spain, France, and Japan, is just lazy.
You are making a point I have made several time re UK manufacturing. Our issue isn't so called LCCs we have large slabs of our manufactures deficit importing medium technology items from high cost coutries, Our deficit problems are structural ones rather than simply cost driven.
It remains to be seen what HMG will actually do to tackle the issue, so far GO has done very lttle.
Would you care for a modest wager, Mr. Brooke? I will bet you a bottle of decent whisky that between now and 2020 Osborne, and HMG as a whole, will do nothing aimed at addressing the balance of trade in manufactured goods.
Osborne is a political chancellor in the Brown mould, lots of clever ideas for trapping his enemies and moving money around but no interest in or clue about generating wealth.
I might as well send you the whiskey now :-)
Ok, that will do. I'll send you a personal message with the address. Laphroaig please.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
He had a few decent ones. Religion is relief from the grinding misery of day to day life and the promise of better to come: as long as you do what you are told and accept your fate in this life. Cover yourself in a veil and obey your husband, you'll go to heaven; accept you have nothing while the bloke in the castle has everything, including full control of your life, and you'll go to heaven. Don't kick up a fuss, take every knock you get, life is shit, but who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.
For a believer, atheism is as much a wilful delusion as religious belief is to an atheist. They would argue we're seperated from the divine every day by nothing more than a fine veil. We just choose to ignore.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
He had a few decent ones. Religion is relief from the grinding misery of day to day life and the promise of better to come: as long as you do what you are told and accept your fate in this life. Cover yourself in a veil and obey your husband, you'll go to heaven; accept you have nothing while the bloke in the castle has everything, including full control of your life, and you'll go to heaven. Don't kick up a fuss, take every knock you get, life is shit, but who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.
It's a wonderful thing that your wife has faith. It gives her the strength to endure a horrendous reality.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
He had a few decent ones. Religion is relief from the grinding misery of day to day life and the promise of better to come: as long as you do what you are told and accept your fate in this life. Cover yourself in a veil and obey your husband, you'll go to heaven; accept you have nothing while the bloke in the castle has everything, including full control of your life, and you'll go to heaven. Don't kick up a fuss, take every knock you get, life is shit, but who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.
Well then you should understand why Muslims will not easily relinquish their faith, however brutal or austere, even if given the vote and plasma screen TVs.
It's not because they're stupid, not because they've been fed some "opium", it's got nothing to do with power - derrr - it's because their religion is, to them, a beautiful thing which gives life rich significance. Which is why their faith isn't going anywhere. Which is why we need to be very careful importing millions of believers, who belong to a religion becoming more medieval by the day.
Of course I understand that. Stepping back, though, I can't help noticing how effective all religions have been in entrenching and reinforcing powerful elites.
Meanwhile 40% of them think the Koran should be accepted as part of Danish law, 10% want Denmark's legislation to be entirely Islamic.
.
If you want to live in a partly Islamised Europe, that's fine and dandy. I don't. Nor do most Europeans.
Our culture has Judaeo-Christian influences but is far more than just that. It has Graeco-Roman traditions that pre-date Christianity, it has modern post-reformation traditions that have come from liberal thinking. It has original English thinking that we have evolved uniquely and independently. It is a complete melting pot.
I have a suspicion that just as many Christians look at our law and see Christianity in traditions that actually pre-date Christianity and date back to Graeco-Roman traditions, so too many of the 40% may not actually want changes but see similar influences related to the Koran (which is essentially very, very similar to Judaeo-Christian laws anyway).
I no more want to live in an Islamic State like the 10% are proposing than I want to live in an absolute and fundamental Christian one - which we don't.
Despite all the similarities, there is one very fundamental difference between the Koran and Christianity which is critical in this argument. And it is the "render unto God, render unto Caesar" doctrine, which Islam does not have. That makes it very very difficult for it to accept secularism or, indeed, to create any sort of Muslim state based on religious laws which does not ipso facto facto make non-Muslims second-class citizens and democracy problematic. How can I vote to change laws if those laws are said to be based on the word of God?
It took the Western world blood, sweat, tears and wars to get to a stage where laws are based on the will of the people expressed through election rather than on the basis of a cleric's interpretation of a holy book or one particular version of it. Having Muslims in the West who fundamentally want to overturn that basic assumption about our democracy and political settlement is a big problem. Either they change or we do. I don't want us to change this. So they will have to or live somewhere more congenial to their views.
Also much of Christian thought is a deliberate fusion of the Christian and Hellenistic traditions: both Christ and Aristotle, as Thomas Aquinas might have put it. It is very much part of Western thought in a way and to an extent which Islamic thought is not.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
He had a few decent ones. Religion is relief from the grinding misery of day to day life and the promise of better to come: as long as you do what you are told and accept your fate in this life. Cover yourself in a veil and obey your husband, you'll go to heaven; accept you have nothing while the bloke in the castle has everything, including full control of your life, and you'll go to heaven. Don't kick up a fuss, take every knock you get, life is shit, but who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.
It's a wonderful thing that your wife has faith. It gives her the strength to endure a horrendous reality.
Slightly ironic then that we're in the process of supporting uprisings/bombing the moderate Muslim countries and turning them into extreme ones. This applies to Libya, Syria, would have applied to Egypt, and arguably even applies to Iraq.
Egypt had a secular government, but the opinions of its people are some of the most extremely religious in the whole world. And the idea we were supporting bombing them is nonsense: we propped up Mubarak for years, opposed Morsi, and now back Sisi again. I would have thought that is exactly what someone of your views supports, seeing that's what you call for in Syria.
It is. Again I'm not sure who you mean by 'we', but I'd be interested to hear how 'we' opposed Morsi or backed either Mubarak (when he was being deposed) or Sisi. To my recollection the opposite was true.
I think we backed the uprising, but then withdrew support from Morsi and backed al-Sisi. Obama did not back al-Sisi initially claiming that Morsi was the elected leader, but after Morsi threatened trade with Israel I think the US shut up as well.
Looking back, the bitter truth is that the world would be a better place if Mubarak, Gadaffi, Assad and Saddam Hussein still held unquestioned power.
That is factually true. It's unfortunate, but compared with medieval islam, military dictatorship is actually a few centuries ahead in social development in comparison, though still behind democratic societies.
Some societies though are still too primitive to become democratic, in the middle east it's only in the past 40-50 years that they are living in a modern environment.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
He had a few decent ones. Religion is relief from the grinding misery of day to day life and the promise of better to come: as long as you do what you are told and accept your fate in this life. Cover yourself in a veil and obey your husband, you'll go to heaven; accept you have nothing while the bloke in the castle has everything, including full control of your life, and you'll go to heaven. Don't kick up a fuss, take every knock you get, life is shit, but who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.
I really don't think the belief that everything will be alright in Heaven is a primary motivator in religious faith. It's more the transcendent experience of the divine and the love of God. But I completely understand that's a meaningless thing to someone who hasn't felt they've experience it. It would be like explaining colour to a person who only sees in black and white.
Of course I understand that. Stepping back, though, I can't help noticing how effective all religions have been in entrenching and reinforcing powerful elites.
You might want to reflect on that last sentence, Mr Observer. Are you sure that you are not putting the cart before the horse? Perhap some elites have used the religion of the people to entrench their own position. Secondly, all religions, you can't think of exceptions? Thirdly, powerful elites have always existed, as long as humans have lived in societies there have been those at the top with the power; religion, I suggest, has nothing to do with it.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
He had a few decent ones. Religion ut who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
Well then you should understand why Muslims will not easily relinquish their faith, however brutal or austere, even if given the vote and plasma screen TVs.
It's not because they're stupid, not because they've been fed some "opium", it's got nothing to do with power - derrr - it's because their religion is, to them, a beautiful thing which gives life rich significance. Which is why their faith isn't going anywhere. Which is why we need to be very careful importing millions of believers, who belong to a religion becoming more medieval by the day.
Of course I understand that. Stepping back, though, I can't help noticing how effective all religions have been in entrenching and reinforcing powerful elites.
You're letting Spain influence you too much. Desmond Tutu, John Paul 2 in E Europe even the Ayatollah Khomeni did anything but reinforce the local elite and stop discontent.
Things were better when morality was the preserve of philosophy, and religion was reserved for ritual and ceremony. The 1st or 2nd century Roman Empire had a more enlightened approach to religion than much of the modern world.
Which reminds me, I must sacrifice a goat to Apollo.
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Your usual pompous self I see. Where did I say Alex Salmond was perfect. I merely stated an obvious fact , ie the establishment in London are kissing butt big style, they will do and say anything to try and get the Chinese to be their chums, as ever all principles out of the window aka Saudia Arabia.
The important difference is that Scotland is not pretending it is an important player at the top table when kowtowing for some trade businesses. The UK tries to maintain that pretence till events like today show just how delusional that attitude is.
Things were better when morality was the preserve of philosophy, and religion was reserved for ritual and ceremony. The 1st or 2nd century Roman Empire had a more enlightened approach to religion than much of the modern world.
Which reminds me, I must sacrifice a goat to Apollo.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.
Well then you should understand why Muslims will not easily relinquish their faith, however brutal or austere, even if given the vote and plasma screen TVs.
It's not because they're stupid, not because they've been fed some "opium", it's got nothing to do with power - derrr - it's because their religion is, to them, a beautiful thing which gives life rich significance. Which is why their faith isn't going anywhere. Which is why we need to be very careful importing millions of believers, who belong to a religion becoming more medieval by the day.
Islam is a wonderful tool like all religions to create a civilization out of nothing (that is the inspiration behind the play "The Book of Mormon"). It's designed to be a very successful one, it gives absolute power to young men because it needs soldiers to expand, it has a whole set of laws and regulations needed to build an administration and a functioning bureaucracy, but it stops at the medieval level since it has been unreformed since then. Islam is fine if you want to create a 7th century society but not a 21st one.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
He had a few decent ones. Religion ut who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
Well then you should understand why Muslims will not easily relinquish their faith, however brutal or austere, even if given the vote and plasma screen TVs.
It's not because they're stupid, not because they've been fed some "opium", it's got nothing to do with power - derrr - it's because their religion is, to them, a beautiful thing which gives life rich significance. Which is why their faith isn't going anywhere. Which is why we need to be very careful importing millions of believers, who belong to a religion becoming more medieval by the day.
Of course I understand that. Stepping back, though, I can't help noticing how effective all religions have been in entrenching and reinforcing powerful elites.
You're letting Spain influence you too much. Desmond Tutu, John Paul 2 in E Europe even the Ayatollah Khomeni did anything but reinforce the local elite and stop discontent.
JP2 challenged one elite but promoted another - the priesthood; ditto the Ayatollah and the Imams. Not sure about Des.
Of course I understand that. Stepping back, though, I can't help noticing how effective all religions have been in entrenching and reinforcing powerful elites.
You might want to reflect on that last sentence, Mr Observer. Are you sure that you are not putting the cart before the horse? Perhap some elites have used the religion of the people to entrench their own position. Secondly, all religions, you can't think of exceptions? Thirdly, powerful elites have always existed, as long as humans have lived in societies there have been those at the top with the power; religion, I suggest, has nothing to do with it.
Quite. For several centuries Christianity was the bane of the powerful in the Roman Empire, spreading mainly among the poor. The fact it was later co-opted by the powerful elite is an indictment of the elite, not of the faith.
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Your usual pompous self I see. Where did I say Alex Salmond was perfect. I merely stated an obvious fact , ie the establishment in London are kissing butt big style, they will do and say anything to try and get the Chinese to be their chums, as ever all principles out of the window aka Saudia Arabia.
The important difference is that Scotland is not pretending it is an important player at the top table when kowtowing for some trade businesses. The UK tries to maintain that pretence till events like today show just how delusional that attitude is.
That's only because you don't get to meet any major nations.
Salmond spent his time kowtowing to Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch.
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
But that's OK right? it feelz right. And its about poor people, innit. There won;t be any political implications, right?
Of course I understand that. Stepping back, though, I can't help noticing how effective all religions have been in entrenching and reinforcing powerful elites.
You might want to reflect on that last sentence, Mr Observer. Are you sure that you are not putting the cart before the horse? Perhap some elites have used the religion of the people to entrench their own position. Secondly, all religions, you can't think of exceptions? Thirdly, powerful elites have always existed, as long as humans have lived in societies there have been those at the top with the power; religion, I suggest, has nothing to do with it.
I have no doubt that religion has been hijacked to serve many purposes. I genuinely cannot think of a religion that does not, to some extent at least, involve a hierarchy of some kind. But I freely admit I am not an expert. And I also feely admit that religion has done tremendous good.
Slightly ironic then that we're in the process of supporting uprisings/bombing the moderate Muslim countries and turning them into extreme ones. This applies to Libya, Syria, would have applied to Egypt, and arguably even applies to Iraq.
Egypt had a secular government, but the opinions of its people are some of the most extremely religious in the whole world. And the idea we were supporting bombing them is nonsense: we propped up Mubarak for years, opposed Morsi, and now back Sisi again. I would have thought that is exactly what someone of your views supports, seeing that's what you call for in Syria.
It is. Again I'm not sure who you mean by 'we', but I'd be interested to hear how 'we' opposed Morsi or backed either Mubarak (when he was being deposed) or Sisi. To my recollection the opposite was true.
I think we backed the uprising, but then withdrew support from Morsi and backed al-Sisi. Obama did not back al-Sisi initially claiming that Morsi was the elected leader, but after Morsi threatened trade with Israel I think the US shut up as well.
Looking back, the bitter truth is that the world would be a better place if Mubarak, Gadaffi, Assad and Saddam Hussein still held unquestioned power.
The problem, as I see it, is that these sort of strongman dictators are like dams holding back rivers behind them. Eventually they burst, whether or not we assist in taking them down.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
He had a few decent ones. Religion is relief from the grinding misery of day to day life and the promise of better to come: as long as you do what you are told and accept your fate in this life. Cover yourself in a veil and obey your husband, you'll go to heaven; accept you have nothing while the bloke in the castle has everything, including full control of your life, and you'll go to heaven. Don't kick up a fuss, take every knock you get, life is shit, but who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.
I really don't think the belief that everything will be alright in Heaven is a primary motivator in religious faith. It's more the transcendent experience of the divine and the love of God. But I completely understand that's a meaningless thing to someone who hasn't felt they've experience it. It would be like explaining colour to a person who only sees in black and white.
It's not meaningless to me. It just feels unobtainable. I have sat in churches hoping for it. But it has never come.
Of course I understand that. Stepping back, though, I can't help noticing how effective all religions have been in entrenching and reinforcing powerful elites.
You might want to reflect on that last sentence, Mr Observer. Are you sure that you are not putting the cart before the horse? Perhap some elites have used the religion of the people to entrench their own position. Secondly, all religions, you can't think of exceptions? Thirdly, powerful elites have always existed, as long as humans have lived in societies there have been those at the top with the power; religion, I suggest, has nothing to do with it.
I have no doubt that religion has been hijacked to serve many purposes. I genuinely cannot think of a religion that does not, to some extent at least, involve a hierarchy of some kind. But I freely admit I am not an expert. And I also feely admit that religion has done tremendous good.
Congregationalist Christianity does not have a hierarchy, by definition.
Turning a little bit on topic, about the Trump Corbyn comparison it starts to look relatable not only with the discontent by the party base over years or decades of being frustrated by the party leaderships, but also now in internal party polling. Today it's the first poll that has Trump hitting 40% in the GOP primaries:
Mr. Taffys, it's Farron, being a muppet. One might as well complain of a skunk's odour.
He's probably trying to deliberate damage the Lords to encourage reform. Of course, if Clegg hadn't offered a reform that was the work of a delinquent then the Lords might have been reformed already.
If Muslims are becoming less keen on assimilating (and I'm not putting any faith in anything published on RT.com!), might that be because they've had over a decade of the rest of us continuously criticising them? Integration seemed to be more successful before Islamophobia became so rampant. Aggressively tell people not to wear headscarves and, guess what, people start wanting to wear headscarves. Put any group under external pressure and they will turn to each other and fall back on their traditions.
.
I think that in general, there are few places where it is better to be a Muslim than in a Western country. There is a high standard of living, you don't get persecuted for following the wrong brand of Islam, and you enjoy a large measure of religious freedom. Nor do you run the risk of barbaric punishments for violating religious laws.
So, I don't really accept the argument that it's down to us.
I really don't see how that rebuttal makes much sense. I think that in general there are few places where it is better to be *anything* than in a Western country. That doesn't stop the vast majority of the population complaining about things, because we don't all live our lives thinking about how much better off we are than had we been born in Somalia/Sudan/Syria. Maybe we should, but we don't. It is surely better to be a Conservative here than in China or Ethiopia or Canada, but Conservatives still moan about this and that and want things to be more Conservative.
Muslims here are going to respond to how they are treated, just as Eurosceptics here or Scottish nationalists or naturists or train-spotters respond to how they are treated. Treat a group in a particular way, and they will respond.
It's not about treating any of these groups better than they would be treated in some distant country. It's about how members of these groups here are treated compared to how other people here are treated.
If everyone makes a big fuss about headscarves, then people assume headscarf wearing is a really important thing.
Muslims here are not badly treated. If complain that *as Muslims* they are badly treated in Western democracies, it is highly relevant to point out their lives are so much better here than in majority-Muslim countries. And it is very relevant to focus on the religious freedoms which they enjoy here, rather than in such countries.
Your view seems to be that criticising any aspect of the behaviour of some Muslims, however abhorrent, somehow makes us the bad guys.
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Your usual pompous self I see. Where did I say Alex Salmond was perfect. I merely stated an obvious fact , ie the establishment in London are kissing butt big style, they will do and say anything to try and get the Chinese to be their chums, as ever all principles out of the window aka Saudia Arabia.
The important difference is that Scotland is not pretending it is an important player at the top table when kowtowing for some trade businesses. The UK tries to maintain that pretence till events like today show just how delusional that attitude is.
That's only because you don't get to meet any major nations.
Salmond spent his time kowtowing to Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch.
Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch are far more likely to deliver jobs than these camera puff pieces and announcement of utterly meaningless made up numbers that get reported whenever one leader meets another.
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Your usual pompous self I see. Where did I say Alex Salmond was perfect. I merely stated an obvious fact , ie the establishment in London are kissing butt big style, they will do and say anything to try and get the Chinese to be their chums, as ever all principles out of the window aka Saudia Arabia.
The important difference is that Scotland is not pretending it is an important player at the top table when kowtowing for some trade businesses. The UK tries to maintain that pretence till events like today show just how delusional that attitude is.
That's only because you don't get to meet any major nations.
Salmond spent his time kowtowing to Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch.
Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch are far more likely to deliver jobs than these camera puff pieces and announcement of utterly meaningless made up numbers that get reported whenever one leader meets another.
I'm sure Goodwin caused a net loss of jobs over his career!
Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch are far more likely to deliver jobs than these camera puff pieces and announcement of utterly meaningless made up numbers that get reported whenever one leader meets another.
I'm sure Goodwin caused a net loss of jobs over his career!
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Your usual pompous self I see. Where did I say Alex Salmond was perfect. I merely stated an obvious fact , ie the establishment in London are kissing butt big style, they will do and say anything to try and get the Chinese to be their chums, as ever all principles out of the window aka Saudia Arabia.
The important difference is that Scotland is not pretending it is an important player at the top table when kowtowing for some trade businesses. The UK tries to maintain that pretence till events like today show just how delusional that attitude is.
That's only because you don't get to meet any major nations.
Salmond spent his time kowtowing to Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch.
Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch are far more likely to deliver jobs than these camera puff pieces and announcement of utterly meaningless made up numbers that get reported whenever one leader meets another.
Goodwin wrecked more jobs than Salmond can ever create.
As for Trump and Murdoch well they seek pliable politicians with low tax expectations.
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Your usual pompous self I see. Where did I say Alex Salmond was perfect. I merely stated an obvious fact , ie the establishment in London are kissing butt big style, they will do and say anything to try and get the Chinese to be their chums, as ever all principles out of the window aka Saudia Arabia.
The important difference is that Scotland is not pretending it is an important player at the top table when kowtowing for some trade businesses. The UK tries to maintain that pretence till events like today show just how delusional that attitude is.
That's only because you don't get to meet any major nations.
Salmond spent his time kowtowing to Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch.
Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch are far more likely to deliver jobs than these camera puff pieces and announcement of utterly meaningless made up numbers that get reported whenever one leader meets another.
Goodwin wrecked more jobs than Salmond can ever create.
As for Trump and Murdoch well they seek pliable politicians with low tax expectations.
Sums up the SNP.
Little gets as funny as PB Tories ending up in such a discursive fankle that they start criticising the SNP for wanting to offer a competitive tax framework.
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Your usual pompous self I see. Where did I say Alex Salmond was perfect. I merely stated an obvious fact , ie the establishment in London are kissing butt big style, they will do and say anything to try and get the Chinese to be their chums, as ever all principles out of the window aka Saudia Arabia.
The important difference is that Scotland is not pretending it is an important player at the top table when kowtowing for some trade businesses. The UK tries to maintain that pretence till events like today show just how delusional that attitude is.
That's only because you don't get to meet any major nations.
Salmond spent his time kowtowing to Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch.
Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch are far more likely to deliver jobs than these camera puff pieces and announcement of utterly meaningless made up numbers that get reported whenever one leader meets another.
Goodwin wrecked more jobs than Salmond can ever create.
As for Trump and Murdoch well they seek pliable politicians with low tax expectations.
Sums up the SNP.
Little gets as funny as PB Tories ending up in such a discursive fankle that they start criticising the SNP for wanting to offer a competitive tax framework.
LOL why should we worry, if you ever got Indy the germans wouldn't let you do it
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Your usual pompous self I see. Where did I say Alex Salmond was perfect. I merely stated an obvious fact , ie the establishment in London are kissing butt big style, they will do and say anything to try and get the Chinese to be their chums, as ever all principles out of the window aka Saudia Arabia.
The important difference is that Scotland is not pretending it is an important player at the top table when kowtowing for some trade businesses. The UK tries to maintain that pretence till events like today show just how delusional that attitude is.
That's only because you don't get to meet any major nations.
Salmond spent his time kowtowing to Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch.
Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch are far more likely to deliver jobs than these camera puff pieces and announcement of utterly meaningless made up numbers that get reported whenever one leader meets another.
Goodwin wrecked more jobs than Salmond can ever create.
As for Trump and Murdoch well they seek pliable politicians with low tax expectations.
Sums up the SNP.
Little gets as funny as PB Tories ending up in such a discursive fankle that they start criticising the SNP for wanting to offer a competitive tax framework.
We PB Tories are infallible, and can hold two positions at once without contradiction
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Your usual pompous self I see. Where did I say Alex Salmond was perfect. I merely stated an obvious fact , ie the establishment in London are kissing butt big style, they will do and say anything to try and get the Chinese to be their chums, as ever all principles out of the window aka Saudia Arabia.
The important difference is that Scotland is not pretending it is an important player at the top table when kowtowing for some trade businesses. The UK tries to maintain that pretence till events like today show just how delusional that attitude is.
That's only because you don't get to meet any major nations.
Salmond spent his time kowtowing to Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch.
Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch are far more likely to deliver jobs than these camera puff pieces and announcement of utterly meaningless made up numbers that get reported whenever one leader meets another.
Goodwin, the man who crashed a bank? A job creator?!!! Ha Ha Ha.
Little gets as funny as PB Tories ending up in such a discursive fankle that they start criticising the SNP for wanting to offer a competitive tax framework.
LOL why should we worry, if you ever got Indy the germans wouldn't let you do it
#huendinnen
The way the Germans and the British did when they got Ireland to raise its corporation tax rate?
Oh wait. They didn't use their leverage at all. And that was with a failed economy in Ireland desperate for tens of billions of Euros (predominantly from the UK whose corporation tax they were untercutting). The most likely economic failure post Dissolution would be the rUK.
Little gets as funny as PB Tories ending up in such a discursive fankle that they start criticising the SNP for wanting to offer a competitive tax framework.
LOL why should we worry, if you ever got Indy the germans wouldn't let you do it
#huendinnen
The way the Germans and the British did when they got Ireland to raise its corporation tax rate?
Oh wait. They didn't use their leverage at all. And that was with a failed economy in Ireland desperate for tens of billions of Euros (predominantly from the UK whose corporation tax they were untercutting). The most likely economic failure post Dissolution would be the rUK.
Really you should keep up.
Going in is different than being in and the debate on Ireland's tax isn't over just resting.
@Barnesian - I don't think he's incompetent; I just think he offers nothing new.
Who am I finding most interesting right now? Michael Gove and Johnny Mercer.
Gove is too funny-looking and sounding to be PM (unfair but true) and far too single-minded to listen. However, Mercer I could actually see becoming a future PM, but I don't know how strong his people leadership and administrative skills are. Also, his philosophy.
Right now I'd say the Tories have a string of effective first lieutenants but no obvious PM-in-waiting.
Little gets as funny as PB Tories ending up in such a discursive fankle that they start criticising the SNP for wanting to offer a competitive tax framework.
LOL why should we worry, if you ever got Indy the germans wouldn't let you do it
#huendinnen
The way the Germans and the British did when they got Ireland to raise its corporation tax rate?
Oh wait. They didn't use their leverage at all. And that was with a failed economy in Ireland desperate for tens of billions of Euros (predominantly from the UK whose corporation tax they were untercutting). The most likely economic failure post Dissolution would be the rUK.
Really you should keep up.
Going in is different than being in and the debate on Ireland's tax isn't over just resting.
Hahahahahaha.
Resting. The UK were offering Ireland a loan of £80bn which Ireland desperately needed and failed to leverage an increase in Irish Corporation Tax. If they didn't get them to change it then, they never will.
Just watching ITV as the steel jobs go in Scotland.
SNP ordered the steel for the Forth Bridge from China.
Different kind of steel.
Still they gave the contract for steel fabrication to Polish, Spanish and Chinese companies and bought German concrete from Hochtief rather than that made by Lafarge in Dunbar. So much for 'Buying Scottish'.
They'll be awarding water supply contracts to foreign companies next. Oh wait, they already have.
Little gets as funny as PB Tories ending up in such a discursive fankle that they start criticising the SNP for wanting to offer a competitive tax framework.
LOL why should we worry, if you ever got Indy the germans wouldn't let you do it
#huendinnen
The way the Germans and the British did when they got Ireland to raise its corporation tax rate?
Oh wait. They didn't use their leverage at all. And that was with a failed economy in Ireland desperate for tens of billions of Euros (predominantly from the UK whose corporation tax they were untercutting). The most likely economic failure post Dissolution would be the rUK.
Really you should keep up.
Going in is different than being in and the debate on Ireland's tax isn't over just resting.
Hahahahahaha.
Resting. The UK were offering Ireland a loan of £80bn which Ireland desperately needed and failed to leverage an increase in Irish Corporation Tax. If they didn't get them to change it then, they never will.
The issue is moving along with international efforts to harmonise tax to stop havens like Luxembourg creaming off revenues for sweet deals. It will happen by which time no doubt there'll be another massive hole in SNP calculations.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
He had a few decent ones. Religion is relief from the grinding misery of day to day life and the promise of better to come: as long as you do what you are told and accept your fate in this life. Cover yourself in a veil and obey your husband, you'll go to heaven; accept you have nothing while the bloke in the castle has everything, including full control of your life, and you'll go to heaven. Don't kick up a fuss, take every knock you get, life is shit, but who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.
ST makes "drugs" and "religion" sound interchangeable. I haven't thought of them like that before but it's kinda true isn't it.
@Barnesian - I don't think he's incompetent; I just think he offers nothing new.
Who am I finding most interesting right now? Michael Gove and Johnny Mercer.
Gove is too funny-looking and sounding to be PM (unfair but true) and far too single-minded to listen. However, Mercer I could actually see becoming a future PM, but I don't know how strong his people leadership and administrative skills are. Also, his philosophy.
Right now I'd say the Tories have a string of effective first lieutenants but no obvious PM-in-waiting.
Look away from the current front benchers. The next Conservative leader will not be Boris, Osborne (*) or May.
(*) I'm not even sure he actually wants the top job. Unlike Boris, who does.
Little gets as funny as PB Tories ending up in such a discursive fankle that they start criticising the SNP for wanting to offer a competitive tax framework.
LOL why should we worry, if you ever got Indy the germans wouldn't let you do it
#huendinnen
The way the Germans and the British did when they got Ireland to raise its corporation tax rate?
Oh wait. They didn't use their leverage at all. And that was with a failed economy in Ireland desperate for tens of billions of Euros (predominantly from the UK whose corporation tax they were untercutting). The most likely economic failure post Dissolution would be the rUK.
Really you should keep up.
Going in is different than being in and the debate on Ireland's tax isn't over just resting.
Hahahahahaha.
Resting. The UK were offering Ireland a loan of £80bn which Ireland desperately needed and failed to leverage an increase in Irish Corporation Tax. If they didn't get them to change it then, they never will.
I pointed this out at the time, I still think it was amazing that we gave Ireland the loan whilst their corporation tax undercuts us.
Little gets as funny as PB Tories ending up in such a discursive fankle that they start criticising the SNP for wanting to offer a competitive tax framework.
LOL why should we worry, if you ever got Indy the germans wouldn't let you do it
#huendinnen
The way the Germans and the British did when they got Ireland to raise its corporation tax rate?
Oh wait. They didn't use their leverage at all. And that was with a failed economy in Ireland desperate for tens of billions of Euros (predominantly from the UK whose corporation tax they were untercutting). The most likely economic failure post Dissolution would be the rUK.
Really you should keep up.
Going in is different than being in and the debate on Ireland's tax isn't over just resting.
Hahahahahaha.
Resting. The UK were offering Ireland a loan of £80bn which Ireland desperately needed and failed to leverage an increase in Irish Corporation Tax. If they didn't get them to change it then, they never will.
The issue is moving along with international efforts to harmonise tax to stop havens like Luxembourg creaming off revenues for sweet deals. It will happen by which time no doubt there'll be another massive hole in SNP calculations.
too stupid -it's the killer every time.
So you are advocating a Cartel to artificially inflate World Tax Rates against the forces of the Free Market.
Damn these PB Tories really aren't distinguishable from the worst of the Socialist International.
Little gets as funny as PB Tories ending up in such a discursive fankle that they start criticising the SNP for wanting to offer a competitive tax framework.
LOL why should we worry, if you ever got Indy the germans wouldn't let you do it
#huendinnen
The way the Germans and the British did when they got Ireland to raise its corporation tax rate?
Oh wait. They didn't use their leverage at all. And that was with a failed economy in Ireland desperate for tens of billions of Euros (predominantly from the UK whose corporation tax they were untercutting). The most likely economic failure post Dissolution would be the rUK.
Separation or otherwise, you must see that the success of Scotland and the success of England are inextricably tied. If England failed economically, an independent Scotland would be pretty quick to follow. But you nourish a fantasy that Scotland can succeed and England fail, so you can satisfy your pathological resentment. I feel really sorry for you, because you'll find your neurosis is a faithless friend. It will not be satiated by independence or any other change in external circumstances, any more than an anorexic can be cured by losing weight.
Little gets as funny as PB Tories ending up in such a discursive fankle that they start criticising the SNP for wanting to offer a competitive tax framework.
LOL why should we worry, if you ever got Indy the germans wouldn't let you do it
#huendinnen
The way the Germans and the British did when they got Ireland to raise its corporation tax rate?
Oh wait. They didn't use their leverage at all. And that was with a failed economy in Ireland desperate for tens of billions of Euros (predominantly from the UK whose corporation tax they were untercutting). The most likely economic failure post Dissolution would be the rUK.
Really you should keep up.
Going in is different than being in and the debate on Ireland's tax isn't over just resting.
Hahahahahaha.
Resting. The UK were offering Ireland a loan of £80bn which Ireland desperately needed and failed to leverage an increase in Irish Corporation Tax. If they didn't get them to change it then, they never will.
The issue is moving along with international efforts to harmonise tax to stop havens like Luxembourg creaming off revenues for sweet deals. It will happen by which time no doubt there'll be another massive hole in SNP calculations.
too stupid -it's the killer every time.
So you are advocating a Cartel to artificially inflate World Tax Rates against the forces of the Free Market.
Damn these PB Tories really aren't distinguishable from the worst of the Socialist International.
Advocating ? I think you'll find I'm simply pointing out the bleeding obvious, something which appears to pass you by repeatedly.
However now you've set the marker I shall watch with interest how the SNP will turn the tide of world opinion.
Dair on corporation tax might be the first time I've seen him be correct on Scottish economics post-independence.
I saw your post this morning and sort of agree. I stopped reading J Wiseman because he was so rude, I was not aware he was behaving so to speak so I was just passing by large volumes of type for the same reason , hence my post this am. If Logical song is around, I'd like to claim my prize/
@Barnesian - I don't think he's incompetent; I just think he offers nothing new.
Who am I finding most interesting right now? Michael Gove and Johnny Mercer.
Gove is too funny-looking and sounding to be PM (unfair but true) and far too single-minded to listen. However, Mercer I could actually see becoming a future PM, but I don't know how strong his people leadership and administrative skills are. Also, his philosophy.
Right now I'd say the Tories have a string of effective first lieutenants but no obvious PM-in-waiting.
Someone like Gove could be PM if he somehow caught the public's imagination. I have no idea how he might do that, and I don't think it's likely, but if somehow there was a general warming towards him he'd certainly be in with a shout. Perhaps to a lesser extent Osborne needs to clear that sort of a hurdle too.
I have to admit that similar logic (cough!) caused me to back Rees-Mogg one evening too
(I'm quite surprised that he's not been given a ministerial role)
@Barnesian - I don't think he's incompetent; I just think he offers nothing new.
Who am I finding most interesting right now? Michael Gove and Johnny Mercer.
Gove is too funny-looking and sounding to be PM (unfair but true) and far too single-minded to listen. However, Mercer I could actually see becoming a future PM, but I don't know how strong his people leadership and administrative skills are. Also, his philosophy.
Right now I'd say the Tories have a string of effective first lieutenants but no obvious PM-in-waiting.
Someone like Gove could be PM if he somehow caught the public's imagination. I have no idea how he might do that, and I don't think it's likely, but if somehow there was a general warming towards him he'd certainly be in with a shout. Perhaps to a lesser extent Osborne needs to clear that sort of a hurdle too.
I have to admit that similar logic (cough!) caused me to back Rees-Mogg one evening too
(I'm quite surprised that he's not been given a ministerial role)
Everyone loves the Mogg. Even Mhairi Black, which is astonishing.
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
He had a few decent ones. Religion is relief from the grinding misery of day to day life and the promise of better to come: as long as you do what you are told and accept your fate in this life. Cover yourself in a veil and obey your husband, you'll go to heaven; accept you have nothing while the bloke in the castle has everything, including full control of your life, and you'll go to heaven. Don't kick up a fuss, take every knock you get, life is shit, but who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.
For a believer, atheism is as much a wilful delusion as religious belief is to an atheist. They would argue we're seperated from the divine every day by nothing more than a fine veil. We just choose to ignore.
I would suggest that atheism is evidentially based when set against the meanderings of the religious Corbynistas of their day and their chosen tribalisms. As Dawkins (I think) has suggested, as the strength of religious conviction increases so the corresponding IQ levels decrease. I'm sure he will have expressed that more eloquently.
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
But that's OK right? it feelz right. And its about poor people, innit. There won;t be any political implications, right?
A party that polled 24% of those elegible to vote who didn't include a manifesto commitment to cut tax credits and who's minister lied about plans to cut tax credits before the election and who opposed reform of the Lords...serves the buggers right
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
But that's OK right? it feelz right. And its about poor people, innit. There won;t be any political implications, right?
A party that polled 24% of those elegible to vote who didn't include a manifesto commitment to cut tax credits and who's minister lied about plans to cut tax credits before the election and who opposed reform of the Lords...serves the buggers right
The Glorious Labour Party only polled 20% of those eligible!
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
But that's OK right? it feelz right. And its about poor people, innit. There won;t be any political implications, right?
A party that polled 24% of those elegible to vote who didn't include a manifesto commitment to cut tax credits and who's minister lied about plans to cut tax credits before the election and who opposed reform of the Lords...serves the buggers right
Just shows what a crap, undemocratic system we have!
@Barnesian - I don't think he's incompetent; I just think he offers nothing new.
Who am I finding most interesting right now? Michael Gove and Johnny Mercer.
Gove is too funny-looking and sounding to be PM (unfair but true) and far too single-minded to listen. However, Mercer I could actually see becoming a future PM, but I don't know how strong his people leadership and administrative skills are. Also, his philosophy.
Right now I'd say the Tories have a string of effective first lieutenants but no obvious PM-in-waiting.
I wasn't calling him incompetent. It was the Speaker - in strong terms.
Well then you should understand why Muslims will not easily relinquish their faith, however brutal or austere, even if given the vote and plasma screen TVs.
It's not because they're stupid, not because they've been fed some "opium", it's got nothing to do with power - derrr - it's because their religion is, to them, a beautiful thing which gives life rich significance. Which is why their faith isn't going anywhere. Which is why we need to be very careful importing millions of believers, who belong to a religion becoming more medieval by the day.
Of course I understand that. Stepping back, though, I can't help noticing how effective all religions have been in entrenching and reinforcing powerful elites.
That is their purpose. History is as much about wealth and power creation though conflicts involving religion vs monarchy or religion vs religion, as it is about nation vs nation
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
But that's OK right? it feelz right. And its about poor people, innit. There won;t be any political implications, right?
A party that polled 24% of those elegible to vote who didn't include a manifesto commitment to cut tax credits and who's minister lied about plans to cut tax credits before the election and who opposed reform of the Lords...serves the buggers right
The Glorious Labour Party only polled 20% of those eligible!
But it's not the Labour party who have created this problem...is it
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected government
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected government
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected government
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?
Here come the whining losers - who are miles behind in the polls with the most hated leader since Caligula.
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected government
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected government
I would suggest that atheism is evidentially based when set against the meanderings of the religious Corbynistas of their day and their chosen tribalisms. As Dawkins (I think) has suggested, as the strength of religious conviction increases so the corresponding IQ levels decrease. I'm sure he will have expressed that more eloquently.
'I can't see it or measure it so it definitely doesn't exist' is hardly what I would call evidence. On the contrary, it smacks of extraordinarily unenquiring flat-earthism.
Dawkins is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He doesn't disbelieve in God, he is angry with God - on a mission against God. That's what militant atheists are - people locked in their own internal struggle with spirituality.
Of course I understand that. Stepping back, though, I can't help noticing how effective all religions have been in entrenching and reinforcing powerful elites.
You might want to reflect on that last sentence, Mr Observer. Are you sure that you are not putting the cart before the horse? Perhap some elites have used the religion of the people to entrench their own position. Secondly, all religions, you can't think of exceptions? Thirdly, powerful elites have always existed, as long as humans have lived in societies there have been those at the top with the power; religion, I suggest, has nothing to do with it.
I have no doubt that religion has been hijacked to serve many purposes. I genuinely cannot think of a religion that does not, to some extent at least, involve a hierarchy of some kind. But I freely admit I am not an expert. And I also feely admit that religion has done tremendous good.
Religion has also done, and continues to do, terrible evil.
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
But that's OK right? it feelz right. And its about poor people, innit. There won;t be any political implications, right?
The government's opponents will try and block its programme wherever they think they can get away with it.
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected government
What he's saying is that they have no mandate
Rubbish
24% and elected on the back of a bunch of lies
Mr Kraken, it's nothing to do with the lies. Whether there were lies of not.
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected government
What he's saying is that they have no mandate
Rubbish
24% and elected on the back of a bunch of lies
You really do take the biscuit
Tell me...why do you think the tax credits weren't in the Tory manifesto...why do you think that Cameron and Gove lied about plans to cut tax credits. Was it accidental or was it a deliberate attempt to misguide the electorate? If they'd been honest they wouldn't have won a majority.
@georgeeaton: Seumas Milne set to be announced as Jeremy Corbyn's director of communications, Labour sources confirm to me.
This is quite, quite extraordinary.
I'm actually astonished that Seumas Milne is willing to get involved with Labour at all. His personal positions are far to the left of Corbyn. (Realistically Corbyn is "hard left" in the Labourite socialist mold, but Milne is authentically "far left" and has more in common with the various communist/Trotskyist minor parties.)
I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected government
What he's saying is that they have no mandate
Rubbish
24% and elected on the back of a bunch of lies
You really do take the biscuit
Tell me...why do you think the tax credits weren't in the Tory manifesto...why do you think that Cameron and Gove lied about plans to cut tax credits. Was it accidental or was it a deliberate attempt to misguide the electorate? If they'd been honest they wouldn't have won a majority.
They stated clearly they would reduce welfare by billions - and labour never had nor never will have any trust from the electorate on welfare or the economy
Comments
In normal circumstances your 10 year cycle would be spot on, but since the last downturn was late and quite severe I suspect we'll hit this one that bit later so say 2019 or 2020.
Just in time for an election.
Osborne is a political chancellor in the Brown mould, lots of clever ideas for trapping his enemies and moving money around but no interest in or clue about generating wealth.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34579077
Edit: Click on key video to find clip.
It took the Western world blood, sweat, tears and wars to get to a stage where laws are based on the will of the people expressed through election rather than on the basis of a cleric's interpretation of a holy book or one particular version of it. Having Muslims in the West who fundamentally want to overturn that basic assumption about our democracy and political settlement is a big problem. Either they change or we do. I don't want us to change this. So they will have to or live somewhere more congenial to their views.
Also much of Christian thought is a deliberate fusion of the Christian and Hellenistic traditions: both Christ and Aristotle, as Thomas Aquinas might have put it. It is very much part of Western thought in a way and to an extent which Islamic thought is not.
It's unfortunate, but compared with medieval islam, military dictatorship is actually a few centuries ahead in social development in comparison, though still behind democratic societies.
Some societies though are still too primitive to become democratic, in the middle east it's only in the past 40-50 years that they are living in a modern environment.
Which reminds me, I must sacrifice a goat to Apollo.
It's designed to be a very successful one, it gives absolute power to young men because it needs soldiers to expand, it has a whole set of laws and regulations needed to build an administration and a functioning bureaucracy, but it stops at the medieval level since it has been unreformed since then.
Islam is fine if you want to create a 7th century society but not a 21st one.
Salmond spent his time kowtowing to Goodwin, Trump and Murdoch.
But that's OK right? it feelz right. And its about poor people, innit. There won;t be any political implications, right?
you can hardly expect a religion to not to promote it's own interests can you ?
http://morningconsult.com/2015/10/poll-clintons-image-improves-after-debate/
Almost all the polls now have Trump on the rise once more.
He's probably trying to deliberate damage the Lords to encourage reform. Of course, if Clegg hadn't offered a reform that was the work of a delinquent then the Lords might have been reformed already.
Your view seems to be that criticising any aspect of the behaviour of some Muslims, however abhorrent, somehow makes us the bad guys.
I think you're just playing devil's advocate.
Maybe. Next year, one of the two main Mayoral candidates (a muslim) will propose that we allow positive discrimination for, amongst others, muslims.
How can anyone argue that muslims aren;t well treated in a society like that, by absolutely any standards??
As for Trump and Murdoch well they seek pliable politicians with low tax expectations.
Sums up the SNP.
#huendinnen
SNP ordered the steel for the Forth Bridge from China.
Oh wait. They didn't use their leverage at all. And that was with a failed economy in Ireland desperate for tens of billions of Euros (predominantly from the UK whose corporation tax they were untercutting). The most likely economic failure post Dissolution would be the rUK.
Looks like Marine Le Pen is off the hook on charges of racism
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/10/20/01016-20151020ARTFIG00295-prieres-de-rue-relaxe-requise-pour-marine-le-pen.php
Going in is different than being in and the debate on Ireland's tax isn't over just resting.
Who am I finding most interesting right now? Michael Gove and Johnny Mercer.
Gove is too funny-looking and sounding to be PM (unfair but true) and far too single-minded to listen. However, Mercer I could actually see becoming a future PM, but I don't know how strong his people leadership and administrative skills are. Also, his philosophy.
Right now I'd say the Tories have a string of effective first lieutenants but no obvious PM-in-waiting.
Resting. The UK were offering Ireland a loan of £80bn which Ireland desperately needed and failed to leverage an increase in Irish Corporation Tax. If they didn't get them to change it then, they never will.
They'll be awarding water supply contracts to foreign companies next. Oh wait, they already have.
too stupid -it's the killer every time.
(*) I'm not even sure he actually wants the top job. Unlike Boris, who does.
Damn these PB Tories really aren't distinguishable from the worst of the Socialist International.
@georgeeaton: Seumas Milne set to be announced as Jeremy Corbyn's director of communications, Labour sources confirm to me.
However now you've set the marker I shall watch with interest how the SNP will turn the tide of world opinion.
Or not.
He's also a defender of the Kremlin's actions.
Genius.
I have to admit that similar logic (cough!) caused me to back Rees-Mogg one evening too
(I'm quite surprised that he's not been given a ministerial role)
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/656418571602546688
Perhaps you're right, maybe Gove could surprise?
Remember Dave's choice of Director of Communications made Cameron resign as PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34580984
It's worth watching. There may be consequences.
Well then you should understand why Muslims will not easily relinquish their faith, however brutal or austere, even if given the vote and plasma screen TVs.
It's not because they're stupid, not because they've been fed some "opium", it's got nothing to do with power - derrr - it's because their religion is, to them, a beautiful thing which gives life rich significance. Which is why their faith isn't going anywhere. Which is why we need to be very careful importing millions of believers, who belong to a religion becoming more medieval by the day.
Of course I understand that. Stepping back, though, I can't help noticing how effective all religions have been in entrenching and reinforcing powerful elites.
That is their purpose. History is as much about wealth and power creation though conflicts involving religion vs monarchy or religion vs religion, as it is about nation vs nation
Seamus Milne's appointment is insane.
Dawkins is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He doesn't disbelieve in God, he is angry with God - on a mission against God. That's what militant atheists are - people locked in their own internal struggle with spirituality.
317 to 295 Maj 22
How many Tory abstentions?
It's the "only" 24% that denies them the right.
majority.
I'm actually astonished that Seumas Milne is willing to get involved with Labour at all. His personal positions are far to the left of Corbyn. (Realistically Corbyn is "hard left" in the Labourite socialist mold, but Milne is authentically "far left" and has more in common with the various communist/Trotskyist minor parties.)