Alan Yentob is in all sorts of trouble with Kids company. It's unclear where all the money went, but it certainly didn't go to 'kids'. My hunch is jail sentences all round.
There have been reports in press about where some of the money went.
Private school fees, bungs for staff, South London drug dealers, £150 pairs of trainers.
It wasn't a charity. It was Xmas, every day of the week.
@Robert___Harris: By next election Corbyn will be 70, McDonnell 68, Milne 62. Will look more like a Poltiburo tribute band than the wave of the future.
Labourlist have a picture which I took to be the gentleman in question. He looks a lot younger than 62, or is it someone else?
One also has to ask how good he will be, within the narrow remit of his job
Day 1 - See if you can get a female Tory MP giving her maiden speech highly critical of a major plank of Government policy ahead of a news story about an obscure back room appointment in the shadlow leader's office?
Seumas Milne's appointment really is a Westminster village story. No one outside SW1 who isn't a political obsessive will notice much, and certainly no one who is a floating voter.
That said, sometimes Westminster village stories matter because of the impact on the villagers. There are going to be huge numbers of hacked off Labour MPs tonight. They're going to be even more mutinous as a consequence.
People can mine his past history for embarassing quotes. Particularly some of the stuff on 9/11 and Lee Rigby, and it will play into existing damaging narratives.
Though I suppose if Cameron can get by largely unscathed from Coulson I might be overestimating the impact. Maybe people expect this role to be filled by bastards.
One also has to ask how good he will be, within the narrow remit of his job (setting aside his appalling history of dubious opinions, now being trawled, at leisure, by chortling Tory aides).
He was a click-baiting columnist for the Guardian, FFS. A silly posh twat employed solely to tickle the paper's older, leftier readers, and occasionally bring in some online visitors by expressing an outre opinion about dead British soldiers.
He has no visible skills when it comes to mass appeal. None at all. None whatsoever.
Frankly I wish that he'd signed up Polly Toynbee instead.
Seumas Milne's appointment really is a Westminster village story. No one outside SW1 who isn't a political obsessive will notice much, and certainly no one who is a floating voter.
That said, sometimes Westminster village stories matter because of the impact on the villagers. There are going to be huge numbers of hacked off Labour MPs tonight. They're going to be even more mutinous as a consequence.
I do think this will resonate outside the Westminster village because the media will have a field day with inflammatory quotes.
SM appointed a touch of "Sado Masochism" methinks.. You think long and hard about how Corbyn got to where he is but Milne is a WTF moment with knobs on.
SM appointed a touch of "Sado Masochism" methinks.. You think long and hard about how Corbyn got to where he is but Milne is a WTF moment with knobs on.
@Robert___Harris: By next election Corbyn will be 70, McDonnell 68, Milne 62. Will look more like a Poltiburo tribute band than the wave of the future.
Seumas Milne's appointment really is a Westminster village story. No one outside SW1 who isn't a political obsessive will notice much, and certainly no one who is a floating voter.
That said, sometimes Westminster village stories matter because of the impact on the villagers. There are going to be huge numbers of hacked off Labour MPs tonight. They're going to be even more mutinous as a consequence.
Well, quite. This will mean ZERO to voters, but an awful lot to MPs. I have left wing Guardianista friends who loathe and despise the public-school-commie, SeUmas Milne view of the world, and would rather not vote than give it house room.
He is a full on Trot. The real deal. He's not even lefty Labour - he's an out and out America-phobic, capitalism-hating, Islsmist-luvvin, Stalin-admiring TROTSKYITE.
I do pity sane Labourites, tonight. It's like seeing a friend's face being covered with a weird fungus.
He's an out and out Stalinist rather than a Trot surely?
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
Clinton also leads Marco Rubio by one point (46 percent to 45 percent) and Ted Cruz by eight points (49 percent to 41 percent).
By comparison, Democratic rival Bernie Sanders is ahead of Carson by one point (44 percent to 43 percent), Rubio by four points (45 percent to 41 percent) and Cruz by 12 points (50 percent to 38 percent).
The NBC/WSJ poll shows a generic Democrat holding a one-point advantage a generic Republican in a presidential contest, 41 percent to 40 percent; it was 38 percent to 38 percent a month ago.
Democratic Party vs. GOP: In the mainstream or not?
The new NBC/WSJ poll also measured which political party was in the mainstream - or outside the mainstream - on six different issues:
Gay marriage: 63 percent said the Democratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
Seumas Milne's appointment really is a Westminster village story. No one outside SW1 who isn't a political obsessive will notice much, and certainly no one who is a floating voter.
That said, sometimes Westminster village stories matter because of the impact on the villagers. There are going to be huge numbers of hacked off Labour MPs tonight. They're going to be even more mutinous as a consequence.
People can mine his past history for embarassing quotes. Particularly some of the stuff on 9/11 and Lee Rigby, and it will play into existing damaging narratives.
Though I suppose if Cameron can get by largely unscathed from Coulson I might be overestimating the impact. Maybe people expect this role to be filled by bastards.
One also has to ask how good he will be, within the narrow remit of his job (setting aside his appalling history of dubious opinions, now being trawled, at leisure, by chortling Tory aides).
He was a click-baiting columnist for the Guardian, FFS. A silly posh twat employed solely to tickle the paper's older, leftier readers, and occasionally bring in some online visitors by expressing an outre opinion about dead British soldiers.
He has no visible skills when it comes to mass appeal. None at all. None whatsoever.
Frankly I wish that he'd signed up Polly Toynbee instead.
But of course she's a woman so not eligible.
Having previously worked on-camera at the Beeb, and being more associated with mainstream, albeit left-leaning, Labour than the far left, I think Toynbee would arguably have had a better skill-set and a more useful political background.
Alan Yentob is in all sorts of trouble with Kids company. It's unclear where all the money went, but it certainly didn't go to 'kids'. My hunch is jail sentences all round.
There have been reports in press about where some of the money went.
Any links? I can't stand trendy tossers like Yentob, would love to see him brought back to the real world.
Seumas Milne's appointment really is a Westminster village story. No one outside SW1 who isn't a political obsessive will notice much, and certainly no one who is a floating voter.
That said, sometimes Westminster village stories matter because of the impact on the villagers. There are going to be huge numbers of hacked off Labour MPs tonight. They're going to be even more mutinous as a consequence.
I do think this will resonate outside the Westminster village because the media will have a field day with inflammatory quotes.
I'm just waiting for the Facebook messages of people bemoaning how the evil right wing press are taking comments out of context.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
The next election is nearly five years away.
Tonight is irrelevant. 2020 will matter.
If Labour line up with a bunch of Hezbollah sympathising, IRA commending, Stalinist apologists as their face and message - they are taking one hell of a beating.
"He is a full on Trot. The real deal. He's not even lefty Labour - he's an out and out America-phobic, capitalism-hating, Islsmist-luvvin, Stalin-admiring TROTSKYITE."
Forgive me, I know nothing of the man but is it possible to be a Trotskyite who admires Stalin? My knowledge of the loonier end of communist splinter groups is feeble but I was rather under the impression that Trotskyism and Stalinism were incompatible.
This isn't the same Milne who wrote the Winnie the Pooh books, right?
At least with AA one knew how to pronounce his name.
Soymas? If it turns out the be Seamus then it's just embarrassing. Spelling your own name in a sensible way must surely be at the base of all communication.
This isn't the same Milne who wrote the Winnie the Pooh books, right?
At least with AA one knew how to pronounce his name.
Soymas? If it turns out the be Seamus then it's just embarrassing. Spelling your own name in a sensible way must surely be at the base of all communication.
"He is a full on Trot. The real deal. He's not even lefty Labour - he's an out and out America-phobic, capitalism-hating, Islsmist-luvvin, Stalin-admiring TROTSKYITE."
Forgive me, I know nothing of the man but is it possible to be a Trotskyite who admires Stalin? My knowledge of the loonier end of communist splinter groups is feeble but I was rather under the impression that Trotskyism and Stalinism were incompatible.
Lefties aren't the most intelligent of people. Quite easy for one of them to hold such a view
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
Are you happy with the direction your party are heading?
Well I never expected to be to the right of the leader.
I am firmly anti austerity, slightly pro european and probably a multilateral rather than unilateral disarmament man. So lets see. I am much closer to Corbyn than i am Danczuk and Kendall though.
When I canvassed 2 weeks ago got quite a few "about time Labour was Labour" comments and not one "their all the same". The latter being the most common comment in the past.
I think Chesterfield in general supports the Corbyn direction but its not a marginal. I doubt Lab will win many of any English marginals in GE 2020. i guess i hope unpopularity of Tory policies make it close
It's very poorly tailored to him. He should have gone for a fitting.
Late to the party - apologies. Corbyn looks as if he's the after dinner entertainment. "And for my next trick I shall mix magic with comedy: out of nowhere, another joke appointment. Ta dah!"
Oh dear. I think the only elusive mythical creature that there's no trace of here is a coherent argument.
The fact you don't understand the argument does not mean it is incoherent.
I understand how disastrously incoherent it is.
It is entirely coherent. You are committing a logical fallacy in putting the burden of proof on disproving a myth. If someone is proposing something's existence like gods or orbital tea pots or invisible pink unicorns or anything like it then it is up to them to provide evidence for its existence, not up to others to disprove it.
As Bertrand Russell put it:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
But many "believers" are just that, believing what they are told by someone in religious authority over them. There is no faith in that process - it's more akin to gullibility. I agree your point about the impossibility of proving a negative but in this instance, and this being a betting blog, what are the odds against the existence of God being proven in the next 10 years? Even something as stretched as 1,000,000 to 1 still implies there is a 1 in 1,000,001 chance. I wouldn't risk £1 unless I was having a Dirty Harry moment.
Alan Yentob is in all sorts of trouble with Kids company. It's unclear where all the money went, but it certainly didn't go to 'kids'. My hunch is jail sentences all round.
There have been reports in press about where some of the money went.
Any links? I can't stand trendy tossers like Yentob, would love to see him brought back to the real world.
Links between the media and Yentob have been roundly denied. They've never heard of him. The BBC especially are investigating whether he may have visited their premises as an imposter. The simple trick of professed self-importance having seemingly allowed him access to all sorts of areas.
Labour are rumoured to be watching these developments carefully.
Seumas Milne's appointment really is a Westminster village story. No one outside SW1 who isn't a political obsessive will notice much, and certainly no one who is a floating voter.
That said, sometimes Westminster village stories matter because of the impact on the villagers. There are going to be huge numbers of hacked off Labour MPs tonight. They're going to be even more mutinous as a consequence.
Well, quite. This will mean ZERO to voters, but an awful lot to MPs. I have left wing Guardianista friends who loathe and despise the public-school-commie, SeUmas Milne view of the world, and would rather not vote than give it house room.
He is a full on Trot. The real deal. He's not even lefty Labour - he's an out and out America-phobic, capitalism-hating, Islsmist-luvvin, Stalin-admiring TROTSKYITE.
I do pity sane Labourites, tonight. It's like seeing a friend's face being covered with a weird fungus.
Lack of knowledge of history on full display. Like "Al-Qaeda loving Shia".
I expect Corbyn's support base will welcome this appointment, and defend it vociferously on social media.
I don't know what it says about Corbyn, Labour, the situation of politics in this country at the moment, or me, that I'm no longer even shocked by such things.
On the other hand, I am still intensely irritated about the Canadian election result. I really liked Harper.
Oh dear. I think the only elusive mythical creature that there's no trace of here is a coherent argument.
The fact you don't understand the argument does not mean it is incoherent.
I understand how disastrously incoherent it is.
It is entirely coherent. You are committing a logical fallacy in putting the burden of proof on disproving a myth. If someone is proposing something's existence like gods or orbital tea pots or invisible pink unicorns or anything like it then it is up to them to provide evidence for its existence, not up to others to disprove it.
As Bertrand Russell put it:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
But many "believers" are just that, believing what they are told by someone in religious authority over them. There is no faith in that process - it's more akin to gullibility. I agree your point about the impossibility of proving a negative but in this instance, and this being a betting blog, what are the odds against the existence of God being proven in the next 10 years? Even something as stretched as 1,000,000 to 1 still implies there is a 1 in 1,000,001 chance. I wouldn't risk £1 unless I was having a Dirty Harry moment.
Now, if you are going to talk about a bet on the existence of God then you really should read up on Pascal's Wager.
P.S. Faith comes from within not from someone in authority.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
Are you happy with the direction your party are heading?
Well I never expected to be to the right of the leader.
I am firmly anti austerity, slightly pro european and probably a multilateral rather than unilateral disarmament man. So lets see. I am much closer to Corbyn than i am Danczuk and Kendall though.
When I canvassed 2 weeks ago got quite a few "about time Labour was Labour" comments and not one "their all the same". The latter being the most common comment in the past.
I think Chesterfield in general supports the Corbyn direction but its not a marginal. I doubt Lab will win many of any English marginals in GE 2020. i guess i hope unpopularity of Tory policies make it close
At least you know where you stand with him, as opposed to the likes of Burnham who stand for whatever will get them elected.
However Labour need to win back the WWC and they couldn't have picked someone least likely to do that.
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
Clinton also leads Marco Rubio by one point (46 percent to 45 percent) and Ted Cruz by eight points (49 percent to 41 percent).
By comparison, Democratic rival Bernie Sanders is ahead of Carson by one point (44 percent to 43 percent), Rubio by four points (45 percent to 41 percent) and Cruz by 12 points (50 percent to 38 percent).
The NBC/WSJ poll shows a generic Democrat holding a one-point advantage a generic Republican in a presidential contest, 41 percent to 40 percent; it was 38 percent to 38 percent a month ago.
Democratic Party vs. GOP: In the mainstream or not?
The new NBC/WSJ poll also measured which political party was in the mainstream - or outside the mainstream - on six different issues:
Gay marriage: 63 percent said the Democratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
@Robert___Harris: By next election Corbyn will be 70, McDonnell 68, Milne 62. Will look more like a Poltiburo tribute band than the wave of the future.
Labourlist have a picture which I took to be the gentleman in question. He looks a lot younger than 62, or is it someone else?
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
People can believe in whatever made up nonsense they want. But scientifically suggesting we need to disprove the existence of gods is like suggesting we need to disprove the existence of Santa and Elves who are magically invisible to adults. You can believe in whatever fairy tales you like but that doesn't mean that the absence of evidence is a virtue. Scientifically there are no gods as there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the plethora of them mankind has invented.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
For a very intelligent man he does sometimes writes shit !
I expect Corbyn's support base will welcome this appointment, and defend it vociferously on social media.
I don't know what it says about Corbyn, Labour, the situation of politics in this country at the moment, or me, that I'm no longer even shocked by such things.
On the other hand, I am still intensely irritated about the Canadian election result. I really liked Harper.
This was written by a canadian conservative about Harper's political legacy:
According to him Harper was just a corrupt sleaze ball who always never did what he promised and he promised a lot, in the end everyone hated him and why not, he even forced taxpayers to pay for his political ads, his secretary committed mass election fraud on his behalf and is in jail and had a senator of his to steal taxpayers money to fund his party.
Harper was simply a case of a dishonest liar and corrupt fraudster that made everyone hate him and his party with a vengeance, and the voters got his head on a silver plate.
@faisalislam: Diplomatic implications of @JustinTrudeau election: “@AFP: #BREAKING Canada withdrawing fighter jets from Iraq, Syria, Trudeau tells Obama”
Trudeau has said Canadian forces will focus on training the Iraqi army to fight ISIS instead, it is not simply a pacifist approach and I doubt losing the two jets of the Canadian Air Force is really going to make much difference either way, especially as the Russians and Americans and French are bombing in the region anyway
Oh dear. I think the only elusive mythical creature that there's no trace of here is a coherent argument.
The fact you don't understand the argument does not mean it is incoherent.
I understand how disastrously incoherent it is.
It is entirely coherent. You are committing a logical fallacy in putting the burden of proof on disproving a myth. If someone is proposing something's existence like gods or orbital tea pots or invisible pink unicorns or anything like it then it is up to them to provide evidence for its existence, not up to others to disprove it.
As Bertrand Russell put it:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
But many "believers" are just that, believing what they are told by someone in religious authority over them. There is no faith in that process - it's more akin to gullibility. I agree your point about the impossibility of proving a negative but in this instance, and this being a betting blog, what are the odds against the existence of God being proven in the next 10 years? Even something as stretched as 1,000,000 to 1 still implies there is a 1 in 1,000,001 chance. I wouldn't risk £1 unless I was having a Dirty Harry moment.
I'm quite sure various insurance companies will declare any number of events to be Acts of God in that period.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
People can believe in whatever made up nonsense they want. But scientifically suggesting we need to disprove the existence of gods is like suggesting we need to disprove the existence of Santa and Elves who are magically invisible to adults. You can believe in whatever fairy tales you like but that doesn't mean that the absence of evidence is a virtue. Scientifically there are no gods as there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the plethora of them mankind has invented.
Ok.
So why did the Big Bang happen?
There's a lot of interesting research going into that, though as Stephen Hawking has said there was no time before the Big Bang.
What there is not is evidence that Odin, Thor, Yahweh, Zeus, Santa or any other myth man has invented triggered the Big Bang.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
I am anti the self indulgence of giving the Tories a free run, giving up on striving to govern and abandoning those Labour has traditionally sought power to stand up for, all for the sake of some kind of ideological purity that resonates in a vanishingly small part of the British electorate. I am not anti-Labour. What's the point? The party is making itself irrelevant. I wish it were otherwise, but we are where we are.
@faisalislam: Diplomatic implications of @JustinTrudeau election: “@AFP: #BREAKING Canada withdrawing fighter jets from Iraq, Syria, Trudeau tells Obama”
Trudeau has said Canadian forces will focus on training the Iraqi army to fight ISIS instead, it is not simply a pacifist approach and I doubt losing the two jets of the Canadian Air Force is really going to make much difference either way, especially as the Russians and Americans and French are bombing in the region anyway
From what I read on here, Corbyn seems to be bombing everywhere
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
IIRC SouthamObserver has been a consistent cheerleader for Labour on this site for a number of years. Not an unthinking 'labour are always right', but certainly a strong supporter. If people like him are repulsed by Corbyn what message does that tell you about the toxic effect of his leadership is having to the Labour brand?
How one earth do you draw back people who voted Conservative in may if even those who voted Labour are walking away?
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
People can believe in whatever made up nonsense they want. But scientifically suggesting we need to disprove the existence of gods is like suggesting we need to disprove the existence of Santa and Elves who are magically invisible to adults. You can believe in whatever fairy tales you like but that doesn't mean that the absence of evidence is a virtue. Scientifically there are no gods as there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the plethora of them mankind has invented.
Ok.
So why did the Big Bang happen?
There's a lot of interesting research going into that, though as Stephen Hawking has said there was no time before the Big Bang.
A theory which, pleasingly, was first put forward by St Augustine.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
I can.
It is Southams right to post Labour isn't serious about Government in every post if he wishes.
Heck EICIPM was a bit on the repetitive side.
I have the right to be saddened by his Anti Labour stance.
I am Old Labour and want Corbyn to win however unlikely that might be.
I expect Corbyn's support base will welcome this appointment, and defend it vociferously on social media.
I don't know what it says about Corbyn, Labour, the situation of politics in this country at the moment, or me, that I'm no longer even shocked by such things.
On the other hand, I am still intensely irritated about the Canadian election result. I really liked Harper.
This was written by a canadian conservative about Harper's political legacy:
According to him Harper was just a corrupt sleaze ball who always never did what he promised and he promised a lot, in the end everyone hated him and why not, he even forced taxpayers to pay for his political ads, his secretary committed mass election fraud on his behalf and is in jail and had a senator of his to steal taxpayers money to fund his party.
Harper was simply a case of a dishonest liar and corrupt fraudster that made everyone hate him and his party with a vengeance, and the voters got his head on a silver plate.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
I can.
It is Southams right to post Labour isn't serious about Government in every post if he wishes.
Heck EICIPM was a bit on the repetitive side.
I have the right to be saddened by his Anti Labour stance.
I am Old Labour and want Corbyn to win however unlikely that might be.
He's not anti-Labour; he's anti-Corbyn. It's Corbyn who's anti-Labour in giving the Tories a free run and a very good shot at governing until at least 2030.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
Neither Corbyn nor Milne are Militants. I was also closely involved in the affairs of the Labour Party in the '80s. The Militant were not that sound ideologically. In fact, there were few intellectual writings. Those who did write, wrote mostly incoherent rubbish ! They were more like freemasons, very secretive.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
People can believe in whatever made up nonsense they want. But scientifically suggesting we need to disprove the existence of gods is like suggesting we need to disprove the existence of Santa and Elves who are magically invisible to adults. You can believe in whatever fairy tales you like but that doesn't mean that the absence of evidence is a virtue. Scientifically there are no gods as there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the plethora of them mankind has invented.
Ok.
So why did the Big Bang happen?
There's a lot of interesting research going into that, though as Stephen Hawking has said there was no time before the Big Bang.
A theory which, pleasingly, was first put forward by St Augustine.
Now we know he was a genuine guy - he was named after a city in Florida.
@faisalislam: Diplomatic implications of @JustinTrudeau election: “@AFP: #BREAKING Canada withdrawing fighter jets from Iraq, Syria, Trudeau tells Obama”
Trudeau has said Canadian forces will focus on training the Iraqi army to fight ISIS instead, it is not simply a pacifist approach and I doubt losing the two jets of the Canadian Air Force is really going to make much difference either way, especially as the Russians and Americans and French are bombing in the region anyway
From what I read on here, Corbyn seems to be bombing everywhere
Yes and will probably implode in about 2 years time!
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
Neither Corbyn nor Milne are Militants. I was also closely involved in the affairs of the Labour Party in the '80s. The Militant were not that sound ideologically. In fact, there were few intellectual writings. Those who did write, wrote mostly incoherent rubbish ! They were more like freemasons, very secretive.
The Freemasons may be secretive, but they don't write 'incoherent rubbish'. Hardly an apt comparison.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
I am anti the self indulgence of giving the Tories a free run, giving up on striving to govern and abandoning those Labour has traditionally sought power to stand up for, all for the sake of some kind of ideological purity that resonates in a vanishingly small part of the British electorate. I am not anti-Labour. What's the point? The party is making itself irrelevant. I wish it were otherwise, but we are where we are.
As you say we are where we are.
Corbyn is leader and whilst that is the case I will support him.
You have the right to think the party is making itself irrelevant and say it in every post if you wish.
I hope you are as wrong as i was with EICIPM but we will find out
Goodnight this programme about the KKK is driving me to bed early
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
I can.
It is Southams right to post Labour isn't serious about Government in every post if he wishes.
Heck EICIPM was a bit on the repetitive side.
I have the right to be saddened by his Anti Labour stance.
I am Old Labour and want Corbyn to win however unlikely that might be.
He's not anti-Labour; he's anti-Corbyn. It's Corbyn who's anti-Labour in giving the Tories a free run and a very good shot at governing until at least 2030.
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
Clinton also leads Marco Rubio by one point (46 percent to 45 percent) and Ted Cruz by eight points (49 percent to 41 percent).
By comparison, Democratic rival Bernie Sanders is ahead of Carson by one point (44 percent to 43 percent), Rubio by four points (45 percent to 41 percent) and Cruz by 12 points (50 percent to 38 percent).
The NBC/WSJ poll shows a generic Democrat holding a one-point advantage a generic Republican in a presidential contest, 41 percent to 40 percent; it was 38 percent to 38 percent a month ago.
Democratic Party vs. GOP: In the mainstream or not?
The new NBC/WSJ poll also measured which political party was in the mainstream - or outside the mainstream - on six different issues:
Gay marriage: 63 percent said the Democratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under both a Democrat president and Republican Congress, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
I can.
It is Southams right to post Labour isn't serious about Government in every post if he wishes.
Heck EICIPM was a bit on the repetitive side.
I have the right to be saddened by his Anti Labour stance.
I am Old Labour and want Corbyn to win however unlikely that might be.
How old Labour are you, Mr Owls? Are we talking 1945 Old Labour, 1960s Wilson Old Labour 1970s Callaghan Old Labour or 1980s Kinnock Old Labour?.
Edited an extra bit: I see the conversation about the state of the Labour party has driven Mr Owls to bed early. Pity, I was really hoping to find out what "Old Labour" actually meant.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
I am anti the self indulgence of giving the Tories a free run, giving up on striving to govern and abandoning those Labour has traditionally sought power to stand up for, all for the sake of some kind of ideological purity that resonates in a vanishingly small part of the British electorate. I am not anti-Labour. What's the point? The party is making itself irrelevant. I wish it were otherwise, but we are where we are.
As you say we are where we are.
Corbyn is leader and whilst that is the case I will support him.
You have the right to think the party is making itself irrelevant and say it in every post if you wish.
I hope you are as wrong as i was with EICIPM but we will find out
Goodnight this programme about the KKK is driving me to bed early
Me too, I'm astonished these people still exist. It's like something from the 50's, I'm not even sure they are dangerous apart from to their selves.
They are certainly not scary, to me they seem laughable and pathetic.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
I can.
It is Southams right to post Labour isn't serious about Government in every post if he wishes.
Heck EICIPM was a bit on the repetitive side.
I have the right to be saddened by his Anti Labour stance.
I am Old Labour and want Corbyn to win however unlikely that might be.
He's not anti-Labour; he's anti-Corbyn. It's Corbyn who's anti-Labour in giving the Tories a free run and a very good shot at governing until at least 2030.
Corbyn is anti-Labour ? 60% voted for him ! He is Labour. The others are not. He may not win but Labour cannot win anyway unless the 2015 election is effectively reversed. The Liberal Democrats [ remember them ? ] have to win 30 Tory seats and Labour has to win back 40 SNP seats and some more from the Tories.
At least, in the next leader's election those fence-sitters might be a touch more bold, a touch more left wing and stop consulting focus groups.. Cooper [ who, sadly, I voted #1 ] said Britain should take on 10000 refugees. Even parsimonious Cameron pledged 20000.
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
Clinton also leads Marco Rubio by one point (46 percent to 45 percent) and Ted Cruz by eight points (49 percent to 41 percent).
By comparison, Democratic rival Bernie Sanders is ahead of Carson by one point (44 percent to 43 percent), Rubio by four points (45 percent to 41 percent) and Cruz by 12 points (50 percent to 38 percent).
The NBC/WSJ poll shows a generic Democrat holding a one-point advantage a generic Republican in a presidential contest, 41 percent to 40 percent; it was 38 percent to 38 percent a month ago.
Democratic Party vs. GOP: In the mainstream or not?
The new NBC/WSJ poll also measured which political party was in the mainstream - or outside the mainstream - on six different issues:
Gay marriage: 63 percent said the Democratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
Neither Corbyn nor Milne are Militants. I was also closely involved in the affairs of the Labour Party in the '80s. The Militant were not that sound ideologically. In fact, there were few intellectual writings. Those who did write, wrote mostly incoherent rubbish ! They were more like freemasons, very secretive.
I didn't oppose Militant because their pamphlets lacked rhetorical elegance. I opposed them because they were far left entryists who poisoned Labour and made the party unelectable. In practical terms I see very little difference between them and Momentum and all the other Corbynites stuck in a bubble far removed from the real world.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
People can believe in whatever made up nonsense they want. But scientifically suggesting we need to disprove the existence of gods is like suggesting we need to disprove the existence of Santa and Elves who are magically invisible to adults. You can believe in whatever fairy tales you like but that doesn't mean that the absence of evidence is a virtue. Scientifically there are no gods as there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the plethora of them mankind has invented.
Ok.
So why did the Big Bang happen?
There's a lot of interesting research going into that, though as Stephen Hawking has said there was no time before the Big Bang.
A theory which, pleasingly, was first put forward by St Augustine.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
I can.
It is Southams right to post Labour isn't serious about Government in every post if he wishes.
Heck EICIPM was a bit on the repetitive side.
I have the right to be saddened by his Anti Labour stance.
I am Old Labour and want Corbyn to win however unlikely that might be.
He's not anti-Labour; he's anti-Corbyn. It's Corbyn who's anti-Labour in giving the Tories a free run and a very good shot at governing until at least 2030.
With respect David
Whilst Corbyn is leader SO will be Anti Labour IMO as he wants them to lose at GE2020 under the current leader
Its like me wanting the mighty Owls to lose every game just because i dont like the manager.
Aint going to happen unless they appoint Warnock!!
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
I can.
It is Southams right to post Labour isn't serious about Government in every post if he wishes.
Heck EICIPM was a bit on the repetitive side.
I have the right to be saddened by his Anti Labour stance.
I am Old Labour and want Corbyn to win however unlikely that might be.
He's not anti-Labour; he's anti-Corbyn. It's Corbyn who's anti-Labour in giving the Tories a free run and a very good shot at governing until at least 2030.
Corbyn is anti-Labour ? 60% voted for him ! He is Labour. The others are not. He may not win but Labour cannot win anyway unless the 2015 election is effectively reversed. The Liberal Democrats [ remember them ? ] have to win 30 Tory seats and Labour has to win back 40 SNP seats and some more from the Tories.
At least, in the next leader's election those fence-sitters might be a touch more bold, a touch more left wing and stop consulting focus groups.. Cooper [ who, sadly, I voted #1 ] said Britain should take on 10000 refugees. Even parsimonious Cameron pledged 20000.
That is true, Corbyn is the only democratically elected Labour leader and with massive support from the Labour party, if even he is anti-Labour then what makes Liz Kendall ?
@Robert___Harris: By next election Corbyn will be 70, McDonnell 68, Milne 62. Will look more like a Poltiburo tribute band than the wave of the future.
Is Milne that old? I'd assumed by the style and ignorance that he was around 22.
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
But again, no-one (including Corbyn himself) expects Corbyn to still be leader in 2020. His leadership is solely about moving the centre of gravity and paving the way for a younger successor - who will hopefully indeed not be as naive/immature as Corbyn with his history of associations with terrorist organisations, while still firmly opposing right-wing economics.
Oh dear. I think the only elusive mythical creature that there's no trace of here is a coherent argument.
The fact you don't understand the argument does not mean it is incoherent.
I understand how disastrously incoherent it is.
It is entirely coherent. You are committing a logical fallacy in putting the burden of proof on disproving a myth. If someone is proposing something's existence like gods or orbital tea pots or invisible pink unicorns or anything like it then it is up to them to provide evidence for its existence, not up to others to disprove it.
As Bertrand Russell put it:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
But many "believers" are just that, believing what they are told by someone in religious authority over them. There is no faith in that process - it's more akin to gullibility. I agree your point about the impossibility of proving a negative but in this instance, and this being a betting blog, what are the odds against the existence of God being proven in the next 10 years? Even something as stretched as 1,000,000 to 1 still implies there is a 1 in 1,000,001 chance. I wouldn't risk £1 unless I was having a Dirty Harry moment.
Now, if you are going to talk about a bet on the existence of God then you really should read up on Pascal's Wager.
P.S. Faith comes from within not from someone in authority.
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
Clinton also leads Marco Rubio by one point (46 percent to 45 percent) and Ted Cruz by eight points (49 percent to 41 percent).
By comparison, Democratic rival Bernie Sanders is ahead of Carson by one point (44 percent to 43 percent), Rubio by four points (45 percent to 41 percent) and Cruz by 12 points (50 percent to 38 percent).
The NBC/WSJ poll shows a generic Democrat holding a one-point advantage a generic Republican in a presidential contest, 41 percent to 40 percent; it was 38 percent to 38 percent a month ago.
Democratic Party vs. GOP: In the mainstream or not?
The new NBC/WSJ poll also measured which political party was in the mainstream - or outside the mainstream - on six different issues:
Gay marriage: 63 percent said the Democratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is solved, as at present, with a Democrat President and GOP Congress). On immigration it is Hispanics who will turn out to vote on it, for most whites it is not the number 1 issue. Harper tried an anti immigrant niqab message yesterday and it bombed, very rarely does an anti immigrant message win elections as Hague and Howard discovered
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
Clinton also leads Marco Rubio by one point (46 percent to 45 percent) and Ted Cruz by eight points (49 percent to 41 percent).
By comparison, Democratic rival Bernie Sanders is ahead of Carson by one point (44 percent to 43 percent), Rubio by four points (45 percent to 41 percent) and Cruz by 12 points (50 percent to 38 percent).
The NBC/WSJ poll shows a generic Democrat holding a one-point advantage a generic Republican in a presidential contest, 41 percent to 40 percent; it was 38 percent to 38 percent a month ago.
Democratic Party vs. GOP: In the mainstream or not?
The new NBC/WSJ poll also measured which political party was in the mainstream - or outside the mainstream - on six different issues:
Gay marriage: 63 percent said the Democratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
Republicans will win if they can convince the public its time for a change. I suspect the Democrats may get one more term in the Oval Office before that happens, but ultimately the Americans don't like to keep one party in office for too long.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
I am anti the self indulgence of giving the Tories a free run, giving up on striving to govern and abandoning those Labour has traditionally sought power to stand up for, all for the sake of some kind of ideological purity that resonates in a vanishingly small part of the British electorate. I am not anti-Labour. What's the point? The party is making itself irrelevant. I wish it were otherwise, but we are where we are.
As you say we are where we are.
Corbyn is leader and whilst that is the case I will support him.
You have the right to think the party is making itself irrelevant and say it in every post if you wish.
I hope you are as wrong as i was with EICIPM but we will find out
Goodnight this programme about the KKK is driving me to bed early
Me too, I'm astonished these people still exist. It's like something from the 50's, I'm not even sure they are dangerous apart from to their selves.
They are certainly not scary, to me they seem laughable and pathetic.
There are not many of them, but trust me, they are scary. The remnants of the KKK have pretty much merged with the neo-Nazi folks.
Just over 30 years ago in New Jersey - NEW JERSEY - my black co-worker had a small burning cross placed on his lawn, and KKK spray painted on his garage door.
Oh dear. I think the only elusive mythical creature that there's no trace of here is a coherent argument.
The fact you don't understand the argument does not mean it is incoherent.
I understand how disastrously incoherent it is.
It is entirely coherent. You are committing a logical fallacy in putting the burden of proof on disproving a myth. If someone is proposing something's existence like gods or orbital tea pots or invisible pink unicorns or anything like it then it is up to them to provide evidence for its existence, not up to others to disprove it.
As Bertrand Russell put it:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
But many "believers" are just that, believing what they are told by someone in religious authority over them. There is no faith in that process - it's more akin to gullibility. I agree your point about the impossibility of proving a negative but in this instance, and this being a betting blog, what are the odds against the existence of God being proven in the next 10 years? Even something as stretched as 1,000,000 to 1 still implies there is a 1 in 1,000,001 chance. I wouldn't risk £1 unless I was having a Dirty Harry moment.
Now, if you are going to talk about a bet on the existence of God then you really should read up on Pascal's Wager.
P.S. Faith comes from within not from someone in authority.
Your PS repeats my contention to what effect?
I am sorry, Mr. Cide, I genuinely do not understand your question.
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
Clinton also leads Marco Rubio by one point (46 percent to 45 percent) and Ted Cruz by eight points (49 percent to 41 percent).
By comparison, Democratic rival Bernie Sanders is ahead of Carson by one point (44 percent to 43 percent), Rubio by four points (45 percent to 41 percent) and Cruz by 12 points (50 percent to 38 percent).
The NBC/WSJ poll shows a generic Democrat holding a one-point advantage a generic Republican in a presidential contest, 41 percent to 40 percent; it was 38 percent to 38 percent a month ago.
Democratic Party vs. GOP: In the mainstream or not?
The new NBC/WSJ poll also measured which political party was in the mainstream - or outside the mainstream - on six different issues:
Gay marriage: 63 percent said the Democratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
Republicans will win if they can convince the public its time for a change. I suspect the Democrats may get one more term in the Oval Office before that happens, but ultimately the Americans don't like to keep one party in office for too long.
If they pick Rubio maybe, if they pick Trump or Cruz as looks very possible rather less so
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
I am anti the self indulgence of giving the Tories a free run, giving up on striving to govern and abandoning those Labour has traditionally sought power to stand up for, all for the sake of some kind of ideological purity that resonates in a vanishingly small part of the British electorate. I am not anti-Labour. What's the point? The party is making itself irrelevant. I wish it were otherwise, but we are where we are.
As you say we are where we are.
Corbyn is leader and whilst that is the case I will support him.
You have the right to think the party is making itself irrelevant and say it in every post if you wish.
I hope you are as wrong as i was with EICIPM but we will find out
Goodnight this programme about the KKK is driving me to bed early
Me too, I'm astonished these people still exist. It's like something from the 50's, I'm not even sure they are dangerous apart from to their selves.
They are certainly not scary, to me they seem laughable and pathetic.
There are not many of them, but trust me, they are scary. The remnants of the KKK have pretty much merged with the neo-Nazi folks.
Just over 30 years ago in New Jersey - NEW JERSEY - my black co-worker had a small burning cross placed on his lawn, and KKK spray painted on his garage door.
As well as the KKK on BBC1 on BBC2 Newsnight had coverage of a far right rally in Germany with Tommy Robinson, ex English Defence League, in attendance
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
ocratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is solved, as at present, with a Democrat President and GOP Congress). On immigration it is Hispanics who will turn out to vote on it, for most whites it is not the number 1 issue. Harper tried an anti immigrant niqab message yesterday and it bombed, very rarely does an anti immigrant message win elections as Hague and Howard discovered
It even worked with Harper yesterday but it worked too well, because even if canadians hate muslims they still hate the Tories as much, the tactics worked and the NDP slumped but the strategy was flawed because it united the opposition behind a Tory hating, non-muslim friendly Liberal party. Back in the days of Hague and Howard the immigration and cultural problem was much smaller and not acute as it is today.
Oh dear. I think the only elusive mythical creature that there's no trace of here is a coherent argument.
The fact you don't understand the argument does not mean it is incoherent.
I understand how disastrously incoherent it is.
It is entirely coherent. You are committing a logical fallacy in putting the burden of proof on disproving a myth. If someone is proposing something's existence like gods or orbital tea pots or invisible pink unicorns or anything like it then it is up to them to provide evidence for its existence, not up to others to disprove it.
As Bertrand Russell put it:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
But many "believers" are just that, believing what they are told by someone in religious authority over them. There is no faith in that process - it's more akin to gullibility. I agree your point about the impossibility of proving a negative but in this instance, and this being a betting blog, what are the odds against the existence of God being proven in the next 10 years? Even something as stretched as 1,000,000 to 1 still implies there is a 1 in 1,000,001 chance. I wouldn't risk £1 unless I was having a Dirty Harry moment.
I'm quite sure various insurance companies will declare any number of events to be Acts of God in that period.
As I'm sure you know "Acts of God" is an insurance convention which I won't attempt to define since it will inevitably provoke a pedantic response. Or are you suggesting that insurance companies should be the arbiters of the existence of a god, any god.
Must be his exotic scottish heritage, at least it answers the question of what if scots had a proper healthy diet.
Anyway the only problem I have is that he worked on the Economist, so that immediately disqualifies him on economic matters (in fact most matters), but if he never speaks his own mind in public it's not a problem.
50-55% back Right wing parties, and Corbyn reinforced that.
At the GE previously, left and centre parties had a majority. The current situation is transient and one day the cycle will turn just as it did for the Canadian Liberals and Conservatives last night.
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
ocratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is solved, as at present, with a Democrat President and GOP Congress). On immigration it is Hispanics who will turn out to vote on it, for most whites it is not the number 1 issue. Harper tried an anti immigrant niqab message yesterday and it bombed, very rarely does an anti immigrant message win elections as Hague and Howard discovered
It even worked with Harper yesterday but it worked too well, because even if canadians hate muslims they still hate the Tories as much, the tactics worked and the NDP slumped but the strategy was flawed because it united the opposition behind a Tory hating, non-muslim friendly Liberal party. Back in the days of Hague and Howard the immigration and cultural problem was much smaller and not acute as it is today.
The 'tax the rich' mem is fairly universal, but let's look at who pays US Federal Income Tax.
Ranked by income -
The top 1% pay 38% of the total US Federal Income Tax take The top 5% pay 59% The top 10% pay 70.17% The bottom 50% pay 2.78%
The rich are not the problem. They are paying way way way more than their share.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
People can believe in whatever made up nonsense they want. But scientifically suggesting we need to disprove the existence of gods is like suggesting we need to disprove the existence of Santa and Elves who are magically invisible to adults. You can believe in whatever fairy tales you like but that doesn't mean that the absence of evidence is a virtue. Scientifically there are no gods as there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the plethora of them mankind has invented.
Comments
It wasn't a charity. It was Xmas, every day of the week.
Oh, shit...
But of course she's a woman so not eligible.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
Clinton also leads Marco Rubio by one point (46 percent to 45 percent) and Ted Cruz by eight points (49 percent to 41 percent).
By comparison, Democratic rival Bernie Sanders is ahead of Carson by one point (44 percent to 43 percent), Rubio by four points (45 percent to 41 percent) and Cruz by 12 points (50 percent to 38 percent).
The NBC/WSJ poll shows a generic Democrat holding a one-point advantage a generic Republican in a presidential contest, 41 percent to 40 percent; it was 38 percent to 38 percent a month ago.
Democratic Party vs. GOP: In the mainstream or not?
The new NBC/WSJ poll also measured which political party was in the mainstream - or outside the mainstream - on six different issues:
Gay marriage: 63 percent said the Democratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party;
Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans;
Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans;
Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans;
Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats;
Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Tonight is irrelevant. 2020 will matter.
If Labour line up with a bunch of Hezbollah sympathising, IRA commending, Stalinist apologists as their face and message - they are taking one hell of a beating.
Forgive me, I know nothing of the man but is it possible to be a Trotskyite who admires Stalin? My knowledge of the loonier end of communist splinter groups is feeble but I was rather under the impression that Trotskyism and Stalinism were incompatible.
Soymas? If it turns out the be Seamus then it's just embarrassing. Spelling your own name in a sensible way must surely be at the base of all communication.
oMnIuM
I am firmly anti austerity, slightly pro european and probably a multilateral rather than unilateral disarmament man. So lets see. I am much closer to Corbyn than i am Danczuk and Kendall though.
When I canvassed 2 weeks ago got quite a few "about time Labour was Labour" comments and not one "their all the same". The latter being the most common comment in the past.
I think Chesterfield in general supports the Corbyn direction but its not a marginal. I doubt Lab will win many of any English marginals in GE 2020. i guess i hope unpopularity of Tory policies make it close
Teddy Davis @TeddyDavisCNN 3h3 hours ago
.@JimWebbUSA ends bid for Dem nod, will now weigh independent run, @craig_crawford expects decision by the holidays.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/20/government-forces-lords-to-back-down-over-tax-credits-motion
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
But many "believers" are just that, believing what they are told by someone in religious authority over them. There is no faith in that process - it's more akin to gullibility. I agree your point about the impossibility of proving a negative but in this instance, and this being a betting blog, what are the odds against the existence of God being proven in the next 10 years? Even something as stretched as 1,000,000 to 1 still implies there is a 1 in 1,000,001 chance. I wouldn't risk £1 unless I was having a Dirty Harry moment.
Labour are rumoured to be watching these developments carefully.
I don't know what it says about Corbyn, Labour, the situation of politics in this country at the moment, or me, that I'm no longer even shocked by such things.
On the other hand, I am still intensely irritated about the Canadian election result. I really liked Harper.
Now, if you are going to talk about a bet on the existence of God then you really should read up on Pascal's Wager.
P.S. Faith comes from within not from someone in authority.
However Labour need to win back the WWC and they couldn't have picked someone least likely to do that.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
So why did the Big Bang happen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahakbarries
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-political-obit-1.3273677
According to him Harper was just a corrupt sleaze ball who always never did what he promised and he promised a lot, in the end everyone hated him and why not, he even forced taxpayers to pay for his political ads, his secretary committed mass election fraud on his behalf and is in jail and had a senator of his to steal taxpayers money to fund his party.
Harper was simply a case of a dishonest liar and corrupt fraudster that made everyone hate him and his party with a vengeance, and the voters got his head on a silver plate.
I'm quite sure various insurance companies will declare any number of events to be Acts of God in that period.
What there is not is evidence that Odin, Thor, Yahweh, Zeus, Santa or any other myth man has invented triggered the Big Bang.
How one earth do you draw back people who voted Conservative in may if even those who voted Labour are walking away?
It is Southams right to post Labour isn't serious about Government in every post if he wishes.
Heck EICIPM was a bit on the repetitive side.
I have the right to be saddened by his Anti Labour stance.
I am Old Labour and want Corbyn to win however unlikely that might be.
Corbyn is leader and whilst that is the case I will support him.
You have the right to think the party is making itself irrelevant and say it in every post if you wish.
I hope you are as wrong as i was with EICIPM but we will find out
Goodnight this programme about the KKK is driving me to bed early
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
Edited an extra bit: I see the conversation about the state of the Labour party has driven Mr Owls to bed early. Pity, I was really hoping to find out what "Old Labour" actually meant.
They are certainly not scary, to me they seem laughable and pathetic.
At least, in the next leader's election those fence-sitters might be a touch more bold, a touch more left wing and stop consulting focus groups.. Cooper [ who, sadly, I voted #1 ] said Britain should take on 10000 refugees. Even parsimonious Cameron pledged 20000.
That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
Whilst Corbyn is leader SO will be Anti Labour IMO as he wants them to lose at GE2020 under the current leader
Its like me wanting the mighty Owls to lose every game just because i dont like the manager.
Aint going to happen unless they appoint Warnock!!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/20/labour-mps-demand-answers-jeremy-corbyn-andrew-fisher?CMP=share_btn_tw
Clearly another one wired into the voters Labour needs to win back.
P.S. Faith comes from within not from someone in authority.
Your PS repeats my contention to what effect?
Just over 30 years ago in New Jersey - NEW JERSEY - my black co-worker had a small burning cross placed on his lawn, and KKK spray painted on his garage door.
I am sorry, Mr. Cide, I genuinely do not understand your question.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/oct/26/revenge-history-seumas-milne-review
50-55% back Right wing parties, and Corbyn reinforced that.
Back in the days of Hague and Howard the immigration and cultural problem was much smaller and not acute as it is today.
"Now we know he was a genuine guy - he was named after a city in Florida"
Like the American lady on a plane from Heathrow who asked the stewardess what the building they were flying over was called....
"That's Windsor Castle the home of the Queen"
"Really? Fancy building it so close to the airport "
As I'm sure you know "Acts of God" is an insurance convention which I won't attempt to define since it will inevitably provoke a pedantic response. Or are you suggesting that insurance companies should be the arbiters of the existence of a god, any god.
Anyway the only problem I have is that he worked on the Economist, so that immediately disqualifies him on economic matters (in fact most matters), but if he never speaks his own mind in public it's not a problem.
Ranked by income -
The top 1% pay 38% of the total US Federal Income Tax take
The top 5% pay 59%
The top 10% pay 70.17%
The bottom 50% pay 2.78%
The rich are not the problem. They are paying way way way more than their share.