I suspect Corbyn will eventually fall, his supporters will go bananas and blame everybody but the crass unpopularity of their agenda. They'll particularly blame the usual targets (the right wing of the Labour party and the media) and the struggle will continue. This time from their traditional position of nowhere-near-power, where difficult decisions never need to be made and fantasy is taken seriously.
If Labour is to become strong again quickly it needs a centrist, inspirational leader who speaks to blue-collar, Scotland and the middle classes, like Blair did. In the absence of a candidate of that ilk I'd go with Cooper, but as we saw via the derision meted out in response to me the other day, she is no Blair.... it's difficult for Labour right now.
The mechanism for taking out Jeremy Corbyn is the real problem for those plotting against him. If he's determined to stay, he's going to be very hard indeed to oust for so long as he has the support of the party membership. And there he might well be strengthening rather than losing support:
It's FPTP that will save Corbyn's Labour. It's difficult to know what more they could do to put off their non-fanatic base (I suppose they could write a personal letter to every one of their voters who's not a self-declared Corbynite calling them a c*nt) but even then they'd probably struggle not to score above 180-190 seats.
If we had PR, the solution for Labour moderates would be simple: form a new party with new donors and take the sensible left voters with the, without fear of losing all their seats in GE2020.
That might easily have been said for the Tories too. 1997 and 2001 both saw the Conservatives return sub-180.
The fact that Oldham is not looking like a nailed-on hold - as in any normal political universe it would be - demonstrates that these 'safe' Labour seats are not as safe as is sometimes made out.
Of course, you can argue that it's 'safe' for Labour voters to vote UKIP at a by-election when it won't affect the government and to an extent that's true. However, there is a point beyond which voters' traditional allegiances cannot be pushed and where they feel the risk the Tories pose is not sufficiently greater than the risk a Corbyn-led government poses to their values that it's no longer worth supporting Labour. This will be particularly true if they think the Tories are going to win anyway.
FPTP helps until it doesn't. Then it destroys. See Scotland.
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
It would be like arguing the IRA had nothing to do with Irish Republicanism.
Most Irish Republicans did not support the methods of the IRA, but it would be absurd to claim that the IRA had nothing to do with Irish Republican ideology.
The mechanism for taking out Jeremy Corbyn is the real problem for those plotting against him. If he's determined to stay, he's going to be very hard indeed to oust for so long as he has the support of the party membership. And there he might well be strengthening rather than losing support:
It's FPTP that will save Corbyn's Labour. It's difficult to know what more they could do to put off their non-fanatic base (I suppose they could write a personal letter to every one of their voters who's not a self-declared Corbynite calling them a c*nt) but even then they'd probably struggle not to score above 180-190 seats.
If we had PR, the solution for Labour moderates would be simple: form a new party with new donors and take the sensible left voters with the, without fear of losing all their seats in GE2020.
That might easily have been said for the Tories too. 1997 and 2001 both saw the Conservatives return sub-180.
The fact that Oldham is not looking like a nailed-on hold - as in any normal political universe it would be - demonstrates that these 'safe' Labour seats are not as safe as is sometimes made out.
Of course, you can argue that it's 'safe' for Labour voters to vote UKIP at a by-election when it won't affect the government and to an extent that's true. However, there is a point beyond which voters' traditional allegiances cannot be pushed and where they feel the risk the Tories pose is not sufficiently greater than the risk a Corbyn-led government poses to their values that it's no longer worth supporting Labour. This will be particularly true if they think the Tories are going to win anyway.
Labour safe seats are only so because the Tories can't win them. But given the right circumstances, they have proved susceptible to the LibDems and in May they were eviscerated by the SNP. The question of our times is can UKIP do in England what the Tories cannot do: topple Labour in their deprived inner city strogholds? If Oldham falls, there's a whole set of other dominoes...
The mechanism for taking out Jeremy Corbyn is the real problem for those plotting against him. If he's determined to stay, he's going to be very hard indeed to oust for so long as he has the support of the party membership. And there he might well be strengthening rather than losing support:
It's FPTP that will save Corbyn's Labour. It's difficult to know what more they could do to put off their non-fanatic base (I suppose they could write a personal letter to every one of their voters who's not a self-declared Corbynite calling them a c*nt) but even then they'd probably struggle not to score above 180-190 seats.
If we had PR, the solution for Labour moderates would be simple: form a new party with new donors and take the sensible left voters with the, without fear of losing all their seats in GE2020.
That might easily have been said for the Tories too. 1997 and 2001 both saw the Conservatives return sub-180.
The fact that Oldham is not looking like a nailed-on hold - as in any normal political universe it would be - demonstrates that these 'safe' Labour seats are not as safe as is sometimes made out.
Of course, you can argue that it's 'safe' for Labour voters to vote UKIP at a by-election when it won't affect the government and to an extent that's true. However, there is a point beyond which voters' traditional allegiances cannot be pushed and where they feel the risk the Tories pose is not sufficiently greater than the risk a Corbyn-led government poses to their values that it's no longer worth supporting Labour. This will be particularly true if they think the Tories are going to win anyway.
Labour safe seats are only so because the Tories can't win them. But given the right circumstances, they have proved susceptible to the LibDems and in May they were eviscerated by the SNP. The question of our times is can UKIP do in England what the Tories cannot do: topple Labour in their deprived inner city strogholds? If Oldham falls, there's a whole set of other dominoes...
If Oldham West were to go (and I'd still expect UKIP to be a strong second, rather than first) then you'd expect places like Rother Valley, Hartlepool, Heywood & Middleton, Stoke Central, Ashfield, Dagenham & Rainham to follow.
The mechanism for taking out Jeremy Corbyn is the real problem for those plotting against him. If he's determined to stay, he's going to be very hard indeed to oust for so long as he has the support of the party membership. And there he might well be strengthening rather than losing support:
It's FPTP that will save Corbyn's Labour. It's difficult to know what more they could do to put off their non-fanatic base (I suppose they could write a personal letter to every one of their voters who's not a self-declared Corbynite calling them a c*nt) but even then they'd probably struggle not to score above 180-190 seats.
If we had PR, the solution for Labour moderates would be simple: form a new party with new donors and take the sensible left voters with the, without fear of losing all their seats in GE2020.
That might easily have been said for the Tories too. 1997 and 2001 both saw the Conservatives return sub-180.
The fact that Oldham is not looking like a nailed-on hold - as in any normal political universe it would be - demonstrates that these 'safe' Labour seats are not as safe as is sometimes made out.
Of course, you can argue that it's 'safe' for Labour voters to vote UKIP at a by-election when it won't affect the government and to an extent that's true. However, there is a point beyond which voters' traditional allegiances cannot be pushed and where they feel the risk the Tories pose is not sufficiently greater than the risk a Corbyn-led government poses to their values that it's no longer worth supporting Labour. This will be particularly true if they think the Tories are going to win anyway.
Labour safe seats are only so because the Tories can't win them. But given the right circumstances, they have proved susceptible to the LibDems and in May they were eviscerated by the SNP. The question of our times is can UKIP do in England what the Tories cannot do: topple Labour in their deprived inner city strogholds? If Oldham falls, there's a whole set of other dominoes...
Interesting how France is being lauded as the cultural centre of the world. The Andrew Neil rant from yesterday is just the latest in an exaltation of all things French. Well deserved of course but I suspect something of a shock to many in the UK whose chauvinism often gets the better of them
You could easily come up with a similar list for the UK - Hume, Smith, Hobbes, Burke, Kneller, Gainsborough, Reynolds, Lawrence, Pepys, Scott, D.H. Lawrence, Elliot, Purcell, Elgar, Brittan, Birtwhistle. That's just off the top of my head and deliberately excluding the Germans and Dutch - van Dyck, Handel, Holbein, etc - who built their careers in England. And the Anglo-Irish, like Swift or Edgeworth.
Neither list gets us anywhere.
And a pretty impressive and modern 20th century list too...
Orwell, Forster, Woolf, Greene, Tolkien, Douglas Adams, Bertrand Russell, Dawkins, The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks, Radiohead, Queen, Churchill, Lloyd George, Atlee, Thatcher, Blair, Monty Python, the Attenboroughs, Sir Alex Ferguson, Fred Perry, Fred Trueman, Nick Faldo, the English RWC winning side, Anthony Hopkins, Olivier, Guinness, Mike Smithson.....
I don't even know many scientists or diplomats or great business people - the list must be endless. But all of the straddled the world in one way or another.
I chucked a Scot or two in there for Dair
What was it about Blair that made you jump straight to Monty Python?
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
The Left just ignores religion, don't understand it, or pretends it doesn't exist.
I listened to 16 minutes of Kieran's podcast and gave up. There needs to be a better structure to it. I heard several attempts in the podcast to state that the 27% figure for muslims that had sympathy for terrorists was not an accuarte picture but have no clear numbers quoted stating what are the right numbers to use. There is also an overwhelming sense in that first 16 minutes, of desperately trying to find excuses for the muslim numbers including for example quoting other comparisons with the general population and sikhs views of terrorism....
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I get similar on my FB stream. I find it's best to ignore them, especially as a couple are friends.
My own view: The Islamists are using a 'perverted' form of Islam that many Muslims disagree with (although sadly fewer than one would like). But the terrorism is part of Islam, and inspired by a certain reading of the religion.
The problems are that perverted form of Islam is compelling to too many, perhaps because the Koran and the Hadiths are easy to pervert. Or perhaps it's not a perversion, and their reading and use of the Koran is the proper one. In which case we are all in much more serious trouble.
It all comes down to the Shia-Sunni divide. Without that, Islam might be happier in itself, and the need for w're-more-Muslim-than-you would go.
(I read the bible many years ago. I read the Koran afterwards, but stopped halfway through as the tone did not settle well on me. Neither converted me from being an agnostic).
Centrist Labour MPs have a problem - does that understate it nicely enough? If they stay put the party moves further away from them and sooner or later they get deselected. If they break away they need to do so in a bigger way than the SDP did and they will most likely not have their constituencies backing them. Probably their best moves are: a. Retire at the next election b. Defect to a party that is closest to their views (LD or Tory) c. Leave and fight as an Independent Labour and probably go down in flames (Dick Taverne was an exception).
At the moment the pendulum is swinging to the left. Too many natural supporters have felt the Labour party had left them behind in the race to the centre, now they are not only on the buses, they're telling the drivers which way to go.
The problems are that the supposed safe routes, so carefully mapped out and rigidly adhered to by the Labour MP's in the past, are not the ones their constituency membership and electorate want to go down.
I am not being nasty about this, just trying to be realistic. But, the MP's are going to have to learn the new tunes to be sung and scripts to be learnt. Some will, and survive and thrive. Some won't and will retire at the next GE. To join the Tories or the LibDems will be political suicide in their constituencies and they might just as well resign from Westminster sooner rather than later. They won't, who's going to be daft enough to leave the Best Club in London until they are forced to? Ok, there might be one or two, but, hey, Darwinism is at work in that the weakest or stupidest die off first.
If the Tories push through the changes to the constituency borders and reduce the number of MP's (to of course, not to just benefit the Tory party MP's) to 600, then there is no way the Tory MP's would be happy to have to go into reselection with ex-Labour MP's.
What makes this process so interesting is that sooner or later, the Tories will have to be doing something similar. Their membership will start demanding it.
The LibDems have always been supposedly more "democratic", but they have lost a lot of their activists and Farron has not been able to recall them to the colours, possibly yet. Their difficulty is that the membership being so small, was in many ways more inter-reactive. Most of the ex-members know where the skeletons are buried, who put them there and why.
Off the radar, the government is starting to run into problems.
More dreadful deficit numbers for Continuity Osbrowne today despite record tax receipts and decent growth.
Truly? It all seems to have been a waste of time. The public seem like they won't much more cuts (not in the only area of substance left at any rate), and yet it is needed if the gov is to meet it's already long delayed targets, such that even if it is a good idea to delay even further, politically they look like crap.
As a lapsed christian, I have to say that I cannot recall one statement or saying attributed to Jesus which advocated violence in any form. Am I wrong to think that?
I listened to 16 minutes of Kieran's podcast and gave up. There needs to be a better structure to it. I heard several attempts in the podcast to state that the 27% figure for muslims that had sympathy for terrorists was not an accuarte picture but have no clear numbers quoted stating what are the right numbers to use. There is also an overwhelming sense in that first 16 minutes, of desperately trying to find excuses for the muslim numbers including for example quoting other comparisons with the general population and sikhs views of terrorism....
I listened to 16 minutes of Kieran's podcast and gave up. There needs to be a better structure to it. I heard several attempts in the podcast to state that the 27% figure for muslims that had sympathy for terrorists was not an accuarte picture but have no clear numbers quoted stating what are the right numbers to use. There is also an overwhelming sense in that first 16 minutes, of desperately trying to find excuses for the muslim numbers including for example quoting other comparisons with the general population and sikhs views of terrorism....
What percentage of the general population are sympathetic to terrorists?
Off the radar, the government is starting to run into problems.
More dreadful deficit numbers for Continuity Osbrowne today despite record tax receipts and decent growth.
They aren't anywhere near as bad as they first appear. The continual revisions to initial data conceal progress.
Here's what they initially said for last October (pre revision)
Public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks (PSNB ex) from April to October 2014 was £64.1 billion
Public sector net debt excluding public sector banks (PSND ex) was £1,449.2 billion (79.5 % of GDP) in October 2014, an increase of £97.1 billion
Here's what they initially say now
Public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks decreased by £6.6 billion to £54.3 billion
Public sector net debt excluding public sector banks at the end of October 2015 was £1,526.8 billion, equivalent to 80.5% of Gross Domestic Product; an increase of £70.4 billion
So; - YTD was £64.1bn on first data last year, it's £54.3bn now. - Rolling 12 month deficit was £97.1bn last year, it's £70.4bn now.
Debt interest is about £50bn - so a primary surplus is about £20bn away.
It obviously could be better, but bearing in mind an inherited deficit of nearly £200bn in today's money, progress is being made.
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I defriended a Facebook ex-friend today on a similar basis. He'd put up various posts over the last week of that nature but the one today, explicitly comparing the current UK govt with the Nazis in 'brainwashing the country into hatred against a religious minority' took the biscuit.
I'll happily be friends with Labourites, Greens, Lib Dems, Kippers and the rest of the mainstream but I've defriended people who've lurched into the far right and will do the same for those on the far left.
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I get similar on my FB stream. I find it's best to ignore them, especially as a couple are friends.
My own view: The Islamists are using a 'perverted' form of Islam that many Muslims disagree with (although sadly fewer than one would like). But the terrorism is part of Islam, and inspired by a certain reading of the religion.
The problems are that perverted form of Islam is compelling to too many, perhaps because the Koran and the Hadiths are easy to pervert. Or perhaps it's not a perversion, and their reading and use of the Koran is the proper one. In which case we are all in much more serious trouble.
It all comes down to the Shia-Sunni divide. Without that, Islam might be happier in itself, and the need for w're-more-Muslim-than-you would go.
(I read the bible many years ago. I read the Koran afterwards, but stopped halfway through as the tone did not settle well on me. Neither converted me from being an agnostic).
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
It would be like arguing the IRA had nothing to do with Irish Republicanism.
Most Irish Republicans did not support the methods of the IRA, but it would be absurd to claim that the IRA had nothing to do with Irish Republican ideology.
I think quite a bit of it is that people feel Facebook is their private broadcast space. They are happy for people to like or endorse what they say but get very angry if it's challenged, and can't bear to be seen to be wrong (which they view as a public humiliation) so there's no serious attempt at engagement. And therefore you can't win.
Maybe I shouldn't bother. But when the bullshit exceeds a certain level I find it hard not to comment.
As a lapsed christian, I have to say that I cannot recall one statement or saying attributed to Jesus which advocated violence in any form. Am I wrong to think that?
Some people interpret "I come not to bring peace but a sword" as authorising forcible conversion. I read it as meaning that violence may well be a consequence of evangelism, in the sense of generating a violent reaction, but it is never intended to be a method of evangelism.
As a lapsed christian, I have to say that I cannot recall one statement or saying attributed to Jesus which advocated violence in any form. Am I wrong to think that?
He seems to have been OK with self-harming in appropriate cases:
Off the radar, the government is starting to run into problems.
More dreadful deficit numbers for Continuity Osbrowne today despite record tax receipts and decent growth.
Truly? It all seems to have been a waste of time. The public seem like they won't much more cuts (not in the only area of substance left at any rate), and yet it is needed if the gov is to meet it's already long delayed targets, such that even if it is a good idea to delay even further, politically they look like crap.
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I get similar on my FB stream. I find it's best to ignore them, especially as a couple are friends.
My own view: The Islamists are using a 'perverted' form of Islam that many Muslims disagree with (although sadly fewer than one would like). But the terrorism is part of Islam, and inspired by a certain reading of the religion.
The problems are that perverted form of Islam is compelling to too many, perhaps because the Koran and the Hadiths are easy to pervert. Or perhaps it's not a perversion, and their reading and use of the Koran is the proper one. In which case we are all in much more serious trouble.
It all comes down to the Shia-Sunni divide. Without that, Islam might be happier in itself, and the need for w're-more-Muslim-than-you would go.
(I read the bible many years ago. I read the Koran afterwards, but stopped halfway through as the tone did not settle well on me. Neither converted me from being an agnostic).
Basically my view. I just want the British Left to stop denying the problem and feeling the real issue is policing what 'the plebs' say.
His penultimate paragraph is entirely at odds with the rest of his article. It looks like wishful thinking to me.
Good piece. And I don't think it's at odds.
I suspect Corbyn will eventually fall, his supporters will go bananas and blame everybody but the crass unpopularity of their agenda. They'll particularly blame the usual targets (the right wing of the Labour party and the media) and the struggle will continue. This time from their traditional position of nowhere-near-power, where difficult decisions never need to be made and fantasy is taken seriously.
If Labour is to become strong again quickly it needs a centrist, inspirational leader who speaks to blue-collar, Scotland and the middle classes, like Blair did. In the absence of a candidate of that ilk I'd go with Cooper, but as we saw via the derision meted out in response to me the other day, she is no Blair.... it's difficult for Labour right now.
The mechanism for taking out Jeremy Corbyn is the real problem for those plotting against him. If he's determined to stay, he's going to be very hard indeed to oust for so long as he has the support of the party membership. And there he might well be strengthening rather than losing support:
It's FPTP that will save Corbyn's Labour. It's difficult to know what more they could do to put off their non-fanatic base (I suppose they could write a personal letter to every one of their voters who's not a self-declared Corbynite calling them a c*nt) but even then they'd probably struggle not to score above 180-190 seats.
If we had PR, the solution for Labour moderates would be simple: form a new party with new donors and take the sensible left voters with the, without fear of losing all their seats in GE2020.
So the future of the Labour party will basically come down to how many Corbynite MPs there are after the next election. More than 35 and the left wing candidate is guaranteed to be the next leader.
The mechanism for taking out Jeremy Corbyn is the real problem for those plotting against him. If he's determined to stay, he's going to be very hard indeed to oust for so long as he has the support of the party membership. And there he might well be strengthening rather than losing support:
It's FPTP that will save Corbyn's Labour. It's difficult to know what more they could do to put off their non-fanatic base (I suppose they could write a personal letter to every one of their voters who's not a self-declared Corbynite calling them a c*nt) but even then they'd probably struggle not to score above 180-190 seats.
If we had PR, the solution for Labour moderates would be simple: form a new party with new donors and take the sensible left voters with the, without fear of losing all their seats in GE2020.
That might easily have been said for the Tories too. 1997 and 2001 both saw the Conservatives return sub-180.
The fact that Oldham is not looking like a nailed-on hold - as in any normal political universe it would be - demonstrates that these 'safe' Labour seats are not as safe as is sometimes made out.
Of course, you can argue that it's 'safe' for Labour voters to vote UKIP at a by-election when it won't affect the government and to an extent that's true. However, there is a point beyond which voters' traditional allegiances cannot be pushed and where they feel the risk the Tories pose is not sufficiently greater than the risk a Corbyn-led government poses to their values that it's no longer worth supporting Labour. This will be particularly true if they think the Tories are going to win anyway.
Labour safe seats are only so because the Tories can't win them. But given the right circumstances, they have proved susceptible to the LibDems and in May they were eviscerated by the SNP. The question of our times is can UKIP do in England what the Tories cannot do: topple Labour in their deprived inner city strogholds? If Oldham falls, there's a whole set of other dominoes...
There are a few dozen seats potentially up for grabs.
But in inner London, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Exeter, Durham, Nottingham, Cambridge and Oxford East the electorate would be more than happy with Corbynite Labour.
The problem with calling IS style Islamism a "perversion of Islam" is that for about 12 centuries modern Muslims would be a perversion while modern Christians would have been viewed as a perversion in the eighth century too etc, etc, etc.
Religious texts are a product of their age and a product of the men who wrote and edited them down the centuries. People may view their own reading of the texts as the correct one and another as a perversion - but the other people will do the exact same thing! To IS modern Muslims who don't agree with them are apostate perversions.
Ultimately boiling a quarter of the globe down to a single word and trying to interpret what it means for all of them is totally futile.
Off the radar, the government is starting to run into problems.
More dreadful deficit numbers for Continuity Osbrowne today despite record tax receipts and decent growth.
Truly? It all seems to have been a waste of time. The public seem like they won't much more cuts (not in the only area of substance left at any rate), and yet it is needed if the gov is to meet it's already long delayed targets, such that even if it is a good idea to delay even further, politically they look like crap.
My guess is that they haven't yet seen the screams that will come with the next set of cuts (out of sight/ news cycle so out of mind). As people watch council tax increase in April while services are cut it will become a focus again.
I thought all Irish republicans supported the IRA, which is why they were republicans and not nationalists. The nationalists supported the same goal, but were implacably opposed to violence.
Off the radar, the government is starting to run into problems.
More dreadful deficit numbers for Continuity Osbrowne today despite record tax receipts and decent growth.
Truly? It all seems to have been a waste of time. The public seem like they won't much more cuts (not in the only area of substance left at any rate), and yet it is needed if the gov is to meet it's already long delayed targets, such that even if it is a good idea to delay even further, politically they look like crap.
My guess is that they haven't yet seen the screams that will come with the next set of cuts (out of sight/ news cycle so out of mind). As people watch council tax increase in April while services are cut it will become a focus again.
Cuts to the police might yet prove unpopular in light of current events.
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I defriended a Facebook ex-friend today on a similar basis. He'd put up various posts over the last week of that nature but the one today, explicitly comparing the current UK govt with the Nazis in 'brainwashing the country into hatred against a religious minority' took the biscuit.
I'll happily be friends with Labourites, Greens, Lib Dems, Kippers and the rest of the mainstream but I've defriended people who've lurched into the far right and will do the same for those on the far left.
Thanks. The thing is: he's far more reasonable in person. He wouldn't dare say it to my face.
I don't know what it is about Facebook that makes people act like such utter dicks.
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I get similar on my FB stream. I find it's best to ignore them, especially as a couple are friends.
My own view: The Islamists are using a 'perverted' form of Islam that many Muslims disagree with (although sadly fewer than one would like). But the terrorism is part of Islam, and inspired by a certain reading of the religion.
The problems are that perverted form of Islam is compelling to too many, perhaps because the Koran and the Hadiths are easy to pervert. Or perhaps it's not a perversion, and their reading and use of the Koran is the proper one. In which case we are all in much more serious trouble.
It all comes down to the Shia-Sunni divide. Without that, Islam might be happier in itself, and the need for w're-more-Muslim-than-you would go.
(I read the bible many years ago. I read the Koran afterwards, but stopped halfway through as the tone did not settle well on me. Neither converted me from being an agnostic).
Religion is inherently schismatic. Christians, Jews and Muslims all have their internal sects, often (at least in the past) violently opposed to one another.
The particular dread of ISIS is that they have grafted aspects of a doomsday cult on to their version of Islam. We have seen how alluringly deadly such cults can be in the West, leading to mass 'events' like Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.
God help us if this starts to take root among the world's Muslims...
The problem with calling IS style Islamism a "perversion of Islam" is that for about 12 centuries modern Muslims would be a perversion while modern Christians would have been viewed as a perversion in the eighth century too etc, etc, etc.
Religious texts are a product of their age and a product of the men who wrote and edited them down the centuries. People may view their own reading of the texts as the correct one and another as a perversion - but the other people will do the exact same thing! To IS modern Muslims who don't agree with them are apostate perversions.
Ultimately boiling a quarter of the globe down to a single word and trying to interpret what it means for all of them is totally futile.
You can't judge Christians of the middle ages by today's standards.
Off the radar, the government is starting to run into problems.
More dreadful deficit numbers for Continuity Osbrowne today despite record tax receipts and decent growth.
Truly? It all seems to have been a waste of time. The public seem like they won't much more cuts (not in the only area of substance left at any rate), and yet it is needed if the gov is to meet it's already long delayed targets, such that even if it is a good idea to delay even further, politically they look like crap.
My guess is that they haven't yet seen the screams that will come with the next set of cuts (out of sight/ news cycle so out of mind). As people watch council tax increase in April while services are cut it will become a focus again.
Cuts to the police might yet prove unpopular in light of current events.
Cuts to Frontline policing, yes, but back office and fripperies, no.
There's plenty of stuff that could be outsourced to civilian organisations, rather than left to Plods who should be out on the beat.
The problem with calling IS style Islamism a "perversion of Islam" is that for about 12 centuries modern Muslims would be a perversion while modern Christians would have been viewed as a perversion in the eighth century too etc, etc, etc.
Religious texts are a product of their age and a product of the men who wrote and edited them down the centuries. People may view their own reading of the texts as the correct one and another as a perversion - but the other people will do the exact same thing! To IS modern Muslims who don't agree with them are apostate perversions.
Ultimately boiling a quarter of the globe down to a single word and trying to interpret what it means for all of them is totally futile.
You can't judge Christians of the middle ages by today's standards.
I'm not trying to judge or suggesting that. Quite the opposite, the people of the Middle Ages were a product of their Age just as we are a product of ours. I'm suggesting that Christians today (and the vast majority ofMuslims today) don't live or try to live by Middle Ages standards but IS do. IS view anyone who doesn't view things through the prism of the Middle Ages as perverted.
The mechanism for taking out Jeremy Corbyn is the real problem for those plotting against him. If he's determined to stay, he's going to be very hard indeed to oust for so long as he has the support of the party membership. And there he might well be strengthening rather than losing support:
It's FPTP that will save Corbyn's Labour. It's difficult to know what more they could do to put off their non-fanatic base (I suppose they could write a personal letter to every one of their voters who's not a self-declared Corbynite calling them a c*nt) but even then they'd probably struggle not to score above 180-190 seats.
If we had PR, the solution for Labour moderates would be simple: form a new party with new donors and take the sensible left voters with the, without fear of losing all their seats in GE2020.
That might easily have been said for the Tories too. 1997 and 2001 both saw the Conservatives return sub-180.
The fact that Oldham is not looking like a nailed-on hold - as in any normal political universe it would be - demonstrates that these 'safe' Labour seats are not as safe as is sometimes made out.
Of course, you can argue that it's 'safe' for Labour voters to vote UKIP at a by-election when it won't affect the government and to an extent that's true. However, there is a point beyond which voters' traditional allegiances cannot be pushed and where they feel the risk the Tories pose is not sufficiently greater than the risk a Corbyn-led government poses to their values that it's no longer worth supporting Labour. This will be particularly true if they think the Tories are going to win anyway.
Labour safe seats are only so because the Tories can't win them. But given the right circumstances, they have proved susceptible to the LibDems and in May they were eviscerated by the SNP. The question of our times is can UKIP do in England what the Tories cannot do: topple Labour in their deprived inner city strogholds? If Oldham falls, there's a whole set of other dominoes...
There are a few dozen seats potentially up for grabs.
But in inner London, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Exeter, Durham, Nottingham, Cambridge and Oxford East the electorate would be more than happy with Corbynite Labour.
The trick for UKIP is to get the voters asking "What has Labour ever done for you?" If they can get enough to answer "take us for granted!", then Labour are rightly screwed.
"Erstwhile Labour supporters across the country will be hoping for a UKIP win ......"
None that I can think of. If your personal dislike for Corbyn is worth giving momentum to the fascists particuarly in a Northern immigrant seat like Oldham then your self designation as someone of the centre left needs re-calibrating
If anyone deserves the moniker of fascist, it is Corbyn - with his propensity to like and support every violent and anti-democratic group around. Personally, I think using the word "fascist" as you have done to denote a party you don't like is intellectually lazy.
Orwell's dictum comes to mind - you can find it in his essay "Politics and the English Language".
As people watch council tax increase in April while services are cut it will become a focus again.
I read yesterday that councils have stockpiled GBP22bn in spare cash. You can see how its politically advantageous for some to make people feel austerity when it doesn't actually exist.
His penultimate paragraph is entirely at odds with the rest of his article. It looks like wishful thinking to me.
Good piece. And I don't think it's at odds.
I suspect Corbyn will eventually fall, his supporters will go bananas and blame everybody but the crass unpopularity of their agenda. They'll particularly blame the usual targets (the right wing of the Labour party and the media) and the struggle will continue. This time from their traditional position of nowhere-near-power, where difficult decisions never need to be made and fantasy is taken seriously.
If Labour is to become strong again quickly it needs a centrist, inspirational leader who speaks to blue-collar, Scotland and the middle classes, like Blair did. In the absence of a candidate of that ilk I'd go with Cooper, but as we saw via the derision meted out in response to me the other day, she is no Blair.... it's difficult for Labour right now.
The mechanism for taking out Jeremy Corbyn is the real problem for those plotting against him. If he's determined to stay, he's going to be very hard indeed to oust for so long as he has the support of the party membership. And there he might well be strengthening rather than losing support:
It's FPTP that will save Corbyn's Labour. It's difficult to know what more they could do to put off their non-fanatic base (I suppose they could write a personal letter to every one of their voters who's not a self-declared Corbynite calling them a c*nt) but even then they'd probably struggle not to score above 180-190 seats.
If we had PR, the solution for Labour moderates would be simple: form a new party with new donors and take the sensible left voters with the, without fear of losing all their seats in GE2020.
So the future of the Labour party will basically come down to how many Corbynite MPs there are after the next election. More than 35 and the left wing candidate is guaranteed to be the next leader.
Strictly speaking, it's the proportion rather than the number that's important. If Labour lose seats then the left won't need as many as 35 (and equivalently so if they gain them).
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I defriended a Facebook ex-friend today on a similar basis. He'd put up various posts over the last week of that nature but the one today, explicitly comparing the current UK govt with the Nazis in 'brainwashing the country into hatred against a religious minority' took the biscuit.
I'll happily be friends with Labourites, Greens, Lib Dems, Kippers and the rest of the mainstream but I've defriended people who've lurched into the far right and will do the same for those on the far left.
Thanks. The thing is: he's far more reasonable in person. He wouldn't dare say it to my face.
I don't know what it is about Facebook that makes people act like such utter dicks.
Same as road rage. They have a safety screen protecting them from feeling the need to adhere to the conventions real contact.
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I get similar on my FB stream. I find it's best to ignore them, especially as a couple are friends.
My own view: The Islamists are using a 'perverted' form of Islam that many Muslims disagree with (although sadly fewer than one would like). But the terrorism is part of Islam, and inspired by a certain reading of the religion.
The problems are that perverted form of Islam is compelling to too many, perhaps because the Koran and the Hadiths are easy to pervert. Or perhaps it's not a perversion, and their reading and use of the Koran is the proper one. In which case we are all in much more serious trouble.
It all comes down to the Shia-Sunni divide. Without that, Islam might be happier in itself, and the need for w're-more-Muslim-than-you would go.
(I read the bible many years ago. I read the Koran afterwards, but stopped halfway through as the tone did not settle well on me. Neither converted me from being an agnostic).
Religion is inherently schismatic. Christians, Jews and Muslims all have their internal sects, often (at least in the past) violently opposed to one another.
The particular dread of ISIS is that they have grafted aspects of a doomsday cult on to their version of Islam. We have seen how alluringly deadly such cults can be in the West, leading to mass 'events' like Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.
God help us if this starts to take root among the world's Muslims...
Con GAIN Epson West from Lib Dems. Another close result:
Conservatives 612 Residents Associations 591 Liberal Democrat 588 Labour 578 UK Independence Party 168 Greens 58
Result of ward at last election (2013): Liberal Democrat 854 (28%), Ratepayers 693 (23%), Labour 616 (20%), United Kingdom Independence Party 494 (16%), Conservative 389 (13%)
Knock yourself out, or wait for Britain Elects
Two outrageously fortunate sub-25% wins for Tories on one day. I doubt they'd normally get two sub-25% wins in one year.
The Malian situation, and before it the two clusters of events in France this year, does raise the question of social (and mainstream) media. It can be very useful, but people need to be aware that anything they write can be read by terrorists as well as victims and their friends/family.
Live-tweeting when police are about to enter a building, or where, is dangerously foolish. Likewise, the TV station that broadcast where people were hiding in the Jewish supermarket deserves a severe penalty (unsure whether that's still going through the courts or has been resolved).
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I get similar on my FB stream. I find it's best to ignore them, especially as a couple are friends.
My own view: The Islamists are using a 'perverted' form of Islam that many Muslims disagree with (although sadly fewer than one would like). But the terrorism is part of Islam, and inspired by a certain reading of the religion.
The problems are that perverted form of Islam is compelling to too many, perhaps because the Koran and the Hadiths are easy to pervert. Or perhaps it's not a perversion, and their reading and use of the Koran is the proper one. In which case we are all in much more serious trouble.
It all comes down to the Shia-Sunni divide. Without that, Islam might be happier in itself, and the need for w're-more-Muslim-than-you would go.
(I read the bible many years ago. I read the Koran afterwards, but stopped halfway through as the tone did not settle well on me. Neither converted me from being an agnostic).
Religion is inherently schismatic. Christians, Jews and Muslims all have their internal sects, often (at least in the past) violently opposed to one another.
The particular dread of ISIS is that they have grafted aspects of a doomsday cult on to their version of Islam. We have seen how alluringly deadly such cults can be in the West, leading to mass 'events' like Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.
God help us if this starts to take root among the world's Muslims...
Douglas Murray thinks the %of Muslims who share this view is c.15%.
The trouble is that amongst a population of 4-5 million that might represent over half a million who at least may protect or not cooperate with the authorities, not to mention provide a fertile recruiting pool.
I really don't want to get into the world of pressuring Muslims to defend or explain themselves. Most are very reasonable people. But who else is there who can influence people tempted by this warped version of their religion?
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I defriended a Facebook ex-friend today on a similar basis. He'd put up various posts over the last week of that nature but the one today, explicitly comparing the current UK govt with the Nazis in 'brainwashing the country into hatred against a religious minority' took the biscuit.
I'll happily be friends with Labourites, Greens, Lib Dems, Kippers and the rest of the mainstream but I've defriended people who've lurched into the far right and will do the same for those on the far left.
Thanks. The thing is: he's far more reasonable in person. He wouldn't dare say it to my face.
I don't know what it is about Facebook that makes people act like such utter dicks.
Same as road rage. They have a safety screen protecting them from feeling the need to adhere to the conventions real contact.
Off the radar, the government is starting to run into problems.
More dreadful deficit numbers for Continuity Osbrowne today despite record tax receipts and decent growth.
Truly? It all seems to have been a waste of time. The public seem like they won't much more cuts (not in the only area of substance left at any rate), and yet it is needed if the gov is to meet it's already long delayed targets, such that even if it is a good idea to delay even further, politically they look like crap.
One of my earliest thoughts when a Tory majority was announced in May was that we were set for another five years of listening to the very vocal austerity complainants.
The same arguments and critiques are being presented by them now as they were presenting pre-May 2010.
Yet, the government are spending more than the 2010 government in absolute terms.
At least five key members of David Cameron’s election team have taken up posts in the campaign to stay in the European Union, the Evening Standard has learned.
Key personnel who ran digital campaigning and field operations have accepted positions at Britain Stronger In Europe, with some taking leave of absence from Tory HQ.
The recruitment has been seen as a signal that George Osborne, who oversaw the election campaign, is taking a personal interest in ensuring a “Stay” vote in the referendum, providing there is a successful outcome to reform negotiations.
Con GAIN Epson West from Lib Dems. Another close result:
Conservatives 612 Residents Associations 591 Liberal Democrat 588 Labour 578 UK Independence Party 168 Greens 58
Result of ward at last election (2013): Liberal Democrat 854 (28%), Ratepayers 693 (23%), Labour 616 (20%), United Kingdom Independence Party 494 (16%), Conservative 389 (13%)
Knock yourself out, or wait for Britain Elects
Two outrageously fortunate sub-25% wins for Tories on one day. I doubt they'd normally get two sub-25% wins in one year.
34 votes between the top 4, out of about 600. That's pretty close. Tories did win from 5th place which is quite impressive. UKIP fading here too.
The black and blue one with the fern and southern cross seems like a great choice. I do hope it wins this round as I think it would beat the current flag.
The Butchers Apron needs consigned to the dustbin of history.
Bit early to be so obvious with the trolling isn't it?
Still, if that's the way. Ahem - I think Scottish people should be slaves.
There, that should give you something to get pretend angry at.
None. It has the global recognition of the 'Stars and Stripes' without the unpopular connotations that go with American power.
Only to Irish Republicans and embittered Scottish Nationalists is it the 'Butchers Apron' - if it was, why would it be used in the State Flag of Hawaii, or form the basis for the Ikurriña, or appear in the coat of arms of Coquimbo in Chile, let alone earlier versions in the flags of various US cities from Baton Rouge to New England counties?
Its an icon - and if Scotland does separate, it won't change.....
Such a rose tinted, patriarchal view. Quite what one would expect from Loyalists.
The Butcher's Apron is a despised symbol of oppression throughout Africa and Asia, it may be iconic but only as an icon of colonialism and pillage.
There is a reason why British firms find it so hard to crack India and China. Britain is despised.
Except that is rubbish. Ignoring the tax dodge usage of Mauritius which accounts for over 40% of Direct Investment into India, the UK is the third largest investor in the country after Singapore and the US.
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
Snip
I get similar on my FB stream. I find it's best to ignore them, especially as a couple are friends.
My own view: The Islamists are using a 'perverted' form of Islam that many Muslims disagree with (although sadly fewer than one would like). But the terrorism is part of Islam, and inspired by a certain reading of the religion.
The problems are that perverted form of Islam is compelling to too many, perhaps because the Koran and the Hadiths are easy to pervert. Or perhaps it's not a perversion, and their reading and use of the Koran is the proper one. In which case we are all in much more serious trouble.
It all comes down to the Shia-Sunni divide. Without that, Islam might be happier in itself, and the need for w're-more-Muslim-than-you would go.
(I read the bible many years ago. I read the Koran afterwards, but stopped halfway through as the tone did not settle well on me. Neither converted me from being an agnostic).
Religion is inherently schismatic. Christians, Jews and Muslims all have their internal sects, often (at least in the past) violently opposed to one another.
The particular dread of ISIS is that they have grafted aspects of a doomsday cult on to their version of Islam. We have seen how alluringly deadly such cults can be in the West, leading to mass 'events' like Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.
God help us if this starts to take root among the world's Muslims...
Douglas Murray thinks the %of Muslims who share this view is c.15%.
The trouble is that amongst a population of 4-5 million that might represent over half a million who at least may protect or not cooperate with the authorities, not to mention provide a fertile recruiting pool.
I really don't want to get into the world of pressuring Muslims to defend or explain themselves. Most are very reasonable people. But who else is there who can influence people tempted by this warped version of their religion?
Off the radar, the government is starting to run into problems.
More dreadful deficit numbers for Continuity Osbrowne today despite record tax receipts and decent growth.
Truly? It all seems to have been a waste of time. The public seem like they won't much more cuts (not in the only area of substance left at any rate), and yet it is needed if the gov is to meet it's already long delayed targets, such that even if it is a good idea to delay even further, politically they look like crap.
My guess is that they haven't yet seen the screams that will come with the next set of cuts (out of sight/ news cycle so out of mind). As people watch council tax increase in April while services are cut it will become a focus again.
Cuts to the police might yet prove unpopular in light of current events.
Only if the outcome is a real deterioration in the public experience of policing and law and order.
There have been reductions in policing budgets for years now, yet crime has fallen.
I also think that the public are largely cynical about the cost effectiveness and general effectiveness of many public services, including the sainted NHS.
Douglas Murray thinks the %of Muslims who share this view is c.15%.
The trouble is that amongst a population of 4-5 million that might represent over half a million who at least may protect or not cooperate with the authorities, not to mention provide a fertile recruiting pool.
I really don't want to get into the world of pressuring Muslims to defend or explain themselves. Most are very reasonable people. But who else is there who can influence people tempted by this warped version of their religion?
What % of white Brits in the 1930's were sympathetic to the blackshirts? And how did we tackle them?
We must confront this challenge head on and take the fight to IS whether they want us to or not. Defeating Nazi Germany didn't end support for fascism but it sure helped.
@Jake_Wilde: It's a matter of inevitability that one of John McDonnell's team will have previously tweeted something insulting about people with iPads.
Off the radar, the government is starting to run into problems.
More dreadful deficit numbers for Continuity Osbrowne today despite record tax receipts and decent growth.
Truly? It all seems to have been a waste of time. The public seem like they won't much more cuts (not in the only area of substance left at any rate), and yet it is needed if the gov is to meet it's already long delayed targets, such that even if it is a good idea to delay even further, politically they look like crap.
My guess is that they haven't yet seen the screams that will come with the next set of cuts (out of sight/ news cycle so out of mind). As people watch council tax increase in April while services are cut it will become a focus again.
Cuts to the police might yet prove unpopular in light of current events.
Only if the outcome is a real deterioration in the public experience of policing and law and order.
There have been reductions in policing budgets for years now, yet crime has fallen.
I also think that the public are largely cynical about the cost effectiveness and general effectiveness of many public services, including the sainted NHS.
I remember Brown chucked a bucket of money at the NHS and it promptly disappeared into wage rises rather than patient care.
Douglas Murray thinks the %of Muslims who share this view is c.15%.
The trouble is that amongst a population of 4-5 million that might represent over half a million who at least may protect or not cooperate with the authorities, not to mention provide a fertile rsecruiting pool.
I really don't want to get into the world of pressuring Muslims to defend or explain themselves. Most are very reasonable people. But who else is there who can influence people tempted by this warped version of their religion?
What % of white Brits in the 1930's were sympathetic to the blackshirts? And how did we tackle them?
We must confront this challenge head on and take the fight to IS whether they want us to or not. Defeating Nazi Germany didn't end support for fascism but it sure helped.
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I defriended a Facebook ex-friend today on a similar basis. He'd put up various posts over the last week of that nature but the one today, explicitly comparing the current UK govt with the Nazis in 'brainwashing the country into hatred against a religious minority' took the biscuit.
I'll happily be friends with Labourites, Greens, Lib Dems, Kippers and the rest of the mainstream but I've defriended people who've lurched into the far right and will do the same for those on the far left.
Thanks. The thing is: he's far more reasonable in person. He wouldn't dare say it to my face.
I don't know what it is about Facebook that makes people act like such utter dicks.
I can't believe some of what I see shared and liked by my close friends and relatives (I have a fairly limited FB "friend pool" of literally close friends and relatives, which makes it more alarming as these are people I like, love, see and spend much time with regularly!)
These are people who say nothing or change the subject if politics comes up in a social setting (as generally do I in case my inner "Tory Boy" comes out...), yet on FB they're extreme Corbynite, eco-warrior, peace hippies, who despise the royals and Tories (and particularly Cam and Os) with a passion, and think the NHS and all who work in it are saints.
Douglas Murray thinks the %of Muslims who share this view is c.15%.
The trouble is that amongst a population of 4-5 million that might represent over half a million who at least may protect or not cooperate with the authorities, not to mention provide a fertile recruiting pool.
I really don't want to get into the world of pressuring Muslims to defend or explain themselves. Most are very reasonable people. But who else is there who can influence people tempted by this warped version of their religion?
What % of white Brits in the 1930's were sympathetic to the blackshirts? And how did we tackle them?
We must confront this challenge head on and take the fight to IS whether they want us to or not. Defeating Nazi Germany didn't end support for fascism but it sure helped.
We took quite robust measures against them in the 1930s.
Will we be similarly robust with taking similar measures against extreme Islamism today?
I get similar on my FB stream. I find it's best to ignore them, especially as a couple are friends.
My own view: The Islamists are using a 'perverted' form of Islam that many Muslims disagree with (although sadly fewer than one would like). But the terrorism is part of Islam, and inspired by a certain reading of the religion.
The problems are that perverted form of Islam is compelling to too many, perhaps because the Koran and the Hadiths are easy to pervert. Or perhaps it's not a perversion, and their reading and use of the Koran is the proper one. In which case we are all in much more serious trouble.
It all comes down to the Shia-Sunni divide. Without that, Islam might be happier in itself, and the need for w're-more-Muslim-than-you would go.
(I read the bible many years ago. I read the Koran afterwards, but stopped halfway through as the tone did not settle well on me. Neither converted me from being an agnostic).
Religion is inherently schismatic. Christians, Jews and Muslims all have their internal sects, often (at least in the past) violently opposed to one another.
The particular dread of ISIS is that they have grafted aspects of a doomsday cult on to their version of Islam. We have seen how alluringly deadly such cults can be in the West, leading to mass 'events' like Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.
God help us if this starts to take root among the world's Muslims...
Douglas Murray thinks the %of Muslims who share this view is c.15%.
The trouble is that amongst a population of 4-5 million that might represent over half a million who at least may protect or not cooperate with the authorities, not to mention provide a fertile recruiting pool.
I really don't want to get into the world of pressuring Muslims to defend or explain themselves. Most are very reasonable people. But who else is there who can influence people tempted by this warped version of their religion?
I don't doubt his figure. And the number who further might be persuaded, if events pan out "as foretold", according to ISIS... ?
We need to be very careful we don't fulfil their prophesies.
breaking: Islamists seize up to 170 Air France staff and members of French military at Mali hotel...
People who can recite the Koran are freed.
I got into argument with a friend of mine on Facebook last night and this morning who denied any link between Islam and ISIS and felt the word Islamist was inflammatory.
When I politely pointed out there was a link, and we mustn't deny it, he said: "You are just wrong. Plain and simple." and made the usual points about it being linked to racism and intolerance, which was then 'liked' by his adoring crowd of following Guardianistas.
Why do I bother? What on earth is wrong with the British Left?
I defriended a Facebook ex-friend today on a similar basis. He'd put up various posts over the last week of that nature but the one today, explicitly comparing the current UK govt with the Nazis in 'brainwashing the country into hatred against a religious minority' took the biscuit.
I'll happily be friends with Labourites, Greens, Lib Dems, Kippers and the rest of the mainstream but I've defriended people who've lurched into the far right and will do the same for those on the far left.
Thanks. The thing is: he's far more reasonable in person. He wouldn't dare say it to my face.
I don't know what it is about Facebook that makes people act like such utter dicks.
I can't believe some of what I see shared and liked by my close friends and relatives (I have a fairly limited FB "friend pool" of literally close friends and relatives, which makes it more alarming as these are people I like, love, see and spend much time with regularly!)
These are people who say nothing or change the subject if politics comes up in a social setting (as generally do I in case my inner "Tory Boy" comes out...), yet on FB they're extreme Corbynite, eco-warrior, peace hippies, who despise the royals and Tories (and particularly Cam and Os) with a passion, and think the NHS and all who work in it are saints.
I might have a cheeky fiver on Con gain Oldham West and Royton
5th to 1st - that even puts the Welsh Valleys and Liverpool in-play ;-)
The bastards won't come near Ystrad Mynach
I'll come to Wrexham, I used to have a girlfriend from there. I love a good weekend up the Wrexham
Nearly fell off my chair on election night when there was speculation on here that Wrexham was too close to call between Lab and Tory, which I dismissed, but then saw it repeated on the BBC programme a few minutes later.
Although Lab held, the result was surprisingly close IIRC...
Miss Plato, I wonder if that's the lingering poison of Alistair Campbell et al. continuing to infect the body politic long after the parasite itself has left.
On BBC DP now BBC2. 3 outside media folk from the Economist, Guardian and France. None of whom states that Schengen has to go....... Guardian's Zoe sees it as madness to end Schengen. They all switch to the line that terrorists are home grown... and ignore the problem of guns. The Economist bloke say that more can be done with "spot checks".
I might have a cheeky fiver on Con gain Oldham West and Royton
5th to 1st - that even puts the Welsh Valleys and Liverpool in-play ;-)
The bastards won't come near Ystrad Mynach
I'll come to Wrexham, I used to have a girlfriend from there. I love a good weekend up the Wrexham
Nearly fell off my chair on election night when there was speculation on here that Wrexham was too close to call between Lab and Tory, which I dismissed, but then saw it repeated on the BBC programme a few minutes later.
Although Lab held, the result was surprisingly close IIRC...
Yup. Gower was the one that I really enjoyed. The fact some wise PBer had tipped it was merely a bonus.
I might have a cheeky fiver on Con gain Oldham West and Royton
5th to 1st - that even puts the Welsh Valleys and Liverpool in-play ;-)
The bastards won't come near Ystrad Mynach
I'll come to Wrexham, I used to have a girlfriend from there. I love a good weekend up the Wrexham
Nearly fell off my chair on election night when there was speculation on here that Wrexham was too close to call between Lab and Tory, which I dismissed, but then saw it repeated on the BBC programme a few minutes later.
Although Lab held, the result was surprisingly close IIRC...
Yup. Gower was the one that I really enjoyed. The fact some wise PBer had tipped it was merely a bonus.
Said wise PB'er met the Gower MP at conference; I think quite a few of his constituency team were on at even fancier prices!
Comments
Most Irish Republicans did not support the methods of the IRA, but it would be absurd to claim that the IRA had nothing to do with Irish Republican ideology.
"When your nudity causes the humour?"
Like the Belgian Wonerbra ad "OK Girls Say Goodbye To Your Feet"
My own view: The Islamists are using a 'perverted' form of Islam that many Muslims disagree with (although sadly fewer than one would like). But the terrorism is part of Islam, and inspired by a certain reading of the religion.
The problems are that perverted form of Islam is compelling to too many, perhaps because the Koran and the Hadiths are easy to pervert. Or perhaps it's not a perversion, and their reading and use of the Koran is the proper one. In which case we are all in much more serious trouble.
It all comes down to the Shia-Sunni divide. Without that, Islam might be happier in itself, and the need for w're-more-Muslim-than-you would go.
(I read the bible many years ago. I read the Koran afterwards, but stopped halfway through as the tone did not settle well on me. Neither converted me from being an agnostic).
Indeed. If security starts to make a bigger claim on the public purse, or the economy slows, Osborne is in big trouble.
Here's what they initially said for last October (pre revision) Here's what they initially say now So;
- YTD was £64.1bn on first data last year, it's £54.3bn now.
- Rolling 12 month deficit was £97.1bn last year, it's £70.4bn now.
Debt interest is about £50bn - so a primary surplus is about £20bn away.
It obviously could be better, but bearing in mind an inherited deficit of nearly £200bn in today's money, progress is being made.
I'll happily be friends with Labourites, Greens, Lib Dems, Kippers and the rest of the mainstream but I've defriended people who've lurched into the far right and will do the same for those on the far left.
I'm a life long atheist, but generally interested in theology. I'd never read either or text by Mormons or Buddhists or Hindus or Jews.
Been reading about Adam Armstrong, a kid on loan at Coventry from Newcastle, Joe Cole has been raving about him. He has 12 goals in 14 games.
Coventry at home to leaders Gillingham tomorrow, but Gillingham aren't great away and are 10th in the away table having conceded 11 in 8 games.
If Isam is reading this he will advocate going first scorer at 4/1, however Armstrong is 13/8 to score anytime with Hills and looks a good bet to me.
DYOR
Maybe I shouldn't bother. But when the bullshit exceeds a certain level I find it hard not to comment.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-18-9/
Thanks Mr Chestnut.
Your posts never fail to cheer me up.
But in inner London, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Exeter, Durham, Nottingham, Cambridge and Oxford East the electorate would be more than happy with Corbynite Labour.
Religious texts are a product of their age and a product of the men who wrote and edited them down the centuries. People may view their own reading of the texts as the correct one and another as a perversion - but the other people will do the exact same thing! To IS modern Muslims who don't agree with them are apostate perversions.
Ultimately boiling a quarter of the globe down to a single word and trying to interpret what it means for all of them is totally futile.
I do hope the authorities out there are furiously writing letters to the perpetrators, as a matter of extreme urgency...
"... when, as seems all too likely, another attack succeeds in Britain we agree that the only people responsible for it are those who carried it out."
"... It may be that ISIS would like to ‘provoke’ a reaction but that does not necessarily mean a reaction is ill-advised."
etc
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/we-cannot-live-with-islamic-state-so-we-shall-have-to-live-without-them/
I don't know what it is about Facebook that makes people act like such utter dicks.
The particular dread of ISIS is that they have grafted aspects of a doomsday cult on to their version of Islam. We have seen how alluringly deadly such cults can be in the West, leading to mass 'events' like Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.
God help us if this starts to take root among the world's Muslims...
TLDR - Their motives are religious.
There's plenty of stuff that could be outsourced to civilian organisations, rather than left to Plods who should be out on the beat.
Orwell's dictum comes to mind - you can find it in his essay "Politics and the English Language".
Conservatives 612
Residents Associations 591
Liberal Democrat 588
Labour 578
UK Independence Party 168
Greens 58
Yes - like Cromwell and his fellow millenarians in the 1640s I'm afraid.
I read yesterday that councils have stockpiled GBP22bn in spare cash. You can see how its politically advantageous for some to make people feel austerity when it doesn't actually exist.
CON: 23.6% (+10.8)
RAEE: 22.8% (-)
LDEM: 22.7% (-5.4)
LAB: 22.3% (+2.1)
UKIP: 6.5% (-9.7)
GRN: 2.2% (+2.2)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/20/michele-bachmann-obama-rapture_n_7104136.html
Knock yourself out, or wait for Britain Elects
Two outrageously fortunate sub-25% wins for Tories on one day. I doubt they'd normally get two sub-25% wins in one year.
Live-tweeting when police are about to enter a building, or where, is dangerously foolish. Likewise, the TV station that broadcast where people were hiding in the Jewish supermarket deserves a severe penalty (unsure whether that's still going through the courts or has been resolved).
The trouble is that amongst a population of 4-5 million that might represent over half a million who at least may protect or not cooperate with the authorities, not to mention provide a fertile recruiting pool.
I really don't want to get into the world of pressuring Muslims to defend or explain themselves. Most are very reasonable people. But who else is there who can influence people tempted by this warped version of their religion?
I might have a cheeky fiver on Con gain Oldham West and Royton
The same arguments and critiques are being presented by them now as they were presenting pre-May 2010.
Yet, the government are spending more than the 2010 government in absolute terms.
The cuts aren't cuts - they are choices.
At least five key members of David Cameron’s election team have taken up posts in the campaign to stay in the European Union, the Evening Standard has learned.
Key personnel who ran digital campaigning and field operations have accepted positions at Britain Stronger In Europe, with some taking leave of absence from Tory HQ.
The recruitment has been seen as a signal that George Osborne, who oversaw the election campaign, is taking a personal interest in ensuring a “Stay” vote in the referendum, providing there is a successful outcome to reform negotiations.
http://bit.ly/1PE2UWR
Do heterosexual or white spokesbods have much effect on them as trusted sources? I'd doubt it.
There have been reductions in policing budgets for years now, yet crime has fallen.
I also think that the public are largely cynical about the cost effectiveness and general effectiveness of many public services, including the sainted NHS.
We must confront this challenge head on and take the fight to IS whether they want us to or not. Defeating Nazi Germany didn't end support for fascism but it sure helped.
A robust tory performance to derail UKIP in Oldham...???
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fourway
These are people who say nothing or change the subject if politics comes up in a social setting (as generally do I in case my inner "Tory Boy" comes out...), yet on FB they're extreme Corbynite, eco-warrior, peace hippies, who despise the royals and Tories (and particularly Cam and Os) with a passion, and think the NHS and all who work in it are saints.
Meanwhile, in America.....
Will we be similarly robust with taking similar measures against extreme Islamism today?
And TSE - Wrexham isn't Wales. It's Gogland; football playing lot. Ask Michael Owen!
We need to be very careful we don't fulfil their prophesies.
Although Lab held, the result was surprisingly close IIRC...
Amazing how the Beeb finds them.
To their credit, the WRU is making a big push in the North and rugby is gaining a foothold.