@seanfear Most people are on their arse- as my friend calls it. The UK, the land of PoundLand, food banks, charity shops etc... The massive rise of the working poor only managing to get by on state subsidies. Young people shut out from any means to accumulate wealth, indebted until an inheritance looms, many returning home after Uni. The threat of Islamic terror, rising immigration and these pictures of migrants coming into Europe.
It is little surprise that Corbyn's and UKIP's anti politics strike a chord and will increasingly do so.
To be honest I do not know what Labour moderates have to say now, as irrelevant to the modern political discourse as the LD's, or Cameron will likely find if he presses ahead any time soon with a referendum. For the first time, I am genuinely undecided about Europe, and am hedging towards the NO camp, and I never thought I'd be saying that any time.
I wouldn't go quite so far as you, in fact people have coped much better than I thought, but I lean more toward it than the idea there hasn't been a drop in standard of living for many people. I know too many people who've seen very harsh real wage drops.
Personally I've been doing fine though, so it's all good.
''My immediate response was he'd blown it. But then I reconsidered. Who knows in these times? Fear is a major factor in elections.''
its interesting that even as anti immigration feeling erupts in France, the US and the Netherlands, it seems to be lessening here.
We have opted out of the EU refugee quota. British people are looking across the channel and watching chaos unfold while our refugee programme is orderly and small.
''He's said America should end immigration from Muslim countries, that's not an unreasonable policy.''
According to every leading democrat and republican in the US (and every mainstream politician here presumably) , it is completely unreasonable.
Not just immigration - tourism, business etc. Will muslims in the US armed forces be allowed back in? Returning holidaymakers? He said: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". He is an idiot.
Personally I think Tyson Fury is an idiot. But when did the BBC Charter permit this?
"While discussing this morning's papers on the BBC last night, presenter Clive Myrie weighed in on the issue by putting the issue in simple terms: "It's after the watershed...you cannot be a d*ckhead and win Sports Personality of the Year", he claimed."
At this point anybody who still thinks Corbyn and STW are not apologists for terrorism must be deep in denial. If the Labour Party stood up for the things it claims to believe in Corbyn wouldn't even be a member never mind the leader.
''He's said America should end immigration from Muslim countries, that's not an unreasonable policy.''
According to every leading democrat and republican in the US (and every mainstream politician here presumably) , it is completely unreasonable.
Not just immigration - tourism, business etc. Will muslims in the US armed forces be allowed back in? Returning holidaymakers? He said: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". He is an idiot.
Oh is that was he said? Then he is an idiot. I thought it was just immigration.
Personally I think Tyson Fury is an idiot. But when did the BBC Charter permit this?
"While discussing this morning's papers on the BBC last night, presenter Clive Myrie weighed in on the issue by putting the issue in simple terms: "It's after the watershed...you cannot be a d*ckhead and win Sports Personality of the Year", he claimed."
Good old BBC impartiality....Also, I don't remember this level of uproar over sex offender Phil Taylor being on the list multiple times. He had his MBE nomination annulled, but still fine to be SPOTY candidate.
Personally I think Tyson Fury is an idiot. But when did the BBC Charter permit this?
"While discussing this morning's papers on the BBC last night, presenter Clive Myrie weighed in on the issue by putting the issue in simple terms: "It's after the watershed...you cannot be a d*ckhead and win Sports Personality of the Year", he claimed."
Why cannot one be both? He does seem like one, and so I'd hope he would not win on that basis, but if the problem is he might win, that's a problem with the public (or the public not caring about his personality, just achievement), not a reason to disallow him for being a dick.
It's totally unreasonable as it goes against many of the ideals upon which America was founded.
It's unreasonable, unworkable, would likely be unlawful, would be counter-productive, and the real bad guys wouldn't have any difficulty in defeating this mooted "security" measure.
Real incomes have stagnated over that period. Fewer people in that category can buy their own homes. Sure, they may have a few more gizmos, but that's probably small consolation.
Actually, house prices have fallen in real terms over the last 10 years in large areas of the country:
And for those who do rent, quality has improved a lot, which is after all what matters for 'standard of living'.
Of course, in the last ten years, we have seen the biggest financial crash since the 1930s at least, and possibly longer, so the overall long-term upwards trend hit a serious setback, which has only recently been compensated for. But it's a mistake to be too pessimistic or to view the past through rose-tinted glasses. Life really isn't bad for most people, and it's a lot better, in material terms, than ever before,
It's totally unreasonable as it goes against many of the ideals upon which America was founded.
It's unreasonable, unworkable, would likely be unlawful, would be counter-productive, and the real bad guys wouldn't have any difficulty in defeating this mooted "security" measure.
Yeh right Casino, and making the world all cuddly and fluffy. The centre right is as clueless in responding to the impact of stagnation as the centre left. We have been following centre right neo liberal policies for forty year when Callaghan veered rightwards in 1977. Large parts of modern Britain are just depressing, people are poor and alienated, young people are largely shut out of any kind of wealth creation. Reducing the state merely exposes more and more people to the harshness of neo liberal capitalism which is brutal.
Personally, as a Conservative, I'd have reservations on (6), (8) and (9) but the rest of your list is fair enough.
In practice (2) "Always ensure that the most vulnerable and the poorest are not adversely affected by government policy" would act as a "progressive" ratchet. This might be as intended, but it does make it difficult to address the unintended (or indeed intended) consequences of things like tax credits.
Obviously the government should be looking out for the most vulnerable. But eliding that group with "the poorest" - though there is obviously huge overlap - is slippery.
A centre-right view would focus on jobs, incentives to work, training, spreading home ownership and paths to reach it, low tax and promoting the family and neighbouring community as stable social networks.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
Striving to do better is a fundamental part of human nature. The concept that outcomes should be equal irrespective of talent and effort just seems illogical to most people.
It doesn't just seem illogical. It seems unfair. It is unfair. Fairness means accepting that those who work hard should be rewarded. And that those who do not should not be equally rewarded.
Interesting discussion. I think the answer is more nuanced than either absolute equality of outcomes or absolute link to personal success. Instinctively I see us (the world's population) as akin to survivors of a maritime disaster on a desert island - the natural thing is for everyone to pitch in as best they can and the survival rations to be shared out. Giving the hardest worker a bigger hut wouldn't figure large in the calculations. Certainly at a personal level I've earned what I could and looked around for people and causes to give it to, subject to a fairly modest range of personal enjoyment (that's a personal choice and I'm not suggesting it be everyone's choice).
Clearly in practice we need to reward effort (even if you choose to give money away it's desirable to be able to earn more by working more). Conversely I think even the most dedicated supporters of the market will recognise that there are elements outside an individual's control - you may be born with disabilities, or injured in an accident, or working for a company that goes bust, etc. To make rewards partly dependent on such chance effects also seems unfair.I'd square the circle by having a fairly high floor, financed by taxation, but then plenty of scope for earning more by hard work with equality of opportunity as far as possible. It's basically the Scandinavian model.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
Striving to do better is a fundamental part of human nature. The concept that outcomes should be equal irrespective of talent and effort just seems illogical to most people.
It doesn't just seem illogical. It seems unfair. It is unfair. Fairness means accepting that those who work hard should be rewarded. And that those who do not should not be equally rewarded.
Interesting discussion. I think the answer is more nuanced than either absolute equality of outcomes or absolute link to personal success. Instinctively I see us (the world's population) as akin to survivors of a maritime disaster on a desert island - the natural thing is for everyone to pitch in as best they can and the survival rations to be shared out. Giving the hardest worker a bigger hut wouldn't figure large in the calculations. Certainly at a personal level I've earned what I could and looked around for people and causes to give it to, subject to a fairly modest range of personal enjoyment (that's a personal choice and I'm not suggesting it be everyone's choice).
Clearly in practice we need to reward effort (even if you choose to give money away it's desirable to be able to earn more by working more). Conversely I think even the most dedicated supporters of the market will recognise that there are elements outside an individual's control - you may be born with disabilities, or injured in an accident, or working for a company that goes bust, etc. To make rewards partly dependent on such chance effects also seems unfair.I'd square the circle by having a fairly high floor, financed by taxation, but then plenty of scope for earning more by hard work with equality of opportunity as far as possible. It's basically the Scandinavian model.
" I see us (the world's population) as akin to survivors of a maritime disaster on a desert island"
We got married in church and both of us were atheists - his mum was church warden.
I'm very keen on a Christian cultural context - and think Anglicans are the most inoffensive and tolerant lot. Unfortunately, Islam practiced by a small minority of our population is wagging our cultural tail in a serious way.
It's odd but I bristled at the content of that report. I'm a lifelong (OK, since aged 8) atheist. However, I'm not so stupid to not appreciate the cultural context in which I was raised. So atheist, sure. But a Judaeo-Christian one.
As I've written before, I would love to have faith; it's a great consolation to many. It's probably one of the areas where I'm deeply small 'c' conservative. I confess that I'm not able to come up with a rational argument against a secular society; it simply bothers me.
There's not believing in God and the second coming of Jesus, and there's being Richard Dawkins.
No doubt he would consider me to be something of a hypocrite, but I got married in a church and would hate a society without cathedrals, carol concerts and the Christian message.
Do I believe in God? No. Would I have it any other way? No.
There's nothing wrong with admiring and appreciating that which is traditional. There are few things worse than taking a "year zero" approach to your country's institutions and traditions.
One of the interesting things about the whig/liberal governments of the 19th century was the way they presented their reforms as being a return to the past. That's why the High Court of Justice and Parliament were designed to look like medieval buildings. It's why they specifically celebrated the role of Magna Carta and medieval Parliaments as being the forerunners of their own reformed Parliament.
Firstly, who has labelled those three specifically as terrorists? I'm not sure even nutters say simply because someone is muslim they are a terrorist (though nutters can imply more are inclined that way than is the case). So it sounds like those two statements are not really connected.
Secondly, the sign is visually cluttered by adding in the 'not in my name' bit, breaking up the flow of the rest of the message.
Thirdly, perhaps I'm a little emotionally repressed, but I don't hug random people anyway, whether I trust them or not, so I find the implied request for one a little needy and uncomfortably forward, sir.
The whole Tyson Fury thing is Dapper Laughs all over again. The Twitter mob enabled by the left leaning media are building up the hysteria and continuing linking to a petition, that they then write another story to report it is growing in number, linking again to said petition, rinse and repeat.
There is a simple solution if you object to Tyson Fury, don't vote for him, vote for somebody else. There is a simple solution to Dapper Laughs, don't pay to go and see him, don't watch his social media output.
There are plenty of people who I find objectionable, but I don't want them banned e.g. Frankie Boyle. Funny how he gets 2nd and 3rd chances at the BBC / Guardian, despite being a d##khead.
I sort of want Tyson Fury to win now, just to see the swallowed a wasp look on the all the Beeboids, but somehow I don't think they will allow that to happen.
The period since 2000 hasn't seen high unemployment. But we have seen real stagnation in income growth. The average worker hasn't seen his living standard rise in 10 years. .
I would dispute that. His home is much better, with a much better bathroom and kitchen, and it's warmer. His TV is hugely better, and there's more choice of what and when to watch. His car is much better. He has all sorts of new gizmos such as a smartphone. His food is (or can be, if he chooses), much better - supermarkets have dramatically improved quality and range over the last ten years, at ever lower prices. Reasonably good clothes cost a lot less. Foreign holidays and cheap flights mean he has more options at low cost for holidays.
The idea that economic progress has come to a halt for the average family is just nonsense.
Real incomes have stagnated over that period. Fewer people in that category can buy their own homes. Sure, they may have a few more gizmos, but that's probably small consolation.
Firstly, who has labelled those three specifically as terrorists? I'm not sure even nutters say simply because someone is muslim they are a terrorist (though nutters can imply more are inclined that way than is the case). So it sounds like those two statements are not really connected.
Secondly, the sign is visually cluttered by adding in the 'not in my name' bit, breaking up the flow of the rest of the message.
Thirdly, perhaps I'm a little emotionally repressed, but I don't hug random people anyway, whether I trust them or not, so I find the implied request for one a little needy and uncomfortably forward, sir.
I'm even more repressed. I can't hug people who can't spell.
We got married in church and both of us were atheists - his mum was church warden.
I'm very keen on a Christian cultural context - and think Anglicans are the most inoffensive and tolerant lot. Unfortunately, Islam practiced by a small minority of our population is wagging our cultural tail in a serious way.
It's odd but I bristled at the content of that report. I'm a lifelong (OK, since aged 8) atheist. However, I'm not so stupid to not appreciate the cultural context in which I was raised. So atheist, sure. But a Judaeo-Christian one.
As I've written before, I would love to have faith; it's a great consolation to many. It's probably one of the areas where I'm deeply small 'c' conservative. I confess that I'm not able to come up with a rational argument against a secular society; it simply bothers me.
There's not believing in God and the second coming of Jesus, and there's being Richard Dawkins.
No doubt he would consider me to be something of a hypocrite, but I got married in a church and would hate a society without cathedrals, carol concerts and the Christian message.
Do I believe in God? No. Would I have it any other way? No.
There's nothing wrong with admiring and appreciating that which is traditional. There are few things worse than taking a "year zero" approach to your country's institutions and traditions.
One of the interesting things about the whig/liberal governments of the 19th century was the way they presented their reforms as being a return to the past. That's why the High Court of Justice and Parliament were designed to look like medieval buildings. It's why they specifically celebrated the role of Magna Carta and medieval Parliaments as being the forerunners of their own reformed Parliament.
@seanfear Most people are on their arse- as my friend calls it. The UK, the land of PoundLand, food banks, charity shops etc... The massive rise of the working poor only managing to get by on state subsidies. Young people shut out from any means to accumulate wealth, indebted until an inheritance looms, many returning home after Uni. The threat of Islamic terror, rising immigration and these pictures of migrants coming into Europe.
It is little surprise that Corbyn's and UKIP's anti politics strike a chord and will increasingly do so.
To be honest I do not know what Labour moderates have to say now, as irrelevant to the modern political discourse as the LD's, or Cameron will likely find if he presses ahead any time soon with a referendum. For the first time, I am genuinely undecided about Europe, and am hedging towards the NO camp, and I never thought I'd be saying that any time.
The period since 2000 hasn't seen high unemployment. But we have seen real stagnation in income growth. The average worker hasn't seen his living standard rise in 10 years. Manufacturing output has fallen in absolute terms (for the first time since the Industrial Revolution began); home ownership is in decline.
Firstly, who has labelled those three specifically as terrorists? I'm not sure even nutters say simply because someone is muslim they are a terrorist (though nutters can imply more are inclined that way than is the case). So it sounds like those two statements are not really connected.
Secondly, the sign is visually cluttered by adding in the 'not in my name' bit, breaking up the flow of the rest of the message.
Thirdly, perhaps I'm a little emotionally repressed, but I don't hug random people anyway, whether I trust them or not, so I find the implied request for one a little needy and uncomfortably forward, sir.
Seems like the answer should have been 'No'. Being as he has allegedly threatened to throw bombs around.
#VotesAt16.May I humbly suggest the young people of Scotland produced a much better,more informed debate than those conducted in the esteemed forum of PB.Why are the Tories so against and why don't they listen? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56J8CusqXd8
''Meanwhile in US, Trump's latest outburst does not seem to have changed his odds. Still at around 3.5 - 4 for GOP candidate.''
Surely a policy like that is electoral suicide.
Or is it??
My immediate response was he'd blown it. But then I reconsidered. Who knows in these times? Fear is a major factor in elections.
He's said America should end immigration from Muslim countries, that's not an unreasonable policy. I haven't seen or read any suggestion that he said the ones who already live there should be resettled or forcibly removed. If there is then he has gone way off into the deep end.
It is a stupid and unworkable policy that tars everyone from Muslim countries with the same bigoted brush.
Trump is a complete lunatic who is too dumb to realise just how dangerous and idiotic his policies are.
Firstly, who has labelled those three specifically as terrorists? I'm not sure even nutters say simply because someone is muslim they are a terrorist (though nutters can imply more are inclined that way than is the case). So it sounds like those two statements are not really connected.
Secondly, the sign is visually cluttered by adding in the 'not in my name' bit, breaking up the flow of the rest of the message.
Thirdly, perhaps I'm a little emotionally repressed, but I don't hug random people anyway, whether I trust them or not, so I find the implied request for one a little needy and uncomfortably forward, sir.
Seems like the answer should have been 'No'. Being as he has allegedly threatened to throw bombs around.
Probably just because he feels so frustrated at being oppressed, the poor little darling. Can't be because regardless of any other views, he must be a giant c*ck to do something like that.
The whole Tyson Fury thing is Dapper Laughs all over again. The Twitter mob enabled by the left leaning media are building up the hysteria and continuing linking to a petition, that they then write another story to report it is growing in number, linking again to said petition, rinse and repeat.
There is a simple solution if you object to Tyson Fury, don't vote for him, vote for somebody else. There is a simple solution to Dapper Laughs, don't pay to go and see him, don't watch his social media output.
There are plenty of people who I find objectionable, but I don't want them banned e.g. Frankie Boyle. Funny how he gets 2nd and 3rd chances at the BBC / Guardian, despite being a d##khead.
I sort of want Tyson Fury to win now, just to see the swallowed a wasp look on the all the Beeboids, but somehow I don't think they will allow that to happen.
''Meanwhile in US, Trump's latest outburst does not seem to have changed his odds. Still at around 3.5 - 4 for GOP candidate.''
Surely a policy like that is electoral suicide.
Or is it??
My immediate response was he'd blown it. But then I reconsidered. Who knows in these times? Fear is a major factor in elections.
He's said America should end immigration from Muslim countries, that's not an unreasonable policy. I haven't seen or read any suggestion that he said the ones who already live there should be resettled or forcibly removed. If there is then he has gone way off into the deep end.
It is a stupid and unworkable policy that tars everyone from Muslim countries with the same bigoted brush.
Trump is a complete lunatic who is too dumb to realise just how dangerous and idiotic his policies are.
You are quite wrong there Richard. Trump is being very clever, he's nobody's fool; he is like a wolf sniffing the wind. My betting is that he will gobble up more than a few GOP rabbits before he is stopped, if he's stopped at all.
If Tyson Fury were a Muslim - there'd be none of this.
If I understand his background enough - he's an Irish gypsy. Their culture is very clear on homosexuals, adultery, keeping marriage amongst their own culture and other stuff. Men are head of the household.
What's different to Muslims bar even more offensive honor killing and FGM? Oh and terrorists? I can't think of a gyspy related terrorism attack. Slavery and organised crime - yes.
The whole Tyson Fury thing is Dapper Laughs all over again. The Twitter mob enabled by the left leaning media are building up the hysteria and continuing linking to a petition, that they then write another story to report it is growing in number, linking again to said petition, rinse and repeat.
There is a simple solution if you object to Tyson Fury, don't vote for him, vote for somebody else. There is a simple solution to Dapper Laughs, don't pay to go and see him, don't watch his social media output.
There are plenty of people who I find objectionable, but I don't want them banned e.g. Frankie Boyle. Funny how he gets 2nd and 3rd chances at the BBC / Guardian, despite being a d##khead.
I sort of want Tyson Fury to win now, just to see the swallowed a wasp look on the all the Beeboids, but somehow I don't think they will allow that to happen.
For anyone who hasn't read up and coming author S K Tremayne's book, The Ice Twins, it is available as a free download for Times subscribers in the Times+ portal.
Firstly, who has labelled those three specifically as terrorists? I'm not sure even nutters say simply because someone is muslim they are a terrorist (though nutters can imply more are inclined that way than is the case). So it sounds like those two statements are not really connected.
Secondly, the sign is visually cluttered by adding in the 'not in my name' bit, breaking up the flow of the rest of the message.
Thirdly, perhaps I'm a little emotionally repressed, but I don't hug random people anyway, whether I trust them or not, so I find the implied request for one a little needy and uncomfortably forward, sir.
I'm even more repressed. I can't hug people who can't spell.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
Striving to do better is a fundamental part of human nature. The concept that outcomes should be equal irrespective of talent and effort just seems illogical to most people.
It doesn't just seem illogical. It seems unfair. It is unfair. Fairness means accepting that those who work hard should be rewarded. And that those who do not should not be equally rewarded.
snip
Clearly in practice we need to reward effort (even if you choose to give money away it's desirable to be able to earn more by working more). Conversely I think even the most dedicated supporters of the market will recognise that there are elements outside an individual's control - you may be born with disabilities, or injured in an accident, or working for a company that goes bust, etc. To make rewards partly dependent on such chance effects also seems unfair.I'd square the circle by having a fairly high floor, financed by taxation, but then plenty of scope for earning more by hard work with equality of opportunity as far as possible. It's basically the Scandinavian model.
" I see us (the world's population) as akin to survivors of a maritime disaster on a desert island"
Err....?
"you may be born with disabilities, or injured in an accident"
I think the political philosopher, Dworkin, labelled these types of things 'brute luck'. Stuff that happen to anyone and completely stuffs them. This in contrast to earned or optional luck, where a person works for a better situation (e.g. working hard to pass a degree).
We should engineer a society that supports people hit by brute luck.
That's a really excellent article. Interestingly, as a Corbyn supporter I agree with most of Southam's response (the list of principles for an attractive centrist alternative platform for Labour, not the repetitive Dan Hodges echo post), and I think a lot of members would. If there was another leadership election at some point in the next few years, as Keiran predicts, a candidate on that sort of platform would stand a good chance, whereas a candidate who had spent the previous year or two just whinging to the Mail about the current leadership would not (and would get part of the blame for any electoral setbacks). A centrist grumbling about Corbyn showing loyalty to Stop the War is boring; a centrist with an alternative agenda is definitely worth reading.
The two elements of Southam's list that I'd hesitate over are the meaning of internationalism and the openness to private provision of state services. On the first, we can all agree that international solidarity is important, but if it means military intervention, it's not just Labour members who think we need a pause from that. On the second, I wouldn't disagree in principle, but the privatisation agenda is being driven so far by the Tories that I'm not sure there is any space to adopt policies of accepting it or going even further. Stopping short of total reversal of privatisation (which even Corbyn hasn't promised) and looking at what works is probably where the centrist position needs to be.
Nick: how can you - as a Corbyn supporter - say that you find SO's principles attractive? There are a number of those principles: 1, 3 and 7 which would not be supported by Corbyn or his allies, 3 and 7 in particular.
With NPXMP you would be very foolish to believe anything he says or writes on politics. The last few months have made his political 'principles' abundantly clear.
If Tyson Fury were a Muslim - there'd be none of this.
If I understand his background enough - he's an Irish gypsy. Their culture is very clear on homosexuals, adultery, keeping marriage amongst their own culture and other stuff. Men are head of the household.
What's different to Muslims bar even more offensive honor killing and FGM? Oh and terrorists? I can't think of a gyspy related terrorism attack. Slavery and organised crime - yes.
The whole Tyson Fury thing is Dapper Laughs all over again. The Twitter mob enabled by the left leaning media are building up the hysteria and continuing linking to a petition, that they then write another story to report it is growing in number, linking again to said petition, rinse and repeat.
There is a simple solution if you object to Tyson Fury, don't vote for him, vote for somebody else. There is a simple solution to Dapper Laughs, don't pay to go and see him, don't watch his social media output.
There are plenty of people who I find objectionable, but I don't want them banned e.g. Frankie Boyle. Funny how he gets 2nd and 3rd chances at the BBC / Guardian, despite being a d##khead.
I sort of want Tyson Fury to win now, just to see the swallowed a wasp look on the all the Beeboids, but somehow I don't think they will allow that to happen.
I believe the term you are looking for is "his cultural sensitivities". e.g. Segregated meeting....Wonder what the BBC would think if Fury had demanded that everybody be segregated into men and women sections at this fight?
Meanwhile in US, Trump's latest outburst does not seem to have changed his odds. Still at around 3.5 - 4 for GOP candidate.
The GOP establishment is having kittens at the thought that he might win but if you're not going to vet your candidates than that's the sort of risk you run. Trump's greatest danger remains himself but he is tapping into exactly the same vein of anti-establishment support that Corbyn and Tsipras did from the other side and which the Tea Party did not too long ago. At some point he may well go too far to win the nomination but I don't think he has yet.
On that note, a quick comment on Iowa. It's not just support you need to do well there, it's passionate, devoted support. Turning out in the middle of winter when it's dark and -20 outside takes motivation. For all that his views put many off, they'll be motivating his base no end, and he was already polling strongly there (though there was a very bad one for him this week, which may or may not have been a rogue).
Clive Myrie's there to read news, not weigh in with his own views.
Some might say that Tyson Fury is there to box, not weigh in (ho, ho) with his own views. Of course unless one is intent on getting outraged selectively, we're all entitled to ignore his and Myrie's views/statements.
''Meanwhile in US, Trump's latest outburst does not seem to have changed his odds. Still at around 3.5 - 4 for GOP candidate.''
Surely a policy like that is electoral suicide.
Or is it??
My immediate response was he'd blown it. But then I reconsidered. Who knows in these times? Fear is a major factor in elections.
He's said America should end immigration from Muslim countries, that's not an unreasonable policy. I haven't seen or read any suggestion that he said the ones who already live there should be resettled or forcibly removed. If there is then he has gone way off into the deep end.
It is a stupid and unworkable policy that tars everyone from Muslim countries with the same bigoted brush.
Trump is a complete lunatic who is too dumb to realise just how dangerous and idiotic his policies are.
You are quite wrong there Richard. Trump is being very clever, he's nobody's fool; he is like a wolf sniffing the wind. My betting is that he will gobble up more than a few GOP rabbits before he is stopped, if he's stopped at all.
''Meanwhile in US, Trump's latest outburst does not seem to have changed his odds. Still at around 3.5 - 4 for GOP candidate.''
Surely a policy like that is electoral suicide.
Or is it??
My immediate response was he'd blown it. But then I reconsidered. Who knows in these times? Fear is a major factor in elections.
He's said America should end immigration from Muslim countries, that's not an unreasonable policy. I haven't seen or read any suggestion that he said the ones who already live there should be resettled or forcibly removed. If there is then he has gone way off into the deep end.
It is a stupid and unworkable policy that tars everyone from Muslim countries with the same bigoted brush.
Trump is a complete lunatic who is too dumb to realise just how dangerous and idiotic his policies are.
You are quite wrong there Richard. Trump is being very clever, he's nobody's fool; he is like a wolf sniffing the wind. My betting is that he will gobble up more than a few GOP rabbits before he is stopped, if he's stopped at all.
Yeh right. A man with an ego the size of a large state doesn't want to be POTUS.
I don't agree that the 'great battles' have been won. Inequality is a huge, huge problem in our society, as is social mobility which has been worsening since the 1970s. Issues regarding LGBT rights have improved, but homophobia still exists; and certainly transophobia still exists as well - and is potentially an even worse problem than homophobia. Women's place in society has improved, but it is by no means a concluded battle. Racism, still exists too - it may not be blatant, in your face racism - today it comes in a far more subtle form, but it's still there.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election.
P.S I also don't see how the 'self-declared' oppressed a part of the establishment. Ethnic minorities, women, and gay people are certainly not represented highly in positions of power in our society.
And no, we should not have 'three' Tory parties. Believe it or not, Toryism is not a perfect ideology without flaws.
For anyone who hasn't read up and coming author S K Tremayne's book, The Ice Twins, it is available as a free download for Times subscribers in the Times+ portal.
Mr. Divvie, disagree entirely. Boxers have a history of having, shall we say, loud personalities. It's part of the show.
A newsreader is there to read news. I dislike the chummy aside to the camera or feeble attempts at jesting that some inflict upon the viewer. If I want comedy, I'll watch my Not The Nine O'Clock News DVDs (or read my excellent but as-yet-unreleased comedy Sir Edric's Treasure, due out in early 2016).
Meanwhile in US, Trump's latest outburst does not seem to have changed his odds. Still at around 3.5 - 4 for GOP candidate.
The GOP establishment is having kittens at the thought that he might win but if you're not going to vet your candidates than that's the sort of risk you run. Trump's greatest danger remains himself but he is tapping into exactly the same vein of anti-establishment support that Corbyn and Tsipras did from the other side and which the Tea Party did not too long ago. At some point he may well go too far to win the nomination but I don't think he has yet.
On that note, a quick comment on Iowa. It's not just support you need to do well there, it's passionate, devoted support. Turning out in the middle of winter when it's dark and -20 outside takes motivation. For all that his views put many off, they'll be motivating his base no end, and he was already polling strongly there (though there was a very bad one for him this week, which may or may not have been a rogue).
What does he have to say to be in danger of losing the nomination. Is locking all muslims out and closing down the Internet not enough? If the GOP choose Trump then they deserve to lose worse than Goldwater.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
.
As we're apparently set for 1000 years of Tory rule to hear some Tories (and Labour people!) tell it, I'm sure things will be fine and dandy at some point during that time.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
.
As we're apparently set for 1000 years of Tory rule to hear some Tories (and Labour people!) tell it, I'm sure things will be fine and dandy at some point during that time.
For some reason, that brought to mind the following sentence which would almost be funny, if the subject matter weren't so appalling (re the San Bernadino shooting):
"Farook appeared to hesitate, perhaps momentarily losing his nerve or maybe to seek out a specific victim, such as Thalasinos, with whom he had argued over whether Islam could call itself a peaceful religion. "
The period since 2000 hasn't seen high unemployment. But we have seen real stagnation in income growth. The average worker hasn't seen his living standard rise in 10 years. .
I would dispute that. His home is much better, with a much better bathroom and kitchen, and it's warmer. His TV is hugely better, and there's more choice of what and when to watch. His car is much better. He has all sorts of new gizmos such as a smartphone. His food is (or can be, if he chooses), much better - supermarkets have dramatically improved quality and range over the last ten years, at ever lower prices. Reasonably good clothes cost a lot less. Foreign holidays and cheap flights mean he has more options at low cost for holidays.
The idea that economic progress has come to a halt for the average family is just nonsense.
Real incomes have stagnated over that period. Fewer people in that category can buy their own homes. Sure, they may have a few more gizmos, but that's probably small consolation.
Completely - and those who do own in London have seen exceptionally low mortgage rates to offset any tax rises or wage freezes. My mother's house in the NE is still worse less than when i sold my half to my sister in 2010!
Here's the politico website confirming it as well.
Crosby revealed that he will not be managing the Tories’ next election campaign, and also confirmed that his firm would have no involvement in the upcoming referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. He did, however, confirm that his firm would assist with Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith’s campaign to become the mayor of London.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
.
As we're apparently set for 1000 years of Tory rule to hear some Tories (and Labour people!) tell it, I'm sure things will be fine and dandy at some point during that time.
I'm hoping for a ten thousand year Tory Reich.
Pause for a verse or two of 'Tomorrow Belongs to Me' ;-)
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
.
As we're apparently set for 1000 years of Tory rule to hear some Tories (and Labour people!) tell it, I'm sure things will be fine and dandy at some point during that time.
Politics is cyclical. At some point the Left will get it together, and win a GE. People won't vote Tory forever, and the Corbyns of this world at some point have to accept defeat. But I agree with the posts which argue that both Labour and the Tories are going to find the addition of issues relating to globalisation, immigration etc difficult. Particularly given that it's been reported Osborne needs rising immigration to meet his growth targets.
I used to read your comments with interest. Now they're very trite. A shame. And your incessant Tory focus is bizarre - you're creating strawmen in almost every post.
And as for the bit I highlighted in bold - well these groups seems to think they're more equal than their WWC equivalents.
I've zero time for identity politics - you appear to talk in those terms a great deal.
I don't agree that the 'great battles' have been won. Inequality is a huge, huge problem in our society, as is social mobility which has been worsening since the 1970s. Issues regarding LGBT rights have improved, but homophobia still exists; and certainly transophobia still exists as well - and is potentially an even worse problem than homophobia. Women's place in society has improved, but it is by no means a concluded battle. Racism, still exists too - it may not be blatant, in your face racism - today it comes in a far more subtle form, but it's still there.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election.
P.S I also don't see how the 'self-declared' oppressed a part of the establishment. Ethnic minorities, women, and gay people are certainly not represented highly in positions of power in our society.
And no, we should not have 'three' Tory parties. Believe it or not, Toryism is not a perfect ideology without flaws.
I don't agree that the 'great battles' have been won. Inequality is a huge, huge problem in our society, as is social mobility which has been worsening since the 1970s. Issues regarding LGBT rights have improved, but homophobia still exists; and certainly transophobia still exists as well - and is potentially an even worse problem than homophobia. Women's place in society has improved, but it is by no means a concluded battle. Racism, still exists too - it may not be blatant, in your face racism - today it comes in a far more subtle form, but it's still there.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election.
P.S I also don't see how the 'self-declared' oppressed a part of the establishment. Ethnic minorities, women, and gay people are certainly not represented highly in positions of power in our society.
And no, we should not have 'three' Tory parties. Believe it or not, Toryism is not a perfect ideology without flaws.
As I made the original argument, I object to your characterisation. Things most certainly aren't fine and dandy; no one thinks we've built Jerusalem. However, relatively speaking we have improved beyond all measure.
Regarding *phobias. There are people who don't like me because of my political views, others because I'm transgender, others because I'm an atheist. I don't label them as phobic; as long as they aren't physically attacking me or preventing me doing my work, it's just one of those things. I can't make people like me; some people are simply dickheads. In terms of my day to day life, the only impact has been that I can no longer donate blood, which is a shame.
With respect to the Conservatives, we have yet to begin living within our means, which outrages me. IIRC you're one of our younger posters. I object very strongly to my generation handing our debts down to you (and my daughter and future grandchildren). Osborne has been merely lucky. We are going to be pissing money down the drain (on debt servicing costs) for decades. That's a massive opportunity cost.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
.
As we're apparently set for 1000 years of Tory rule to hear some Tories (and Labour people!) tell it, I'm sure things will be fine and dandy at some point during that time.
I'm hoping for a ten thousand year Tory Reich.
Pause for a verse or two of 'Tomorrow Belongs to Me' ;-)
The whole Tyson Fury thing is Dapper Laughs all over again. The Twitter mob enabled by the left leaning media are building up the hysteria and continuing linking to a petition, that they then write another story to report it is growing in number, linking again to said petition, rinse and repeat.
There is a simple solution if you object to Tyson Fury, don't vote for him, vote for somebody else. There is a simple solution to Dapper Laughs, don't pay to go and see him, don't watch his social media output.
There are plenty of people who I find objectionable, but I don't want them banned e.g. Frankie Boyle. Funny how he gets 2nd and 3rd chances at the BBC / Guardian, despite being a d##khead.
I sort of want Tyson Fury to win now, just to see the swallowed a wasp look on the all the Beeboids, but somehow I don't think they will allow that to happen.
Dear god help me I watched the full hour long interview and if there's one thing that is for sure, is that Tyson Fury is a personality. He is also currently at the top of his sport.
He had been having a long-term spat with the DM about comments relating to paedophilia, abortion and homosexuality. I heard him clarify-ish these in the interview. He was sadly not pushed on homosexuality, save to quote from the bible saying it was a pre-requisite for it to be legalised before the bibilical apocolypse. He clarified his position on paedophiles (like to be left in a room with them with two hammers).
I have quite a fine tuned antenna when it comes to homophobia and I couldn't get on the outrage bus.
It is and was clear his views come from an orthodox religious perspective and they have become his own. Call him a fundamentalist.
That the BBC should call a religious fundamentalist a d**ckhead to me seems wrong. Because that would rule in a lot of groups to call d**ckheads. Which they don't do.
It was also clear that Tyson Fury is a genuine bloke, doesn't hate anyone specifically, is funny, self-aware, and would be a good candidate for SPOTY.
I don't agree that the 'great battles' have been won. Inequality is a huge, huge problem in our society, as is social mobility which has been worsening since the 1970s. Issues regarding LGBT rights have improved, but homophobia still exists; and certainly transophobia still exists as well - and is potentially an even worse problem than homophobia. Women's place in society has improved, but it is by no means a concluded battle. Racism, still exists too - it may not be blatant, in your face racism - today it comes in a far more subtle form, but it's still there.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election.
P.S I also don't see how the 'self-declared' oppressed a part of the establishment. Ethnic minorities, women, and gay people are certainly not represented highly in positions of power in our society.
And no, we should not have 'three' Tory parties. Believe it or not, Toryism is not a perfect ideology without flaws.
I agree, inequality is a huge problem and the Right shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, if for no other reason than it seems likely that low wage and no wage growth is starting to seriously dampen demand in developed economies.
''The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election. ''
How can you expect to be in power when you are out of ideas?
Mr. Divvie, disagree entirely. Boxers have a history of having, shall we say, loud personalities. It's part of the show.
A newsreader is there to read news. I dislike the chummy aside to the camera or feeble attempts at jesting that some inflict upon the viewer. If I want comedy, I'll watch my Not The Nine O'Clock News DVDs (or read my excellent but as-yet-unreleased comedy Sir Edric's Treasure, due out in early 2016).
You'll have to forward me a list of those folk who are entitled to express their views freely, and those who are not, just for guidance, like.
I don't agree that the 'great battles' have been won. Inequality is a huge, huge problem in our society, as is social mobility which has been worsening since the 1970s. Issues regarding LGBT rights have improved, but homophobia still exists; and certainly transophobia still exists as well - and is potentially an even worse problem than homophobia. Women's place in society has improved, but it is by no means a concluded battle. Racism, still exists too - it may not be blatant, in your face racism - today it comes in a far more subtle form, but it's still there.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election.
P.S I also don't see how the 'self-declared' oppressed a part of the establishment. Ethnic minorities, women, and gay people are certainly not represented highly in positions of power in our society.
And no, we should not have 'three' Tory parties. Believe it or not, Toryism is not a perfect ideology without flaws.
As I made the original argument, I object to your characterisation. Things most certainly aren't fine and dandy; no one thinks we've built Jerusalem. However, relatively speaking we have improved beyond all measure.
Regarding *phobias. There are people who don't like me because of my political views, others because I'm transgender, others because I'm an atheist. I don't label them as phobic; as long as they aren't physically attacking me or preventing me doing my work, it's just one of those things. I can't make people like me; some people are simply dickheads. In terms of my day to day life, the only impact has been that I can no longer donate blood, which is a shame.
With respect to the Conservatives, we have yet to begin living within our means, which outrages me. IIRC you're one of our younger posters. I object very strongly to my generation handing our debts down to you (and my daughter and future grandchildren). Osborne has been merely lucky. We are going to be pissing money down the drain (on debt servicing costs) for decades. That's a massive opportunity cost.
If Tyson Fury were a Muslim - there'd be none of this.
If I understand his background enough - he's an Irish gypsy. Their culture is very clear on homosexuals, adultery, keeping marriage amongst their own culture and other stuff. Men are head of the household.
What's different to Muslims bar even more offensive honor killing and FGM? Oh and terrorists? I can't think of a gyspy related terrorism attack. Slavery and organised crime - yes.
The whole Tyson Fury thing is Dapper Laughs all over again. The Twitter mob enabled by the left leaning media are building up the hysteria and continuing linking to a petition, that they then write another story to report it is growing in number, linking again to said petition, rinse and repeat.
There is a simple solution if you object to Tyson Fury, don't vote for him, vote for somebody else. There is a simple solution to Dapper Laughs, don't pay to go and see him, don't watch his social media output.
There are plenty of people who I find objectionable, but I don't want them banned e.g. Frankie Boyle. Funny how he gets 2nd and 3rd chances at the BBC / Guardian, despite being a d##khead.
I sort of want Tyson Fury to win now, just to see the swallowed a wasp look on the all the Beeboids, but somehow I don't think they will allow that to happen.
If there's one thing the BBC can do well, it's rig a vote without rigging a vote. I expect a lot of Andy Murray and the Davis Cup early on in the show, compared with the most passing reference to boxing. It'll be explained away - if at all - by who holds the rights to the respective coverage, or some such.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
.
As we're apparently set for 1000 years of Tory rule to hear some Tories (and Labour people!) tell it, I'm sure things will be fine and dandy at some point during that time.
Politics is cyclical. At some point the Left will get it together, and win a GE. People won't vote Tory forever, and the Corbyns of this world at some point have to accept defeat. But I agree with the posts which argue that both Labour and the Tories are going to find the addition of issues relating to globalisation, immigration etc difficult. Particularly given that it's been reported Osborne needs rising immigration to meet his growth targets.
A thousand year cycle, similar to the Mayan calendar
There's a difference between what you can do at work and what you can do in your private life. Newsreaders aren't there to be witty, but to relay the news. If a stand-up comedian spent 90 minutes reporting on current events, that would also be wrong.
It's unprofessional for a newsreader to swear (even in a mild way).
I don't agree that the 'great battles' have been won. Inequality is a huge, huge problem in our society, as is social mobility which has been worsening since the 1970s. Issues regarding LGBT rights have improved, but homophobia still exists; and certainly transophobia still exists as well - and is potentially an even worse problem than homophobia. Women's place in society has improved, but it is by no means a concluded battle. Racism, still exists too - it may not be blatant, in your face racism - today it comes in a far more subtle form, but it's still there.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election.
P.S I also don't see how the 'self-declared' oppressed a part of the establishment. Ethnic minorities, women, and gay people are certainly not represented highly in positions of power in our society.
And no, we should not have 'three' Tory parties. Believe it or not, Toryism is not a perfect ideology without flaws.
I think I agree with your first two sentences. As to the rest, today's "great battles" seem to be about trying to silence people who disagree with whichever minority is shouting the loudest, alongside various forms of special pleading.
Nick: how can you - as a Corbyn supporter - say that you find SO's principles attractive? There are a number of those principles: 1, 3 and 7 which would not be supported by Corbyn or his allies, 3 and 7 in particular.
They are: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core. -> Absolutely. There is scope for debate about how far we ALSO favour equality of outcomes - see my earlier post. But it's not controversial to say that inequalities of opportunity should be reduced as far as possible, and that's a common priority right across the left and much of the right as well. 3. Be unambivalent in saying the capitalist system is the best lever for achieving its aims. The market is an opportunity, not the enemy. ->OK, that's not a Corbyn position, but in practice nobody - Corbyn or anyone else in Labour - is proposing Militant-style mass nationalisation of everything. Most Labour members would be OK with acknowledging that in practice the market is here to stay and we need to work with it to make it an opportunity. 7. Be embedded in middle Britain, not in specific geographies or communities. Celebrate Britain. ->Yes. We had an exchange on that before, where you were surprised that I said that treating people as individuals rather than groups was a left-wing principle. On the left we see enormous obstacles to people in less favoured sectors - minorities, women, people from lower class backgrounds, immigrants, and so on - and we think that people in those groups should work together to overcome them ("class solidarity", if we want to be Marxist about it). But the end result should be that the obstacles disappear and it's possible for individuals to shine on their own merits - equality of opportunity again. Celebrating Britain is not especially something I do - I see bits of numerous countries that I like. But the left in general are keen on celebrating British traditions from the Chartists to the modern day. They aren't into celebrating the monarchy, say, but attacking it isn't a important either. I don't think there's much to fall out about in that.
If Tyson Fury were a Muslim - there'd be none of this.
If I understand his background enough - he's an Irish gypsy. Their culture is very clear on homosexuals, adultery, keeping marriage amongst their own culture and other stuff. Men are head of the household.
What's different to Muslims bar even more offensive honor killing and FGM? Oh and terrorists? I can't think of a gyspy related terrorism attack. Slavery and organised crime - yes.
The whole Tyson Fury thing is Dapper Laughs all over again. The Twitter mob enabled by the left leaning media are building up the hysteria and continuing linking to a petition, that they then write another story to report it is growing in number, linking again to said petition, rinse and repeat.
There is a simple solution if you object to Tyson Fury, don't vote for him, vote for somebody else. There is a simple solution to Dapper Laughs, don't pay to go and see him, don't watch his social media output.
There are plenty of people who I find objectionable, but I don't want them banned e.g. Frankie Boyle. Funny how he gets 2nd and 3rd chances at the BBC / Guardian, despite being a d##khead.
I sort of want Tyson Fury to win now, just to see the swallowed a wasp look on the all the Beeboids, but somehow I don't think they will allow that to happen.
If there's one thing the BBC can do well, it's rig a vote without rigging a vote. I expect a lot of Andy Murray and the Davis Cup early on in the show, compared with the most passing reference to boxing. It'll be explained away - if at all - by who holds the rights to the respective coverage, or some such.
They won't have any boxing footage to show that is for sure. AFAIK, boxing is very very protective of the rights, hence why even after the fact, so often all you will see is stills in the reports, because the rights holders demand a fortune. Very convenient in this case though.
If Tyson Fury were a Muslim - there'd be none of this.
If I understand his background enough - he's an Irish gypsy. Their culture is very clear on homosexuals, adultery, keeping marriage amongst their own culture and other stuff. Men are head of the household.
What's different to Muslims bar even more offensive honor killing and FGM? Oh and terrorists? I can't think of a gyspy related terrorism attack. Slavery and organised crime - yes.
The whole Tyson Fury thing is Dapper Laughs all over again. The Twitter mob enabled by the left leaning media are building up the hysteria and continuing linking to a petition, that they then write another story to report it is growing in number, linking again to said petition, rinse and repeat.
There is a simple solution if you object to Tyson Fury, don't vote for him, vote for somebody else. There is a simple solution to Dapper Laughs, don't pay to go and see him, don't watch his social media output.
There are plenty of people who I find objectionable, but I don't want them banned e.g. Frankie Boyle. Funny how he gets 2nd and 3rd chances at the BBC / Guardian, despite being a d##khead.
I sort of want Tyson Fury to win now, just to see the swallowed a wasp look on the all the Beeboids, but somehow I don't think they will allow that to happen.
If there's one thing the BBC can do well, it's rig a vote without rigging a vote. I expect a lot of Andy Murray and the Davis Cup early on in the show, compared with the most passing reference to boxing. It'll be explained away - if at all - by who holds the rights to the respective coverage, or some such.
I used to read your comments with interest. Now they're very trite. A shame. And your incessant Tory focus is bizarre - you're creating strawmen in almost every post.
And as for the bit I highlighted in bold - well these groups seems to think they're more equal than their WWC equivalents.
I've zero time for identity politics - you appear to talk in those terms a great deal.
I have to say, the feeling is mutual Plato. Now, it appears (and I stress the word 'appears') you will agree with anything Cameron and Osborne say or do, and certainly much your opinions appear to align with the Conservative Right, than the Conservative Left (I would say TSE and DavidL are Tory moderates, for example and there perspectives appear to be somewhat different from your own). My 'incessant' Tory focus is as a result of this site's obsession with the greatness of the Conservative party, and general disdain for the Left (as opposed to simply just the Corbynite Left). And I'm not creating strawman. You can go back to earlier in this thread (or, if you're looking at PB through vanilla, page 1 of this thread) you'll see that there are arguments that state that the Left's biggest problems are that the 'great battles have been won', and that we should have 'three Tory parties', and that the self-oppressed are now 'a part of the establishment'.
And no, I can assure you that the BIB groups do not think they are 'better' than the WWC. It appears on this site that anything that talks about issues relating to gender, race, etc. is 'identity politics'. You may not have time for these issues, but I do - partly because they affect me, and partly because I see them as important issues in politics, and overall society.
I don't agree that the 'great battles' have been won. Inequality is a huge, huge problem in our society, as is social mobility which has been worsening since the 1970s. Issues regarding LGBT rights have improved, but homophobia still exists; and certainly transophobia still exists as well - and is potentially an even worse problem than homophobia. Women's place in society has improved, but it is by no means a concluded battle. Racism, still exists too - it may not be blatant, in your face racism - today it comes in a far more subtle form, but it's still there.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election.
P.S I also don't see how the 'self-declared' oppressed a part of the establishment. Ethnic minorities, women, and gay people are certainly not represented highly in positions of power in our society.
And no, we should not have 'three' Tory parties. Believe it or not, Toryism is not a perfect ideology without flaws.
As I made the original argument, I object to your characterisation. Things most certainly aren't fine and dandy; no one thinks we've built Jerusalem. However, relatively speaking we have improved beyond all measure.
With respect to the Conservatives, we have yet to begin living within our means, which outrages me. IIRC you're one of our younger posters. I object very strongly to my generation handing our debts down to you (and my daughter and future grandchildren). Osborne has been merely lucky. We are going to be pissing money down the drain (on debt servicing costs) for decades. That's a massive opportunity cost.
I could go on, but I shall spare you .
I'm still wading through the whole social transition thing. I'm perfectly capable of doing an internal look up and mapping John onto my actual name .
Sadly, HRT in your 50s is very slow to take effect, plus I'm tall and well built. Not exactly prime transition materiel, but I trudge on regardless! It's another of the blessings of the Internet - it's enabled me to get to grip with my condition in a way I'd never have managed before.
@The_Apocalypse (And others) Why do you keep insisting Cameron and Osborne are on the Tory right, they are absolubtely NOT. They are bang Tory centre ground, slightly right of UK political centre ground, but they are utterly and completely NOT on the RIGHT.
I used to read your comments with interest. Now they're very trite. A shame. And your incessant Tory focus is bizarre - you're creating strawmen in almost every post.
And as for the bit I highlighted in bold - well these groups seems to think they're more equal than their WWC equivalents.
I've zero time for identity politics - you appear to talk in those terms a great deal.
I have to say, the feeling is mutual Plato. Now, it appears (and I stress the word 'appears') you will agree with anything Cameron and Osborne say or do, and certainly much your opinions appear to align with the Conservative Right, than the Conservative Left (I would say TSE and DavidL are Tory moderates, for example and there perspectives appear to be somewhat different from your own). My 'incessant' Tory focus is as a result of this site's obsession with the greatness of the Conservative party, and general disdain for the Left (as opposed to simply just the Corbynite Left). And I'm not creating strawman. You can go back to earlier in this thread (or, if you're looking at PB through vanilla, page 1 of this thread) you'll see that there are arguments that state that the Left's biggest problems are that the 'great battles have been won', and that we should have 'three Tory parties', and that the self-oppressed are now 'a part of the establishment'.
And no, I can assure you that the BIB groups do not think they are 'better' than the WWC. It appears on this site that anything that talks about issues relating to gender, race, etc. is 'identity politics'. You may not have time for these issues, but I do - partly because they affect me, and partly because I see them as important issues in politics, and overall society.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core. 2. Always ensure that the most vulnerable and the poorest are not adversely affected by government policy. 3. Be unambivalent in saying the capitalist system is the best lever for achieving its aims. The market is an opportunity, not the enemy. 4. Be clear that the market does not exist in a bubble of its own and that it is not always the answer. 5. See the state as a guarantor of the highest standards of service and service delivery. But not always as a service provider. 6. Be willing to unequivocally make the case for welfare, but be totally intolerant of welfare abuse. 7. Be embedded in middle Britain, not in specific geographies or communities. Celebrate Britain. 8. Make the case for internationalism, not isolation; focus on soft power as a means to ensuring Britain's voice is heard. 9. Be unafraid of making the case for wealth redistribution as something that ultimately benefits everyone; while at the same time embracing aspiration as a very positive force.
It's not a hugely ambitious list. It is a moderate one. It's not hugely exciting, but practical, deliverable politicies rarely are. A lot of it is about competence. Corbynistas will hate it.
A Labour party with an agenda like that would be on the way to being attractive.
I think they also need to focus on how our education system fails 90% of our population at the present time, even if the top 10% get a world class education. They need to out-Grove Grove in looking for improvements for the majority giving them a better chance of getting well paid employment in the modern world.
I think they also need to demonstrate that they are safe with the economy again by recognising that your list of objectives have to take place within a stable and sustainable economic framework. This means (and it is something that Miliband just refused to address) addressing how those desirable objectives are done without spending lots more money that we haven't got.
@The_Apocalypse (And others) Why do you keep insisting Cameron and Osborne are on the Tory right, they are absolubtely NOT. They are bang Tory centre ground, slightly right of UK political centre ground, but they are utterly and completely NOT on the RIGHT.
It would certainly be a surprise to the Tory malcontents on the backbenches who've been complaining about them incessantly for years (though naturally they have been quieter, but not silent, since the GE) doe to their lack of rightness. In specific areas, perhaps.
Good luck, I've a few trans and trannie friends [from when I used to be into body building] and it's an awkward thing for many to get over. Never bothered me at all.
I don't agree that the 'great battles' have been won. Inequality is a huge, huge problem in our society, as is social mobility which has been worsening since the 1970s. Issues regarding LGBT rights have improved, but homophobia still exists; and certainly transophobia still exists as well - and is potentially an even worse problem than homophobia. Women's place in society has improved, but it is by no means a concluded battle. Racism, still exists too - it may not be blatant, in your face racism - today it comes in a far more subtle form, but it's still there.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election.
P.S I also don't see how the 'self-declared' oppressed a part of the establishment. Ethnic minorities, women, and gay people are certainly not represented highly in positions of power in our society.
And no, we should not have 'three' Tory parties. Believe it or not, Toryism is not a perfect ideology without flaws.
As I made the original argument, I object to your characterisation. Things most certainly aren't fine and dandy; no one thinks we've built Jerusalem. However, relatively speaking we have improved beyond all measure.
With respect to the Conservatives, we have yet to begin living within our means, which outrages me. IIRC you're one of our younger posters. I object very strongly to my generation handing our debts down to you (and my daughter and future grandchildren). Osborne has been merely lucky. We are going to be pissing money down the drain (on debt servicing costs) for decades. That's a massive opportunity cost.
I could go on, but I shall spare you .
I'm still wading through the whole social transition thing. I'm perfectly capable of doing an internal look up and mapping John onto my actual name .
Sadly, HRT in your 50s is very slow to take effect, plus I'm tall and well built. Not exactly prime transition materiel, but I trudge on regardless! It's another of the blessings of the Internet - it's enabled me to get to grip with my condition in a way I'd never have managed before.
@seanfear Most people are on their arse- as my friend calls it. The UK, the land of PoundLand, food banks, charity shops etc... The massive rise of the working poor only managing to get by on state subsidies. Young people shut out from any means to accumulate wealth, indebted until an inheritance looms, many returning home after Uni. The threat of Islamic terror, rising immigration and these pictures of migrants coming into Europe.
It is little surprise that Corbyn's and UKIP's anti politics strike a chord and will increasingly do so.
To be honest I do not know what Labour moderates have to say now, as irrelevant to the modern political discourse as the LD's, or Cameron will likely find if he presses ahead any time soon with a referendum. For the first time, I am genuinely undecided about Europe, and am hedging towards the NO camp, and I never thought I'd be saying that any time.
The period since 2000 hasn't seen high unemployment. But we have seen real stagnation in income growth. The average worker hasn't seen his living standard rise in 10 years. Manufacturing output has fallen in absolute terms (for the first time since the Industrial Revolution began); home ownership is in decline.
It's a whole new world.
It's the consequences of a globalised world, something which politicians of all stripes are struggling to respond to with an attractive answer (and indeed, which may not be possible for the mainstream to answer), though it's a particular problem for the centre-left with their support for high spending on welfare, opposition to immigration controls and resistance to the kind of superficially simple solutions the extremes go for (which might not work but are easy to sell on the doorstep).
At this point anybody who still thinks Corbyn and STW are not apologists for terrorism must be deep in denial. If the Labour Party stood up for the things it claims to believe in Corbyn wouldn't even be a member never mind the leader.
Anyone with sense these days knows terrorism to be nothing more than a name.
You are a terrorist - I am a freedom fighter You are a dictator - I am a vital ally You are bellicose - I am robust You are 'ideological' - I am principled
@Plato_Says I said that much of your opinions appear to align with the Conservative Right, not that you were *on* the Conservative Right. Much of my own opinions, do not align with socialism, it didn't stop me from voting Labour in May. Plato, my observation isn't as outrageous as you think. Agreeing with Melanie Philips on several occasions for example is hardly a 'moderate'.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core. 2. Always ensure that the most vulnerable and the poorest are not adversely affected by government policy. 3. Be unambivalent in saying the capitalist system is the best lever for achieving its aims. The market is an opportunity, not the enemy. 4. Be clear that the market does not exist in a bubble of its own and that it is not always the answer. 5. See the state as a guarantor of the highest standards of service and service delivery. But not always as a service provider. 6. Be willing to unequivocally make the case for welfare, but be totally intolerant of welfare abuse. 7. Be embedded in middle Britain, not in specific geographies or communities. Celebrate Britain. 8. Make the case for internationalism, not isolation; focus on soft power as a means to ensuring Britain's voice is heard. 9. Be unafraid of making the case for wealth redistribution as something that ultimately benefits everyone; while at the same time embracing aspiration as a very positive force.
It's not a hugely ambitious list. It is a moderate one. It's not hugely exciting, but practical, deliverable politicies rarely are. A lot of it is about competence. Corbynistas will hate it.
A Labour party with an agenda like that would be on the way to being attractive.
I think they also need to focus on how our education system fails 90% of our population at the present time, even if the top 10% get a world class education. They need to out-Grove Grove in looking for improvements for the majority giving them a better chance of getting well paid employment in the modern world.
I think they also need to demonstrate that they are safe with the economy again by recognising that your list of objectives have to take place within a stable and sustainable economic framework. This means (and it is something that Miliband just refused to address) addressing how those desirable objectives are done without spending lots more money that we haven't got.
The Spectator has periodic articles about the way the state education sector fails the poor. The middle classes who don't/can't educate their children privately can usually get them into an excellent comprehensive. That's progressively more unlikely as you descend the social scale. Yet, we obsess about the public schools. It's a bizarre blind spot in the British psyche.
At this point anybody who still thinks Corbyn and STW are not apologists for terrorism must be deep in denial. If the Labour Party stood up for the things it claims to believe in Corbyn wouldn't even be a member never mind the leader.
Anyone with sense these days knows terrorism to be nothing more than a name.
You are a terrorist - I am a freedom fighter You are a dictator - I am a vital ally You are bellicose - I am robust You are 'ideological' - I am principled
I'll say again that I think the election of a new Chair of the Parliamentary Labour party in the new year will be very interesting. Suddenly this person takes on great significance. I can't believe they'll retain the current Corbyn-sympathiser.
Good luck, I've a few trans and trannie friends [from when I used to be into body building] and it's an awkward thing for many to get over. Never bothered me at all.
I don't agree that the 'great battles' have been won. Inequality is a huge, huge problem in our society, as is social mobility which has been worsening since the 1970s. Issues regarding LGBT rights have improved, but homophobia still exists; and certainly transophobia still exists as well - and is potentially an even worse problem than homophobia. Women's place in society has improved, but it is by no means a concluded battle. Racism, still exists too - it may not be blatant, in your face racism - today it comes in a far more subtle form, but it's still there.
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election.
P.S I also don't see how the 'self-declared' oppressed a part of the establishment. Ethnic minorities, women, and gay people are certainly not represented highly in positions of power in our society.
And no, we should not have 'three' Tory parties. Believe it or not, Toryism is not a perfect ideology without flaws.
As I made the original argument, I object to your characterisation. Things most certainly aren't fine and dandy; no one thinks we've built Jerusalem. However, relatively speaking we have improved beyond all measure.
I could go on, but I shall spare you .
I'm still wading through the whole social transition thing. I'm perfectly capable of doing an internal look up and mapping John onto my actual name .
Sadly, HRT in your 50s is very slow to take effect, plus I'm tall and well built. Not exactly prime transition materiel, but I trudge on regardless! It's another of the blessings of the Internet - it's enabled me to get to grip with my condition in a way I'd never have managed before.
Objectively I don't see why anyone should be upset, yet a fair few people do get very exercised over transgender issues - c.f. Germaine Greer.
That said, I'm not a militant and try and retain my sense of humour, neither of which are the rule in what I shall laughingly call 'my community'.
@Plato_Says I said that much of your opinions appear to align with the Conservative Right, not that you were *on* the Conservative Right. Much of my own opinions, do not align with socialism, it didn't stop me from voting Labour in May. Plato, my observation isn't as outrageous as you think. Agreeing with Melanie Philips on several occasions for example is hardly a 'moderate'.
I wouldn't go quite so far as you, in fact people have coped much better than I thought, but I lean more toward it than the idea there hasn't been a drop in standard of living for many people. I know too many people who've seen very harsh real wage drops.
Personally I've been doing fine though, so it's all good.
There's an interesting study which I wish I could remember the link for, that showed how most people didn't actually "feel" the effect of even quite severe economic downturns in the past. Their house price might have dropped, but if they didn't have to sell up then that wasn't necessarily a problem - and it made the step up to buying a bigger house (or a first one) cheaper. Average wages might have stagnated or fallen, but very few jobs impose nominal wage cuts and many people still reach higher service bands, get a promotion, or upskill to a better-paid career altogether. Unemployment might have risen, but the additional number of people who lose their job (in comparison to the "natural rate of churn" that would have happened anyway) is still a rather small minority.
The flip side is that those people who got hit, often got hit very hard (household's main wage earner loses job and can't find a new one for several years; can't keep up with mortgage, negative equity, house repossessed; poor prospects for kids graduating college or university, resulting in long-run effect on their earnings potential even decades after the event).
As I made the original argument, I object to your characterisation. Things most certainly aren't fine and dandy; no one thinks we've built Jerusalem. However, relatively speaking we have improved beyond all measure.
Regarding *phobias. There are people who don't like me because of my political views, others because I'm transgender, others because I'm an atheist. I don't label them as phobic; as long as they aren't physically attacking me or preventing me doing my work, it's just one of those things. I can't make people like me; some people are simply dickheads. In terms of my day to day life, the only impact has been that I can no longer donate blood, which is a shame.
With respect to the Conservatives, we have yet to begin living within our means, which outrages me. IIRC you're one of our younger posters. I object very strongly to my generation handing our debts down to you (and my daughter and future grandchildren). Osborne has been merely lucky. We are going to be pissing money down the drain (on debt servicing costs) for decades. That's a massive opportunity cost.
I could go on, but I shall spare you .
Firstly, thank you for replying. I characterised your post as such, because you stated 'all the great battles had been won', or something to that effect. I apologise if this was a misrepresentation of your views, but that is the way it came across to me. I don't deny that we have improved immeasurably; I said as such in my post. However, that does not mean that are not still huge issues to confront in order to have truly 'won' that battle. I stated fairly recently, that in regard to race and gender, the issue is not that people accept racism and sexism - most would not like to be seen as racist or sexist. The issue, increasingly I have seen is what people percieve to be racist or sexist (which can vary).
As for transphobia, I was refering to actual attacks on those who are transgendered, and just any general abuse of someone because they are transgendered. Given that we label hatred towards gays as homophobia, I see no reason not to do so in relation to those who are transgendered. I have spoken to several people who are transgendered online (through tumblr) who feel the same way.
Comments
I wouldn't go quite so far as you, in fact people have coped much better than I thought, but I lean more toward it than the idea there hasn't been a drop in standard of living for many people. I know too many people who've seen very harsh real wage drops.
Personally I've been doing fine though, so it's all good.
He said:
"a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on".
He is an idiot.
"While discussing this morning's papers on the BBC last night, presenter Clive Myrie weighed in on the issue by putting the issue in simple terms: "It's after the watershed...you cannot be a d*ckhead and win Sports Personality of the Year", he claimed."
I'd be hiding behind the sofa. Yet NPXMP2 is fine with it all. What a lucky break that Soubry removed him from the useful idiot field of influence.
@CNBCi: Scotland can survive without oil: Nicola Sturgeon https://t.co/k4GgfArQq9
https://t.co/6uoJ91jweL
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/11700282/Mapped-How-much-has-your-house-price-moved-in-10-years.html
And for those who do rent, quality has improved a lot, which is after all what matters for 'standard of living'.
Of course, in the last ten years, we have seen the biggest financial crash since the 1930s at least, and possibly longer, so the overall long-term upwards trend hit a serious setback, which has only recently been compensated for. But it's a mistake to be too pessimistic or to view the past through rose-tinted glasses. Life really isn't bad for most people, and it's a lot better, in material terms, than ever before,
edit:please note sarcasm.
Clearly in practice we need to reward effort (even if you choose to give money away it's desirable to be able to earn more by working more). Conversely I think even the most dedicated supporters of the market will recognise that there are elements outside an individual's control - you may be born with disabilities, or injured in an accident, or working for a company that goes bust, etc. To make rewards partly dependent on such chance effects also seems unfair.I'd square the circle by having a fairly high floor, financed by taxation, but then plenty of scope for earning more by hard work with equality of opportunity as far as possible. It's basically the Scandinavian model.
Is Katty Kay ( yalla, what a name!) hoping for the best or fearing the worst?
"Tough talking wins Donald Trump support"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35035692
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/674186428360822788
" I see us (the world's population) as akin to survivors of a maritime disaster on a desert island"
Err....?
My last house was Victorian Gothic writ large. All it was missing were gargoyles. So we added them
Firstly, who has labelled those three specifically as terrorists? I'm not sure even nutters say simply because someone is muslim they are a terrorist (though nutters can imply more are inclined that way than is the case). So it sounds like those two statements are not really connected.
Secondly, the sign is visually cluttered by adding in the 'not in my name' bit, breaking up the flow of the rest of the message.
Thirdly, perhaps I'm a little emotionally repressed, but I don't hug random people anyway, whether I trust them or not, so I find the implied request for one a little needy and uncomfortably forward, sir.
There is a simple solution if you object to Tyson Fury, don't vote for him, vote for somebody else. There is a simple solution to Dapper Laughs, don't pay to go and see him, don't watch his social media output.
There are plenty of people who I find objectionable, but I don't want them banned e.g. Frankie Boyle. Funny how he gets 2nd and 3rd chances at the BBC / Guardian, despite being a d##khead.
I sort of want Tyson Fury to win now, just to see the swallowed a wasp look on the all the Beeboids, but somehow I don't think they will allow that to happen.
Tunbridge Wells foodbankers asked for home deliveries to hide their supposed shame.
When I was on £150k a year, I dreamed of living in RTW.
The period since 2000 hasn't seen high unemployment. But we have seen real stagnation in income growth. The average worker hasn't seen his living standard rise in 10 years. Manufacturing output has fallen in absolute terms (for the first time since the Industrial Revolution began); home ownership is in decline.
It's a whole new world.
Clive Myrie's there to read news, not weigh in with his own views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56J8CusqXd8
Trump is a complete lunatic who is too dumb to realise just how dangerous and idiotic his policies are.
If I understand his background enough - he's an Irish gypsy. Their culture is very clear on homosexuals, adultery, keeping marriage amongst their own culture and other stuff. Men are head of the household.
What's different to Muslims bar even more offensive honor killing and FGM? Oh and terrorists? I can't think of a gyspy related terrorism attack. Slavery and organised crime - yes.
I think the political philosopher, Dworkin, labelled these types of things 'brute luck'. Stuff that happen to anyone and completely stuffs them. This in contrast to earned or optional luck, where a person works for a better situation (e.g. working hard to pass a degree).
We should engineer a society that supports people hit by brute luck.
On that note, a quick comment on Iowa. It's not just support you need to do well there, it's passionate, devoted support. Turning out in the middle of winter when it's dark and -20 outside takes motivation. For all that his views put many off, they'll be motivating his base no end, and he was already polling strongly there (though there was a very bad one for him this week, which may or may not have been a rogue).
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-should-ditch-tracksuit-6973743
This site is all to keen at times to see things as all fine and dandy, when the Conservatives are in power.
The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election.
P.S I also don't see how the 'self-declared' oppressed a part of the establishment. Ethnic minorities, women, and gay people are certainly not represented highly in positions of power in our society.
And no, we should not have 'three' Tory parties. Believe it or not, Toryism is not a perfect ideology without flaws.
A newsreader is there to read news. I dislike the chummy aside to the camera or feeble attempts at jesting that some inflict upon the viewer. If I want comedy, I'll watch my Not The Nine O'Clock News DVDs (or read my excellent but as-yet-unreleased comedy Sir Edric's Treasure, due out in early 2016).
If the GOP choose Trump then they deserve to lose worse than Goldwater.
"Farook appeared to hesitate, perhaps momentarily losing his nerve or maybe to seek out a specific victim, such as Thalasinos, with whom he had argued over whether Islam could call itself a peaceful religion. "
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article1641747.ece
Crosby revealed that he will not be managing the Tories’ next election campaign, and also confirmed that his firm would have no involvement in the upcoming referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. He did, however, confirm that his firm would assist with Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith’s campaign to become the mayor of London.
http://www.politico.eu/article/lynton-crosby-speaks-his-mind-conservatives-campaign-cameron-corbyn-brexit/
It is understood Momentum is to bar non-Labour Party members from taking part in some of its meetings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35030292
LOL..yeah right...
And as for the bit I highlighted in bold - well these groups seems to think they're more equal than their WWC equivalents.
I've zero time for identity politics - you appear to talk in those terms a great deal.
Regarding *phobias. There are people who don't like me because of my political views, others because I'm transgender, others because I'm an atheist. I don't label them as phobic; as long as they aren't physically attacking me or preventing me doing my work, it's just one of those things. I can't make people like me; some people are simply dickheads. In terms of my day to day life, the only impact has been that I can no longer donate blood, which is a shame.
With respect to the Conservatives, we have yet to begin living within our means, which outrages me. IIRC you're one of our younger posters. I object very strongly to my generation handing our debts down to you (and my daughter and future grandchildren). Osborne has been merely lucky. We are going to be pissing money down the drain (on debt servicing costs) for decades. That's a massive opportunity cost.
I could go on, but I shall spare you
He had been having a long-term spat with the DM about comments relating to paedophilia, abortion and homosexuality. I heard him clarify-ish these in the interview. He was sadly not pushed on homosexuality, save to quote from the bible saying it was a pre-requisite for it to be legalised before the bibilical apocolypse. He clarified his position on paedophiles (like to be left in a room with them with two hammers).
I have quite a fine tuned antenna when it comes to homophobia and I couldn't get on the outrage bus.
It is and was clear his views come from an orthodox religious perspective and they have become his own. Call him a fundamentalist.
That the BBC should call a religious fundamentalist a d**ckhead to me seems wrong. Because that would rule in a lot of groups to call d**ckheads. Which they don't do.
It was also clear that Tyson Fury is a genuine bloke, doesn't hate anyone specifically, is funny, self-aware, and would be a good candidate for SPOTY.
How can you expect to be in power when you are out of ideas?
There's a difference between what you can do at work and what you can do in your private life. Newsreaders aren't there to be witty, but to relay the news. If a stand-up comedian spent 90 minutes reporting on current events, that would also be wrong.
It's unprofessional for a newsreader to swear (even in a mild way).
1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
-> Absolutely. There is scope for debate about how far we ALSO favour equality of outcomes - see my earlier post. But it's not controversial to say that inequalities of opportunity should be reduced as far as possible, and that's a common priority right across the left and much of the right as well.
3. Be unambivalent in saying the capitalist system is the best lever for achieving its aims. The market is an opportunity, not the enemy.
->OK, that's not a Corbyn position, but in practice nobody - Corbyn or anyone else in Labour - is proposing Militant-style mass nationalisation of everything. Most Labour members would be OK with acknowledging that in practice the market is here to stay and we need to work with it to make it an opportunity.
7. Be embedded in middle Britain, not in specific geographies or communities. Celebrate Britain.
->Yes. We had an exchange on that before, where you were surprised that I said that treating people as individuals rather than groups was a left-wing principle. On the left we see enormous obstacles to people in less favoured sectors - minorities, women, people from lower class backgrounds, immigrants, and so on - and we think that people in those groups should work together to overcome them ("class solidarity", if we want to be Marxist about it). But the end result should be that the obstacles disappear and it's possible for individuals to shine on their own merits - equality of opportunity again.
Celebrating Britain is not especially something I do - I see bits of numerous countries that I like. But the left in general are keen on celebrating British traditions from the Chartists to the modern day. They aren't into celebrating the monarchy, say, but attacking it isn't a important either. I don't think there's much to fall out about in that.
And no, I can assure you that the BIB groups do not think they are 'better' than the WWC. It appears on this site that anything that talks about issues relating to gender, race, etc. is 'identity politics'. You may not have time for these issues, but I do - partly because they affect me, and partly because I see them as important issues in politics, and overall society.
Sadly, HRT in your 50s is very slow to take effect, plus I'm tall and well built. Not exactly prime transition materiel, but I trudge on regardless! It's another of the blessings of the Internet - it's enabled me to get to grip with my condition in a way I'd never have managed before.
Hilarious. And that's me agreeing with Osborne and Cameron who are so obviously on the Tory Right Wing?
Well, that's news to @Casino_Royale for one.
You're talking cobblers, and embarrassing incoherent cobblers at that.
I think they also need to focus on how our education system fails 90% of our population at the present time, even if the top 10% get a world class education. They need to out-Grove Grove in looking for improvements for the majority giving them a better chance of getting well paid employment in the modern world.
I think they also need to demonstrate that they are safe with the economy again by recognising that your list of objectives have to take place within a stable and sustainable economic framework. This means (and it is something that Miliband just refused to address) addressing how those desirable objectives are done without spending lots more money that we haven't got.
Cameron has far more in common with Hilary Benn than he does with Bill Cash, I reckon.
Then again, Ed M wasn't all that Left, was he?
It's the consequences of a globalised world, something which politicians of all stripes are struggling to respond to with an attractive answer (and indeed, which may not be possible for the mainstream to answer), though it's a particular problem for the centre-left with their support for high spending on welfare, opposition to immigration controls and resistance to the kind of superficially simple solutions the extremes go for (which might not work but are easy to sell on the doorstep).
You are a terrorist - I am a freedom fighter
You are a dictator - I am a vital ally
You are bellicose - I am robust
You are 'ideological' - I am principled
You are a terrorist - They are a militant
That said, I'm not a militant and try and retain my sense of humour, neither of which are the rule in what I shall laughingly call 'my community'.
I can agree with all sorts of views including Nick Cohen - my politics and his are quite different.
How many Times Melanie Phillips articles have you read? I suspect you're using her as a fetish or perhaps a totem.
The flip side is that those people who got hit, often got hit very hard (household's main wage earner loses job and can't find a new one for several years; can't keep up with mortgage, negative equity, house repossessed; poor prospects for kids graduating college or university, resulting in long-run effect on their earnings potential even decades after the event).
As for transphobia, I was refering to actual attacks on those who are transgendered, and just any general abuse of someone because they are transgendered. Given that we label hatred towards gays as homophobia, I see no reason not to do so in relation to those who are transgendered. I have spoken to several people who are transgendered online (through tumblr) who feel the same way.