I note that last night for the third time in a month the Conservatives won a council by-election on less than 30% of the vote in a four way marginal. They'd better hope that they're not using up all their luck.
They have had a good run, but tbf they also lost to the Liberals last night almost certainly because the Liberal Democrat didn't get their party description onto the ballot paper.
Should that be their new strategy, do you think?
Or perhaps they should stand under the banner of the Literal Democrats.
Mr Cameron began this "showdown" summit saying he wanted the right to discriminate against non-British EU workers receiving in-work benefits, but even before the dinner started, the demand had been unanimously rejected as impossible.
So that went well...
No, no:
It's all a farce. Everything's been agreed in advance.
They went into the room, and they had a good laugh and a few bottles of wine. And decided to spin it as though they'd really had an argument.
I know this, because practically everyone on this site proclaimed that everything had been pre-arranged.
I'm still waiting for all 103 of you to say:
We're sorry rcs1000, we were wrong and you were right.
103 posters with identical opinions? A bit of an exaggeration there, old chap I think. I doubt that there are 103 posters on this site. Most thread comments seem to be from the same couple of dozen people, with some often repeating the same opinions they have expressed umpteen times before.
Well, I felt it was a good film in terms of effects, action and acting, but essentially it was a remake of the very first Star Wars from 1977. Without giving away spoilers, the plot was almost identical. And I guess I did feel a bit conflicted when I left the cinema. Reading through the reviews on IMDB (which I must stress I only started reading AFTER I watched it), I find myself agreeing with more of the negative points than the positive ones.
I do hope Episode VIII will be better and more original, plot-wise.
The Empire Strikes Back (1980) is still my favourite film in the Franchise.
Funnily enough, I left conflicted for similar reasons as you, but am feeling more positive about it since. I give it a 7 out of 10. Good, not great. Certain elements like look, tone and new cast are 9 out of 10. I think they decided to go full on nostalgic to reassure haters of the prequels a little too hard, so played safe plot wise to set things up moving forward. I understand it, and it's good, but still a small shame.
Of course films today are really just adverts for the ancillary toys/DVDs and other stuff where most of the money is made
Boo hoo Hoo - films in the olden times were so much better!!!
Plenty of movies today are not adverts for toys and ancillary stuff (I don't even understand why being an advert for the DVR would be bad, if the movie is good it is such a advert). Star Wars is one of those advertising ancillary stuff, but then very early on it always was. Superhero movies are too. But most are not.
Touche.
I'm frankly amazed that movie turned out to be good.
UKIP could become a euro-sceptic Blue Labour, with Nuttall as leader, and focus their efforts in working class seats, targetting disillusioned Labourites as well as "Alf Garnett".
I think that would be their best strategy to gain support, but I would much prefer them to become full-on Libertarians in the Carswell mould.
That would be their best option I think. To be honest it might be Labour's best option.
Its perfectly possible to be libertarian and blue collar, if you're a bricklayer you might not be a philosophical deep thinker but you don't want the govt telling you that you can't smoke in your van. Or that you have to file tax returns every 3 months.
Indeed anyone can be libertarian but not many people are.
There are far more votes in crackdowns and "tough action" than in freedom. Why that should be is another question.
People are in general libertarian for themselves but tough for Others.
"Why are you telling me what to do when you should be ..."
Ye-es, though I think we all accept that laws will apply to everyone. You can't actually ban collar ruffs for your neighbour but not yourself.
A fair point, I think. Not all, I would agree, but unsurprisingly people's actual views, when taken to their conclusions, often reveal they are not as libertarian/liberal/conservative/socialist as they might think they are.
Of course there's racism in the country, but you said
A failed small minded racist BNP in blazers party
I'm curious to establish that if somebody votes Ukip you consider them to be racist.
No I think that Farage is racist, or has decided to appeal to racists if he isn't.
I don't think everyone who votes for Conservatives is identical to Cameron. I don't think everyone who voted for Labour is identical to Miliband. I don't think everyone who voted for UKIP is identical to Farage.
There are probably a lot of people who voted for UKIP despite not because of the parties racism.
OK I know you like discussion, perhaps you could outline Ukip policy that is/are racist.
How about the answer to everything being immigration is the problem. Blair famously once said education, education, education but for Farage all he wants to ever talk about is immigration, immigration, immigration.
He is so far gone now that being late to a meeting isn't due to leaving late but due to "immigrants on the motorway".
But pretend everything is fine and dandy if you want with sunshine and smiles and not a racist bone I his body. See if you can pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
This is a very very slippery slope...Trying to impose 21st Century values on those that lived 100's of years ago.
What are they trying to prove?
I have no idea. That society 100's of years ago was by modern standards racist, sexist, homophobic, thought slavery was acceptable? Well we know that, and we have to judge individuals through that prism.
This is a very very slippery slope...Trying to impose 21st Century values on those that lived 100's of years ago.
What are they trying to prove?
Trying to erase history it seems. I thought history provided a great way to learn from ones mistakes/errors, but apparently I should be sent away for re-education.
Of course there's racism in the country, but you said
A failed small minded racist BNP in blazers party
I'm curious to establish that if somebody votes Ukip you consider them to be racist.
No I think that Farage is racist, or has decided to appeal to racists if he isn't.
I don't think everyone who votes for Conservatives is identical to Cameron. I don't think everyone who voted for Labour is identical to Miliband. I don't think everyone who voted for UKIP is identical to Farage.
There are probably a lot of people who voted for UKIP despite not because of the parties racism.
OK I know you like discussion, perhaps you could outline Ukip policy that is/are racist.
How about the answer to everything being immigration is the problem. Blair famously once said education, education, education but for Farage all he wants to ever talk about is immigration, immigration, immigration.
He is so far gone now that being late to a meeting isn't due to leaving late but due to "immigrants on the motorway".
But pretend everything is fine and dandy if you want with sunshine and smiles and not a racist bone I his body. See if you can pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
I guess I was wrong when I said you liked discussion, best wishes
Mr Cameron began this "showdown" summit saying he wanted the right to discriminate against non-British EU workers receiving in-work benefits, but even before the dinner started, the demand had been unanimously rejected as impossible.
So that went well...
No, no:
It's all a farce. Everything's been agreed in advance.
They went into the room, and they had a good laugh and a few bottles of wine. And decided to spin it as though they'd really had an argument.
I know this, because practically everyone on this site proclaimed that everything had been pre-arranged.
I'm still waiting for all 103 of you to say:
We're sorry rcs1000, we were wrong and you were right.
103 posters with identical opinions? A bit of an exaggeration there, old chap I think. I doubt that there are 103 posters on this site. Most thread comments seem to be from the same couple of dozen people, with some often repeating the same opinions they have expressed umpteen times before.
I didn't get that irked until I saw a C5 docu about Romanians sucking tax credits/child benefit out of the system, and sending it all back home/playing the system. The money we hand out here is a fortune for them.
I haven't met a Big Issue seller that isn't Romanian either. I prickled with anger and felt I occupied the same Kipper space on a Venn diagram for quite a while after the show ended.
I don't really get why benefits for EU migrants exercise people so much. As I understand it the great majority of such migrants are working. They may be getting in-work benefits but, then, they are paying taxes. Meanwhile we have unemployment at the lowest level for years. What's so bad about this?
Not trolling. I'm interested to know why it's such a hot-button issue.
I've noticed a big increase in the homeless/begging population in the last couple of years and it seems to have changed from old Irish drunks to gypsies!
Mr Cameron began this "showdown" summit saying he wanted the right to discriminate against non-British EU workers receiving in-work benefits, but even before the dinner started, the demand had been unanimously rejected as impossible.
So that went well...
No, no:
It's all a farce. Everything's been agreed in advance.
They went into the room, and they had a good laugh and a few bottles of wine. And decided to spin it as though they'd really had an argument.
I know this, because practically everyone on this site proclaimed that everything had been pre-arranged.
I'm still waiting for all 103 of you to say:
We're sorry rcs1000, we were wrong and you were right.
103 posters with identical opinions? A bit of an exaggeration there, old chap I think. I doubt that there are 103 posters on this site. Most thread comments seem to be from the same couple of dozen people, with some often repeating the same opinions they have expressed umpteen times before.
There are a lot of lurkers. Nojam contests attract several hundred entries.
This is a very very slippery slope...Trying to impose 21st Century values on those that lived 100's of years ago.
I just read the same article but on the telegraph.. a bit lost for words.
Can't be bothered to read it, but the US states are now one by one in the process of removing all confederate monuments. Strikes me as daft - everyone can get all upset about the Taliban blowing up some buddhas, but then doing the same thing with regards to our own history is perfectly PC.
5 by-elections this week. Labour had 4 candidates, all lost %share. Tories had 5; 4 gained %share, 1 %lost share.
Overall Lab to Con swing pretty consistent at 3.5%. Long may it continue.
It is completely false to say that there is a consistent Lab to Con swing of 3.5% . You have to take into account the date when the previous by election was fought . In by elections previously fought in 2012/2013/2014 there is around a 4% swing from Lab to Con . In by elections last fought in May this year there is on average a 2% swing from Con to Lab . Conservative vote share down 6% on average Labour vote share down 2% on average . Pretty much what you would expect actually , Conservatives doing better than during the last parliament but not as well as in May .
This is a very very slippery slope...Trying to impose 21st Century values on those that lived 100's of years ago.
I just read the same article but on the telegraph.. a bit lost for words.
Can't be bothered to read it, but the US states are now one by one in the process of removing all confederate monuments. Strikes me as daft - everyone can get all upset about the Taliban blowing up some buddhas, but then doing the same thing with regards to our own history is perfectly PC.
This is a very very slippery slope...Trying to impose 21st Century values on those that lived 100's of years ago.
I just read the same article but on the telegraph.. a bit lost for words.
Can't be bothered to read it, but the US states are now one by one in the process of removing all confederate monuments. Strikes me as daft - everyone can get all upset about the Taliban blowing up some buddhas, but then doing the same thing with regards to our own history is perfectly PC.
At certain universities in the UK, they are more than happy to welcome people who support radical Islamists into their fold. But don't you dare have a statue of some bloke from 300 years ago who didn't live by modern values.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
Oh dear....the woman sounds like not only a horrible boss, but is a moron. She basically told them to go and do what they have done. 5 mins in is when it really kicks off.
Good post, as a libertarian I've wrestled with freedom of movement and come to the conclusion that it is only workable across countries of similar economic status, you might argue in that case discrimination is taking place. I'd call myself a pragmatic libertarian, its about where we're starting from.
The start point is small govt, low taxes and a strong judiciary, freedom of individuals goes hand in hand with the protection of citizens. I don't want you persecuted for your beliefs but I want you punished for violation of the law.
As I said yesterday, I'm somewhat drawn to libertarian ideas but have long since given up on trying to make practical sense of them. For practical purposes I'm a centrist liberal, sometimes leaning right, sometimes left. I have a libertarian alter ego that comes out after a couple of drinks.
I have to be honest and say that I would be loathe to square the circle in the way you describe. I think that if you are a libertarian then you should never reach for an authoritarian solution. Once you do it for one problem, why not for all? I think libertarianism is most interesting when it challenges one's own self-interest. Eg, I really don't want modern-looking houses in the quaint old village where I live but, come to think of it, when we deny people the right to do up their house how they please - well, we are infringing on their freedom and should think carefully about that.
Mr Cameron began this "showdown" summit saying he wanted the right to discriminate against non-British EU workers receiving in-work benefits, but even before the dinner started, the demand had been unanimously rejected as impossible.
So that went well...
No, no:
It's all a farce. Everything's been agreed in advance.
They went into the room, and they had a good laugh and a few bottles of wine. And decided to spin it as though they'd really had an argument.
I know this, because practically everyone on this site proclaimed that everything had been pre-arranged.
I'm still waiting for all 103 of you to say:
We're sorry rcs1000, we were wrong and you were right.
103 posters with identical opinions? A bit of an exaggeration there, old chap I think. I doubt that there are 103 posters on this site. Most thread comments seem to be from the same couple of dozen people, with some often repeating the same opinions they have expressed umpteen times before.
Of course there's racism in the country, but you said
A failed small minded racist BNP in blazers party
I'm curious to establish that if somebody votes Ukip you consider them to be racist.
No I think that Farage is racist, or has decided to appeal to racists if he isn't.
I don't think everyone who votes for Conservatives is identical to Cameron. I don't think everyone who voted for Labour is identical to Miliband. I don't think everyone who voted for UKIP is identical to Farage.
There are probably a lot of people who voted for UKIP despite not because of the parties racism.
OK I know you like discussion, perhaps you could outline Ukip policy that is/are racist.
How about the answer to everything being immigration is the problem. Blair famously once said education, education, education but for Farage all he wants to ever talk about is immigration, immigration, immigration.
He is so far gone now that being late to a meeting isn't due to leaving late but due to "immigrants on the motorway".
But pretend everything is fine and dandy if you want with sunshine and smiles and not a racist bone I his body. See if you can pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
I guess I was wrong when I said you liked discussion, best wishes
Why? I responded to you. Guess you don't want to reply though so easier to be dismissive.
This is a very very slippery slope...Trying to impose 21st Century values on those that lived 100's of years ago.
It is *grossly* hypocritical to take Rhodes' money, in the form of the scholarships he endowed, while wishing to remove his statue.
I absolutely loathe this belief - in this country and the USA - that somehow history began in 1975, and we should erase any memorial to anyone whose values predate that.
Mr Cameron began this "showdown" summit saying he wanted the right to discriminate against non-British EU workers receiving in-work benefits, but even before the dinner started, the demand had been unanimously rejected as impossible.
So that went well...
No, no:
It's all a farce. Everything's been agreed in advance.
They went into the room, and they had a good laugh and a few bottles of wine. And decided to spin it as though they'd really had an argument.
I know this, because practically everyone on this site proclaimed that everything had been pre-arranged.
I'm still waiting for all 103 of you to say:
We're sorry rcs1000, we were wrong and you were right.
103 posters with identical opinions? A bit of an exaggeration there, old chap I think. I doubt that there are 103 posters on this site. Most thread comments seem to be from the same couple of dozen people, with some often repeating the same opinions they have expressed umpteen times before.
OK, maybe I exaggerated
I've told you a million times before not to exaggerate
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I suppose they'll be campaigning next for the removal of any memorial to just about any medieval king, queen, or lord, who committed the grave offence of not living by our prevailing values.
This is a very very slippery slope...Trying to impose 21st Century values on those that lived 100's of years ago.
It is *grossly* hypocritical to take Rhodes' money, in the form of the scholarships he endowed, while wishing to remove his statue.
I absolutely loathe this belief - in this country and the USA - that somehow history began in 1975, and we should erase any memorial to anyone whose values predate that.
If we take this to the n'th degree, most of these institutions where all these people are protesting wouldn't exist and / or continue to exist. Somewhere down the line, they have all taken massive donations from people who in some way were connected to the likes of slave labour.
Of course there's racism in the country, but you said
A failed small minded racist BNP in blazers party
I'm curious to establish that if somebody votes Ukip you consider them to be racist.
No I think that Farage is racist, or has decided to appeal to racists if he isn't.
I don't think everyone who votes for Conservatives is identical to Cameron. I don't think everyone who voted for Labour is identical to Miliband. I don't think everyone who voted for UKIP is identical to Farage.
There are probably a lot of people who voted for UKIP despite not because of the parties racism.
OK I know you like discussion, perhaps you could outline Ukip policy that is/are racist.
How about the answer to everything being immigration is the problem. Blair famously once said education, education, education but for Farage all he wants to ever talk about is immigration, immigration, immigration.
He is so far gone now that being late to a meeting isn't due to leaving late but due to "immigrants on the motorway".
But pretend everything is fine and dandy if you want with sunshine and smiles and not a racist bone I his body. See if you can pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
I guess I was wrong when I said you liked discussion, best wishes
Why? I responded to you. Guess you don't want to reply though so easier to be dismissive.
Yes she should have just sacked the person throwing a sickie rather than gone into detail. Today's environment no comment as to why is about all you're allowed to say it seems.
Mr Cameron began this "showdown" summit saying he wanted the right to discriminate against non-British EU workers receiving in-work benefits, but even before the dinner started, the demand had been unanimously rejected as impossible.
So that went well...
Try reading the whole article or indeed the accounts in other papers and you get a rather different view. Of course the EU could make him Santa Claus and then resign en masse and you still wouldn't be happy but there you go.
Mr felix, what is your position on migrant benefits?
I would give no-one benefit entitlement for 4 or 5 years without contributions including UK nationals and returning ex-pats. I live in Spain where you get nothing till you contribute and then it is strictly time-limited. To put it bluntly I believe in people looking after themselves as long as they are able-bodied.
Thanks, so if the PM doesn't get that will you vote to Leave?
No - because he doesn't need the permission of the EU to enact it - nor could the EU stop him doing it. But surely you know that the only current problem with the British proposal relates to discrimination against non-British EU nationals. A blanket proposal solves the problem very neatly imho.
Hang on a minute, I want you to be clear here, are you saying Cameron could stop benefits to migrants without EU consent?
Yes. Of course he could - the only problem with the current proposal is that it applies ONLY to migrants. If the ban applied to everyone in the UK for 4 years without contributions the EU could do nothing about it as it would not be discriminatory. The reason this is an issue is that Britain currently provides many benefits far more generously than is the case in many EU countries.
Well it begs the question: if he could stop it why is he posturing about it?
He would prefer not to hit UK citizens as well. Understandable but not an area I agree with him on.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Good post, as a libertarian I've wrestled with freedom of movement and come to the conclusion that it is only workable across countries of similar economic status, you might argue in that case discrimination is taking place. I'd call myself a pragmatic libertarian, its about where we're starting from.
The start point is small govt, low taxes and a strong judiciary, freedom of individuals goes hand in hand with the protection of citizens. I don't want you persecuted for your beliefs but I want you punished for violation of the law.
As I said yesterday, I'm somewhat drawn to libertarian ideas but have long since given up on trying to make practical sense of them. For practical purposes I'm a centrist liberal, sometimes leaning right, sometimes left. I have a libertarian alter ego that comes out after a couple of drinks.
I have to be honest and say that I would be loathe to square the circle in the way you describe. I think that if you are a libertarian then you should never reach for an authoritarian solution. Once you do it for one problem, why not for all? I think libertarianism is most interesting when it challenges one's own self-interest. Eg, I really don't want modern-looking houses in the quaint old village where I live but, come to think of it, when we deny people the right to do up their house how they please - well, we are infringing on their freedom and should think carefully about that.
Yes, which is why I mention freedom of movement. Govt's only role to me should be protecting it's citizens, I don't want anarchy.
11. The government confirmed plans to limit the power of the House of Lords.
The House of Lords would lose the power to block certain legislation under government plans announced on Take Out the Trash Day, commissioned by David Cameron after the upper house blocked government plans to cut tax credits. Under the proposal the House of Commons would have the final say on all secondary legislation, avoiding the need for a confrontation in the Lords, where the Conservatives do not have a majority.
Mr Cameron began this "showdown" summit saying he wanted the right to discriminate against non-British EU workers receiving in-work benefits, but even before the dinner started, the demand had been unanimously rejected as impossible.
So that went well...
Try reading the whole article or indeed the accounts in other papers and you get a rather different view. Of course the EU could make him Santa Claus and then resign en masse and you still wouldn't be happy but there you go.
Mr felix, what is your position on migrant benefits?
I would give no-one benefit entitlement for 4 or 5 years without contributions including UK nationals and returning ex-pats. I live in Spain where you get nothing till you contribute and then it is strictly time-limited. To put it bluntly I believe in people looking after themselves as long as they are able-bodied.
Thanks, so if the PM doesn't get that will you vote to Leave?
No - because he doesn't need the permission of the EU to enact it - nor could the EU stop him doing it. But surely you know that the only current problem with the British proposal relates to discrimination against non-British EU nationals. A blanket proposal solves the problem very neatly imho.
Hang on a minute, I want you to be clear here, are you saying Cameron could stop benefits to migrants without EU consent?
Yes. Of course he could - the only problem with the current proposal is that it applies ONLY to migrants. If the ban applied to everyone in the UK for 4 years without contributions the EU could do nothing about it as it would not be discriminatory. The reason this is an issue is that Britain currently provides many benefits far more generously than is the case in many EU countries.
Well it begs the question: if he could stop it why is he posturing about it?
He would prefer not to hit UK citizens as well. Understandable but not an area I agree with him on.
You sound confused. You said he could stop migrant benefits without the EU consent but now it seems there are caveats.
Steve Hawkins Nigel Farage on Douglas Carswell: "We have got one person going round the country giving the impression UKIP is split – that can’t go on."
Good post, as a libertarian I've wrestled with freedom of movement and come to the conclusion that it is only workable across countries of similar economic status, you might argue in that case discrimination is taking place. I'd call myself a pragmatic libertarian, its about where we're starting from.
The start point is small govt, low taxes and a strong judiciary, freedom of individuals goes hand in hand with the protection of citizens. I don't want you persecuted for your beliefs but I want you punished for violation of the law.
As I said yesterday, I'm somewhat drawn to libertarian ideas but have long since given up on trying to make practical sense of them. For practical purposes I'm a centrist liberal, sometimes leaning right, sometimes left. I have a libertarian alter ego that comes out after a couple of drinks.
I have to be honest and say that I would be loathe to square the circle in the way you describe. I think that if you are a libertarian then you should never reach for an authoritarian solution. Once you do it for one problem, why not for all? I think libertarianism is most interesting when it challenges one's own self-interest. Eg, I really don't want modern-looking houses in the quaint old village where I live but, come to think of it, when we deny people the right to do up their house how they please - well, we are infringing on their freedom and should think carefully about that.
Yes, which is why I mention freedom of movement. Govt's only role to me should be protecting it's citizens, I don't want anarchy.
But you want to restrict freedom of movement no? If I understand you correctly you would allow it only for people from similarly rich countries?
There's not much point taking too much notice of the EU negotiations right now. What we're seeing is undoubtedly all for public consumption at this stage.
Steve Hawkins Nigel Farage on Douglas Carswell: "We have got one person going round the country giving the impression UKIP is split – that can’t go on."
This is a very very slippery slope...Trying to impose 21st Century values on those that lived 100's of years ago.
I just read the same article but on the telegraph.. a bit lost for words.
Can't be bothered to read it, but the US states are now one by one in the process of removing all confederate monuments. Strikes me as daft - everyone can get all upset about the Taliban blowing up some buddhas, but then doing the same thing with regards to our own history is perfectly PC.
To be fair the Confederates were rebels against the USA not in favour of it.
Re: Derwent: back in 1989 Mike Potter, a local (Bedale) farmer, was the Owenite candidate in the Richmond by-election that returned William Hague to parliament. Briefly the countryside went Potter-mad as local farmer put up posters for him in their fields. After a rousing rally in Northallerton when Owen made it clear that his party could be relied on the drop the bomb on Moscow (unlike the Liberal-Alliance lady, an unknown school teacher from Harrogate for whom I campaigned) he came a good second to young William. If she had not stood he might well have won, delaying the start of Hague political career until the general election in 2002.
So now he’s a (Michael Moorcroft) Liberal. Where they stand on bombing Moscow or anything else I do not know.
Mr Cameron began this "showdown" summit saying he wanted the right to discriminate against non-British EU workers receiving in-work benefits, but even before the dinner started, the demand had been unanimously rejected as impossible.
So that went well...
No, no:
It's all a farce. Everything's been agreed in advance.
They went into the room, and they had a good laugh and a few bottles of wine. And decided to spin it as though they'd really had an argument.
I know this, because practically everyone on this site proclaimed that everything had been pre-arranged.
I'm still waiting for all 103 of you to say:
We're sorry rcs1000, we were wrong and you were right.
103 posters with identical opinions? A bit of an exaggeration there, old chap I think. I doubt that there are 103 posters on this site. Most thread comments seem to be from the same couple of dozen people, with some often repeating the same opinions they have expressed umpteen times before.
OK, maybe I exaggerated
103 posters with the same opinion? Bah! The PB Tory club (herd) is much more exclusive than that.
There's not much point taking too much notice of the EU negotiations right now. What we're seeing is undoubtedly all for public consumption at this stage.
Good post, as a libertarian I've wrestled with freedom of movement and come to the conclusion that it is only workable across countries of similar economic status, you might argue in that case discrimination is taking place. I'd call myself a pragmatic libertarian, its about where we're starting from.
The start point is small govt, low taxes and a strong judiciary, freedom of individuals goes hand in hand with the protection of citizens. I don't want you persecuted for your beliefs but I want you punished for violation of the law.
As I said yesterday, I'm somewhat drawn to libertarian ideas but have long since given up on trying to make practical sense of them. For practical purposes I'm a centrist liberal, sometimes leaning right, sometimes left. I have a libertarian alter ego that comes out after a couple of drinks.
I have to be honest and say that I would be loathe to square the circle in the way you describe. I think that if you are a libertarian then you should never reach for an authoritarian solution. Once you do it for one problem, why not for all? I think libertarianism is most interesting when it challenges one's own self-interest. Eg, I really don't want modern-looking houses in the quaint old village where I live but, come to think of it, when we deny people the right to do up their house how they please - well, we are infringing on their freedom and should think carefully about that.
Yes, which is why I mention freedom of movement. Govt's only role to me should be protecting it's citizens, I don't want anarchy.
But you want to restrict freedom of movement no? If I understand you correctly you would allow it only for people from similarly rich countries?
It's a dichotomy, I'm not advocating no borders, I'm talking about a libertarian govt within the UK. Tbh its never going to happen, but until 3 or 4 years ago that's what Ukip was all about
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Were they hanged over a hundred years after, or much closer to the time of their death. That's where that analogy may break down.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Some very stupid people are somehow getting through to our universities.
You would think that someone who has qualified to reach a leading university (or anyone with the intellect of an amoeba, even) would understand that people who lived in the past had different values to us, just as people who live in the future will have different values to us.
There's not much point taking too much notice of the EU negotiations right now. What we're seeing is undoubtedly all for public consumption at this stage.
Omg. What are you wearing in that pic ?
My other half offered me a coffee this morning, and "a glass of milk for the jumper".
There's not much point taking too much notice of the EU negotiations right now. What we're seeing is undoubtedly all for public consumption at this stage.
Is there any reason to suspect the EU leaders won't change their tune of telling Dave to go forth ? Any sort of change needs the agreement of 27 other EU states. Why should they dance to our tune ? The EU renegotiations will come to pretty much near zilch, then we'll vote to stay in.
There's not much point taking too much notice of the EU negotiations right now. What we're seeing is undoubtedly all for public consumption at this stage.
Is there any reason to suspect the EU leaders won't change their tune of telling Dave to go forth ? Any sort of change needs the agreement of 27 other EU states. Why should they dance to our tune ? The EU renegotiations will come to pretty much near zilch, then we'll vote to stay in.
Well, the other EU leaders can read the polls as well as we can. They want Britain to stay in the EU. And the concessions being sought aren't exactly extensive. So yes, there is reason to suspect that much of what we are being told is about as genuine as press reports of fallings-out between X Factor judges.
There's not much point taking too much notice of the EU negotiations right now. What we're seeing is undoubtedly all for public consumption at this stage.
Omg. What are you wearing in that pic ?
My other half offered me a coffee this morning, and "a glass of milk for the jumper".
You sound confused. You said he could stop migrant benefits without the EU consent but now it seems there are caveats.
Interesting.
It would be possible to stop migrant benefits without EU consent.
All you would have to do is to say "all benefits require the recipient to have made four years of National Insurance contributions".
Unfortunately, that would be politically unacceptable.
As an aside, the Italian health system is contributory for all except emergency care. The result is that economic migrants - who are not paying contributions - cannot access it without paying.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Were they hanged over a hundred years after, or much closer to the time of their death. That's where that analogy may break down.
It was at the Restoration, so shortly after. I don't think it's a precedent to follow either way.
Steve Hawkins Nigel Farage on Douglas Carswell: "We have got one person going round the country giving the impression UKIP is split – that can’t go on."
Farage and Carswell appear to have been at loggerheads since the election and I see little chance of things improving. – Changing the party leader or expelling their only MP seems the only option open.
There's not much point taking too much notice of the EU negotiations right now. What we're seeing is undoubtedly all for public consumption at this stage.
Omg. What are you wearing in that pic ?
My other half offered me a coffee this morning, and "a glass of milk for the jumper".
Do you think it will go well with the shirt I'm wearing tonight?
@taffys I'll be voting out. But the timescale of the referendum is crazily fast compared to how quickly any sort of substantive change can be achieved. It's not going to happen. The GBP will vote to stay in though, undecideds that decide to vote on the day will most likely be older, and they tend to be the most small 'c' conservative/frightened by the horses. They'll stick with what they know.
Good post, as a libertarian I've wrestled with freedom of movement and come to the conclusion that it is only workable across countries of similar economic status, you might argue in that case discrimination is taking place. I'd call myself a pragmatic libertarian, its about where we're starting from.
The start point is small govt, low taxes and a strong judiciary, freedom of individuals goes hand in hand with the protection of citizens. I don't want you persecuted for your beliefs but I want you punished for violation of the law.
As I said yesterday, I'm somewhat drawn to libertarian ideas but have long since given up on trying to make practical sense of them. For practical purposes I'm a centrist liberal, sometimes leaning right, sometimes left. I have a libertarian alter ego that comes out after a couple of drinks.
I have to be honest and say that I would be loathe to square the circle in the way you describe. I think that if you are a libertarian then you should never reach for an authoritarian solution. Once you do it for one problem, why not for all? I think libertarianism is most interesting when it challenges one's own self-interest. Eg, I really don't want modern-looking houses in the quaint old village where I live but, come to think of it, when we deny people the right to do up their house how they please - well, we are infringing on their freedom and should think carefully about that.
Yes, which is why I mention freedom of movement. Govt's only role to me should be protecting it's citizens, I don't want anarchy.
But you want to restrict freedom of movement no? If I understand you correctly you would allow it only for people from similarly rich countries?
It's a dichotomy, I'm not advocating no borders, I'm talking about a libertarian govt within the UK. Tbh its never going to happen, but until 3 or 4 years ago that's what Ukip was all about
Yes that's what Carswell thought he was still joining I think.
Whereas Farage clearly decided there was more votes in absorbing the BNP.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Some very stupid people are somehow getting through to our universities.
You would think that someone who has qualified to reach a leading university (or anyone with the intellect of an amoeba, even) would understand that people who lived in the past had different values to us, just as people who live in the future will have different values to us.
This is a very very slippery slope...Trying to impose 21st Century values on those that lived 100's of years ago.
I just read the same article but on the telegraph.. a bit lost for words.
Can't be bothered to read it, but the US states are now one by one in the process of removing all confederate monuments. Strikes me as daft - everyone can get all upset about the Taliban blowing up some buddhas, but then doing the same thing with regards to our own history is perfectly PC.
At certain universities in the UK, they are more than happy to welcome people who support radical Islamists into their fold. But don't you dare have a statue of some bloke from 300 years ago who didn't live by modern values.
Weren't the Confederates libertarian, except fo non-whites? Difficult to say black, because of lot of women with 12.5% non-white ancestry were, I understand, highly valued as "personal" slaves.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
People are complex. The same person can be a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Most of us realise, when we leave childhood, that most historical figures aren't exclusively goodies or baddies, but clearly some Oxford students haven't advanced that far, intellectually.
You sound confused. You said he could stop migrant benefits without the EU consent but now it seems there are caveats.
Interesting.
It would be possible to stop migrant benefits without EU consent.
All you would have to do is to say "all benefits require the recipient to have made four years of National Insurance contributions".
Unfortunately, that would be politically unacceptable.
As an aside, the Italian health system is contributory for all except emergency care. The result is that economic migrants - who are not paying contributions - cannot access it without paying.
This is the real issue here. The government wont dare switch to a contributory based system, even though we have such a system for state pension and pretty much the rest of Europe does.
Imagine the howling from the Guardian / BBC wing of the media if they switched to a system where you have to contribute first, the number of "hard luck" cases with 8 starving kids would be 1000's and 1000's. It would make the campaign against the bedroom tax look minor.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Were they hanged over a hundred years after, or much closer to the time of their death. That's where that analogy may break down.
Hanging would be difficult, indeed it was only a few years after and that's one reason Colonel (apparently he was a General at the time of his death, to my surprise) Pride's body was not suitable for the display, but I'm sure some other form of corpse desecration could be arranged. Being dead for centuries must not stand in the way of justice!
I aso want an inquest into the death of William Rufus - a 'hunting accident' in the New Forest my arse.
11. The government confirmed plans to limit the power of the House of Lords.
The House of Lords would lose the power to block certain legislation under government plans announced on Take Out the Trash Day, commissioned by David Cameron after the upper house blocked government plans to cut tax credits. Under the proposal the House of Commons would have the final say on all secondary legislation, avoiding the need for a confrontation in the Lords, where the Conservatives do not have a majority.
There's not much point taking too much notice of the EU negotiations right now. What we're seeing is undoubtedly all for public consumption at this stage.
Omg. What are you wearing in that pic ?
My other half offered me a coffee this morning, and "a glass of milk for the jumper".
On the phone you look topless.
You need to view his profile to appreciate the majesty of it
There's not much point taking too much notice of the EU negotiations right now. What we're seeing is undoubtedly all for public consumption at this stage.
Is there any reason to suspect the EU leaders won't change their tune of telling Dave to go forth ? Any sort of change needs the agreement of 27 other EU states. Why should they dance to our tune ? The EU renegotiations will come to pretty much near zilch, then we'll vote to stay in.
There are three reasons why we might theoretically have allies:
1. We are big budget contributors. Other countries would need to up their contributions to make up for our lost billions. That is not going to be popular.
2. Our departure could spur Ireland and others to also go. This would have financial and other consequences. (Amusingly, the Irish government has apparently war-gamed leaving the EU but keeping the Euro.)
3. While the UK has been a big magnet for immigrants, it is not the only one in Europe. Countries like Finland, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany are all paying benefits to non-citizens. It would likely be domestically popular to restrict these somewhat. (Especially in places like the Netherlands where there are insurgent anti-EU parties doing well in the polls).
However, I think David Cameron has done a terrible job in putting together a group of countries with similar interests.
There's not much point taking too much notice of the EU negotiations right now. What we're seeing is undoubtedly all for public consumption at this stage.
Omg. What are you wearing in that pic ?
My other half offered me a coffee this morning, and "a glass of milk for the jumper".
Steve Hawkins Nigel Farage on Douglas Carswell: "We have got one person going round the country giving the impression UKIP is split – that can’t go on."
Tory majority to increase by 2?
But by his own example, he'd have to hold another by-election if he did that. I wonder if he'd feel that would apply if he went Independent.
Good post, as a libertarian I've wrestled with freedom of movement and come to the conclusion that it is only workable across countries of similar economic status, you might argue in that case discrimination is taking place. I'd call myself a pragmatic libertarian, its about where we're starting from.
The start point is small govt, low taxes and a strong judiciary, freedom of individuals goes hand in hand with the protection of citizens. I don't want you persecuted for your beliefs but I want you punished for violation of the law.
As I said yesterday, I'm somewhat drawn to libertarian ideas but have long since given up on trying to make practical sense of them. For practical purposes I'm a centrist liberal, sometimes leaning right, sometimes left. I have a libertarian alter ego that comes out after a couple of drinks.
I have to be honest and say that I would be loathe to square the circle in the way you describe. I think that if you are a libertarian then you should never reach for an authoritarian solution. Once you do it for one problem, why not for all? I think libertarianism is most interesting when it challenges one's own self-interest. Eg, I really don't want modern-looking houses in the quaint old village where I live but, come to think of it, when we deny people the right to do up their house how they please - well, we are infringing on their freedom and should think carefully about that.
Yes, which is why I mention freedom of movement. Govt's only role to me should be protecting it's citizens, I don't want anarchy.
But you want to restrict freedom of movement no? If I understand you correctly you would allow it only for people from similarly rich countries?
It's a dichotomy, I'm not advocating no borders, I'm talking about a libertarian govt within the UK. Tbh its never going to happen, but until 3 or 4 years ago that's what Ukip was all about
Yes that's what Carswell thought he was still joining I think.
Whereas Farage clearly decided there was more votes in absorbing the BNP.
Well, Alan Sked's dream was a libertarian party that would win 1-2% of the vote, but somehow, persuade the country to leave the EU.
Every political party takes its support where they find it.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
People are complex. The same person can be a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Most of us realise, when we leave childhood, that most historical figures aren't exclusively goodies or baddies, but clearly some Oxford students haven't advanced that far, intellectually.
I completely agree with what you're saying. However it may be that they think Rhodes was a baddy on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
People are complex. The same person can be a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Most of us realise, when we leave childhood, that most historical figures aren't exclusively goodies or baddies, but clearly some Oxford students haven't advanced that far, intellectually.
I completely agree with what you're saying. However it may be that they think Rhodes was a baddy on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...
Well, Rhodes has paid for 8,000 people to be educated at Oxford University, so plainly he did some good.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
People are complex. The same person can be a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Most of us realise, when we leave childhood, that most historical figures aren't exclusively goodies or baddies, but clearly some Oxford students haven't advanced that far, intellectually.
I completely agree with what you're saying. However it may be that they think Rhodes was a baddy on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...
Well, Rhodes has paid for 8,000 people to be educated at Oxford University, so plainly he did some good.
Yeah, but one of them was Bill Clinton, which undid the good work of the other 7,999.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
People are complex. The same person can be a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Most of us realise, when we leave childhood, that most historical figures aren't exclusively goodies or baddies, but clearly some Oxford students haven't advanced that far, intellectually.
I completely agree with what you're saying. However it may be that they think Rhodes was a baddy on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...
Well, Rhodes has paid for 8,000 people to be educated at Oxford University, so plainly he did some good.
Good post, as a libertarian I've wrestled with freedom of movement and come to the conclusion that it is only workable across countries of similar economic status, you might argue in that case discrimination is taking place. I'd call myself a pragmatic libertarian, its about where we're starting from.
The start point is small govt, low taxes and a strong judiciary, freedom of individuals goes hand in hand with the protection of citizens. I don't want you persecuted for your beliefs but I want you punished for violation of the law.
As I said yesterday, I'm somewhat drawn to libertarian ideas but have long since given up on trying to make practical sense of them. For practical purposes I'm a centrist liberal, sometimes leaning right, sometimes left. I have a libertarian alter ego that comes out after a couple of drinks.
I have to be honest and say that I would be loathe to square the circle in the way you describe. I think that if you are a libertarian then you should never reach for an authoritarian solution. Once you do it for one problem, why not for all? I think libertarianism is most interesting when it challenges one's own self-interest. Eg, I really don't want modern-looking houses in the quaint old village where I live but, come to think of it, when we deny people the right to do up their house how they please - well, we are infringing on their freedom and should think carefully about that.
Yes, which is why I mention freedom of movement. Govt's only role to me should be protecting it's citizens, I don't want anarchy.
But you want to restrict freedom of movement no? If I understand you correctly you would allow it only for people from similarly rich countries?
It's a dichotomy, I'm not advocating no borders, I'm talking about a libertarian govt within the UK. Tbh its never going to happen, but until 3 or 4 years ago that's what Ukip was all about
Yes that's what Carswell thought he was still joining I think.
Whereas Farage clearly decided there was more votes in absorbing the BNP.
Well, Alan Sked's dream was a libertarian party that would win 1-2% of the vote, but somehow, persuade the country to leave the EU.
Every political party takes its support where they find it.
I thought Alan Sked's dream was of a left wing UKIP?
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
People are complex. The same person can be a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Most of us realise, when we leave childhood, that most historical figures aren't exclusively goodies or baddies, but clearly some Oxford students haven't advanced that far, intellectually.
I completely agree with what you're saying. However it may be that they think Rhodes was a baddy on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...
Well, Rhodes has paid for 8,000 people to be educated at Oxford University, so plainly he did some good.
Yeah, but one of them was Bill Clinton, which undid the good work of the other 7,999.
You sound confused. You said he could stop migrant benefits without the EU consent but now it seems there are caveats.
Interesting.
It would be possible to stop migrant benefits without EU consent.
All you would have to do is to say "all benefits require the recipient to have made four years of National Insurance contributions".
Unfortunately, that would be politically unacceptable.
As an aside, the Italian health system is contributory for all except emergency care. The result is that economic migrants - who are not paying contributions - cannot access it without paying.
This is the real issue here. The government wont dare switch to a contributory based system, even though we have such a system for state pension and pretty much the rest of Europe does.
Imagine the howling from the Guardian / BBC wing of the media if they switched to a system where you have to contribute first, the number of "hard luck" cases with 8 starving kids would be 1000's and 1000's. It would make the campaign against the bedroom tax look minor.
I would vote for that. Maybe if Corbyn makes it to 2020 we can put that plus privatising the BBC on the 2020 manifesto.
''There are three reasons why we might theoretically have allies:''
Maybe but these will all be superseded by the overriding desire to prevent an alternative option to the status quo being created.
Europe does not do competition.
I've come to think so. One thing that drove me over the edge was the constant impression given that Britain would find no allies in asking for anything, and what's more the EU was getting sick and tired of hearing us complain and holding them back. That sort of no doubt officially sanctioned on and off the record talk makes me doubt there is any actual consideration of concerns the UK might raise, and therefore suspicious of anything we would be granted as being substantive. I can see the powers that be being willing to throw us a bauble to get us to shut up, but at the end of the day they do want us to shut up and stop rocking the board, and though we might have allies on some few issues (which we may be doing a poor job of marshalling) the majority seem to be in accord with the EU powerbrokers on that, and therefore have no genuine interest in reform, only stopping us and others from whinging.
That's not healthy moving forward, for either side.
You sound confused. You said he could stop migrant benefits without the EU consent but now it seems there are caveats.
Interesting.
It would be possible to stop migrant benefits without EU consent.
All you would have to do is to say "all benefits require the recipient to have made four years of National Insurance contributions".
Unfortunately, that would be politically unacceptable.
As an aside, the Italian health system is contributory for all except emergency care. The result is that economic migrants - who are not paying contributions - cannot access it without paying.
This is the real issue here. The government wont dare switch to a contributory based system, even though we have such a system for state pension and pretty much the rest of Europe does.
Imagine the howling from the Guardian / BBC wing of the media if they switched to a system where you have to contribute first, the number of "hard luck" cases with 8 starving kids would be 1000's and 1000's. It would make the campaign against the bedroom tax look minor.
I would vote for that. Maybe if Corbyn makes it to 2020 we can put that plus privatising the BBC on the 2020 manifesto.
I don't think that would be politically impossible if it were phased in so existing claimants weren't just ditched.
WTF...it was all on audio tape....unlike the original incident...
Disgraceful - an out and out lie, told for political purposes to get a government minister sacked. Misconduct or gross misconduct, that is grounds for some form of sanction.
There's not much point taking too much notice of the EU negotiations right now. What we're seeing is undoubtedly all for public consumption at this stage.
Omg. What are you wearing in that pic ?
My other half offered me a coffee this morning, and "a glass of milk for the jumper".
Surely it should have been 'Can we get the milk fresh from the jumper?'
''There are three reasons why we might theoretically have allies:''
Maybe but these will all be superseded by the overriding desire to prevent an alternative option to the status quo being created.
Europe does not do competition.
I've come to think so. One thing that drove me over the edge was the constant impression given that Britain would find no allies in asking for anything, and what's more the EU was getting sick and tired of hearing us complain and holding them back. That sort of no doubt officially sanctioned on and off the record talk makes me doubt there is any actual consideration of concerns the UK might raise, and therefore suspicious of anything we would be granted as being substantive. I can see the powers that be being willing to throw us a bauble to get us to shut up, but at the end of the day they do want us to shut up and stop rocking the board, and though we might have allies on some few issues (which we may be doing a poor job of marshalling) the majority seem to be in accord with the EU powerbrokers on that, and therefore have no genuine interest in reform, only stopping us and others from whinging.
That's not healthy moving forward, for either side.
You can understand everyone else getting fed up with Britain constantly whinging about something, though.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
People are complex. The same person can be a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Most of us realise, when we leave childhood, that most historical figures aren't exclusively goodies or baddies, but clearly some Oxford students haven't advanced that far, intellectually.
I completely agree with what you're saying. However it may be that they think Rhodes was a baddy on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...
Well, Rhodes has paid for 8,000 people to be educated at Oxford University, so plainly he did some good.
Good post, as a libertarian I've wrestled with freedom of movement and come to the conclusion that it is only workable across countries of similar economic status, you might argue in that case discrimination is taking place. I'd call myself a pragmatic libertarian, its about where we're starting from.
The start point is small govt, low taxes and a strong judiciary, freedom of individuals goes hand in hand with the protection of citizens. I don't want you persecuted for your beliefs but I want you punished for violation of the law.
As I said yesterday, I'm somewhat drawn to libertarian ideas but have long since given up on trying to make practical sense of them. For practical purposes I'm a centrist liberal, sometimes leaning right, sometimes left. I have a libertarian alter ego that comes out after a couple of drinks.
I have to be honest and say that I would be loathe to square the circle in the way you describe. I think that if you are a libertarian then you should never reach for an authoritarian solution. Once you do it for one problem, why not for all? I think libertarianism is most interesting when it challenges one's own self-interest. Eg, I really don't want modern-looking houses in the quaint old village where I live but, come to think of it, when we deny people the right to do up their house how they please - well, we are infringing on their freedom and should think carefully about that.
Yes, which is why I mention freedom of movement. Govt's only role to me should be protecting it's citizens, I don't want anarchy.
But you want to restrict freedom of movement no? If I understand you correctly you would allow it only for people from similarly rich countries?
It's a dichotomy, I'm not advocating no borders, I'm talking about a libertarian govt within the UK. Tbh its never going to happen, but until 3 or 4 years ago that's what Ukip was all about
Yes that's what Carswell thought he was still joining I think.
Whereas Farage clearly decided there was more votes in absorbing the BNP.
I think Carswell knew perfectly well what he was joining; he joined it to change it as he feared that Farage-UKIP would lose the referendum.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
People are complex. The same person can be a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Most of us realise, when we leave childhood, that most historical figures aren't exclusively goodies or baddies, but clearly some Oxford students haven't advanced that far, intellectually.
I completely agree with what you're saying. However it may be that they think Rhodes was a baddy on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...
Well, Rhodes has paid for 8,000 people to be educated at Oxford University, so plainly he did some good.
Should we eradicate any memorial to Queen Victoria, Gladstone, Disraeli, Winston Churchill etc. on the ground that they were imperialists? Utter idiocy.
''There are three reasons why we might theoretically have allies:''
Maybe but these will all be superseded by the overriding desire to prevent an alternative option to the status quo being created.
Europe does not do competition.
I've come to think so. One thing that drove me over the edge was the constant impression given that Britain would find no allies in asking for anything, and what's more the EU was getting sick and tired of hearing us complain and holding them back. That sort of no doubt officially sanctioned on and off the record talk makes me doubt there is any actual consideration of concerns the UK might raise, and therefore suspicious of anything we would be granted as being substantive. I can see the powers that be being willing to throw us a bauble to get us to shut up, but at the end of the day they do want us to shut up and stop rocking the board, and though we might have allies on some few issues (which we may be doing a poor job of marshalling) the majority seem to be in accord with the EU powerbrokers on that, and therefore have no genuine interest in reform, only stopping us and others from whinging.
That's not healthy moving forward, for either side.
You can understand everyone else getting fed up with Britain constantly whinging about something, though.
I can, absolutely. We are holding most of them back from what they want to do, that would be frustrating. But it makes the agonized, drawn out process tiresome, and makes the occasional 'I'm sure we can work out something' seem false, since the true feeling of much of the EU elite seems to be that all is well, or at least that all will be well with more EU not less, and so pretending they can resolve our concerns lacks sincerity.
Leaving might be a mistake. But if we stay we will be unhappy with the direction of travel, and they unhappy with our moaning, that's not fair to them or us.
Overall, I give a lot more credit to Bill, than Tony. Tony's brand is terrible even with Tony Tories like me.
Lying to Parly was unforgivable. I don't go for most of the hate directed at him, but he crossed the line there. And we're living with the consequences in many and varied ways.
Mr. Urquhart, quite. It's akin to being appalled by medieval brutality if done in the medieval era, but overlooking it for today's 21st century barbarians.
I think that's a very apt analogy. I may have to steal it.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
Honestly, people really do need to be better at both accepting people in the past held views that today would be unacceptable, and that even personal opponents may have good qualities, as in one of my favourite quotes from the Earl of Clarendon:
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
People are complex. The same person can be a hero on Monday, and a villain on Tuesday. Most of us realise, when we leave childhood, that most historical figures aren't exclusively goodies or baddies, but clearly some Oxford students haven't advanced that far, intellectually.
I completely agree with what you're saying. However it may be that they think Rhodes was a baddy on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...
Well, Rhodes has paid for 8,000 people to be educated at Oxford University, so plainly he did some good.
Yeah, but one of them was Bill Clinton, which undid the good work of the other 7,999.
Comments
Or perhaps they should stand under the banner of the Literal Democrats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27056001
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/18/charity-appeal-red-cross-lifeline-refugees-lost-in-dead-zone
She could always offer them use of her Tuscan villa...
It's all a farce. Everything's been agreed in advance.
They went into the room, and they had a good laugh and a few bottles of wine. And decided to spin it as though they'd really had an argument.
I know this, because practically everyone on this site proclaimed that everything had been pre-arranged.
I'm still waiting for all 103 of you to say:
We're sorry rcs1000, we were wrong and you were right.
103 posters with identical opinions? A bit of an exaggeration there, old chap I think. I doubt that there are 103 posters on this site. Most thread comments seem to be from the same couple of dozen people, with some often repeating the same opinions they have expressed umpteen times before.
Touche.
I'm frankly amazed that movie turned out to be good.
Phil Collins in the Times today tries arguing that social mobility is harmed by good parents - nitwit. We need more good parents, not leveling down to resemble the average guest on Jeremy Kyle. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4643986.ece
He is so far gone now that being late to a meeting isn't due to leaving late but due to "immigrants on the motorway".
But pretend everything is fine and dandy if you want with sunshine and smiles and not a racist bone I his body. See if you can pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
103 posters seems plausible to me. Along with the other couple of dozen who come and go. 103 posters with identical opinions? A bit of an exaggeration there, old chap I think. I doubt that there are 103 posters on this site. Most thread comments seem to be from the same couple of dozen people, with some often repeating the same opinions they have expressed umpteen times before.
There are a lot of lurkers. Nojam contests attract several hundred entries.
In by elections previously fought in 2012/2013/2014 there is around a 4% swing from Lab to Con . In by elections last fought in May this year there is on average a 2% swing from Con to Lab . Conservative vote share down 6% on average Labour vote share down 2% on average .
Pretty much what you would expect actually , Conservatives doing better than during the last parliament but not as well as in May .
Oh dear....the woman sounds like not only a horrible boss, but is a moron. She basically told them to go and do what they have done. 5 mins in is when it really kicks off.
I have to be honest and say that I would be loathe to square the circle in the way you describe. I think that if you are a libertarian then you should never reach for an authoritarian solution. Once you do it for one problem, why not for all? I think libertarianism is most interesting when it challenges one's own self-interest. Eg, I really don't want modern-looking houses in the quaint old village where I live but, come to think of it, when we deny people the right to do up their house how they please - well, we are infringing on their freedom and should think carefully about that.
OK, maybe I exaggerated
I absolutely loathe this belief - in this country and the USA - that somehow history began in 1975, and we should erase any memorial to anyone whose values predate that.
I've told you a million times before not to exaggerate
He would prefer not to hit UK citizens as well. Understandable but not an area I agree with him on.
We should put Edward I on trial for racism - oh really, you want to hammer only the Scots? Disgraceful.
Hell, being dead doesn't have to stop punishment - Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were hanged after death for their crimes (though Colonel Pride missed out due to, er, the decay). Although on that note, Charles II should be tried for abuse of corpses. But we most seek out all those who have been homophobic and racist in history and see that no good aspects of their character be revered.
11. The government confirmed plans to limit the power of the House of Lords.
The House of Lords would lose the power to block certain legislation under government plans announced on Take Out the Trash Day, commissioned by David Cameron after the upper house blocked government plans to cut tax credits. Under the proposal the House of Commons would have the final say on all secondary legislation, avoiding the need for a confrontation in the Lords, where the Conservatives do not have a majority.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/life-is-hard-if-you-dont-make-government-pdfs-searchable
You sound confused. You said he could stop migrant benefits without the EU consent but now it seems there are caveats.
Interesting.
Steve Hawkins
Nigel Farage on Douglas Carswell: "We have got one person going round the country giving the impression UKIP is split – that can’t go on."
103 posters with the same opinion? Bah! The PB Tory club (herd) is much more exclusive than that.
Ban in 3...2........
You would think that someone who has qualified to reach a leading university (or anyone with the intellect of an amoeba, even) would understand that people who lived in the past had different values to us, just as people who live in the future will have different values to us.
Any sort of change needs the agreement of 27 other EU states. Why should they dance to our tune ?
The EU renegotiations will come to pretty much near zilch, then we'll vote to stay in.
We're not asking them to dance to our tune. We're asking to dance to our own tune, whilst they dance to theirs.
They will not allow this, in case our tune is better.
All you would have to do is to say "all benefits require the recipient to have made four years of National Insurance contributions".
Unfortunately, that would be politically unacceptable.
As an aside, the Italian health system is contributory for all except emergency care. The result is that economic migrants - who are not paying contributions - cannot access it without paying.
'as [Cromwell] was guilty of many crimes against which Damnation is denounced, and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some good qualities which have caused the memory of some men in all Ages to be celebrated'
http://bit.ly/1NhYykL
The GBP will vote to stay in though, undecideds that decide to vote on the day will most likely be older, and they tend to be the most small 'c' conservative/frightened by the horses. They'll stick with what they know.
Whereas Farage clearly decided there was more votes in absorbing the BNP.
Imagine the howling from the Guardian / BBC wing of the media if they switched to a system where you have to contribute first, the number of "hard luck" cases with 8 starving kids would be 1000's and 1000's. It would make the campaign against the bedroom tax look minor.
I aso want an inquest into the death of William Rufus - a 'hunting accident' in the New Forest my arse.
People who entertain the idea that the EU gives a f8ck about what the people of Europe think have been disappointed in the past.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/profile/AlastairMeeks
1. We are big budget contributors. Other countries would need to up their contributions to make up for our lost billions. That is not going to be popular.
2. Our departure could spur Ireland and others to also go. This would have financial and other consequences. (Amusingly, the Irish government has apparently war-gamed leaving the EU but keeping the Euro.)
3. While the UK has been a big magnet for immigrants, it is not the only one in Europe. Countries like Finland, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany are all paying benefits to non-citizens. It would likely be domestically popular to restrict these somewhat. (Especially in places like the Netherlands where there are insurgent anti-EU parties doing well in the polls).
However, I think David Cameron has done a terrible job in putting together a group of countries with similar interests.
The leaders of the 27 EU member states have votes.
All of these people - one would think - would like to be re-elected.
I'd a very nice homemade cowskin bag I used at school - but it kept moulting on my navy uniform.
https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/676298631234891777
Every political party takes its support where they find it.
Maybe but these will all be superseded by the overriding desire to prevent an alternative option to the status quo being created.
Europe does not do competition.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12057517/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-takes-down-David-Dimbleby-after-attempts-to-mock-his-Eton-education.html
OK but I don't see how denying/giving Britain what it wants affects the domestic voter base of other members one way or the other.
WTF...it was all on audio tape....unlike the original incident...
That's not healthy moving forward, for either side.
@daily_politics: It'll be the third Thursday in June - @Nigel_Farage predicts the #EUref date
Not when we are subsiding them to the tune of billions I can't, no.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Drop and give us twenty.
Leaving might be a mistake. But if we stay we will be unhappy with the direction of travel, and they unhappy with our moaning, that's not fair to them or us.
Lying to Parly was unforgivable. I don't go for most of the hate directed at him, but he crossed the line there. And we're living with the consequences in many and varied ways.