If the Tories fed a supercomputer data about their opponents, and the likes and dislikes of the public, it couldn't design a better leader for the Labour Party than Jeremy Corbyn.
Maybe they did and it has?
Are there any buyer's remorse Corbyn voters out there prepared to admit the mistake?
It's all a good laugh now because he's not allowed at present near sharp objects, like power, but even a 1% chance of these buffoons being in charge scares me shitless. It's a world view that seems to presuppose that your own people are the enemy.
And all the while the Govt of the day is not rely being scrutinised in any meaningful way which is never great.
I thought Corbyn would be bad. But part of me always thought he'd at least understand the nuances of leading a party - attempting to appeal to parts of the electorate but being reasonably understanding and dignified in the way he conducted his politics.
But he has been utterly horrendous. He's swept away the image of being accommodating to different views in his reshuffle, and he's stuck in some narrow minded view of the world. I'd love to know what makes him that his views are generally appealing to the public - he falls into electoral traps daily now and is toxifying the labour brand in a way i never quite thought he would.
I appreciate it is meant in jest, but the point at which people start openly supporting the nazis is the point that it really gets worrying.
The only people being called Nazis, right now, are that little family in Calais, called "Nazi scum" my migrants and anarchists, for daring to defend their street. Watch the vid.
So what exactly does your statement mean?
It was in reply to MD. With fascist movements getting stronger in Europe both Nationalist as in Jobbik or Golden Dawn and Islamofacist, it all starts getting dangerous.
I am no apologist for Islamism, indeed I have been forthright in condemning it here, but Nazis are not the answer. I want a government that is not afraid to stand up for liberal democracy. We must not be a Weimar type country that gets polarised.
There wouldn't have been any chance of the dangers you describe if European governments had behaved in a common sense way in recent years.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
The War of the Three Kingdoms was never really covered in history when I was at school. There would have been mention of the "English Civil War" on TV and such but the context would never have been realised due to the incorrect naming (which still continues to some extent today).
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked the catalyzing conflict and which prompted the recall of Parliament in the form of the Short Parliament was very much to do with Scotland, and then of course the impact of Scottish troops on the Parliamentary side through the Solemn League and Covenant, and particularly their switch in support to the Royalists side which caused the second English part of the Civil War.
But then I never learned about the War of Three Kingdoms in school either, which I think is bloody ridiculous. Some even trace the beginnings of a kind of political party system back to the New Model Army purges of reps, and the Protectorate Parliaments (I think that would be going too far personally, although the forming of looser political interest groupings is a fascinating aspect of the time).
Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is, while not excusing the kind of brutal crackdown we in modern times condemn, exaggerated to demonic levels that I personally don't feel helps historic analysis. Which is also not to say that Ireland did not suffer horribly, even more than the others, in the chaotic period, as it did.
The thing is it was not framed correctly, it was the "English Civil War" and the correct framing is very recent. To an extent the cover up over just how bad the genocide in Ireland was is understandable but the whitewash of Scottish involvement makes no sense unless its viewed from a purely English perspective.
I suspect the War of the Three Kingdoms will be much better understood by todays generation now that it is correctly framed and some of the important outcomes will make more sense. But we are not all the way there yet, the BBC style guidelines still persist with "English Civil war".
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
Odd approach that. You can come here based not on what you know ....... but who you know?
The lefties would be howling at the moon if anyone else tried that argument even if the approach was based on the individuals having a set of skills this country could actually use when they got here.
I appreciate it is meant in jest, but the point at which people start openly supporting the nazis is the point that it really gets worrying.
The only people being called Nazis, right now, are that little family in Calais, called "Nazi scum" my migrants and anarchists, for daring to defend their street. Watch the vid.
So what exactly does your statement mean?
It was in reply to MD. With fascist movements getting stronger in Europe both Nationalist as in Jobbik or Golden Dawn and Islamofacist, it all starts getting dangerous.
I am no apologist for Islamism, indeed I have been forthright in condemning it here, but Nazis are not the answer. I want a government that is not afraid to stand up for liberal democracy. We must not be a Weimar type country that gets polarised.
Correct, although I do think I picked up on Morris Dancer's irony.
This is the balancing act we must travel in dealing with islamic extremism and those seeking to abuse the plight of refugees. Corbyn's visit was ill advised and is yet another indication of how narrow minded and dim he is. But then again there is a long history of anarchist etc fellow travellers latching on to his litany of protests over the years. This is no different and of course the riots his visit fomented were as predictable as the self generated right wing outrage it generated.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
The War of the Three Kingdoms was never really covered in history when I was at school. There would have been mention of the "English Civil War" on TV and such but the context would never have been realised due to the incorrect naming (which still continues to some extent today).
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked the catalyzing conflict and which prompted the recall of Parliament in the form of the Short Parliament was very much to do with Scotland, and then of course the impact of Scottish troops on the Parliamentary side through the Solemn League and Covenant, and particularly their switch in support to the Royalists side which caused the second English part of the Civil War.
But then I never learned about the War of Three Kingdoms in school either, which I think is bloody ridiculous. Some even trace the beginnings of a kind of political party system back to the New Model Army purges of reps, and the Protectorate Parliaments (I think that would be going too far personally, although the forming of looser political interest groupings is a fascinating aspect of the time).
Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is, while not excusing the kind of brutal crackdown we in modern times condemn, exaggerated to demonic levels that I personally don't feel helps historic analysis. Which is also not to say that Ireland did not suffer horribly, even more than the others, in the chaotic period, as it did.
The thing is it was not framed correctly, it was the "English Civil War" and the correct framing is very recent. To an extent the cover up over just how bad the genocide in Ireland was is understandable but the whitewash of Scottish involvement makes no sense unless its viewed from a purely English perspective.
I suspect the War of the Three Kingdoms will be much better understood by todays generation now that it is correctly framed and some of the important outcomes will make more sense. But we are not all the way there yet, the BBC style guidelines still persist with "English Civil war".
Once again: the Wars (plural) of the Three Kingdoms comprised much more than just the English Civil Wars (also plural).
If the Tories fed a supercomputer data about their opponents, and the likes and dislikes of the public, it couldn't design a better leader for the Labour Party than Jeremy Corbyn.
Maybe they did and it has?
Are there any buyer's remorse Corbyn voters out there prepared to admit the mistake?
It's all a good laugh now because he's not allowed at present near sharp objects, like power, but even a 1% chance of these buffoons being in charge scares me shitless. It's a world view that seems to presuppose that your own people are the enemy.
And all the while the Govt of the day is not rely being scrutinised in any meaningful way which is never great.
I thought Corbyn would be bad. But part of me always thought he'd at least understand the nuances of leading a party - attempting to appeal to parts of the electorate but being reasonably understanding and dignified in the way he conducted his politics.
But he has been utterly horrendous. He's swept away the image of being accommodating to different views in his reshuffle, and he's stuck in some narrow minded view of the world. I'd love to know what makes him that his views are generally appealing to the public - he falls into electoral traps daily now and is toxifying the labour brand in a way i never quite thought he would.
I mean..is it deliberate or something?
I know what you mean. It's almost as if he's a three decade Tory sleeper cell that's been activated. He's not of course, but sometimes it really isn't nuanced at all - he and his acolytes forming the new inner circle really are tin foil hatters oblivious (or uncaring ) as to the effects of their pronouncements.
"Republicans conduct what amounts to a straw poll, voting by secret ballot. The state Republican Party reports the percentages of that raw vote on caucus night to determine the winner."
"Democrats require voters to cast their votes in public, grouping themselves in different parts of the room. If any candidate does not reach a certain percentage in a precinct (generally 15 percent of the total number of voters who show up), his or her supporters are allowed to caucus for any of the viable candidates. Only when this reshuffling takes place are the results tabulated."
I have doubts that the O'Malley voters will prefer Hillary over Sanders, as O'Malley's positions are close to the ones of Sanders. In what is essentially a 2 round system, that 5% he gets will be the key as to who wins Iowa.
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
....
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
....
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked thed.
Given that the Scots sided with Parliament in the outset and that the Scots handed Charles I (a Stuart King, King of Scotland ...) over to Parliament so that we can say that it was as an English King he was executed, then its not surprising really that its all known as The English Civil War. Its maybe not surprising it was not known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms at school since this is a relatively new suggestion.
Perhaps it was a race memory of the Third English Civil War that spooked voters so in the west country...!
The Three Kingdoms bit may be a new name, but the Scots were very involved through the whole series of connected conflicts, so I'm surprised it was not a bigger deal, particularly given the domination of England by force over the others.
I shall have to test out your race memory theory!
I would say that the debate about how to frame the War of the Three Kingdoms is fundamental to my desire for an Independent Scotland. It is a fundamental core of the Big Lie and Anglo-centric nature of the United Kingdom and one of the best examples of why the UK must be extinguished.
I was at heart a Tory until my late twenties (as in a Conservative, I didn't care either way about Unionism).
"Republicans conduct what amounts to a straw poll, voting by secret ballot. The state Republican Party reports the percentages of that raw vote on caucus night to determine the winner."
"Democrats require voters to cast their votes in public, grouping themselves in different parts of the room. If any candidate does not reach a certain percentage in a precinct (generally 15 percent of the total number of voters who show up), his or her supporters are allowed to caucus for any of the viable candidates. Only when this reshuffling takes place are the results tabulated."
I have doubts that the O'Malley voters will prefer Hillary over Sanders, as O'Malley's positions are close to the ones of Sanders. In what is essentially a 2 round system, that 5% he gets will be the key as to who wins Iowa.
I bailed and took some teeny profits on Dem Iowa. Other than O'Malley coming 3rd it is very hard to call.
''Remember: Trump retweets are still kind-of endorsements Which is important when considering Trump's latest re-tweet controversy. On Friday, Trump retweeted what appeared to be a neo-Nazi Twitter account, "@WhiteGenocideTM," for a tweet that featured an image of Jeb Bush outside Trump Tower, dressed as a panhandler, and holding a "Vote Trump" sign. The user's profile picture depicted the founder of the American Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell, and a caption "The Man Who Wants To Be Hitler." WhiteGenocideTM's location was listed as "Jewmerica," his Twitter background read "GET THE F— OUT OF MY COUNTRY" and the website linked on his Twitter page is one promoting a Hitler bio-documentary, as well as a section that questions if the Holocaust actually happened. The Trump campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this re-tweet and the tweet is still on Trump's Twitter page.'' http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/top-five-trump-moments-week-n503311 (yes I know its NBC...)
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
....
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
....
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked thed.
Given that the Scots sided with Parliament in the outset and that the Scots handed Charles I (a Stuart King, King of Scotland ...) over to Parliament so that we can say that it was as an English King he was executed, then its not surprising really that its all known as The English Civil War. Its maybe not surprising it was not known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms at school since this is a relatively new suggestion.
Perhaps it was a race memory of the Third English Civil War that spooked voters so in the west country...!
The Three Kingdoms bit may be a new name, but the Scots were very involved through the whole series of connected conflicts, so I'm surprised it was not a bigger deal, particularly given the domination of England by force over the others.
I shall have to test out your race memory theory!
I would say that the debate about how to frame the War of the Three Kingdoms is fundamental to my desire for an Independent Scotland. It is a fundamental core of the Big Lie and Anglo-centric nature of the United Kingdom and one of the best examples of why the UK must be extinguished.
I was at heart a Tory until my late twenties (as in a Conservative, I didn't care either way about Unionism).
Personally I think the odds are close to the estimates I gave a month ago, both for the DNC race and the GOP race. So I bailed to avoid any last minute hiccups, as I don't see any value for any candidate anymore, the potential for profit has been exhausted.
The when and how questions are critical to address. He doesn't look as if he will go quietly and he has the support of the members for now. A challenge is only worth making if it stands a decent chance of success.
So he either won't be challenged or there will be signs he's losing support among the membership. How patient will the Labour right be? Will they simply decamp elsewhere first?
True. On the other hand a challenge could be the precursor to a secession.
PS a challenge which drew some 200 nominations might be interesting. I might well still lose but would leave the PLP ungovernable.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
The War of the Three Kingdoms was never really covered in history when I was at school. There would have been mention of the "English Civil War" on TV and such but the context would never have been realised due to the incorrect naming (which still continues to some extent today).
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked the catalyzing conflict and which prompted the recall of Parliament in the form of the Short Parliament was very much to do with Scotland, and then of course the impact of Scottish troops on the Parliamentary side through the Solemn League and Covenant, and particularly their switch in support to the Royalists side which caused the second English part of the Civil War.
But then I never learned about the War of Three Kingdoms in school either, which I think is bloody ridiculous. Some even trace the beginnings of a kind of political party system back to the New Model Army purges of reps, and the Protectorate Parliaments (I think that would be going too far personally, although the forming of looser political interest groupings is a fascinating aspect of the time).
Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is, while not excusing the kind of brutal crackdown we in modern times condemn, exaggerated to demonic levels that I personally don't feel helps historic analysis. Which is also not to say that Ireland did not suffer horribly, even more than the others, in the chaotic period, as it did.
The thing is it was not framed correctly, it was the "English Civil War" and the correct framing is very recent. To an extent the cover up over just how bad the genocide in Ireland was is understandable but the whitewash of Scottish involvement makes no sense unless its viewed from a purely English perspective.
I suspect the War of the Three Kingdoms will be much better understood by todays generation now that it is correctly framed and some of the important outcomes will make more sense. But we are not all the way there yet, the BBC style guidelines still persist with "English Civil war".
Once again: the Wars (plural) of the Three Kingdoms comprised much more than just the English Civil Wars (also plural).
Sorry, you're right and I did mean Wars of the Three Kingdoms. But I didn't mean plural for the English Civil War as I referring to what was presented at the time and my recollection is that English Civil War was always presented as singular.
If the Tories fed a supercomputer data about their opponents, and the likes and dislikes of the public, it couldn't design a better leader for the Labour Party than Jeremy Corbyn.
Maybe they did and it has?
Are there any buyer's remorse Corbyn voters out there prepared to admit the mistake?
It's all a good laugh now because he's not allowed at present near sharp objects, like power, but even a 1% chance of these buffoons being in charge scares me shitless. It's a world view that seems to presuppose that your own people are the enemy.
And all the while the Govt of the day is not rely being scrutinised in any meaningful way which is never great.
I thought Corbyn would be bad. But part of me always thought he'd at least understand the nuances of leading a party - attempting to appeal to parts of the electorate but being reasonably understanding and dignified in the way he conducted his politics.
But he has been utterly horrendous. He's swept away the image of being accommodating to different views in his reshuffle, and he's stuck in some narrow minded view of the world. I'd love to know what makes him that his views are generally appealing to the public - he falls into electoral traps daily now and is toxifying the labour brand in a way i never quite thought he would.
I mean..is it deliberate or something?
I know what you mean. It's almost as if he's a three decade Tory sleeper cell that's been activated. He's not of course, but sometimes it really isn't nuanced at all - he and his acolytes forming the new inner circle really are tin foil hatters oblivious (or uncaring ) as to the effects of their pronouncements.
And its only Sunday... (I suppose yesterday was an appropriate way to round off a week seeing as how it began last Sunday)
"Republicans conduct what amounts to a straw poll, voting by secret ballot. The state Republican Party reports the percentages of that raw vote on caucus night to determine the winner."
"Democrats require voters to cast their votes in public, grouping themselves in different parts of the room. If any candidate does not reach a certain percentage in a precinct (generally 15 percent of the total number of voters who show up), his or her supporters are allowed to caucus for any of the viable candidates. Only when this reshuffling takes place are the results tabulated."
I have doubts that the O'Malley voters will prefer Hillary over Sanders, as O'Malley's positions are close to the ones of Sanders. In what is essentially a 2 round system, that 5% he gets will be the key as to who wins Iowa.
I bailed and took some teeny profits on Dem Iowa. Other than O'Malley coming 3rd it is very hard to call.
The polls say that it's between an 8 point Sanders lead to a 9 point Hillary lead with the momentum to Sanders and O'Malley at 5%. The problem though is that the way the Democrats do their caucus in Iowa means that polls are not very reliable:
1. There is no secret ballot, any voting takes place in public. 2. The candidates that get less than 15% in the precinct get eliminated and their voters can choose from someone else in a second round.
Which means that there will be pressure to vote for the cool guy and the voters of smaller candidates get to choose the winner in the second round of a close race.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
The War of the Three Kingdoms was never really covered in history when I was at school. There would have been mention of the "English Civil War" on TV and such but the context would never have been realised due to the incorrect naming (which still continues to some extent today).
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked the catalyzing conflict and which prompted the recall of Parliament in the form of the Short Parliament was very much to do with Scotland, and then of course the impact of Scottish troops on the Parliamentary side through the Solemn League and Covenant, and particularly their switch in support to the Royalists side which caused the second English part of the Civil War.
But then I never learned about the War of Three Kingdoms in school either, which I think is bloody ridiculous. Some even trace the beginnings of a kind of political party system back to the New Model Army purges of reps, and the Protectorate Parliaments (I think that would be going too far personally, although the forming of looser political interest groupings is a fascinating aspect of the time).
Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is, while not excusing the kind of brutal crackdown we in modern times condemn, exaggerated to demonic levels that I personally don't feel helps historic analysis. Which is also not to say that Ireland did not suffer horribly, even more than the others, in the chaotic period, as it did.
The thing is it was not framed correctly, it was the "English Civil War" and the correct framing is very recent. To an extent the cover up over just how bad the genocide in Ireland was is understandable but the whitewash of Scottish involvement makes no sense unless its viewed from a purely English perspective.
I suspect the War of the Three Kingdoms will be much better understood by todays generation now that it is correctly framed and some of the important outcomes will make more sense. But we are not all the way there yet, the BBC style guidelines still persist with "English Civil war".
Once again: the Wars (plural) of the Three Kingdoms comprised much more than just the English Civil Wars (also plural).
Sorry, you're right and I did mean Wars of the Three Kingdoms. But I didn't mean plural for the English Civil War as I referring to what was presented at the time and my recollection is that English Civil War was always presented as singular.
When I was at school it was presented as "people always call it the War singular but it was really three". This was early 90s.
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
Yes, I thought that was quite special. Basically, if you make it to Calais and look a bit desperate and punchy, we'll let you in and screw the migrant laws- and screw all those people who are queueing in an orderly way for a visa.
So that's 3,000 in. And what then of the next 3,000, or 30,000, or 300,000, who then show up in Calais - as they will, having been told that all you have to do get into the UK is turn up at Calais and sleep in a cold tent for half a day?
Corbyn is a cunt. Perhaps a well-meaning, decent sort of cunt. But a cunt, nonetheless. A seriously malign presence in British politics. He needs to be expunged.
Great post Sean,I think the numbers will start going up with Corbyn's stupid stunt yesterday.
These people seeing and hearing corbyn ,leader of Britains main opposition saying everyone's welcome will get round the world,no worries about that. Like you say,he's a cnut.
And like all Cnuts he can't stop the tide coming in when it starts coming.
But the other point is that as word gets round it will only encourage even more to front up at Calais. It will only encourage only more to risk stupid sea voyages and more to come to Europe, when in fact sensible politicians should be doing the opposite. Likewise with his Falklands comments. Corbyn is as much a rabble rouser as Trump.
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
Yes, I thought that was quite special. Basically, if you make it to Calais and look a bit desperate and punchy, we'll let you in and screw the migrant laws- and screw all those people who are queueing in an orderly way for a visa.
So that's 3,000 in. And what then of the next 3,000, or 30,000, or 300,000, who then show up in Calais - as they will, having been told that all you have to do get into the UK is turn up at Calais and sleep in a cold tent for half a day?
Corbyn is a cunt. Perhaps a well-meaning, decent sort of cunt. But a cunt, nonetheless. A seriously malign presence in British politics. He needs to be expunged.
Great post Sean,I think the numbers will start going up with Corbyn's stupid stunt yesterday.
These people seeing and hearing corbyn ,leader of Britains main opposition saying everyone's welcome will get round the world,no worries about that. Like you say,he's a cnut.
And like all Cnuts he can't stop the tide coming in when it starts coming.
But the other point is that as word gets round it will only encourage even more to front up at Calais. It will only encourage only more to risk stupid sea voyages and more to come to Europe, when in fact sensible politicians should be doing the opposite. Likewise with his Falklands comments. Corbyn is as much a rabble rouser as Trump.
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
....
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
....
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked thed.
Given that the Scots sided with Parliament in the outset and that the Scots handed Charles I (a Stuart King, King of Scotland ...) over to Parliament so that we can say that it was as an English King he was executed, then its not surprising really that its all known as The English Civil War. Its maybe not surprising it was not known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms at school since this is a relatively new suggestion.
Perhaps it was a race memory of the Third English Civil War that spooked voters so in the west country...!
The Three Kingdoms bit may be a new name, but the Scots were very involved through the whole series of connected conflicts, so I'm surprised it was not a bigger deal, particularly given the domination of England by force over the others.
I shall have to test out your race memory theory!
I would say that the debate about how to frame the War of the Three Kingdoms is fundamental to my desire for an Independent Scotland. It is a fundamental core of the Big Lie and Anglo-centric nature of the United Kingdom and one of the best examples of why the UK must be extinguished.
I was at heart a Tory until my late twenties (as in a Conservative, I didn't care either way about Unionism).
The Scots changed sides if I remember, the Presbyterians in the Scottish Parliament backed Parliament against the King then switched to backing Charles IInd at the Battles of Dunbar and Worcester, the likes of the Duke of Montrose were Royalists from the start
"Republicans conduct what amounts to a straw poll, voting by secret ballot. The state Republican Party reports the percentages of that raw vote on caucus night to determine the winner."
"Democrats require voters to cast their votes in public, grouping themselves in different parts of the room. If any candidate does not reach a certain percentage in a precinct (generally 15 percent of the total number of voters who show up), his or her supporters are allowed to caucus for any of the viable candidates. Only when this reshuffling takes place are the results tabulated."
I have doubts that the O'Malley voters will prefer Hillary over Sanders, as O'Malley's positions are close to the ones of Sanders. In what is essentially a 2 round system, that 5% he gets will be the key as to who wins Iowa.
I bailed and took some teeny profits on Dem Iowa. Other than O'Malley coming 3rd it is very hard to call.
The polls say that it's between an 8 point Sanders lead to a 9 point Hillary lead with the momentum to Sanders and O'Malley at 5%. The problem though is that the way the Democrats do their caucus in Iowa means that polls are not very reliable:
1. There is no secret ballot, any voting takes place in public. 2. The candidates that get less than 15% in the precinct get eliminated and their voters can choose from someone else in a second round.
Which means that there will be pressure to vote for the cool guy and the voters of smaller candidates get to choose the winner in the second round of a close race.
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
Yes, I thought that was quite special. Basically, if you make it to Calais and look a bit desperate and punchy, we'll let you in and screw the migrant laws- and screw all those people who are queueing in an orderly way for a visa.
So that's 3,000 in. And what then of the next 3,000, or 30,000, or 300,000, who then show up in Calais - as they will, having been told that all you have to do get into the UK is turn up at Calais and sleep in a cold tent for half a day?
Corbyn is a cunt. Perhaps a well-meaning, decent sort of cunt. But a cunt, nonetheless. A seriously malign presence in British politics. He needs to be expunged.
Great post Sean,I think the numbers will start going up with Corbyn's stupid stunt yesterday.
These people seeing and hearing corbyn ,leader of Britains main opposition saying everyone's welcome will get round the world,no worries about that.
Like you say,he's a cnut.
Effectively he has just done a Merkel. It's the same basic statement. As I said last night anyone who thinks there is no connection between Corbyns visit and the invasion of Calais port and the boarding of a British ship is deluded.
He is directly and intently pouring petrol on the flames of what is a delicate situation. The man is quite simply dangerous and he hates this country to its core.
These people are not migrants; they are invaders. What else do you call those who enter a country against its inhabitants' will, expect goods and services without payment, maintain their own culture and expect the native population to accommodate it?
For the context to Corbyn's remarks, here is a video of a mob of migrants (apparently urged on by British anarchists) menacing the home of some Calais residents, yesterday. The locals react quite wildly. But, you know, who wouldn't?
And Jeremy Corbyn wants to let all these people in, and no doubt the next three million, too.
How much coordination was there between Corbyn's team and the British anarchists who coincidentally turned up at the same time? For a British man to shout 'Nazi scum' at local Calais residents is utterly disgraceful.
In the photos of the invasion I noticed one of those Brit protestors was carrying a placed saying "standing up to racism"... Not sure what that has to do with it all.
Mr. Moses, the pro-barbarian Islingtonians assume the moral high ground. It's easier to win an argument (where your own side has no intellectual credibility whatsoever) by slamming the opposition as racists, Nazis, or even Tory scum.
Shocking scenes from France. But hopefully it'll stir political pressure to speed up the destruction of the jungle and the relocation of its denizens to somewhere more secure.
I appreciate it is meant in jest, but the point at which people start openly supporting the nazis is the point that it really gets worrying.
The only people being called Nazis, right now, are that little family in Calais, called "Nazi scum" my migrants and anarchists, for daring to defend their street. Watch the vid.
So what exactly does your statement mean?
It was in reply to MD. With fascist movements getting stronger in Europe both Nationalist as in Jobbik or Golden Dawn and Islamofacist, it all starts getting dangerous.
I am no apologist for Islamism, indeed I have been forthright in condemning it here, but Nazis are not the answer. I want a government that is not afraid to stand up for liberal democracy. We must not be a Weimar type country that gets polarised.
Fair play to you, on PB you have been one of the most vocal in condemning Islamism, and the more repulsive expressions of "Islam" - FGM, etc
But right now, as Casino says, the one way to ensure the return of far right governments in European countries is to continue this insane Merkel-esque immigration policy. While at the same time repressing and censoring the legitimate concerns of indigenous Europeans, about the social effects of large Islamic communities inside the EU.
Stop the immigration. Say outright we will happily tolerate X% Muslims - but no more. Then the Fascist parties will wither on the vine.
Europeans are a civilised bunch. They don't WANT to vote for these nasty fuckers. Thatcher killed off the NF by being robust on migration. The same needs to happen across Europe.
These people are not migrants; they are invaders. What else do you call those who enter a country against its inhabitants' will, expect goods and services without payment, maintain their own culture and expect the native population to accommodate it?
I described them as terrorists, and stick by that.
I appreciate it is meant in jest, but the point at which people start openly supporting the nazis is the point that it really gets worrying.
The only people being called Nazis, right now, are that little family in Calais, called "Nazi scum" my migrants and anarchists, for daring to defend their street. Watch the vid.
So what exactly does your statement mean?
It was in reply to MD. With fascist movements getting stronger in Europe both Nationalist as in Jobbik or Golden Dawn and Islamofacist, it all starts getting dangerous.
I am no apologist for Islamism, indeed I have been forthright in condemning it here, but Nazis are not the answer. I want a government that is not afraid to stand up for liberal democracy. We must not be a Weimar type country that gets polarised.
Fair play to you, on PB you have been one of the most vocal in condemning Islamism, and the more repulsive expressions of "Islam" - FGM, etc
But right now, as Casino says, the one way to ensure the return of far right governments in European countries is to continue this insane Merkel-esque immigration policy. While at the same time repressing and censoring the legitimate concerns of indigenous Europeans, about the social effects of large Islamic communities inside the EU.
Stop the immigration. Say outright we will happily tolerate X% Muslims - but no more. Then the Fascist parties will wither on the vine.
Europeans are a civilised bunch. They don't WANT to vote for these nasty fuckers. Thatcher killed off the NF by being robust on migration. The same needs to happen across Europe.
Unusually, I agree with you.
Indeed its sensible. Sensible to be firm and measured in how we help refugees but discourage migration. The first step is to encourage refugees to stay in their camps. The second is to end their reason for leaving. Corbyn seems intent on undermining both of those.
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
....
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
....
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked thed.
Given that the Scots sided with Parliament in the outset and that the Scots handed Charles I (a Stuart King, King of Scotland ...) over to Parliament so that we can say that it was as an English King he was executed, then its not surprising really that its all known as The English Civil War. Its maybe not surprising it was not known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms at school since this is a relatively new suggestion.
Perhaps it was a race memory of the Third English Civil War that spooked voters so in the west country...!
The Three Kingdoms bit may be a new name, but the Scots were very involved through the whole series of connected conflicts, so I'm surprised it was not a bigger deal, particularly given the domination of England by force over the others.
I shall have to test out your race memory theory!
I would say that the debate about how to frame the War of the Three Kingdoms is fundamental to my desire for an Independent Scotland. It is a fundamental core of the Big Lie and Anglo-centric nature of the United Kingdom and one of the best examples of why the UK must be extinguished.
I was at heart a Tory until my late twenties (as in a Conservative, I didn't care either way about Unionism).
The Scots changed sides if I remember, the Presbyterians in the Scottish Parliament backed Parliament against the King then switched to backing Charles IInd at the Battles of Dunbar and Worcester, the likes of the Duke of Montrose were Royalists from the start
I think you mean the Marquess of Montrose; he started a Covenanter , then reverted to reluctant Presbyterian royalist. A bonny fechter.
For the context to Corbyn's remarks, here is a video of a mob of migrants (apparently urged on by British anarchists) menacing the home of some Calais residents, yesterday. The locals react quite wildly. But, you know, who wouldn't?
And Jeremy Corbyn wants to let all these people in, and no doubt the next three million, too.
How much coordination was there between Corbyn's team and the British anarchists who coincidentally turned up at the same time? For a British man to shout 'Nazi scum' at local Calais residents is utterly disgraceful.
In the photos of the invasion I noticed one of those Brit protestors was carrying a placed saying "standing up to racism"... Not sure what that has to do with it all.
If you have a placard you can always hit someone with it I suppose. Equally I suppose it would be too much to hope that StopThe War were involved in all of this.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Mr. Moses, the pro-barbarian Islingtonians assume the moral high ground. It's easier to win an argument (where your own side has no intellectual credibility whatsoever) by slamming the opposition as racists, Nazis, or even Tory scum.
Shocking scenes from France. But hopefully it'll stir political pressure to speed up the destruction of the jungle and the relocation of its denizens to somewhere more secure.
Corbyn is a moron.
The scenes from Calais remind me of the dissent and social chaos the Soviets were financing across Europe during the Cold War. It wouldn't be a surprise to discover that the Russkies are up to their old tricks again. Are leading Labour politicians back on Moscow's payroll?
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
For the context to Corbyn's remarks, here is a video of a mob of migrants (apparently urged on by British anarchists) menacing the home of some Calais residents, yesterday. The locals react quite wildly. But, you know, who wouldn't?
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
....
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
....
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked thed.
Given that the Scots sided with Parliament in the outset and that the Scots handed Charles I (a Stuart King, King of Scotland ...) over to Parliament so that we can say that it was as an English King he was executed, then its not surprising really that its all known as The English Civil War. Its maybe not surprising it was not known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms at school since this is a relatively new suggestion.
Perhaps it was a race memory of the Third English Civil War that spooked voters so in the west country...!
The Three Kingdoms bit may be a n
I shall have to test out your race memory theory!
I would say that the debate about how to frame the War of the Three Kingdoms is fundamental to my desire for an Independent Scotland. It is a fundamental core of the Big Lie and Anglo-centric nature of the United Kingdom and one of the best examples of why the UK must be extinguished.
I was at heart a Tory until my late twenties (as in a Conservative, I didn't care either way about Unionism).
The Scots changed sides if I remember, the Presbyterians in the Scottish Parliament backed Parliament against the King then switched to backing Charles IInd at the Battles of Dunbar and Worcester, the likes of the Duke of Montrose were Royalists from the start
I think you mean the Marquess of Montrose; he started a Covenanter , then reverted to reluctant Presbyterian royalist. A bonny fechter.
That is he, Charles appointed him Lord Lieutenant of Scotland in 1644 and Captain General in 1645
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Well Corbyn's 'visit' - in reality a 'provocation' - should have involved consultation with at least two other members of his shadow cabinet whose briefs might be considered relevant. Benn and Burnham. Were they told, let alone consulted?
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
....
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
....
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked thed.
Given that the Scots sided with Parliament in the outset and that the Scots handed Charles I (a Stuart King, King of Scotland ...) over to Parliament so that we can say that it was as an English King he was executed, then its not surprising really that its all known as The English Civil War. Its maybe not surprising it was not known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms at school since this is a relatively new suggestion.
Perhaps it was a race memory of the Third English Civil War that spooked voters so in the west country...!
The Three Kingdoms bit may be a new name, but the Scots were very involved through
I would say that the debate about how to frame the War of the Three Kingdoms is fundamental to my desire for an Independent Scotland. It is a fundamental core of the Big Lie and Anglo-centric nature of the United Kingdom and one of the best examples of why the UK must be extinguished.
I was at heart a Tory until my late twenties (as in a Conservative, I didn't care either way about Unionism).
The Scots changed sides if I remember, the Presbyterians in the Scottish Parliament backed Parliament against the King then switched to backing Charles IInd at the Battles of Dunbar and Worcester, the likes of the Duke of Montrose were Royalists from the start
I think you mean the Marquess of Montrose; he started a Covenanter , then reverted to reluctant Presbyterian royalist. A bonny fechter.
In the spirit of Burns, I raise a glass of Laphroig. The war of the Three Kingdoms it is!
Though my sympathies are with the Covenantors rather than the Royalists.
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
....
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
....
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked thed.
Gi
The Three Kingdoms bit may be a new name, but the Scots were very involved through the whole series of connected conflicts, so I'm surprised it was not a bigger deal, particularly given the domination of England by force over the others.
I shall have to test out your race memory theory!
I would say that the debate about how to frame the War of the Three Kingdoms is fundamental to my desire for an Independent Scotland. It is a fundamental core of the Big Lie and Anglo-centric nature of the United Kingdom and one of the best examples of why the UK must be extinguished.
I was at heart a Tory until my late twenties (as in a Conservative, I didn't care either way about Unionism).
The Scots changed sides if I remember, the Presbyterians in the Scottish Parliament backed Parliament against the King then switched to backing Charles IInd at the Battles of Dunbar and Worcester, the likes of the Duke of Montrose were Royalists from the start
I think you mean the Marquess of Montrose; he started a Covenanter , then reverted to reluctant Presbyterian royalist. A bonny fechter.
If there's one turncoat who called things right, it was George Monck. Royalist, then Cromwellian, then Restorer of the Monarchy, he came out of things very nicely.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
Assassins in general never get the crown, see Heseltine, Maudling, Morrison. There are some examples to the contrary of course - Lloyd George, Thatcher, Brown. But generally that happens only when there are no realistic alternatives (Thatcher again is the exception to that).
For the context to Corbyn's remarks, here is a video of a mob of migrants (apparently urged on by British anarchists) menacing the home of some Calais residents, yesterday. The locals react quite wildly. But, you know, who wouldn't?
And Jeremy Corbyn wants to let all these people in, and no doubt the next three million, too.
Who would've thought it eh?
It is the French authorities that permit the Jungle, and daily attacks on transport. In or out of the EU we need to maintain amicable relations with the French authorities.
Internment camps for asylum seekers are nessecary, with freedom to abscond prevented while their case is reviewed. Word would soon get back to the fraudulent, bone fide asylum seekers could be processed more quickly too.
It is absurd to reinforce fences in Calais, then release those that get one toe on British soil with freedom to roam.
Incidentally I have just caught up with some of the earlier discussions on Napoleon. By 1812 France had absorbed northern Italy, Alsace, Belgium and the Rhineland, along with Malta, and Napoleon had put his brothers on the thrones of Naples and Spain, his son on the throne of Rome, adding Sweden to the list via his top marshal, Bernadotte. Anyone who thinks that Napoleon did not go on a rampage of conquest across Europe does not know what they are talking about.
As for the suggestion that the invasion of Russia was to protect the Holy Roman Empire, which had been officially dissolved in 1806 after its subjugation by Napoleon at Austerlitz,* well...
Whatever Dair's strengths I do not think history is one of them.
*although the empire was dissolved, an official successor state, albeit with very different boundaries and practices, evolved eventually into Austria-Hungary. But since without Russia's help and support even that would have been impossible -Napoleon would have swallowed Austria and reduced Hungary to satellite status - the suggestion the war was fought to protect it remains ludicrous.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
Assassins in general never get the crown, see Heseltine, Maudling, Morrison. There are some examples to the contrary of course - Lloyd George, Thatcher, Brown. But generally that happens only when there are no realistic alternatives (Thatcher again is the exception to that).
Another exception from German politics is Merkel. She wielded the knife and seized control when she wasn't the obvious successor.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
The important number is 117. 117 Labour MPs need to resign the whip, insist they are the Parliamentary Labour Party and elect the LotO.
Unless that happens, sporadic statements here and there mean nothing. A breakaway group fewer than 117 will mean another SDP like situation - splits the left vote.
Incidentally I have just caught up with some of the earlier discussions on Napoleon. By 1812 France had absorbed northern Italy, Alsace, Belgium and the Rhineland, along with Malta, and Napoleon had put his brothers on the thrones of Naples and Spain, his son on the throne of Rome, adding Sweden to the list via his top marshal, Bernadotte. Anyone who thinks that Napoleon did not go on a rampage of conquest across Europe does not know what they are talking about.
As for the suggestion that the invasion of Russia was to protect the Holy Roman Empire, which had been officially dissolved in 1806 after its subjugation by Napoleon at Austerlitz,* well...
Whatever Dair's strengths I do not think history is one of them.
*although the empire was dissolved, an official successor state, albeit with very different boundaries and practices, evolved eventually into Austria-Hungary. But since without Russia's help and support even that would have been impossible -Napoleon would have swallowed Austria and reduced Hungary to satellite status - the suggestion the war was fought to protect it remains ludicrous.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
Assassins in general never get the crown, see Heseltine, Maudling, Morrison. There are some examples to the contrary of course - Lloyd George, Thatcher, Brown. But generally that happens only when there are no realistic alternatives (Thatcher again is the exception to that).
Another exception from German politics is Merkel. She wielded the knife and seized control when she wasn't the obvious successor.
Yes. He was a greedy thug out for himself and his family, who caused immense damage along the way while he was doing it. The Alliance against him was not some kind of radical right reaction against the French Revolution, although it started that way and via the congress system and the Holy Alliance, ironically ended that way too. It was a legitimate reaction to a serious menace. As for his principles, let us not forget he had a Putin-style habit of eliminating those who seriously annoyed him - e.g. Admiral Villeneuve, who apparently committed suicide by stabbing himself in the heart no fewer than three times.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
Assassins in general never get the crown, see Heseltine, Maudling, Morrison. There are some examples to the contrary of course - Lloyd George, Thatcher, Brown. But generally that happens only when there are no realistic alternatives (Thatcher again is the exception to that).
Another exception from German politics is Merkel. She wielded the knife and seized control when she wasn't the obvious successor.
How ?
She called for the party to move on from the Kohl era in a newspaper article after a party funding scandal and effectively forced Schaeuble to stand aside.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
The important number is 117. 117 Labour MPs need to resign the whip, insist they are the Parliamentary Labour Party and elect the LotO.
Unless that happens, sporadic statements here and there mean nothing. A breakaway group fewer than 117 will mean another SDP like situation - splits the left vote.
The time is after the May elections, whatever the result. 35 names must be possible. Corbyn would be able to stand again. He needs beating in a fair fight by ballot of the membership.
There is a risk of Corbyn of winning again, but the risk of inaction for centrist Labour is higher than the risk of action. Hesitate and the moment will be gone, with the risk of rule changes making such a move harder in the future.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
Assassins in general never get the crown, see Heseltine, Maudling, Morrison. There are some examples to the contrary of course - Lloyd George, Thatcher, Brown. But generally that happens only when there are no realistic alternatives (Thatcher again is the exception to that).
Yes but crucially Lloyd George, Thatcher and Brown were all in the Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet when they challenged
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
Assassins in general never get the crown, see Heseltine, Maudling, Morrison. There are some examples to the contrary of course - Lloyd George, Thatcher, Brown. But generally that happens only when there are no realistic alternatives (Thatcher again is the exception to that).
Another exception from German politics is Merkel. She wielded the knife and seized control when she wasn't the obvious successor.
Incidentally I have just caught up with some of the earlier discussions on Napoleon. By 1812 France had absorbed northern Italy, Alsace, Belgium and the Rhineland, along with Malta, and Napoleon had put his brothers on the thrones of Naples and Spain, his son on the throne of Rome, adding Sweden to the list via his top marshal, Bernadotte. Anyone who thinks that Napoleon did not go on a rampage of conquest across Europe does not know what they are talking about.
As for the suggestion that the invasion of Russia was to protect the Holy Roman Empire, which had been officially dissolved in 1806 after its subjugation by Napoleon at Austerlitz,* well...
Whatever Dair's strengths I do not think history is one of them.
*although the empire was dissolved, an official successor state, albeit with very different boundaries and practices, evolved eventually into Austria-Hungary. But since without Russia's help and support even that would have been impossible -Napoleon would have swallowed Austria and reduced Hungary to satellite status - the suggestion the war was fought to protect it remains ludicrous.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
The important number is 117. 117 Labour MPs need to resign the whip, insist they are the Parliamentary Labour Party and elect the LotO.
Unless that happens, sporadic statements here and there mean nothing. A breakaway group fewer than 117 will mean another SDP like situation - splits the left vote.
The time is after the May elections, whatever the result. 35 names must be possible. Corbyn would be able to stand again. He needs beating in a fair fight by ballot of the membership.
There is a risk of Corbyn of winning again, but the risk of inaction for centrist Labour is higher than the risk of action. Hesitate and the moment will be gone, with the risk of rule changes making such a move harder in the future.
Didn't Corbyn advocate annual elections...
Labour elects its leader annually anyway. It's just that in order for anyone other than the leader to take part, they need the support of 20% of the parliamentary party.
Name a vaguely plausible candidate who would get 47 nominations and stand a dog's chance of appealing to the wider membership who still regard the Jezziah with terrifying adulation.
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
Yes, I thought that was quite special. Basically, if you make it to Calais and look a bit desperate and punchy, we'll let you in and screw the migrant laws- and screw all those people who are queueing in an orderly way for a visa.
So that's 3,000 in. And what then of the next 3,000, or 30,000, or 300,000, who then show up in Calais - as they will, having been told that all you have to do get into the UK is turn up at Calais and sleep in a cold tent for half a day?
Corbyn is a cunt. Perhaps a well-meaning, decent sort of cunt. But a cunt, nonetheless. A seriously malign presence in British politics. He needs to be expunged.
Agree in all you say, but Cameron is also of the "C" kind and will swamp us endless migrants and endless rules from Brussels.
Had drinks in Bangkok tonight with a very old friend, who now lives in Australia. He used to be a mild lefty, then a soft centrist, which he remained, as far as I knew until today (we meet v rarely, once a year at most)
Out of the blue, he told me would vote for Trump tomorrow, if he was American, and that he would happily see every single Muslim expelled from "Western" lands. He meant it. And this was entirely unprompted. And my pal is very highly educated.
Yes yes I know middle aged people swing right, but it was still fairly shocking. Western politics is polarising, left and right, but I suspect many more are secretly or openly swinging right, than left.
I think that's exactly where it's heading because so few Western mainstream politicians or parties will do anything substantive about it.
We seem to have reached an end point, now, where many people in power give the impression that they actively hate their own voters. So, yeah, they're going to get swept out, hopefully. Or, perhaps, they'll use violence to retain power.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
Assassins in general never get the crown, see Heseltine, Maudling, Morrison. There are some examples to the contrary of course - Lloyd George, Thatcher, Brown. But generally that happens only when there are no realistic alternatives (Thatcher again is the exception to that).
Another exception from German politics is Merkel. She wielded the knife and seized control when she wasn't the obvious successor.
She was leader of the CDU at the time
She was party secretary. She was elected leader the following year.
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
....
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
....
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked thed.
Given that the Scots sided with Parliament in the outset and that the Scots handed Charles I (a Stuart ... ...
The Three Kingdoms bit may be a new name, but the Scots were very involved through the whole series of connected conflicts, so I'm surprised it was not a bigger deal, particularly given the domination of England by force over the others.
I shall have to test out your race memory theory!
I would say that the debate about how to frame the War of the Three Kingdoms is fundamental to my desire for an Independent Scotland. It is a fundamental core of the Big Lie and Anglo-centric nature of the United Kingdom and one of the best examples of why the UK must be extinguished.
I was at heart a Tory until my late twenties (as in a Conservative, I didn't care either way about Unionism).
The Scots changed sides if I remember, the Presbyterians in the Scottish Parliament backed Parliament against the King then switched to backing Charles IInd at the Battles of Dunbar and Worcester, the likes of the Duke of Montrose were Royalists from the start
I think you mean the Marquess of Montrose; he started a Covenanter , then reverted to reluctant Presbyterian royalist. A bonny fechter.
This was remarkably common amongst establishment Scots. The Thomas Cromwell, bend in the wind to events, was indeed popular across Britain during the interregnum.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
The important number is 117. 117 Labour MPs need to resign the whip, insist they are the Parliamentary Labour Party and elect the LotO.
Unless that happens, sporadic statements here and there mean nothing. A breakaway group fewer than 117 will mean another SDP like situation - splits the left vote.
The time is after the May elections, whatever the result. 35 names must be possible. Corbyn would be able to stand again. He needs beating in a fair fight by ballot of the membership.
There is a risk of Corbyn of winning again, but the risk of inaction for centrist Labour is higher than the risk of action. Hesitate and the moment will be gone, with the risk of rule changes making such a move harder in the future.
Didn't Corbyn advocate annual elections...
Labour elects its leader annually anyway. It's just that in order for anyone other than the leader to take part, they need the support of 20% of the parliamentary party.
Name a vaguely plausible candidate who would get 47 nominations and stand a dog's chance of appealing to the wider membership who still regard the Jezziah with terrifying adulation.
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
Assassins in general never get the crown, see Heseltine, Maudling, Morrison. There are some examples to the contrary of course - Lloyd George, Thatcher, Brown. But generally that happens only when there are no realistic alternatives (Thatcher again is the exception to that).
Another exception from German politics is Merkel. She wielded the knife and seized control when she wasn't the obvious successor.
She was leader of the CDU at the time
She was party secretary. She was elected leader the following year.
Yes, so in the frontrank of the party, she had not resigned to the backbenches
Following Corbyn's actions across the Channel this weekend, any proper-minded member of Labour's Shadow Cabinet should be resigning their position forthwith.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Waiting to take over, you need to be in the Shadow Cabinet to become the King, see Michael Howard, assassins from outside the frontbench never get the crown, see Michael Heseltine!
The important number is 117. 117 Labour MPs need to resign the whip, insist they are the Parliamentary Labour Party and elect the LotO.
Unless that happens, sporadic statements here and there mean nothing. A breakaway group fewer than 117 will mean another SDP like situation - splits the left vote.
Though my sympathies are with the Covenantors rather than the Royalists.
Tbf to Montrose, he rejected the governance of bishops all the way through.
(Montrose) 'was hanged on the 21st, with Wishart's laudatory biography of him around his neck. He protested to the last that he was in truth a Covenanter and a loyal subject.'
Comments
Like Dear Uncle Joe Stalin, perhaps? Or that Cambodian fellow Professor Miliband was so keen on?
But he has been utterly horrendous. He's swept away the image of being accommodating to different views in his reshuffle, and he's stuck in some narrow minded view of the world. I'd love to know what makes him that his views are generally appealing to the public - he falls into electoral traps daily now and is toxifying the labour brand in a way i never quite thought he would.
I mean..is it deliberate or something?
I suspect the War of the Three Kingdoms will be much better understood by todays generation now that it is correctly framed and some of the important outcomes will make more sense. But we are not all the way there yet, the BBC style guidelines still persist with "English Civil war".
The lefties would be howling at the moon if anyone else tried that argument even if the approach was based on the individuals having a set of skills this country could actually use when they got here.
This is the balancing act we must travel in dealing with islamic extremism and those seeking to abuse the plight of refugees. Corbyn's visit was ill advised and is yet another indication of how narrow minded and dim he is. But then again there is a long history of anarchist etc fellow travellers latching on to his litany of protests over the years. This is no different and of course the riots his visit fomented were as predictable as the self generated right wing outrage it generated.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/labour-mps-expenses/12118816/Suspended-Labour-MP-facing-investigation-into-expense-claims.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
5-6 Trump
3-1 Cruz
6-1 Rubio
Something like that right now.
"Republicans conduct what amounts to a straw poll, voting by secret ballot. The state Republican Party reports the percentages of that raw vote on caucus night to determine the winner."
"Democrats require voters to cast their votes in public, grouping themselves in different parts of the room. If any candidate does not reach a certain percentage in a precinct (generally 15 percent of the total number of voters who show up), his or her supporters are allowed to caucus for any of the viable candidates. Only when this reshuffling takes place are the results tabulated."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-needs-an-iowa-victory-to-blunt-the-momentum-of-bernie-sanders/2016/01/23/b571255e-c1f2-11e5-9443-7074c3645405_story.html
I have doubts that the O'Malley voters will prefer Hillary over Sanders, as O'Malley's positions are close to the ones of Sanders.
In what is essentially a 2 round system, that 5% he gets will be the key as to who wins Iowa.
I was at heart a Tory until my late twenties (as in a Conservative, I didn't care either way about Unionism).
Which is important when considering Trump's latest re-tweet controversy. On Friday, Trump retweeted what appeared to be a neo-Nazi Twitter account, "@WhiteGenocideTM," for a tweet that featured an image of Jeb Bush outside Trump Tower, dressed as a panhandler, and holding a "Vote Trump" sign.
The user's profile picture depicted the founder of the American Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell, and a caption "The Man Who Wants To Be Hitler." WhiteGenocideTM's location was listed as "Jewmerica," his Twitter background read "GET THE F— OUT OF MY COUNTRY" and the website linked on his Twitter page is one promoting a Hitler bio-documentary, as well as a section that questions if the Holocaust actually happened. The Trump campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this re-tweet and the tweet is still on Trump's Twitter page.''
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/top-five-trump-moments-week-n503311
(yes I know its NBC...)
So I bailed to avoid any last minute hiccups, as I don't see any value for any candidate anymore, the potential for profit has been exhausted.
Celebrating Burns Night? (I know - but tommorow is a workday)
Just preparing my Haggis.
Cheers to all my PB Scottish sparring partners. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation...
On the other hand a challenge could be the precursor to a secession.
PS
a challenge which drew some 200 nominations might be interesting. I might well still lose but would leave the PLP ungovernable.
PS re press stories, Trump dominates.
Not exactly standard but I'm a radical.
(I suppose yesterday was an appropriate way to round off a week seeing as how it began last Sunday)
The problem though is that the way the Democrats do their caucus in Iowa means that polls are not very reliable:
1. There is no secret ballot, any voting takes place in public.
2. The candidates that get less than 15% in the precinct get eliminated and their voters can choose from someone else in a second round.
Which means that there will be pressure to vote for the cool guy and the voters of smaller candidates get to choose the winner in the second round of a close race.
That's how Biden and Richardson got 0 and 2 from 5% and how Obama got a 7 point boost in 2008 to win, the voters that got eliminated voted for Obama to defeat Hillary.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3413988/Why-Labour-REALLY-lost-Margaret-Beckett-whitewash-secret-party-report-reveals-Britain-voted-Tory-Ed-Miliband-disaster-just-couldn-t-trusted.html
In fact according to yougov the Tories won those earning £20,000-£39,000 by 37% to Labour's 32%. Labour only won with those earning under £20k where it led the Tories 36% to 29%
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/
Likewise with his Falklands comments.
Corbyn is as much a rabble rouser as Trump.
I know I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: Corbyn's plain stupid.
He is directly and intently pouring petrol on the flames of what is a delicate situation. The man is quite simply dangerous and he hates this country to its core.
Shocking scenes from France. But hopefully it'll stir political pressure to speed up the destruction of the jungle and the relocation of its denizens to somewhere more secure.
Corbyn is a moron.
Corbyn seems intent on undermining both of those.
Equally I suppose it would be too much to hope that StopThe War were involved in all of this.
Where are you Andy Burnham?
Where are you Lord Falconer?
Where are you Lisa Nandy?
Where are you Hilary Benn?
Etc, etc?
Though my sympathies are with the Covenantors rather than the Royalists.
Internment camps for asylum seekers are nessecary, with freedom to abscond prevented while their case is reviewed. Word would soon get back to the fraudulent, bone fide asylum seekers could be processed more quickly too.
It is absurd to reinforce fences in Calais, then release those that get one toe on British soil with freedom to roam.
As for the suggestion that the invasion of Russia was to protect the Holy Roman Empire, which had been officially dissolved in 1806 after its subjugation by Napoleon at Austerlitz,* well...
Whatever Dair's strengths I do not think history is one of them.
*although the empire was dissolved, an official successor state, albeit with very different boundaries and practices, evolved eventually into Austria-Hungary. But since without Russia's help and support even that would have been impossible -Napoleon would have swallowed Austria and reduced Hungary to satellite status - the suggestion the war was fought to protect it remains ludicrous.
Unless that happens, sporadic statements here and there mean nothing. A breakaway group fewer than 117 will mean another SDP like situation - splits the left vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDU_donations_scandal
There is a risk of Corbyn of winning again, but the risk of inaction for centrist Labour is higher than the risk of action. Hesitate and the moment will be gone, with the risk of rule changes making such a move harder in the future.
Didn't Corbyn advocate annual elections...
New Thread New Thread
Name a vaguely plausible candidate who would get 47 nominations and stand a dog's chance of appealing to the wider membership who still regard the Jezziah with terrifying adulation.
I must admit I can't think of one.
With that I am off to bed. Goodnight all.
(Montrose) 'was hanged on the 21st, with Wishart's laudatory biography of him around his neck. He protested to the last that he was in truth a Covenanter and a loyal subject.'