Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?
That's a bit of a leap, you don't even need to look beyond the PLP to see plenty of Labour members Corbyn doesn't agree with.
There's not agreeing and there's not agreeing. Should a Labour leader not worry about anti-semites being allowed to join the party? Shouldn't he do all he can to prevent it happening and to speak out clearly in opposition if he cannot prevent it?
Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racist members as a priority over all other initiatives that might make the party electable would be a correct allocation of resources. Sounds a bit like ideological purity over pragmatism to me. Should they speak out against all racist views? Yeah, definitely.
Well, it seems that's where you and I differ. An anti-semitic apologist for 9/11 has been allowed to join the Labour party. My view is the party's leader has a responsibility to do all he can to see that decision is reversed. But I guess that's why Labour has lost my vote.
It's a good thing that Labour is reaching out and when behaviour as you describe is placed before the NEC appropiate action has been taken up to now.It may be that all political parties will have to do an extended criminal check to root out known sex offenders.Can I say my recent experience in Labour was having the privilege to sit next to someone who had come to this country as part of the Kinder transport.
The ICM poll should be a reality check for Remain. High-fiving each other about the brilliance of their campaign, and the ineptitude of Leave is no substitute for actually persuading the voters.
Just wondering what more bollocks they will come out with, it's been desperate enough already, how low will they go.
If you really believe in Trump as Gotterdammerung for the Republicans, put your bets on Democrats to win states like North Carolina (which went Obama 2008). Personally, I think it is worth the risk.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
That's only half the picture, though.
Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.
IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I'm just fascinated to know who'll win the battle between @RodCrosby and @JackW to be honest.
I'm not, only one knows what they are talking about.
This is wishful thinking and largely bonkers. Labour would not meekly allow legislation to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be rushed through for Tory Party advantage. In the unlikely event of the Government trying to go down that road the relevant Bill would be subject to the normal Parliamentary stages. I think it unlikely that a Government so obviously seeking to play 'fast & loose' with the Constitution for potential electoral gain in such a way would impress the electorate.It will not happen.
You're deeply misunderstanding the Fixed Term Parliament Act and seemingly ignorant of how early elections work across the continent in nations with similar acts.
The act never needs to be repealed. Never. All the government needs to do is put forward a motion calling for an early election and whip its own party into voting for the motion. It needs to pass by two-thirds but would almost inevitably pass all-but unanimously no matter what..
If the opposition votes for the election then the election is on like the government wanted, win for them. Any opposition that was too frit to go ahead with an election would be absolutely humiliated in public opinion, an even bigger win for the government. The only time when the vote would fail is if the government couldn't carry its own MPs forwards, ie if there's a coalition government and one party with enough MPs says no. Which is why it was designed as it was, for a coalition government (though the Lib Dems never had enough to block anyway).
Brown was humiliated for running away from "the election that never was" and never recovered from that, with that being from being in government. Any opposition that voted against an early election and a chance to grab power (effectively opting to say that they'd rather the government continues than get elected themselves) could never recover from that.
Which is why a vote for an early election will always pass.
I am fully aware that the FTA requires a two thirds votes of the 650 MPs to secure an early dissolution. I suggest to you that there is not a hope in hell that Labour would help them do that! Even by abstaining Labour would block such a move. The Government could respond by tabling a Vote of No Confidence in itself - but I suspect that public opinion would not react to that in a very positive way from a Tory perspective.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
That's only half the picture, though.
Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.
IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I'm just fascinated to know who'll win the battle between @RodCrosby and @JackW to be honest.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
That's only half the picture, though.
Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.
IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I'm just fascinated to know who'll win the battle between @RodCrosby and @JackW to be honest.
Magnanimity is my middle name ....
I thought it was Minnesota? As in you think that it should be a Republican target despite even Reagan having failed to take it, or indeed your assertion that Romney attracted non-college educated whites when 2012 saw an unprecedented slump in their voter turnout...
Caveat Emptor when you listen to some people's advice.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
That's only half the picture, though.
Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.
IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I'm just fascinated to know who'll win the battle between @RodCrosby and @JackW to be honest.
I'm not, only one knows what they are talking about.
If you really believe in Trump as Gotterdammerung for the Republicans, put your bets on Democrats to win states like North Carolina (which went Obama 2008). Personally, I think it is worth the risk.
I have to make sure my detestation of Trump isn't colouring my judgement
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
That's only half the picture, though.
Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.
IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I'm just fascinated to know who'll win the battle between @RodCrosby and @JackW to be honest.
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38 Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45 Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47 Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
The GOP should choose Cruz for the sake of the party and my book.
They won't.
Horrible numbers for Trump. Too late now.
Those numbers don't tell the whole story. This is the position after months of everyone being told that reasonable people ought to think that Trump is the next Hitler and must be stopped at all costs. In that context those numbers are amazingly good for Trump. He has a long time to correct that perception and has the communication skills to do it.
In general once voters make their mind up about someone's character it is very hard to shift it significantly. Also the attacks on Trump's character won't stop after he gets the nomination, they will intensify , The Democrats just need to replay all the devastating things other GOPers have said about Trump on a loop till November.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
That's only half the picture, though.
Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.
IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I'm just fascinated to know who'll win the battle between @RodCrosby and @JackW to be honest.
I'm not, only one knows what they are talking about.
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38 Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45 Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47 Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
The GOP should choose Cruz for the sake of the party and my book.
They won't.
Horrible numbers for Trump. Too late now.
Those numbers don't tell the whole story. This is the position after months of everyone being told that reasonable people ought to think that Trump is the next Hitler and must be stopped at all costs. In that context those numbers are amazingly good for Trump. He has a long time to correct that perception and has the communication skills to do it.
In general once voters make their mind up about someone's character it is very hard to shift it significantly. Also the attacks on Trump's character won't stop after he gets the nomination, they will intensify , The Democrats just need to replay all the devastating things other GOPers have said about Trump on a loop till November.
I am sure HRC will buck the trend of slumping poll numbers once Trump turns his fire on her.
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38 Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45 Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47 Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
The GOP should choose Cruz for the sake of the party and my book.
They won't.
Horrible numbers for Trump. Too late now.
Those numbers do to do it.
In general once voters make their mind up about someone's character it is very hard to shift it significantly. Also the attacks on Trump's character won't stop after he gets the nomination, they will intensify , The Democrats just need to replay all the devastating things other GOPers have said about Trump on a loop till November.
Voters will have already made up their minds about Clinton.
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38 Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45 Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47 Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
Landslide territory for HRC vs Trump?
Indeed. A repeat of those numbers in November and Trump will likely pull down the house with him.
Senate too?
A Dem President, The House and Senate too.
Trump really is a secret Dem.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
Says it all
A few other polls have had Trump beating Hillary in Florida, personally I think he will win it and it will be very tight nationally but Hillary just about wins it overall
The GOP will still hold the House regardless even if the Dems have an outside chance of taking the Senate
The chances of the Democrats winning the House are very remote. They pile up huge, but useless, majorities in safe seats.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
That's only half the picture, though.
Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.
IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I'm just fascinated to know who'll win the battle between @RodCrosby and @JackW to be honest.
Magnanimity is my middle name ....
I thought it was Minnesota? As in you think that it should be a Republican target despite even Reagan having failed to take it, or indeed your assertion that Romney attracted non-college educated whites when 2012 saw an unprecedented slump in their voter turnout...
Caveat Emptor when you listen to some people's advice.
I have never implied that Minnesota would be a GOP target
You should read more carefully my posts rather than what you thought I said. In any case I'm happy to let my record on POTUS elections on PB stand against your dribblings any polling day.
The ICM poll should be a reality check for Remain. High-fiving each other about the brilliance of their campaign, and the ineptitude of Leave is no substitute for actually persuading the voters.
It will be tight but Remain need a better campaign organisation as they have more need to get their voters out
The ICM poll should be a reality check for Remain. High-fiving each other about the brilliance of their campaign, and the ineptitude of Leave is no substitute for actually persuading the voters.
It will be tight but Remain need a better campaign organisation as they have more need to get their voters out
How much better can their campaign organisation get?
The reality is that Leavers here are crying foul so regularly on the Remain campaign precisely because it is well organised and ruthless. The same can not be said for the Leave campaign. It doesn't need to become any more organised or ruthless, it could become more positive but that doesn't look like being Remain's strategy.
The ICM poll should be a reality check for Remain. High-fiving each other about the brilliance of their campaign, and the ineptitude of Leave is no substitute for actually persuading the voters.
It will be tight but Remain need a better campaign organisation as they have more need to get their voters out
How much better can their campaign organisation get?
The reality is that Leavers here are crying foul so regularly on the Remain campaign precisely because it is well organised and ruthless. The same can not be said for the Leave campaign. It doesn't need to become any more organised or ruthless, it could become more positive but that doesn't look like being Remain's strategy.
Yes, certainly having two squabbling factions does not help Leave, while Remain has one
HRC vs Trump has a high degree of uncertainty on both sides imo.
Bet accordingly.
That is why Trump is the most difficult opponent for Hillary in my book. Cruz and Rubio are professional politicians, and can be relied on to play the game a certain way.
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 51 .. Cruz 42 Clinton 48 .. Rubio 46
Any link to the demographic breakdown. I hold ORC in particularalynlow regard when it comes to being a representative sample.
Found the PDF, as ever ORC are hilarious. Almost the entirety of Republican voters were 65+. Trace amounts of people earning under 50k. Trace amounts of non-whites. Ditto for the Dems sample as well.
I am fully aware that the FTA requires a two thirds votes of the 650 MPs to secure an early dissolution. I suggest to you that there is not a hope in hell that Labour would help them do that! Even by abstaining Labour would block such a move. The Government could respond by tabling a Vote of No Confidence in itself - but I suspect that public opinion would not react to that in a very positive way from a Tory perspective.
I suggest there is not a chance in hell Labour would not back an early election. The media would entirely rightly crucify any opposition party that didn't back an election. To avoid backing an election means to endorse the continued governance of the government that the opposition was supposed to oppose. The PM not backing an early election just means the PM wants to guarantee to be PM for longer. For the Leader of the Opposition to say he opposes an early election means to say that he would rather the PM continues to lead the country than to do so himself. He is explicitly saying either than the PM is better than him, or that he thinks he'll lose, neither of which would be positive from an opposition perspective.
As for governments tabling Votes of No Confidence in itself to call an early election, that happens regularly on the continent in nations that don't have alternative provisions for calling an early vote. It is correctly simply seen as the government is confident and wants to go to the polls, not that the government lacks confidence in itself.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No the article says quite clearly the motivation is a Cameron Merkel deal, FAZ tend to be pro Merkel.
With 3 regional elections coming up Merkel is under pressure, Currently in the polls the CDU is second in their fiefdom of Baden Wuerttemberg, This is like the Conservatives coming second in Surrey.
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 51 .. Cruz 42 Clinton 48 .. Rubio 46
Any link to the demographic breakdown. I hold ORC in particularalynlow regard when it comes to being a representative sample.
Found the PDF, as ever ORC are hilarious. Almost the entirety of Republican voters were 65+. Trace amounts of people earning under 50k. Trace amounts of non-whites. Ditto for the Dems sample as well.
Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?
That's a bit of a leap, you don't even need to look beyond the PLP to see plenty of Labour members Corbyn doesn't agree with.
It is about what your expectations of behaviour are. The tone is set from the top. A leader should be able to say: this is who we are, this is how we behave, this is where we're going to and this is how we're getting there.
And the actions need to fit the words.
It is no use wittering about racism when your own actions and words (and lack of) show that you are not willing to take any effective action against one of the oldest and most pernicious and brutal racisms of all. You may say that you have other priorities or you don't have the resources (though these sound like excuses for inaction to me) but then don't be surprised if others look at you, what you do and don't do and the company you keep and form their own view as to the sort of party you are and the values you really espouse.
In Labour - now - I see a party led by people who I do not believe are able to distinguish between good and evil, who are unwilling to confront some of the forms of evil we currently face in the world, who have a moral blindness, a lack of moral courage. This does not apply to all its members, of course, but the leaders set the tone - and in Corbyn and McDonnell and Milne - the tone which has been set is a wrong one. IMO.
That others in the party may not share these views is neither here nor there. They are not in charge. They may be biding their time. But as a great man once said: "For evil to flourish, all it takes is for good men to do nothing."
Very eloquently put.
The situation, made substantially worse by FTPT rather than some kind of PR, is that each party is a blend of good and evil (to use your language). You can choose a party that aims to prioritise social justice but is insufficiently concerned by some elements of racism, or one, that is removing many of the state's protections from the most vulnerable, and (maybe) is better on anti-semitism, while being pretty happy to use crude dog-whistle xenophobia for electoral advantage. And, well, that's pretty much it. Both of those seem to be struggling to distinguish good and evil in some respects, so rather than being an easy call between the good guys and the bad guys, we're all back in the Sartrean condition of being inescapably alone in weighing up the different moral imperatives.
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38 Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45 Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47 Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
The GOP should choose Cruz for the sake of the party and my book.
They won't.
Horrible numbers for Trump. Too late now.
Those numbers do to do it.
In general once voters make their mind up about someone's character it is very hard to shift it significantly. Also the attacks on Trump's character won't stop after he gets the nomination, they will intensify , The Democrats just need to replay all the devastating things other GOPers have said about Trump on a loop till November.
Voters will have already made up their minds about Clinton.
Can't see it all being positive.
I agree Clinton certainly has got her detractors and is not one to get the adrenalin pumping amongst the faithful, but on the other hand many will see her as a safe pair of hands, especially in comparison to thought of Trump with his finger on the button.
I am trying to assess Trump's chances by thinking which groups of Obama voters he will be able to shift over to his side and the answer is I can't see any. The only case that is being made is perhaps blue collar whites in the mid west (the old Reagan Democrats) but I seriously can't see that many of them were ever Obama voters in 2008 or 2012 to begin with. It is also a declining demographic.
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No the article says quite clearly the motivation is a Cameron Merkel deal, FAZ tend to be pro Merkel.
With 3 regional elections coming up Merkel is under pressure, Currently in the polls the CDU is second in their fiefdom of Baden Wuerttemberg, This is like the Conservatives coming second in Surrey.
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for the AfD and Tories to sit together?
The ICM poll should be a reality check for Remain. High-fiving each other about the brilliance of their campaign, and the ineptitude of Leave is no substitute for actually persuading the voters.
It will be tight but Remain need a better campaign organisation as they have more need to get their voters out
How much better can their campaign organisation get?
The reality is that Leavers here are crying foul so regularly on the Remain campaign precisely because it is well organised and ruthless. The same can not be said for the Leave campaign. It doesn't need to become any more organised or ruthless, it could become more positive but that doesn't look like being Remain's strategy.
Their challenge is to get apathetic Remain supporters to actually vote.
I am fully aware that the FTA requires a two thirds votes of the 650 MPs to secure an early dissolution. I suggest to you that there is not a hope in hell that Labour would help them do that! Even by abstaining Labour would block such a move. The Government could respond by tabling a Vote of No Confidence in itself - but I suspect that public opinion would not react to that in a very positive way from a Tory perspective.
I suggest there is not a chance in hell Labour would not back an early election. The media would entirely rightly crucify any opposition party that didn't back an election. To avoid backing an election means to endorse the continued governance of the government that the opposition was supposed to oppose. The PM not backing an early election just means the PM wants to guarantee to be PM for longer. For the Leader of the Opposition to say he opposes an early election means to say that he would rather the PM continues to lead the country than to do so himself. He is explicitly saying either than the PM is better than him, or that he thinks he'll lose, neither of which would be positive from an opposition perspective.
As for governments tabling Votes of No Confidence in itself to call an early election, that happens regularly on the continent in nations that don't have alternative provisions for calling an early vote. It is correctly simply seen as the government is confident and wants to go to the polls, not that the government lacks confidence in itself.
The govt have a majority. It has no need for an election. If it were a minority govt then you could see the logic as some are on the continent and some are coalitions. We have a referendum precisely because it is an area where there is disagreements within parties and it is a constitutional matter. There may be other referendums in the future, why should they lead to an election. Some want endless government by referendums.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
I think Corbyn - based on what he has said (Cable Street, Mosley, my mother, blah blah) - thinks that anti-Semitism is something that happened in the 1930s and 1940s and is not something to worry about now, not really. He is not willing to accept that the forms which anti-Semitism take have mutated and metastasized. Other forms of racism are more important. And if some of those other groups who are the left's current victims du jour are themselves anti-Semitic .... well that doesn't matter and is overlooked because there must be a good reason for their views and anyway victims can't be bad, by definition. Jews are no longer victims you see because all those bad people in Germany were defeated and are dead. Other groups now win the "-ism" Top Trumps game which so much of the identity politics and anti-racism of the left have turned into.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
Ummm.... because I do? I think Corbyn probably does, but we don't chat that regularly so I could be wrong. I thought @Cyclefree defined it very nicely below as "one of the oldest and most pernicious and brutal racisms of all" - I don't really have anything to add to or subtract from that.
Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?
That's a bit of a leap, you don't even need to look beyond the PLP to see plenty of Labour members Corbyn doesn't agree with.
There's not agreeing and there's not agreeing. Should a Labour leader not worry about anti-semites being allowed to join the party? Shouldn't he do all he can to prevent it happening and to speak out clearly in opposition if he cannot prevent it?
Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racist members as a priority over all other initiatives that might make the party electable would be a correct allocation of resources. Sounds a bit like ideological purity over pragmatism to me. Should they speak out against all racist views? Yeah, definitely.
Well, it seems that's where you and I differ. An anti-semitic apologist for 9/11 has been allowed to join the Labour party. My view is the party's leader has a responsibility to do all he can to see that decision is reversed. But I guess that's why Labour has lost my vote.
Fair enough, I respect your principles. I just don't know where this one would end. I'm sure it would be straightforward to find members of all main parties expressing seriously unsavoury views, were one to make the effort. I'm not at all sure that those parties' respective leaders would immediately expel those members if the views were brought to their attentions. And then you get left with nobody to vote for. It feels like a desirable but unachievable ideal. (I'd be delighted to discover I'm being too cynical btw)
There is no-one to vote for currently in a general election. Corbyn Labour is a non-starter, the Tories are destructive. In my constituency I have the uxury of saying bollocks to them both. God knows what I'd do if my vote actually counted. I like the LD on our local council, so I'll vote for him in May.
The situation, made substantially worse by FTPT rather than some kind of PR, is that each party is a blend of good and evil (to use your language). You can choose a party that aims to prioritise social justice but is insufficiently concerned by some elements of racism, or one, that is removing many of the state's protections from the most vulnerable, and (maybe) is better on anti-semitism, while being pretty happy to use crude dog-whistle xenophobia for electoral advantage. And, well, that's pretty much it. Both of those seem to be struggling to distinguish good and evil in some respects, so rather than being an easy call between the good guys and the bad guys, we're all back in the Sartrean condition of being inescapably alone in weighing up the different moral imperatives.
While the situation, made substantially better under FPTP rather than some kind of PR is that the voter is enabled to judge the parties at election time and weigh them up based on the sum of their good and evil, making an informed decision. Largest share typically wins.
While under PR politicians are able to act like the three monkeys with voters and supporters acting like they see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil at election time. Until the days or weeks after the election where some sordid coalition is cobbled together that not a single person endorsed or voted for.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
I think Corbyn - based on what he has said (Cable Street, Mosley, my mother, blah blah) - thinks that anti-Semitism is something that happened in the 1930s and 1940s and is not something to worry about now, not really. He is not willing to accept that the forms which anti-Semitism take have mutated and metastasized. Other forms of racism are more important. And if some of those other groups who are the left's current victims du jour are themselves anti-Semitic .... well that doesn't matter and is overlooked because there must be a good reason for their views and anyway victims can't be bad, by definition. Jews are no longer victims you see because all those bad people in Germany were defeated and are dead. Other groups now win the "-ism" Top Trumps game which so much of the identity politics and anti-racism of the left have turned into.
And Jews are generally well-off and disproportionately in positions of power and influence. They can look after themselves in Corbyn world.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
That's only half the picture, though.
Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.
IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I'm just fascinated to know who'll win the battle between @RodCrosby and @JackW to be honest.
I'm not, only one knows what they are talking about.
For what it's worth I think JackW is spot on, it will Trump v Clinton and Clinton will win comfortably. I did wonder if Trump might be stopped after Romney's intervention last week but that would have required the field to reduce to Trump + 1 and that's not happening. If it ever does it will now be too late.
The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?
In Labour - now - I see a party led by people who I do not believe are able to distinguish between good and evil, who are unwilling to confront some of the forms of evil we currently face in the world, who have a moral blindness, a lack of moral courage. This does not apply to all its members, of course, but the leaders set the tone - and in Corbyn and McDonnell and Milne - the tone which has been set is a wrong one. IMO.
That others in the party may not share these views is neither here nor there. They are not in charge. They may be biding their time. But as a great man once said: "For evil to flourish, all it takes is for good men to do nothing."
Very eloquently put.
The situation, made substantially worse by FTPT rather than some kind of PR, is that each party is a blend of good and evil (to use your language). You can choose a party that aims to prioritise social justice but is insufficiently concerned by some elements of racism, or one, that is removing many of the state's protections from the most vulnerable, and (maybe) is better on anti-semitism, while being pretty happy to use crude dog-whistle xenophobia for electoral advantage. And, well, that's pretty much it. Both of those seem to be struggling to distinguish good and evil in some respects, so rather than being an easy call between the good guys and the bad guys, we're all back in the Sartrean condition of being inescapably alone in weighing up the different moral imperatives.
Maybe. I wouldn't myself see Sartre as any sort of moral exemplar. He is a very good example of an intellectual (if one is to take him at his own valuation) who exhibited exactly those traits of moral blindness and lack of courage in relation to Communism and what it was doing in Russia and Eastern Europe, which some of the left are now doing in relation to Islamism. To his discredit. And to the despair of Eastern European intellectuals who actually knew what Communism in reality was like and who felt badly let down by Sartre and friends.
And unlike his fellow writer - Camus - who understood something about moral imperatives.
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for the AfD and Tories to sit together?
The Tories teamed up with the AfD no doubt they had their reasons. Money most probably.
As for the AfD they're doing better than UKIP and will hold the balance of power in several Laender. The more Merkel goes for the grand coalition option the more she will lose votes.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
I think Corbyn - based on what he has said (Cable Street, Mosley, my mother, blah blah) - thinks that anti-Semitism is something that happened in the 1930s and 1940s and is not something to worry about now, not really. He is not willing to accept that the forms which anti-Semitism take have mutated and metastasized. Other forms of racism are more important. And if some of those other groups who are the left's current victims du jour are themselves anti-Semitic .... well that doesn't matter and is overlooked because there must be a good reason for their views and anyway victims can't be bad, by definition. Jews are no longer victims you see because all those bad people in Germany were defeated and are dead. Other groups now win the "-ism" Top Trumps game which so much of the identity politics and anti-racism of the left have turned into.
The problem with 'anti semitism' is that the Israelis have appropriated it to mean opposition to Israel's policies and actions. It's now pretty well meaningless in the context of racism
The ICM poll should be a reality check for Remain. High-fiving each other about the brilliance of their campaign, and the ineptitude of Leave is no substitute for actually persuading the voters.
It will be tight but Remain need a better campaign organisation as they have more need to get their voters out
How much better can their campaign organisation get?
The reality is that Leavers here are crying foul so regularly on the Remain campaign precisely because it is well organised and ruthless. The same can not be said for the Leave campaign. It doesn't need to become any more organised or ruthless, it could become more positive but that doesn't look like being Remain's strategy.
Their challenge is to get apathetic Remain supporters to actually vote.
Which they're trying to do by attempting to put the fear of the unknown into them to motivate a vote for the status quo. Given how much whining there is here about Project Fear I think it is working, a winning team doesn't normally whine about the oppositions tactics.
Whether it works or not remains to be seen but given the state of play of the British electorate it seems the right move for Remain. The status quo does not need to give a positive alternative in any referendum and doubters traditionally err for the status quo. Unless Leave can convince a majority of voters to positively vote Leave, fear will win the day for Remain.
The situation, made substantially worse by FTPT rather than some kind of PR, is that each party is a blend of good and evil (to use your language). You can choose a party that aims to prioritise social justice but is insufficiently concerned by some elements of racism, or one, that is removing many of the state's protections from the most vulnerable, and (maybe) is better on anti-semitism, while being pretty happy to use crude dog-whistle xenophobia for electoral advantage. And, well, that's pretty much it. Both of those seem to be struggling to distinguish good and evil in some respects, so rather than being an easy call between the good guys and the bad guys, we're all back in the Sartrean condition of being inescapably alone in weighing up the different moral imperatives.
While the situation, made substantially better under FPTP rather than some kind of PR is that the voter is enabled to judge the parties at election time and weigh them up based on the sum of their good and evil, making an informed decision. Largest share typically wins.
While under PR politicians are able to act like the three monkeys with voters and supporters acting like they see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil at election time. Until the days or weeks after the election where some sordid coalition is cobbled together that not a single person endorsed or voted for.
What does this critique even mean If you want to make silly arguments then nobody voted for David Cameron as PM of a majority Conservative ministry either, he was head of an outgoing Coalition, and certainly one in three voters is not nearly enough to confer absolute power in a just world
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for the AfD and Tories to sit together?
The Tories teamed up with the AfD no doubt they had their reasons. Money most probably.
As for the AfD they're doing better than UKIP and will hold the balance of power in several Laender. The more Merkel goes for the grand coalition option the more she will lose votes.
The AfD were only created a few years ago and were originally campaigning as a centre-right eurosceptic party, a natural ally for the Tories. That got them less than 5% of the vote though. In the last 12 months the AfD have gone more for the hard-right vote.
If it wasn't for Germany's stupid voting system the AfD would not hold the balance of power. You're comparing apples to oranges there, UKIP would hold the balance of power in the UK had we voted in PR but we don't.
The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?
In Labour - now - I see a party led by people who I do not believe are able to distinguish between good and evil, who are unwilling to confront some of the forms of evil we currently face in the world, who have a moral blindness, a lack of moral courage. This does not apply to all its members, of course, but the leaders set the tone - and in Corbyn and McDonnell and Milne - the tone which has been set is a wrong one. IMO.
That others in the party may not share these views is neither here nor there. They are not in charge. They may be biding their time. But as a great man once said: "For evil to flourish, all it takes is for good men to do nothing."
Very eloquently put.
The situation, made substantially worse by FTPT rather than some kind of PR, is that each party is a blend of good and evil (to use your language). You can choose a party that aims to prioritise social justice but is insufficiently concerned by some elements of racism, or one, that is removing many of the state's protections from the most vulnerable, and (maybe) is better on anti-semitism, while being pretty happy to use crude dog-whistle xenophobia for electoral advantage. And, well, that's pretty much it. Both of those seem to be struggling to distinguish good and evil in some respects, so rather than being an easy call between the good guys and the bad guys, we're all back in the Sartrean condition of being inescapably alone in weighing up the different moral imperatives.
Maybe. I wouldn't myself see Sartre as any sort of moral exemplar. He is a very good example of an intellectual (if one is to take him at his own valuation) who exhibited exactly those traits of moral blindness and lack of courage in relation to Communism and what it was doing in Russia and Eastern Europe, which some of the left are now doing in relation to Islamism. To his discredit. And to the despair of Eastern European intellectuals who actually knew what Communism in reality was like and who felt badly let down by Sartre and friends.
And unlike his fellow writer - Camus - who understood something about moral imperatives.
Sartre wouldn't have seen Sartre as a moral exemplar. Or anyone else, that was kind of his point (do you ask a priest or a member of the resistance for guidance, etc etc)
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No the article says quite clearly the motivation is a Cameron Merkel deal, FAZ tend to be pro Merkel.
With 3 regional elections coming up Merkel is under pressure, Currently in the polls the CDU is second in their fiefdom of Baden Wuerttemberg, This is like the Conservatives coming second in Surrey.
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for the AfD and Tories to sit together?
I remember debating Tim ad nauseam about Conservatives linking up with Polish and Latvian parties in the ECR in 2009 (why did I bother?). The rules are plainly absurd.
Yes please! I hope you followed my tip on Rubio to drop out before Cruz... (not there yet though)
Everyday that passes more votes will already have been cast by the time Rubio drops out. Early voting has started for many days now for the March 15th primaries.
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for the AfD and Tories to sit together?
The Tories teamed up with the AfD no doubt they had their reasons. Money most probably.
As for the AfD they're doing better than UKIP and will hold the balance of power in several Laender. The more Merkel goes for the grand coalition option the more she will lose votes.
The AfD were only created a few years ago and were originally campaigning as a centre-right eurosceptic party, a natural ally for the Tories. That got them less than 5% of the vote though. In the last 12 months the AfD have gone more for the hard-right vote.
If it wasn't for Germany's stupid voting system the AfD would not hold the balance of power. You're comparing apples to oranges there, UKIP would hold the balance of power in the UK had we voted in PR but we don't.
You're simply rejecting reality Germany has a PR system. The AfD will soon break in to coalition, Merkel is running out of options.
As for the hard right vote a lot of the AfD came originally from the Liberal FDP, but they are picking up disaffected righties as Merkel struggles.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
I think Corbyn - based on what he has said (Cable Street, Mosley, my mother, blah blah) - thinks that anti-Semitism is something that happened in the 1930s and 1940s and is not something to worry about now, not really. He is not willing to accept that the forms which anti-Semitism take have mutated and metastasized. Other forms of racism are more important. And if some of those other groups who are the left's current victims du jour are themselves anti-Semitic .... well that doesn't matter and is overlooked because there must be a good reason for their views and anyway victims can't be bad, by definition. Jews are no longer victims you see because all those bad people in Germany were defeated and are dead. Other groups now win the "-ism" Top Trumps game which so much of the identity politics and anti-racism of the left have turned into.
The problem with 'anti semitism' is that the Israelis have appropriated it to mean opposition to Israel's policies and actions. It's now pretty well meaningless in the context of racism
Don't think that's right. The problem with the Israeli government's behaviour from time to time is that it's used the shield of anti-semitism to defend its less savoury policies. The fact that someone misuses the term to their advantage doesn't stop it correctly denoting racism.
The situation, made substantially worse by FTPT rather than some kind of PR, is that each party is a blend of good and evil (to use your language). You can choose a party that aims to prioritise social justice but is insufficiently concerned by some elements of racism, or one, that is removing many of the state's protections from the most vulnerable, and (maybe) is better on anti-semitism, while being pretty happy to use crude dog-whistle xenophobia for electoral advantage. And, well, that's pretty much it. Both of those seem to be struggling to distinguish good and evil in some respects, so rather than being an easy call between the good guys and the bad guys, we're all back in the Sartrean condition of being inescapably alone in weighing up the different moral imperatives.
While the situation, made substantially better under FPTP rather than some kind of PR is that the voter is enabled to judge the parties at election time and weigh them up based on the sum of their good and evil, making an informed decision. Largest share typically wins.
While under PR politicians are able to act like the three monkeys with voters and supporters acting like they see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil at election time. Until the days or weeks after the election where some sordid coalition is cobbled together that not a single person endorsed or voted for.
What does this critique even mean If you want to make silly arguments then nobody voted for David Cameron as PM of a majority Conservative ministry either, he was head of an outgoing Coalition, and certainly one in three voters is not nearly enough to confer absolute power in a just world
More than one in three votes is more than enough voters to confer absolute power in a just world if every other alternative scores less. Which they did, considerably less.
Cameron wasn't running for election on a continuity-coalition ticket, he was running for election on a Conservative majority ticket which is what he got by virtue of millions more voters agreeing with that platform than any alternative.
In 2015 nearly eleven and a half million voters cast a ballot backing the Conservatives. Two million more voters than backed the closest alternative. These eleven and a half million got the government they'd voted for.
In 2013 zero voters cast a ballot backing both the CDU and SPD. Not one single person got the government they voted for.
Tell me why zero trumps eleven and a half million please?
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No the article says quite clearly the motivation is a Cameron Merkel deal, FAZ tend to be pro Merkel.
With 3 regional elections coming up Merkel is under pressure, Currently in the polls the CDU is second in their fiefdom of Baden Wuerttemberg, This is like the Conservatives coming second in Surrey.
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for other hand tim was right the AfD and Tories to sit together?
I remember debating Tim ad nauseam about Conservatives linking up with Polish and Latvian parties in the ECR in 2009 (why did I bother?). The rules are plainly absurd.
but on the other hand tim was right that Cameron's whole Euro plan was a mess. What's he going to do now with a sceptical nonscepticl party in Europe ?
The AfD were only created a few years ago and were originally campaigning as a centre-right eurosceptic party, a natural ally for the Tories.
I laughed at that bit.
How long until Cameron goes cap in hand and asks to be let back in to the CDU grouping in Brussels ?
I'm reading Cameron at 10 and it says that Merkel was very upset about Cameron taking the Tories out that group. There's definitely a club thing going on and to a certain extent it's only natural. There must have been times when Cameron felt like he wasn't invited to the party when the CDU had get togethers.
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No the article says quite clearly the motivation is a Cameron Merkel deal, FAZ tend to be pro Merkel.
With 3 regional elections coming up Merkel is under pressure, Currently in the polls the CDU is second in their fiefdom of Baden Wuerttemberg, This is like the Conservatives coming second in Surrey.
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for the AfD and Tories to sit together?
I remember debating Tim ad nauseam about Conservatives linking up with Polish and Latvian parties in the ECR in 2009 (why did I bother?). The rules are plainly absurd.
Agreed completely. To see a eurosceptic trying to justify these rules is rather unedifying.
This is wishful thinking and largely bonkers. Labour would not meekly allow legislation to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be rushed through for Tory Party advantage. In the unlikely event of the Government trying to go down that road the relevant Bill would be subject to the normal Parliamentary stages. I think it unlikely that a Government so obviously seeking to play 'fast & loose' with the Constitution for potential electoral gain in such a way would impress the electorate.It will not happen.
You're deeply misunderstanding the Fixed Term Parliament Act and seemingly ignorant of how early elections work across the continent in nations with similar acts.
The act never needs to be repealed. Never. All the government needs to do is put forward a motion calling for an early election and whip its own party into voting for the motion. It needs to pass by two-thirds but would almost inevitably pass all-but unanimously no matter what..
If the opposition votes for the election then the election is on like the government wanted, win for them. Any opposition that was too frit to go ahead with an election would be absolutely humiliated in public opinion, an even bigger win for the government. The only time when the vote would fail is if the government couldn't carry its own MPs forwards, ie if there's a coalition government and one party with enough MPs says no. Which is why it was designed as it was, for a coalition government (though the Lib Dems never had enough to block anyway).
Brown was humiliated for running away from "the election that never was" and never recovered from that, with that being from being in government. Any opposition that voted against an early election and a chance to grab power (effectively opting to say that they'd rather the government continues than get elected themselves) could never recover from that.
Which is why a vote for an early election will always pass.
I am fully aware that the FTA requires a two thirds votes of the 650 MPs to secure an early dissolution. I suggest to you that there is not a hope in hell that Labour would help them do that! Even by abstaining Labour would block such a move. The Government could respond by tabling a Vote of No Confidence in itself - but I suspect that public opinion would not react to that in a very positive way from a Tory perspective.
Or now the Tories have a majority they could simply repeal the Fixed Terms Parliament Act.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
I think Corbyn - based on what he has said (Cable Street, Mosley, my mother, blah blah) - thinks that anti-Semitism is something that happened in the 1930s and 1940s and is not something to worry about now, not really. He is not willing to accept that the forms which anti-Semitism take have mutated and metastasized. Other forms of racism are more important. And if some of those other groups who are the left's current victims du jour are themselves anti-Semitic .... well that doesn't matter and is overlooked because there must be a good reason for their views and anyway victims can't be bad, by definition. Jews are no longer victims you see because all those bad people in Germany were defeated and are dead. Other groups now win the "-ism" Top Trumps game which so much of the identity politics and anti-racism of the left have turned into.
The problem with 'anti semitism' is that the Israelis have appropriated it to mean opposition to Israel's policies and actions. It's now pretty well meaningless in the context of racism
No - it isn't meaningless. That's just a lazy excuse by those who are not prepared to make the effort to understand that there is anti-semitism even if not all criticism of Jews or Israel is either automatically or in the case in question anti-Semitic. It is also used malevolently by those who are anti-Semitic but claim that they are anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism has been used by plenty of people as cover for their anti-Semitism. We should be prepared to understand the difference and call people out when they twist language and thought to perpetuate old and malicious tropes and give new life to them.
When sung properly it's much longer. To (very roughly) the tune of "Coming Round The Mountain"
"We'll be walking round Tottenham, ...walking 'round Tottenham... ...walking 'round Tottenham with our ***** hangin' out, singing I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin - haven't you? F***ing Jew"
[repeat loudly until arrested]
It's usually followed up by chants of "Can you smell the dirty gas?"
When sung properly it's much longer. To (very roughly) the tune of "Coming Round The Mountain"
"We'll be walking round Tottenham, ...walking 'round Tottenham... ...walking 'round Tottenham with our ***** hangin' out, singing I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin - haven't you? F***ing Jew"
[repeat loudly until arrested]
It's usually followed up by chants of "Can you smell the dirty gas?"
I've only heard that chant a few times since I've been going to away games and it tends to be games in London. I tend to prefer away games up north to places like Hull as that generally filters out the bad lot.
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No the article says quite clearly the motivation is a Cameron Merkel deal, FAZ tend to be pro Merkel.
With 3 regional elections coming up Merkel is under pressure, Currently in the polls the CDU is second in their fiefdom of Baden Wuerttemberg, This is like the Conservatives coming second in Surrey.
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for other hand tim was right the AfD and Tories to sit together?
I remember debating Tim ad nauseam about Conservatives linking up with Polish and Latvian parties in the ECR in 2009 (why did I bother?). The rules are plainly absurd.
but on the other hand tim was right that Cameron's whole Euro plan was a mess. What's he going to do now with a sceptical nonscepticl party in Europe ?
Cameron is still a eurosceptic in the meaning of the term previously considered normal even if the Overton Window has moved. In 2001 "in Europe, not run by Europe" was considered a sane, centre-right, eurosceptic position under Hague.
Now fifteen years later Cameron and Osborne are running under the exact same banner as Hague did fifteen years ago, no to the Euro, in Europe, not run by Europe - and he's portrayed not as Hague but as as Heath and as a europhile.
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No the article says quite clearly the motivation is a Cameron Merkel deal, FAZ tend to be pro Merkel.
With 3 regional elections coming up Merkel is under pressure, Currently in the polls the CDU is second in their fiefdom of Baden Wuerttemberg, This is like the Conservatives coming second in Surrey.
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third pr other hand tim was right the AfD and Tories to sit together?
I remember debating Tim ad nauseam about Conservatives linking up with Polish and Latvian parties in the ECR in 2009 (why did I bother?). The rules are plainly absurd.
but on the other hand tim was right that Cameron's whole Euro plan was a mess. What's he going to do now with a sceptical nonscepticl party in Europe ?
Cameron is still a eurosceptic in the meaning of the term previously considered normal even if the Overton Window has moved. In 2001 "in Europe, not run by Europe" was considered a sane, centre-right, eurosceptic position under Hague.
Now fifteen years later Cameron and Osborne are running under the exact same banner as Hague did fifteen years ago, no to the Euro, in Europe, not run by Europe - and he's portrayed not as Hague but as as Heath and as a europhile.
Cameron is still a eurosceptic
That's a keeper.
I'm off to bed chuckling as I go, good night and thanks for a laugh.
When sung properly it's much longer. To (very roughly) the tune of "Coming Round The Mountain"
"We'll be walking round Tottenham, ...walking 'round Tottenham... ...walking 'round Tottenham with our ***** hangin' out, singing I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin - haven't you? F***ing Jew"
[repeat loudly until arrested]
It's usually followed up by chants of "Can you smell the dirty gas?"
Sad to say I have heard that as well, worst is Spurs are on their way to Auschwitz, Hitlers gonna gas them again and so on, ending with a hissing noise.
I've heard some brilliant stuff at football before but also heard the most God awful things as well.
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No the article says quite clearly the motivation is a Cameron Merkel deal, FAZ tend to be pro Merkel.
With 3 regional elections coming up Merkel is under pressure, Currently in the polls the CDU is second in their fiefdom of Baden Wuerttemberg, This is like the Conservatives coming second in Surrey.
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for other hand tim was right the AfD and Tories to sit together?
I remember debating Tim ad nauseam about Conservatives linking up with Polish and Latvian parties in the ECR in 2009 (why did I bother?). The rules are plainly absurd.
but on the other hand tim was right that Cameron's whole Euro plan was a mess. What's he going to do now with a sceptical nonscepticl party in Europe ?
Cameron is still a eurosceptic in the meaning of the term previously considered normal even if the Overton Window has moved. In 2001 "in Europe, not run by Europe" was considered a sane, centre-right, eurosceptic position under Hague.
Now fifteen years later Cameron and Osborne are running under the exact same banner as Hague did fifteen years ago, no to the Euro, in Europe, not run by Europe - and he's portrayed not as Hague but as as Heath and as a europhile.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
I think Corbyn - based on what he has said (Cable Street, Mosley, my mother, blah blah) - thinks that anti-Semitism is something that happened in the 1930s and 1940s and is not something to worry about now, not really. He is not willing to accept that the forms which anti-Semitism take have mutated and metastasized. Other forms of racism are more important. And if some of those other groups who are the left's current victims du jour are themselves anti-Semitic .... well that doesn't matter and is overlooked because there must be a good reason for their views and anyway victims can't be bad, by definition. Jews are no longer victims you see because all those bad people in Germany were defeated and are dead. Other groups now win the "-ism" Top Trumps game which so much of the identity politics and anti-racism of the left have turned into.
The problem with 'anti semitism' is that the Israelis have appropriated it to mean opposition to Israel's policies and actions. It's now pretty well meaningless in the context of racism
Don't think that's right. The problem with the Israeli government's behaviour from time to time is that it's used the shield of anti-semitism to defend its less savoury policies. The fact that someone misuses the term to their advantage doesn't stop it correctly denoting racism.
I have been Jewish my whole life and the only anti-semitism I've encountered personally was when I wrote to the Jewish Chronicle asking why they devoted four pages to the good works of Lady Porter after she'd escaped British justice by escaping to Israel. They replied asking if I was a "Jew Hater".
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
I think Corbyn - based on what he has said (Cable Street, Mosley, my mother, blah blah) - thinks that anti-Semitism is something that happened in the 1930s and 1940s and is not something to worry about now, not really. He is not willing to accept that the forms which anti-Semitism take have mutated and metastasized. Other forms of racism are more important. And if some of those other groups who are the left's current victims du jour are themselves anti-Semitic .... well that doesn't matter and is overlooked because there must be a good reason for their views and anyway victims can't be bad, by definition. Jews are no longer victims you see because all those bad people in Germany were defeated and are dead. Other groups now win the "-ism" Top Trumps game which so much of the identity politics and anti-racism of the left have turned into.
The problem with 'anti semitism' is that the Israelis have appropriated it to mean opposition to Israel's policies and actions. It's now pretty well meaningless in the context of racism
Don't think that's right. The problem with the Israeli government's behaviour from time to time is that it's used the shield of anti-semitism to defend its less savoury policies. The fact that someone misuses the term to their advantage doesn't stop it correctly denoting racism.
I have been Jewish my whole life.
You didn't come to it later on in life, then Roger?
Cameron is still a eurosceptic in the meaning of the term previously considered normal even if the Overton Window has moved. In 2001 "in Europe, not run by Europe" was considered a sane, centre-right, eurosceptic position under Hague.
Now fifteen years later Cameron and Osborne are running under the exact same banner as Hague did fifteen years ago, no to the Euro, in Europe, not run by Europe - and he's portrayed not as Hague but as as Heath and as a europhile.
Cameron is still a eurosceptic
That's a keeper.
I'm off to bed chuckling as I go, good night and thanks for a laugh.
You're welcome.
Good night if you're gone but if you've not, it's still true though isn't it? He is running under the identical banner to Hague 15 years ago and Hague was viewed then as an unelectable eurosceptic.
Which if you stop to think about it a moment just shows how far the argument in the country has shifted to euroscepticism in the last 15 years. That a platform of what Hague was saying was controversially euroseceptic fifteen years ago and now the exact same mantra is viewed as more Heath than Hague.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
I think Corbyn - based on what he has said (Cable Street, Mosley, my mother, blah blah) - thinks that anti-Semitism is something that happened in the 1930s and 1940s and is not something to worry about now, not really. He is not willing to accept that the forms which anti-Semitism take have mutated and metastasized. Other forms of racism are more important. And if some of those other groups who are the left's current victims du jour are themselves anti-Semitic .... well that doesn't matter and is overlooked because there must be a good reason for their views and anyway victims can't be bad, by definition. Jews are no longer victims you see because all those bad people in Germany were defeated and are dead. Other groups now win the "-ism" Top Trumps game which so much of the identity politics and anti-racism of the left have turned into.
The problem with 'anti semitism' is that the Israelis have appropriated it to mean opposition to Israel's policies and actions. It's now pretty well meaningless in the context of racism
Don't think that's right. The problem with the Israeli government's behaviour from time to time is that it's used the shield of anti-semitism to defend its less savoury policies. The fact that someone misuses the term to their advantage doesn't stop it correctly denoting racism.
I have been Jewish my whole life and the only anti-semitism I've encountered personally was when I wrote to the Jewish Chronicle asking why they devoted four pages to the good works of Lady Porter after she'd escaped British justice by escaping to Israel. They replied asking if I was a "Jew Hater".
They were very astute. You do seem to have this self-loathing thing going on.
When sung properly it's much longer. To (very roughly) the tune of "Coming Round The Mountain"
"We'll be walking round Tottenham, ...walking 'round Tottenham... ...walking 'round Tottenham with our ***** hangin' out, singing I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin - haven't you? F***ing Jew"
[repeat loudly until arrested]
It's usually followed up by chants of "Can you smell the dirty gas?"
What stance should one take on this if you're a "gentile" circumcised for medical reasons or a muslim ?
When sung properly it's much longer. To (very roughly) the tune of "Coming Round The Mountain"
"We'll be walking round Tottenham, ...walking 'round Tottenham... ...walking 'round Tottenham with our ***** hangin' out, singing I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin - haven't you? F***ing Jew"
[repeat loudly until arrested]
It's usually followed up by chants of "Can you smell the dirty gas?"
What stance should one take on this if you're a "gentile" circumcised for medical reasons or a muslim ?
An awkward stance if the operation was very recent
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
No the article says quite clearly the motivation is a Cameron Merkel deal, FAZ tend to be pro Merkel.
With 3 regional elections coming up Merkel is under pressure, Currently in the polls the CDU is second in their fiefdom of Baden Wuerttemberg, This is like the Conservatives coming second in Surrey.
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third pr other hand tim was right the AfD and Tories to sit together?
I remember debating Tim ad nauseam about Conservatives linking up with Polish and Latvian parties in the ECR in 2009 (why did I bother?). The rules are plainly absurd.
but on the other hand tim was right that Cameron's whole Euro plan was a mess. What's he going to do now with a sceptical nonscepticl party in Europe ?
Cameron is still a eurosceptic in the meaning of the term previously considered normal even if the Overton Window has moved. In 2001 "in Europe, not run by Europe" was considered a sane, centre-right, eurosceptic position under Hague.
Now fifteen years later Cameron and Osborne are running under the exact same banner as Hague did fifteen years ago, no to the Euro, in Europe, not run by Europe - and he's portrayed not as Hague but as as Heath and as a europhile.
Cameron is still a eurosceptic
That's a keeper.
I'm off to bed chuckling as I go, good night and thanks for a laugh.
Cameron is a Eurosceptic in the same way that Richard Nabavi claims not to be partisan.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
I think Corbyn - based on what he has said (Cable Street, Mosley, my mother, blah blah) - thinks that anti-Semitism is something that happened in the 1930s and 1940s and is not something to worry about now, not really. He is not willing to accept that the forms which anti-Semitism take have mutated and metastasized. Other forms of racism are more important. And if some of those other groups who are the left's current victims du jour are themselves anti-Semitic .... well that doesn't matter and is overlooked because there must be a good reason for their views and anyway victims can't be bad, by definition. Jews are no longer victims you see because all those bad people in Germany were defeated and are dead. Other groups now win the "-ism" Top Trumps game which so much of the identity politics and anti-racism of the left have turned into.
The problem with 'anti semitism' is that the Israelis have appropriated it to mean opposition to Israel's policies and actions. It's now pretty well meaningless in the context of racism
No - it isn't meaningless. That's just a lazy excuse by those who are not prepared to make the effort to understand that there is anti-semitism even if not all criticism of Jews or Israel is either automatically or in the case in question anti-Semitic. It is also used malevolently by those who are anti-Semitic but claim that they are anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism has been used by plenty of people as cover for their anti-Semitism. We should be prepared to understand the difference and call people out when they twist language and thought to perpetuate old and malicious tropes and give new life to them.
I must be insensitive. What should I be looking for? I heard someone say to a a cashier in a petrol station with a brown face "Why don't you go home?" And I've heard racist chanting at football matches and even booing black players. I heard lots of chanting about Krauts in London when England played Germany but I haven't come across anti semitism. I hear the racism on here when talking about rapists in northern cities but I don't spend five minutes with people like that and even they tend to be gentle with Jews.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
I think Corbyn - based on what he has said (Cable Street, Mosley, my mother, blah blah) - thinks that anti-Semitism is something that happened in the 1930s and 1940s and is not something to worry about now, not really. He is not willing to accept that the forms which anti-Semitism take have mutated and metastasized. Other forms of racism are more important. And if some of those other groups who are the left's current victims du jour are themselves anti-Semitic .... well that doesn't matter and is overlooked because there must be a good reason for their views and anyway victims can't be bad, by definition. Jews are no longer victims you see because all those bad people in Germany were defeated and are dead. Other groups now win the "-ism" Top Trumps game which so much of the identity politics and anti-racism of the left have turned into.
The problem with 'anti semitism' is that the Israelis have appropriated it to mean opposition to Israel's policies and actions. It's now pretty well meaningless in the context of racism
Don't think that's right. The problem with the Israeli government's behaviour from time to time is that it's used the shield of anti-semitism to defend its less savoury policies. The fact that someone misuses the term to their advantage doesn't stop it correctly denoting racism.
I have been Jewish my whole life and the only anti-semitism I've encountered personally was when I wrote to the Jewish Chronicle asking why they devoted four pages to the good works of Lady Porter after she'd escaped British justice by escaping to Israel. They replied asking if I was a "Jew Hater".
They were very astute. You do seem to have this self-loathing thing going on.
I was living in Westminster at the time and my girlfriend was working for 'Shelter. Shirley Porter was public enemy number one. After her flight from Justice I happened to read my Mothers JC and couldn't believe they were hailing her a hero
How long until Cameron goes cap in hand and asks to be let back in to the CDU grouping in Brussels ?
With Cameron now channelling Ted Heath, only a matter of time perhaps
No way Cameron will want to join CDU's group in Brussels. The group will disintegrate as Merkel loses her authority because of the migration fiasco, which is not solvable under German or Greek current proposals.
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for other hand tim was right the AfD and Tories to sit together?
I remember debating Tim ad nauseam about Conservatives linking up with Polish and Latvian parties in the ECR in 2009 (why did I bother?). The rules are plainly absurd.
but on the other hand tim was right that Cameron's whole Euro plan was a mess. What's he going to do now with a sceptical nonscepticl party in Europe ?
Cameron is still a eurosceptic in the meaning of the term previously considered normal even if the Overton Window has moved. In 2001 "in Europe, not run by Europe" was considered a sane, centre-right, eurosceptic position under Hague.
Now fifteen years later Cameron and Osborne are running under the exact same banner as Hague did fifteen years ago, no to the Euro, in Europe, not run by Europe - and he's portrayed not as Hague but as as Heath and as a europhile.
Brilliant!
This place never lets you down.
So lacking in self awareness aren't you. It's possible to see Leavers twisting the strands of reality before our very eyes.
Cameron is still a eurosceptic in the meaning of the term previously considered normal even if the Overton Window has moved. In 2001 "in Europe, not run by Europe" was considered a sane, centre-right, eurosceptic position under Hague.
Now fifteen years later Cameron and Osborne are running under the exact same banner as Hague did fifteen years ago, no to the Euro, in Europe, not run by Europe - and he's portrayed not as Hague but as as Heath and as a europhile.
"in Europe, not run by Europe" was as idiotic and fatuous a slogan back in 2001 as it is now. It reveals a shocking lack of understanding of how the EU works.
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for other hand tim was right the AfD and Tories to sit together?
I remember debating Tim ad nauseam about Conservatives linking up with Polish and Latvian parties in the ECR in 2009 (why did I bother?). The rules are plainly absurd.
but on the other hand tim was right that Cameron's whole Euro plan was a mess. What's he going to do now with a sceptical nonscepticl party in Europe ?
Cameron is still a eurosceptic in the meaning of the term previously considered normal even if the Overton Window has moved. In 2001 "in Europe, not run by Europe" was considered a sane, centre-right, eurosceptic position under Hague.
Now fifteen years later Cameron and Osborne are running under the exact same banner as Hague did fifteen years ago, no to the Euro, in Europe, not run by Europe - and he's portrayed not as Hague but as as Heath and as a europhile.
Brilliant!
This place never lets you down.
So lacking in self awareness aren't you. It's possible to see Leavers twisting the strands of reality before our very eyes.
I'm very self aware, I know I am an odious nut job because you told me.
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
You really are a dunderheid . The Tories had the choice to protect Scottish workers and get their vote through but chose to be destructive and petty as ever. Got it right up them.
In what way is protecting devolved Scottish workers an issue for English MPs?
You thick plank, we have UK MP's as all you little englanders keep whining about, where is all your pathetic Better Together now
Or Cameron doesn't want to be associated by a rather nasty group that has more in common with UKIP than the Tories it seems to me.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
So a pro-Merkel paper is claiming a deal has been done to favour Merkel? Quelle surprise.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for other hand tim was right the AfD and Tories to sit together?
I remember debating Tim ad nauseam about Conservatives linking up with Polish and Latvian parties in the ECR in 2009 (why did I bother?). The rules are plainly absurd.
but on the other hand tim was right that Cameron's whole Euro plan was a mess. What's he going to do now with a sceptical nonscepticl party in Europe ?
Cameron is still a eurosceptic in the meaning of the term previously considered normal even if the Overton Window has moved. In 2001 "in Europe, not run by Europe" was considered a sane, centre-right, eurosceptic position under Hague.
Now fifteen years later Cameron and Osborne are running under the exact same banner as Hague did fifteen years ago, no to the Euro, in Europe, not run by Europe - and he's portrayed not as Hague but as as Heath and as a europhile.
Brilliant!
This place never lets you down.
So lacking in self awareness aren't you. It's possible to see Leavers twisting the strands of reality before our very eyes.
I'm very self aware, I know I am an odious nut job because you told me.
That halfwit just whinges and whinges , God help his wife if he has one.
Comments
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43
Clinton 51 .. Cruz 42
Clinton 48 .. Rubio 46
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html
Caveat Emptor when you listen to some people's advice.
Unexpected but a most gracious endorsement for me.
Probably the case.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/europaeische-union/die-afd-wittert-nach-streit-in-ekr-fraktion-die-internationale-verschwoerung-14115457.html
Keep on avoiding countering any arguments.
Can't see it all being positive.
You should read more carefully my posts rather than what you thought I said. In any case I'm happy to let my record on POTUS elections on PB stand against your dribblings any polling day.
The reality is that Leavers here are crying foul so regularly on the Remain campaign precisely because it is well organised and ruthless. The same can not be said for the Leave campaign. It doesn't need to become any more organised or ruthless, it could become more positive but that doesn't look like being Remain's strategy.
The Eurogroupings are one thing I definitely will not miss if we Leave anyway. Stupid concept done stupidly.
Bet accordingly.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/03/09/reloh1ohio.pdf
With Trump you just never know.
Did they just phone rich retirement homes?
Edit: oops I was looking at Florida.
As for governments tabling Votes of No Confidence in itself to call an early election, that happens regularly on the continent in nations that don't have alternative provisions for calling an early vote. It is correctly simply seen as the government is confident and wants to go to the polls, not that the government lacks confidence in itself.
'Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racism'
Why don't you just come out and say it, you,Corbyn and his mates don't regard antisemitism as racism.
With 3 regional elections coming up Merkel is under pressure, Currently in the polls the CDU is second in their fiefdom of Baden Wuerttemberg, This is like the Conservatives coming second in Surrey.
The AfD are in third place in all 3 Laender and on 19% in Sachsen Anhalt. If voters actually vote this way Merkel is in trouble.
Dave;s deal won;t last long if that is the case.
The situation, made substantially worse by FTPT rather than some kind of PR, is that each party is a blend of good and evil (to use your language). You can choose a party that aims to prioritise social justice but is insufficiently concerned by some elements of racism, or one, that is removing many of the state's protections from the most vulnerable, and (maybe) is better on anti-semitism, while being pretty happy to use crude dog-whistle xenophobia for electoral advantage. And, well, that's pretty much it. Both of those seem to be struggling to distinguish good and evil in some respects, so rather than being an easy call between the good guys and the bad guys, we're all back in the Sartrean condition of being inescapably alone in weighing up the different moral imperatives.
I am trying to assess Trump's chances by thinking which groups of Obama voters he will be able to shift over to his side and the answer is I can't see any. The only case that is being made is perhaps blue collar whites in the mid west (the old Reagan Democrats) but I seriously can't see that many of them were ever Obama voters in 2008 or 2012 to begin with. It is also a declining demographic.
The AfD are in third place not first place. They're ensuring that Merkel or her like stays in power in a Grand Coalition currently.
Though I repeat the AfD share little in common with Cameron's Conservatives. The European Parliament's Byzantine and absurd rules that compel disparate parties to unite under meaningless banners to try and artificially create some sort of Europarty and Eurodemos are just absurd. Do you deny that or defend this stupid system and think it is right for the AfD and Tories to sit together?
While under PR politicians are able to act like the three monkeys with voters and supporters acting like they see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil at election time. Until the days or weeks after the election where some sordid coalition is cobbled together that not a single person endorsed or voted for.
And unlike his fellow writer - Camus - who understood something about moral imperatives.
As for the AfD they're doing better than UKIP and will hold the balance of power in several Laender. The more Merkel goes for the grand coalition option the more she will lose votes.
Whether it works or not remains to be seen but given the state of play of the British electorate it seems the right move for Remain. The status quo does not need to give a positive alternative in any referendum and doubters traditionally err for the status quo. Unless Leave can convince a majority of voters to positively vote Leave, fear will win the day for Remain.
If you want to make silly arguments then nobody voted for David Cameron as PM of a majority Conservative ministry either, he was head of an outgoing Coalition, and certainly one in three voters is not nearly enough to confer absolute power in a just world
https://twitter.com/CGasparino/status/707611782798413824
If it wasn't for Germany's stupid voting system the AfD would not hold the balance of power. You're comparing apples to oranges there, UKIP would hold the balance of power in the UK had we voted in PR but we don't.
Early voting has started for many days now for the March 15th primaries.
As for the hard right vote a lot of the AfD came originally from the Liberal FDP, but they are picking up disaffected righties as Merkel struggles.
The ECB's negative rates policy is threatening the entire viability of Europe's banking system.
Cameron wasn't running for election on a continuity-coalition ticket, he was running for election on a Conservative majority ticket which is what he got by virtue of millions more voters agreeing with that platform than any alternative.
In 2015 nearly eleven and a half million voters cast a ballot backing the Conservatives. Two million more voters than backed the closest alternative. These eleven and a half million got the government they'd voted for.
In 2013 zero voters cast a ballot backing both the CDU and SPD. Not one single person got the government they voted for.
Tell me why zero trumps eleven and a half million please?
To (very roughly) the tune of "Coming Round The Mountain"
"We'll be walking round Tottenham,
...walking 'round Tottenham...
...walking 'round Tottenham with our ***** hangin' out,
singing
I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew
I've got a foreskin, haven't you? F***ing Jew
I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin, I've got a foreskin - haven't you? F***ing Jew"
[repeat loudly until arrested]
It's usually followed up by chants of "Can you smell the dirty gas?"
With Cameron now channelling Ted Heath, only a matter of time perhaps
Now fifteen years later Cameron and Osborne are running under the exact same banner as Hague did fifteen years ago, no to the Euro, in Europe, not run by Europe - and he's portrayed not as Hague but as as Heath and as a europhile.
That's a keeper.
I'm off to bed chuckling as I go, good night and thanks for a laugh.
I've heard some brilliant stuff at football before but also heard the most God awful things as well.
This place never lets you down.
Good night if you're gone but if you've not, it's still true though isn't it? He is running under the identical banner to Hague 15 years ago and Hague was viewed then as an unelectable eurosceptic.
Which if you stop to think about it a moment just shows how far the argument in the country has shifted to euroscepticism in the last 15 years. That a platform of what Hague was saying was controversially euroseceptic fifteen years ago and now the exact same mantra is viewed as more Heath than Hague.
You do seem to have this self-loathing thing going on.
Spurs don't help themselves with their Yid Army thuggery.
https://t.co/Ghsc1O3Eh8 https://t.co/H68J1REp10
I'm not convinced he (Cameron) believes in anything much.
His sucking up to Merkel is nauseating