Preston Council leader Peter Rankin explains rising anti-Semitism…
“You need to think why this anti-semitism is getting worse. It’s because of the actions of the IDF shelling schools and hospitals and killing and maiming thousands of men, women and children.”
hmm - Would he accept the same logic for rise in "islamophobia"- I think not.
TBH the Israeli Government and IDF often do themselves no favours, public relations-wise.
Nor, of course, do radical Muslims And as for bizarre Muslim fundamentalists....
Preston Council leader Peter Rankin explains rising anti-Semitism…
“You need to think why this anti-semitism is getting worse. It’s because of the actions of the IDF shelling schools and hospitals and killing and maiming thousands of men, women and children.”
hmm - Would he accept the same logic for rise in "islamophobia"- I think not.
TBH the Israeli Government and IDF often do themselves no favours, public relations-wise.
Nor, of course, do radical Muslims And as for bizarre Muslim fundamentalists....
Without wishing to enter into a protracted debate, I think it's a little more than a public relations issue.
If Khan smoked cigars and drank champagne, he will be sitting with a very fat Cuban (Cigar not Castro!) and a wee glass of bubbles with his feet up on his desk spouting as if he was Kevin Keegan and Newcastle did win the league. His crown is sitting upon his head at a slant. He's laughing his head off. Labour as we speak are super confident that Citizen Khan will be crowned Mayor on Friday. I know, you've all been saying it. But, what will the gap be? Have Tories got a swing? Will Tories win more Assembly member seats? I think so.
@MaxPB Could you direct me to some supporting evidence for this theory that comes from moderate Muslim voters?
Just a feeling, but would you want to be called an Uncle Tom by someone who wanted your vote? I know if there were Tory candidate who called me a coconut I would probably stay home.
If Khan smoked cigars and drank champagne, he will be sitting with a very fat Cuban (Cigar not Castro!) and a wee glass of bubbles with his feet up on his desk spouting as if he was Kevin Keegan and Newcastle did win the league. His crown is sitting upon his head at a slant. He's laughing his head off. Labour as we speak are super confident that Citizen Khan will be crowned Mayor on Friday. I know, you've all been saying it. But, what will the gap be? Have Tories got a swing? Will Tories win more Assembly member seats? I think so.
Preston Council leader Peter Rankin explains rising anti-Semitism…
“You need to think why this anti-semitism is getting worse. It’s because of the actions of the IDF shelling schools and hospitals and killing and maiming thousands of men, women and children.”
hmm - Would he accept the same logic for rise in "islamophobia"- I think not.
TBH the Israeli Government and IDF often do themselves no favours, public relations-wise.
Nor, of course, do radical Muslims And as for bizarre Muslim fundamentalists....
Without wishing to enter into a protracted debate, I think it's a little more than a public relations issue.
If Khan smoked cigars and drank champagne, he will be sitting with a very fat Cuban (Cigar not Castro!) and a wee glass of bubbles with his feet up on his desk spouting as if he was Kevin Keegan and Newcastle did win the league. His crown is sitting upon his head at a slant. He's laughing his head off. Labour as we speak are super confident that Citizen Khan will be crowned Mayor on Friday. I know, you've all been saying it. But, what will the gap be? Have Tories got a swing? Will Tories win more Assembly member seats? I think so.
#rampersforZac
Only trying to give you the latest anecdotes. All 2nd hand, or 3rd....
"Hillary will struggle to get the female vote" - and Trump won't struggle more?
As I explained to Richard, it doesn't matter. It isn't about winning over women voters, it is making sure they also despise Hillary for being a two faced hypocrite.
Do you mean that turnout amongst women is likely to be down? That seems unlikely.
Well when it happens and they post the video on her column in the Daily Mail, that should get some clicks to the website....
Really? I'm not much an habitué of the DM site, but if an image was guaranteed to stamp out any spark of interest, that would be it.
The public could go either way on that revolting spectacle. On the subject of ridiculous celebrity promises, is FM Sturgeon housing any refugees in any of her residences yet?
"Hillary will struggle to get the female vote" - and Trump won't struggle more?
As I explained to Richard, it doesn't matter. It isn't about winning over women voters, it is making sure they also despise Hillary for being a two faced hypocrite.
Do you mean that turnout amongst women is likely to be down? That seems unlikely.
Why? On one side we have a candidate who is pretty anti-women or at least has said some stupid things and on the other we have a candidate who has supported and taken money from a nation which stones women to death for being raped. It's Sophie's choice.
"Hillary will struggle to get the female vote" - and Trump won't struggle more?
As I explained to Richard, it doesn't matter. It isn't about winning over women voters, it is making sure they also despise Hillary for being a two faced hypocrite.
Do you mean that turnout amongst women is likely to be down? That seems unlikely.
Why? On one side we have a candidate who is pretty anti-women or at least has said some stupid things and on the other we have a candidate who has supported and taken money from a nation which stones women to death for being raped. It's Sophie's choice.
Motormouth misogynist vs first female nominee ever. That's not a recipe for female turnout being down.
As always, we have to ask ourselves the question Why. Why is David Cameron expending so much time and effort and potentially soiling his own reputation shoring up Zac Goldsmith, whose cause looks doomed? There seem to be only two possible answers:
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
"Hillary will struggle to get the female vote" - and Trump won't struggle more?
As I explained to Richard, it doesn't matter. It isn't about winning over women voters, it is making sure they also despise Hillary for being a two faced hypocrite.
Do you mean that turnout amongst women is likely to be down? That seems unlikely.
Why? On one side we have a candidate who is pretty anti-women or at least has said some stupid things and on the other we have a candidate who has supported and taken money from a nation which stones women to death for being raped. It's Sophie's choice.
They'll vote for the second one. The voters are used to politicians taking money from scumbags.
As always, we have to ask ourselves the question Why. Why is David Cameron expending so much time and effort and potentially soiling his own reputation shoring up Zac Goldsmith, whose cause looks doomed? There seem to be only two possible answers:
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
Option 2 looks more likely to me.
A nice summary. But Option 1 looks more likely to me, since there are other ways to accomplish (2), and Zac is not exactly your average Tory to rally round in any case.
Tangentially, the discipline of the Tory press in sticking solely to the Hamas/Hezbollah stuff is impressive. Presumably the IRA campaign is being saved for the general election, or for when McDonnell becomes leader.
As always, we have to ask ourselves the question Why. Why is David Cameron expending so much time and effort and potentially soiling his own reputation shoring up Zac Goldsmith, whose cause looks doomed? There seem to be only two possible answers:
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
Option 2 looks more likely to me.
3) He wants the Conservatives to beat Labour, and his people have told him this is a good thing to say to make that happen.
"Hillary will struggle to get the female vote" - and Trump won't struggle more?
As I explained to Richard, it doesn't matter. It isn't about winning over women voters, it is making sure they also despise Hillary for being a two faced hypocrite.
Do you mean that turnout amongst women is likely to be down? That seems unlikely.
Megan Kelly made an interesting point yesterday. Women don't vote just on women's issues. While the polls show how overwhelmingly women dislike Trump's remarks on women, many will vote for him holding their noses on those issues, because on balance they prefer him as President (however you define him, in political terms, as it clearly goes beyond approval of the politician's stated policies) to Hillary.
I have seen his dreadful polling with women, and been puzzled as to how he is still winning women handily in the primaries. Logic says he shouldn't. Logic says, based on his negatives, that he should lose the election by a landslide. But then logic said he wouldn't be the GOP nominee or anywhere close. And logic said that there was no way Corbyn would be LOTO.
Based on the evidence of his dominance throughout the GOP race and on the massive turnout at GOP primaries, not logic, I would hazard that Trump looks cheap at 27% for the general.
As always, we have to ask ourselves the question Why. Why is David Cameron expending so much time and effort and potentially soiling his own reputation shoring up Zac Goldsmith, whose cause looks doomed? There seem to be only two possible answers:
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
Option 2 looks more likely to me.
Yes but the damage to Labour from that barrage will not be restricted to London. It is a new level of brutality in UK politics. I think he needs to be careful but Labour are finally seeing the price they pay for having someone like Corbyn as leader.
@MrHarryCole: It is an extraordinary state of affairs that the leader of the opposition won't just say: "I was wrong to call Hamas my friends".
The problem Jahadi Jez is that he sticks to what he believes in and no matter what people say to him as might be a good idea to lance the boil and just say sorry (or something sensible) he won't. It was like Ken at the weekend, Crick was pleading with him just to say sorry and he wouldn't. Despite lots of prompting from Laura K to say something sensible about if suicide bombers were roaming the streets of London, he just dug his heels in more and more.
It is why McMao is far more dangerous, he is even more extreme beliefs, but he will adjust what he says in public to make things sound more acceptable.
Preston Council leader Peter Rankin explains rising anti-Semitism…
“You need to think why this anti-semitism is getting worse. It’s because of the actions of the IDF shelling schools and hospitals and killing and maiming thousands of men, women and children.”
hmm - Would he accept the same logic for rise in "islamophobia"- I think not.
TBH the Israeli Government and IDF often do themselves no favours, public relations-wise.
Nor, of course, do radical Muslims And as for bizarre Muslim fundamentalists....
Without wishing to enter into a protracted debate, I think it's a little more than a public relations issue.
Agreed.
And I hotly dispute the notion that al Qaeeda or ISIS don't do PR well. The evidence - recruitment - is that they are spectacularly good at it. OKC is judging their PR success with the wrong metric - Western agnostic liberals. That is not their audience.
PS I'll amend that. ISIS has two audiences, and they do well with both against their objectives. Recruitment rates internationally show that they are doing well with audience 1, those who can be radicalized to join them.
The vast amounts of free media space and time they get, and the revulsion they evoke amongst Western democratic societies is evidence that they are very good at getting the response they want from that second audience; which is to overreact and exacerbate the West's relations with muslims, while giving massive amounts of publicity to themselves.
As always, we have to ask ourselves the question Why. Why is David Cameron expending so much time and effort and potentially soiling his own reputation shoring up Zac Goldsmith, whose cause looks doomed? There seem to be only two possible answers:
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
Option 2 looks more likely to me.
A third possibility which I raised the other day: the original Naz Shah allegations were dug up from a musty file in order to bury some other bad news, probably related to Hillsborough where some Conservatives had made what would now be seen as unfortunate remarks. Not Boris, but perhaps Hunt. Though if so, CCHQ will be ecstatic that it has taken off far beyond that.
A fourth is that we are too London-centric and this is really about Scotland, Wales or somewhere else in the kingdom that votes tomorrow.
A wretched 17 minutes for Corbyn. This is not the first time Cameron has attacked Corbyn’s alleged extremist sympathies at PMQs, but today the onslaught was particularly timely and pertinent. Corbyn made a reasonable fist of trying to defend himself, dissociating himself from the “friends” remark about Hamas (although not retracting it as bluntly as Cameron proposed) and pointing out, quite rightly, the hypocrisy of the Tory attacks on Suliman Gani. And the Cameron broadside was not especially fair, because there is probably no one in parliament who believes that Corbyn actually approves of Hamas rocket attacks on Israelis. But Corbyn has been more sympathetic to groups like Hamas than MPs in the political mainstream, meaning that Cameron’s comments had enough justification to give them potency. Today Cameron exploited that to the full, with brutal effect.
As always, we have to ask ourselves the question Why. Why is David Cameron expending so much time and effort and potentially soiling his own reputation shoring up Zac Goldsmith, whose cause looks doomed? There seem to be only two possible answers:
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
Option 2 looks more likely to me.
Yes but the damage to Labour from that barrage will not be restricted to London. It is a new level of brutality in UK politics. I think he needs to be careful but Labour are finally seeing the price they pay for having someone like Corbyn as leader.
Losing ground in London may be worthwhile, if it pushes Labour further away in most of the rest of England.
As always, we have to ask ourselves the question Why. Why is David Cameron expending so much time and effort and potentially soiling his own reputation shoring up Zac Goldsmith, whose cause looks doomed? There seem to be only two possible answers:
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
Option 2 looks more likely to me.
Yes. In particular, Tory Leavers have complained that he's too aggressive towards them. He's trying to say, "No, this is what aggressive looks like." He doesn't want it said that he is softer on Labour than Leave.
Snap PMQs verdict: A wretched 17 minutes for Corbyn. This is not the first time Cameron has attacked Corbyn’s alleged extremist sympathies at PMQs, but today the onslaught was particularly timely and pertinent. Corbyn made a reasonable fist of trying to defend himself, dissociating himself from the “friends” remark about Hamas (although not retracting it as bluntly as Cameron proposed) and pointing out, quite rightly, the hypocrisy of the Tory attacks on Suliman Gani. And the Cameron broadside was not especially fair, because there is probably no one in parliament who believes that Corbyn actually approves of Hamas rocket attacks on Israelis. But Corbyn has been more sympathetic to groups like Hamas than MPs in the political mainstream, meaning that Cameron’s comments had enough justification to give them potency. Today Cameron exploited that to the full, with brutal effect.
As always, we have to ask ourselves the question Why. Why is David Cameron expending so much time and effort and potentially soiling his own reputation shoring up Zac Goldsmith, whose cause looks doomed? There seem to be only two possible answers:
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
Option 2 looks more likely to me.
2 and part setting up 2020.
The early focus groups had Ed Miliband as the back stabbing weirdo who shafted his brother. He was never able to shake off those perceptions.
I suspect current focus groups have Corbyn down as a terrorist sympathiser.
Preston Council leader Peter Rankin explains rising anti-Semitism…
“You need to think why this anti-semitism is getting worse. It’s because of the actions of the IDF shelling schools and hospitals and killing and maiming thousands of men, women and children.”
hmm - Would he accept the same logic for rise in "islamophobia"- I think not.
TBH the Israeli Government and IDF often do themselves no favours, public relations-wise.
Nor, of course, do radical Muslims And as for bizarre Muslim fundamentalists....
Without wishing to enter into a protracted debate, I think it's a little more than a public relations issue.
Agreed.
And I hotly dispute the notion that al Qaeeda or ISIS don't do PR well. The evidence - recruitment - is that they are spectacularly good at it. OKC is judging their PR success with the wrong metric - Western agnostic liberals. That is not their audience.
Sun Tzu, generally considered a reliable source on Good War Ideas, said something along the lines of, "You've got to know your enemy in order to beat him, because some dudes hate being kicked in the junk and others seem to enjoy it." The difficulty we've had defeating ISIS suggests that, maybe, we don't really understand who and what the fuck they are. Everything we hear is filtered through politicians and pundits, each with their own agenda ("You know what ISIS is afraid of? Me, Donald Goddamned Trump!"). Fortunately, it turns out that finding out what ISIS wants is like finding out what a vegan eats: They'll tell you. Which is to say that ISIS has a magazine.
No, really. It's an actual glossy, full-color magazine called Dabiq, complete with feature articles and photo spreads. So, in the interest of understanding just what makes these violent lunatics tick, I read through 700-plus pages of this oddly well-put-together propaganda and learned ...
Good to see the Government u-turn about child refugees. It's a shame that it took so long and that, incredibly, it took the Daily Mail to bring it about.
As always, we have to ask ourselves the question Why. Why is David Cameron expending so much time and effort and potentially soiling his own reputation shoring up Zac Goldsmith, whose cause looks doomed? There seem to be only two possible answers:
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
Option 2 looks more likely to me.
Yes but the damage to Labour from that barrage will not be restricted to London. It is a new level of brutality in UK politics. I think he needs to be careful but Labour are finally seeing the price they pay for having someone like Corbyn as leader.
Yes, exactly. This is about pinning the 'soft on terrorists' label on Labour as a whole, not just Sadiq (in fact, not principally Sadiq). Labour can't really complain, they didn't have to choose a leader with links to Hamas and many other unpleasant organisations, or a Shadow Chancellor who has been sympathetic to IRA murderers, or give a senior role to Ken Livingstone. These are choices made by Labour, not a Tory plot.
"Under new plans announced on Wednesday by the European Commission to overhaul Europe’s much-criticised rules on asylum seekers, most EU countries would be required to participate in a quota system that would force them to accept migrants if a front-line state becomes overwhelmed, as Italy and Greece were at the height of the refugee crisis. Failure to comply would result in fines of €250,000 per person.
But in a boost for David Cameron, UK prime minister, Britain would be allowed to opt out of that scheme and continue under current rules that allow for expulsions without the quota system."
As always, we have to ask ourselves the question Why. Why is David Cameron expending so much time and effort and potentially soiling his own reputation shoring up Zac Goldsmith, whose cause looks doomed? There seem to be only two possible answers:
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
Option 2 looks more likely to me.
A third possibility which I raised the other day: the original Naz Shah allegations were dug up from a musty file in order to bury some other bad news, probably related to Hillsborough where some Conservatives had made what would now be seen as unfortunate remarks. Not Boris, but perhaps Hunt. Though if so, CCHQ will be ecstatic that it has taken off far beyond that.
A fourth is that we are too London-centric and this is really about Scotland, Wales or somewhere else in the kingdom that votes tomorrow.
On your third point, given that large swathes of the media were disparaging the victims at the time, I doubt that would have been a big news story. And really, she only posted the tweet two years ago...
"Hillary will struggle to get the female vote" - and Trump won't struggle more?
As I explained to Richard, it doesn't matter. It isn't about winning over women voters, it is making sure they also despise Hillary for being a two faced hypocrite.
Do you mean that turnout amongst women is likely to be down? That seems unlikely.
Why? On one side we have a candidate who is pretty anti-women or at least has said some stupid things and on the other we have a candidate who has supported and taken money from a nation which stones women to death for being raped. It's Sophie's choice.
Not to mention that that woman has been labelled fairly successfully as an enabler for the most prominent serial sexual harasser in the US
Jez's fellow travellers would subvert our freedom and our culture by forcing us into socialism or Islam. It's socialism at gunpoint or Dhimmitude.
Dave and his fellow travellers would subvert our freedom by forcing us over time to assimilate into a bigger undemocratic blob that cares nothing for our culture or our freedom. It's socialism by osmosis. The journey may be less of a horror story but is the end point so very different?
I couldn't vote for either Labour or Conservative right now.
Preston Council leader Peter Rankin explains rising anti-Semitism…
“You need to think why this anti-semitism is getting worse. It’s because of the actions of the IDF shelling schools and hospitals and killing and maiming thousands of men, women and children.”
hmm - Would he accept the same logic for rise in "islamophobia"- I think not.
TBH the Israeli Government and IDF often do themselves no favours, public relations-wise.
Nor, of course, do radical Muslims And as for bizarre Muslim fundamentalists....
Without wishing to enter into a protracted debate, I think it's a little more than a public relations issue.
Agreed.
And I hotly dispute the notion that al Qaeeda or ISIS don't do PR well. The evidence - recruitment - is that they are spectacularly good at it. OKC is judging their PR success with the wrong metric - Western agnostic liberals. That is not their audience.
PS I'll amend that. ISIS has two audiences, and they do well with both against their objectives. Recruitment rates internationally show that they are doing well with audience 1, those who can be radicalized to join them.
The vast amounts of free media space and time they get, and the revulsion they evoke amongst Western democratic societies is evidence that they are very good at getting the response they want from that second audience; which is to overreact and exacerbate the West's relations with muslims, while giving massive amounts of publicity to themselves.
Fair point. They just don't care how they are perceived outside their target group. Nor, it would appear sometimes, do the Israelis.
BREAKING Chilcot report to be published after June 23 referendum, says David Cameron
Heir to Blair. Be gone.
Well how very surprising. We wouldn't want the voters to get a sniff of how happy the government and civil service are to lie and falsify evidence in order to push a particular policy agenda, would we?
Preston Council leader Peter Rankin explains rising anti-Semitism…
“You need to think why this anti-semitism is getting worse. It’s because of the actions of the IDF shelling schools and hospitals and killing and maiming thousands of men, women and children.”
hmm - Would he accept the same logic for rise in "islamophobia"- I think not.
TBH the Israeli Government and IDF often do themselves no favours, public relations-wise.
Nor, of course, do radical Muslims And as for bizarre Muslim fundamentalists....
Without wishing to enter into a protracted debate, I think it's a little more than a public relations issue.
Agreed.
And I hotly dispute the notion that al Qaeeda or ISIS don't do PR well. The evidence - recruitment - is that they are spectacularly good at it. OKC is judging their PR success with the wrong metric - Western agnostic liberals. That is not their audience.
Sun Tzu, generally considered a reliable source on Good War Ideas, said something along the lines of, "You've got to know your enemy in order to beat him, because some dudes hate being kicked in the junk and others seem to enjoy it." The difficulty we've had defeating ISIS suggests that, maybe, we don't really understand who and what the fuck they are. Everything we hear is filtered through politicians and pundits, each with their own agenda ("You know what ISIS is afraid of? Me, Donald Goddamned Trump!"). Fortunately, it turns out that finding out what ISIS wants is like finding out what a vegan eats: They'll tell you. Which is to say that ISIS has a magazine.
No, really. It's an actual glossy, full-color magazine called Dabiq, complete with feature articles and photo spreads. So, in the interest of understanding just what makes these violent lunatics tick, I read through 700-plus pages of this oddly well-put-together propaganda and learned ...
Thanks, Plato. An amusing article indeed.
You'll see that I amended my post to read that ISIS also achieves what it wants with the Western audience. And I think what it wants falls into that category of being kicked in the junk and enjoying it.
In 2004, Boris was sent to Liverpool to apologise in person for his comments.
Perhaps the Labour councillors, accused of anti-Semitism, can go to Israel and find out what it is really like over there and apologise to them directly?
'Jim Murphy: should the BBC be less rigidly neutral when it comes to the EU?
..I believe that one of the dangers in Britain today is that our broadcast media is often too impartial, especially during this EU referendum campaign. And in a referendum campaign, absolute neutrality lacks integrity and can cause inaccuracy.'
''But in a boost for David Cameron, UK prime minister, Britain would be allowed to opt out of that scheme and continue under current rules that allow for expulsions without the quota system."
Don;t you see how the language of that statement is anything but a boost for David Cameron..
We're paying billions for the dubious privilege of 'being allowed' to do stuff.
Alternatively, we could vote out, and do what we want, for free.
"Under new plans announced on Wednesday by the European Commission to overhaul Europe’s much-criticised rules on asylum seekers, most EU countries would be required to participate in a quota system that would force them to accept migrants if a front-line state becomes overwhelmed, as Italy and Greece were at the height of the refugee crisis. Failure to comply would result in fines of €250,000 per person.
But in a boost for David Cameron, UK prime minister, Britain would be allowed to opt out of that scheme and continue under current rules that allow for expulsions without the quota system."
Isn't that because we have an opt out from migration changes anyway? So we will be allowed to opt out because we have an opt out already not as a concession?
Of course the nature of those unfavourables matter. Being disliked for being a brash New Yorker is very different to be being disliked for being corrupt and dishonest.
Yes, exactly. This is about pinning the 'soft on terrorists' label on Labour as a whole, not just Sadiq (in fact, not principally Sadiq). Labour can't really complain, they didn't have to choose a leader with links to Hamas and many other unpleasant organisations, or a Shadow Chancellor who has been sympathetic to IRA murderers, or give a senior role to Ken Livingstone. These are choices made by Labour, not a Tory plot.
I'm reading Roy Jenkins' memoir of Churchill (very readable, much more so than Jenkins' own rather dry autobiography). He makes the astute observation that politicians can acquire a perceived weak spot which makes anything in that context look much more significant than it would for someone else. Churchill was suspected of being a hothead, so his relatively mild intervention in the Tonypandy miners' strike (troops were sent, but nobody died or was hurt as a result) was seen as confirmatory and an outrage, while the mild Asquith got away with sending troops to another strike where civilians were actually killed. He was challenged at a public meeting about why "you killed the miners in 1889" (or whatever the date was), and merely said "It was the following year, actually" and the issue amazingly dwindled away.
Because Corbyn is suspected of being soft on defence/anti-terrorism, anything in that line is dangerous to him, in the same way that the suspicion of Tory dislike of the NHS makes any change in contract or other move look like part of a cunning plan. The Tories have got away with trashing our conventional force budgets with barely a murmur, Labour got away with countless NHS reorganisations with just some grumbles. (I'm not taking the time to debate the validity of these perceptions, but they're real in many people's minds.)
In 2004, Boris was sent to Liverpool to apologise in person for his comments.
Perhaps the Labour councillors, accused of anti-Semitism, can go to Israel and find out what it is really like over there and apologise to them directly?
Seems fair?
I presume that you're deliberately conflating anti-semitism and anti-zionism. Which is one of problems.
''But in a boost for David Cameron, UK prime minister, Britain would be allowed to opt out of that scheme and continue under current rules that allow for expulsions without the quota system."
Alternatively, we could vote out, and do what we want, for free.
If we were outside the EU we wouldn't be able to expel illegal immigrants to the first EU country they entered, we would be stuck with them if they managed to reach the UK. Its only because of the EU Dublin agreement that we have this ability.
I also think "Crooked Hillary" is going to stick like "Little Marco" and "Low energy Jeb". It affirms what a lot of people already think about her and is easy for his supporters to repeat over and over again.
My favourite is still Lyin' Ted. But crooked Hillary will stick.
Yes, Lyin' Ted was good and it really hurt as well, again because it was true. Against Sanders he would have nothing to go on which is why the Dems made a mistake by fixing the race for Hillary. Sanders is Trump's nightmare candidate and Hillary is his dream candidate, she has so many skeletons in her cupboard that he will expose.
I've been emailing with a Trump supporter and he says that Hillary will struggle to get the female vote once the campaign starts, how will she explain to women across the US that she has taken money from and supports nations which stone and beat women to death for adultery. Until now there has been a political consensus to not go after each other's support of the Saudis but Trump won't stick to that. How can she be a feminist if she supports a regime that murders women on a regular basis for being raped etc... Expect that to become a theme every time Hillary says Trump is anti-women and, again, it is bullet proof because Trump has said he would loosen ties with the Saudis and other Islamist regimes.
The rules of war are going to change this time, Trump already smashed his GOP rivals under his new, "there is no such thing as off limits" rule, he will do the same to Hillary and over time it will damage her. Additionally, Trump can't take a shit without the internet and social media going crazy, it gives him much more exposure than any other POTUS candidate would otherwise receive in the mainstream media.
"Hillary will struggle to get the female vote" - and Trump won't struggle more?
I don't understand this 'women problem' idea that keeps getting floated for Hilary. She is viewed more favourably by women than men.
@Philip_Thompson No, the original idea was to scrap the Dublin system completely and introduce a new system for doling out asylum seekers, which would have meant that Britain had no right to return migrants that reached Britain to the first EU country they reached, though it wouldn't have had to participate in the migrant-sharing scheme. Now instead the rules are being rewritten so that Britain still doesn't participate in sharing out asylum seekers but can still deport migrants to the first EU country they reached.
As always, we have to ask ourselves the question Why. Why is David Cameron expending so much time and effort and potentially soiling his own reputation shoring up Zac Goldsmith, whose cause looks doomed? There seem to be only two possible answers:
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
Option 2 looks more likely to me.
It's not an either/or. Both are potentially valid.
There is a third, and better, reason though. It's not just about Sadiq. In fact, Cameron spent most of the time attacking Corbyn on related charges. This is about linking the whole Labour brand with 'untrustworthy', 'friends with our enemies' and 'not on your side'.
BREAKING Chilcot report to be published after June 23 referendum, says David Cameron
I wonder why..
Purdah. Makes the EU look good for not backing the liberation of Iraq
I think it might implicate some of the leading figures of Remain.
I think that's much more like it. Can you imagine the furore for remain if senior Labour figures like Blair, Brown, Mandleson etc are implicated in anything ? Could totally blow the Remain campaign apart.
Comments
Nor, of course, do radical Muslims And as for bizarre Muslim fundamentalists....
If Khan smoked cigars and drank champagne, he will be sitting with a very fat Cuban (Cigar not Castro!) and a wee glass of bubbles with his feet up on his desk spouting as if he was Kevin Keegan and Newcastle did win the league. His crown is sitting upon his head at a slant. He's laughing his head off. Labour as we speak are super confident that Citizen Khan will be crowned Mayor on Friday. I know, you've all been saying it. But, what will the gap be? Have Tories got a swing? Will Tories win more Assembly member seats? I think so.
On the subject of ridiculous celebrity promises, is FM Sturgeon housing any refugees in any of her residences yet?
Cameron says Corbyn is 'a friend of the terrorist group Hamas'. Gloves fully off
1) The Conservatives believe that contrary to all current polling Zac Goldsmith's cause is not doomed.
2) David Cameron is showing his own team that he is still one of them, despite his Remainian tendencies, seeking to remind them of his perceived virtues as well as his perceived vices and trying to reunite the Conservative party behind an aggressive campaign.
Option 2 looks more likely to me.
Tactical win for Cameron if what this #pmqs is remembered for is accusations of Labour antisemitism - not Corbyn questions on inequality
I don't think Sadiq is particularly racist, but he is a bit thick, and he's trying to be a politician like his hero, Blair.
But if he had brains, he would be dangerous. Although that does leaves him susceptible to outside influences.
Nothing to worry about anyway, it's only London.
Edit: I've just realised - that second paragraph could have been said about Jezza.
Tangentially, the discipline of the Tory press in sticking solely to the Hamas/Hezbollah stuff is impressive. Presumably the IRA campaign is being saved for the general election, or for when McDonnell becomes leader.
I have seen his dreadful polling with women, and been puzzled as to how he is still winning women handily in the primaries. Logic says he shouldn't. Logic says, based on his negatives, that he should lose the election by a landslide. But then logic said he wouldn't be the GOP nominee or anywhere close. And logic said that there was no way Corbyn would be LOTO.
Based on the evidence of his dominance throughout the GOP race and on the massive turnout at GOP primaries, not logic, I would hazard that Trump looks cheap at 27% for the general.
It is why McMao is far more dangerous, he is even more extreme beliefs, but he will adjust what he says in public to make things sound more acceptable.
And I hotly dispute the notion that al Qaeeda or ISIS don't do PR well. The evidence - recruitment - is that they are spectacularly good at it. OKC is judging their PR success with the wrong metric - Western agnostic liberals. That is not their audience.
PS I'll amend that. ISIS has two audiences, and they do well with both against their objectives. Recruitment rates internationally show that they are doing well with audience 1, those who can be radicalized to join them.
The vast amounts of free media space and time they get, and the revulsion they evoke amongst Western democratic societies is evidence that they are very good at getting the response they want from that second audience; which is to overreact and exacerbate the West's relations with muslims, while giving massive amounts of publicity to themselves.
A fourth is that we are too London-centric and this is really about Scotland, Wales or somewhere else in the kingdom that votes tomorrow.
A wretched 17 minutes for Corbyn. This is not the first time Cameron has attacked Corbyn’s alleged extremist sympathies at PMQs, but today the onslaught was particularly timely and pertinent. Corbyn made a reasonable fist of trying to defend himself, dissociating himself from the “friends” remark about Hamas (although not retracting it as bluntly as Cameron proposed) and pointing out, quite rightly, the hypocrisy of the Tory attacks on Suliman Gani. And the Cameron broadside was not especially fair, because there is probably no one in parliament who believes that Corbyn actually approves of Hamas rocket attacks on Israelis. But Corbyn has been more sympathetic to groups like Hamas than MPs in the political mainstream, meaning that Cameron’s comments had enough justification to give them potency. Today Cameron exploited that to the full, with brutal effect.
Snap PMQs verdict
Snap PMQs verdict: A wretched 17 minutes for Corbyn. This is not the first time Cameron has attacked Corbyn’s alleged extremist sympathies at PMQs, but today the onslaught was particularly timely and pertinent. Corbyn made a reasonable fist of trying to defend himself, dissociating himself from the “friends” remark about Hamas (although not retracting it as bluntly as Cameron proposed) and pointing out, quite rightly, the hypocrisy of the Tory attacks on Suliman Gani. And the Cameron broadside was not especially fair, because there is probably no one in parliament who believes that Corbyn actually approves of Hamas rocket attacks on Israelis. But Corbyn has been more sympathetic to groups like Hamas than MPs in the political mainstream, meaning that Cameron’s comments had enough justification to give them potency. Today Cameron exploited that to the full, with brutal effect.
The early focus groups had Ed Miliband as the back stabbing weirdo who shafted his brother. He was never able to shake off those perceptions.
I suspect current focus groups have Corbyn down as a terrorist sympathiser.
What is shameful is electing a terrorist sympathiser to be Leader of the Opposition and proposed Prime Minister in waiting. That is shameful.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3282746e-11d8-11e6-839f-2922947098f0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz47gXUhKwX
"Under new plans announced on Wednesday by the European Commission to overhaul Europe’s much-criticised rules on asylum seekers, most EU countries would be required to participate in a quota system that would force them to accept migrants if a front-line state becomes overwhelmed, as Italy and Greece were at the height of the refugee crisis. Failure to comply would result in fines of €250,000 per person.
But in a boost for David Cameron, UK prime minister, Britain would be allowed to opt out of that scheme and continue under current rules that allow for expulsions without the quota system."
BREAKING Chilcot report to be published after June 23 referendum, says David Cameron
Dave and his fellow travellers would subvert our freedom by forcing us over time to assimilate into a bigger undemocratic blob that cares nothing for our culture or our freedom. It's socialism by osmosis. The journey may be less of a horror story but is the end point so very different?
I couldn't vote for either Labour or Conservative right now.
So seven years.
You'll see that I amended my post to read that ISIS also achieves what it wants with the Western audience. And I think what it wants falls into that category of being kicked in the junk and enjoying it.
In 2004, Boris was sent to Liverpool to apologise in person for his comments.
Perhaps the Labour councillors, accused of anti-Semitism, can go to Israel and find out what it is really like over there and apologise to them directly?
Seems fair?
'Jim Murphy: should the BBC be less rigidly neutral when it comes to the EU?
..I believe that one of the dangers in Britain today is that our broadcast media is often too impartial, especially during this EU referendum campaign. And in a referendum campaign, absolute neutrality lacks integrity and can cause inaccuracy.'
http://tinyurl.com/zyhaua7
Don;t you see how the language of that statement is anything but a boost for David Cameron..
We're paying billions for the dubious privilege of 'being allowed' to do stuff.
Alternatively, we could vote out, and do what we want, for free.
If you're staying up for the local and devolved elections, here's your hour-by-hour guide on what to stay up for: https://t.co/qkpgkaepq6
https://twitter.com/C_KAndrews/status/727825454179192832
Because Corbyn is suspected of being soft on defence/anti-terrorism, anything in that line is dangerous to him, in the same way that the suspicion of Tory dislike of the NHS makes any change in contract or other move look like part of a cunning plan. The Tories have got away with trashing our conventional force budgets with barely a murmur, Labour got away with countless NHS reorganisations with just some grumbles. (I'm not taking the time to debate the validity of these perceptions, but they're real in many people's minds.)
Godammit.
If it was then no doubt some would be complaining about Cameron releasing it now to take attention away from the referendum ...
People like Blair now are has beens and not active figures already.
There is a third, and better, reason though. It's not just about Sadiq. In fact, Cameron spent most of the time attacking Corbyn on related charges. This is about linking the whole Labour brand with 'untrustworthy', 'friends with our enemies' and 'not on your side'.