I see that the initial claim by FBI that they were looking for a Hispanic in the Mall shooting was miles off. The guy is Turkish.
To be fair: it's Florida, and man who looks a little darkish, but not Arab... what do you guess first Hispanic or Turkish? And even on the terrorism front, there are probably more Hispanic Muslims than Turkish Muslims in Florida.
Wasn't Florida, it was Washington State.
Yes, I realise know. I don't know why I thought it was Florida, but I was completely wrong
Hispanics very large in Florida - as everyone who boards a shuttle train to WDW from the carparks knows (messages are repeated in Spanish).
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
I too think that Brexit is not worth a debate at the moment, the referendum result is final and should be respected in my opinion.
It's a ship that has sailed.
The only debate that has any consequence today is within the backbench Cameroons, vis a vis Brexit, grammar schools, or whatever else they choose. They hold alot of power.
Sadly, it makes no difference at all what the Labour party, or Lib Dems debate. The LD's should go back to legalising cannabis or reducing the age of consent to 2 years, perhaps allowing a spot of incest, and the Labour party to Zaire, and to decide whether it was worth it in retrospect to host the rumble in the jungle.
Except the Labour was able to inflict some defeats on the government early in this Parliament. Debating these issues means that they have some say in the media narrative. If they say nothing, the Tories control the narrative totally.
Well the other candidates in that constituency will be cheering. Pity the voters who have to put up with his campaign twaddle.
Actually, it's a sensible move. You see, Labour don't have enough unfunny comedians with the intellectual sophistication of five year olds. Corbyn and Thornberry are feeling lonely and want someone to join them.
At least he wouldn't be allowed to wear a beret in the chamber
Won't he? Will he not claim discrimination if that is the case?
I think the only time hats were permitted is when you wanted to speak during a division to raise a point of order and you had to put n a top hat. But that stopped in 1998
They used to be able todo so on budget day I recall
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
Fact checking ain't the panacea it's made out to be:
@Hurst Lama and others My outlook on foreign policy is really quite pragmatic.
An intervention on Libya would be to support some kind of occupation of the Libyan Mediterranean coast to stop the dangerous trakkifing of migrants through the Med which has a direct impact on Europe. It is madness that we spend all our energies on salvage operations which encourages these poor souls to make this disastrous, life threatening journey.
A military occupation of, even a chunk of, a foreign country? Are you sure? I think I can see where you are coming from in terms of the desired result, but history suggests that such occupations do not end well and the UK no longer has the manpower to do any such thing. It would require a significant expansion of the defence budget before any such open ended commitment could be entered into.
Of course there are those that say that Europe's best interests would have been better served if Cameron and Sarkozy had kept their paws out of Libya to start with, or a the very least confined themselves to the UN authorised actions.
Occupying a port (Tobruk has a certain historical resonance) and landing migrants rescued at sea might work well.
I suspect that is the closest that we could get to an Australian solution to boat people.
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Maine is split into two regions - one much more urban than the other. When you look at the USA map as a whole, the rural areas are by default republican and the heavily urbanised areas Democrat. Or: Trump owns the land, Clinton the people.
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Maine is split into two regions - one much more urban than the other. When you look at the USA map as a whole, the rural areas are by default republican and the heavily urbanised areas Democrat. Or: Trump owns the land, Clinton the people.
Also Trump is outperforming with non college whites which Maine has much more than national average.
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Voters there probably like the fact that he isn't religious, unlike most Republican candidates.
Thanks. Trump leads by 14% in Maine 1, but is 22% behind in Maine 2. I suppose that's explained by the rural/urban divide.
But, even in 1, a 14% lead is the best by a Republican in ages. So, I guess 1 contains lots of fairly secular, but quite right wing, working class White voters. People who are perhaps not bothered by abortion, but are bothered by immigration?
If I were a Democrat, I would be very worried at what the +14% in Maine 2 portends. There are a lot of working class white voters in the rust belt. Most of whom would not be regarded as regular voters. You know - the ones in the coal industry that Clinton said she would destroy on the altar of Global warming.
Trump said he would destroy the coal industry too, just more obliquely by saying he would champion shale gas as the forefront of an energy revolution.
You can do a lot more with coal than just burn it. No reason why you can't use shale gas for energy and coal for chemicals.
Labour have been in a similar position before when George Lansbury lead the party. Ok, the specific circumstances were different as were party rules but he was a pacifist, "extreme" left-winger, popular with the party membership but wholly unattractive to the electorate at large. The Labour party managed to get rid of him and went on to win back power (though the war probably did delay that a bit).
Other way around Mr Llama, surely? As a result of the war, under the leadership of a distinguished former soldier, Labour returned to government in 1940 and remained in power except for two months until 1951. That would have been near inconceivable given they barely cleared 150 seats in 1935. Indeed, it seems very likely that 1950/51 would have been the earliest they could hope to return to power under normal conditions, although much would have hinged on who replaced Chamberlain.
It would also have been inconceivable had Lansbury or one of his ilk remained leader and (a) fully endorsed appeasement (which is of course why he was sacked - he was opposed to rearmament) and (b) presumably refused to serve in the war cabinet. (Although the opposite wasn't true either - few politicians were as consistent in their opposition to Nazi Germany and appeasement as Sinclair, and not only was his party more than halved in 1945 but he lost his own seat.)
Labour's problem at the moment, to get back to the thread header, is that there is no Attlee - even Watson would admit he doesn't measure up. And even if there were there is no Bevin to act as the assassin. And finally, Tyson is right that Labour's vacuity, which I commented on yesterday, means there is no big issue to rally the party around in any case.
The situation is desperate and it is hard to see how it improves unless as has been said, Corbyn dies. In fact, it's hard to see how things could be worse.
Doc, I was thinking that had not the war intervened then there would have been an election before 1945 at which the Labour Party may well have achieved a majority.
Your implied point that currently Labour has nobody of the stature of Atlee or Bevin I accept totally. More is the pity.
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Maine is split into two regions - one much more urban than the other. When you look at the USA map as a whole, the rural areas are by default republican and the heavily urbanised areas Democrat. Or: Trump owns the land, Clinton the people.
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Maine is split into two regions - one much more urban than the other. When you look at the USA map as a whole, the rural areas are by default republican and the heavily urbanised areas Democrat. Or: Trump owns the land, Clinton the people.
Also Trump is outperforming with non college whites which Maine has much more than national average.
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Voters there probably like the fact that he isn't religious, unlike most Republican candidates.
Thanks. Trump leads by 14% in Maine 1, but is 22% behind in Maine 2. I suppose that's explained by the rural/urban divide.
But, even in 1, a 14% lead is the best by a Republican in ages. So, I guess 1 contains lots of fairly secular, but quite right wing, working class White voters. People who are perhaps not bothered by abortion, but are bothered by immigration?
If I were a Democrat, I would be very worried at what the +14% in Maine 2 portends. There are a lot of working class white voters in the rust belt. Most of whom would not be regarded as regular voters. You know - the ones in the coal industry that Clinton said she would destroy on the altar of Global warming.
Trump said he would destroy the coal industry too, just more obliquely by saying he would champion shale gas as the forefront of an energy revolution.
Shale gas is already destroying the coal industry. Look at the extraordinary wave of bankrupcies of coal companies in the US, and the fact that Powder River Basin coal is $11.80/tonne.
Am thinking of getting an ultra-wide monitor, 21:9, 34" or 38" (they all seem to be curved these days), either LG or Dell...to replace some of my multi-monitor setup.
@Hurst Lama and others My outlook on foreign policy is really quite pragmatic.
An intervention on Libya would be to support some kind of occupation of the Libyan Mediterranean coast to stop the dangerous trakkifing of migrants through the Med which has a direct impact on Europe. It is madness that we spend all our energies on salvage operations which encourages these poor souls to make this disastrous, life threatening journey.
A military occupation of, even a chunk of, a foreign country? Are you sure? I think I can see where you are coming from in terms of the desired result, but history suggests that such occupations do not end well and the UK no longer has the manpower to do any such thing. It would require a significant expansion of the defence budget before any such open ended commitment could be entered into.
Of course there are those that say that Europe's best interests would have been better served if Cameron and Sarkozy had kept their paws out of Libya to start with, or a the very least confined themselves to the UN authorised actions.
I'm saying some kind of international coalition....... Even if Libya stabilises which doesn't seem likely, Europe is still hostage to that Govt. Gaddafi threatened to flood Europe with migrants. The only longer term solution strikes me as securing that area and controlling the sea traffic across the Med.
Am thinking of getting an ultra-wide monitor, 21:9, 34" or 38" (they all seem to be curved these days), either LG or Dell...to replace some of my multi-monitor setup.
Does anybody have one, thoughts, etc?
My advice would be to get two
More seriously, one ultra wide, plus one normal which you can have in portrait orientation for reading sites like PB
Labour's problem at the moment, to get back to the thread header, is that there is no Attlee - even Watson would admit he doesn't measure up. And even if there were there is no Bevin to act as the assassin.
Doc, I was thinking that had not the war intervened then there would have been an election before 1945 at which the Labour Party may well have achieved a majority.
Your implied point that currently Labour has nobody of the stature of Atlee or Bevin I accept totally. More is the pity.
I apologise if my point appeared implied. It was meant to be plainly stated!
I can imagine many like Joff, Rochdale, Tyson etc would sympathise (in this respect only) with the Southern lady who wrote in 1865: 'Calhoun and Clay are gone and they have been replaced by fools and madmen who have led us to ruin.' (I paraphrase as I don't have the book to hand - it's at school for A-level coursework).
Many Americans are doubtless feeling the same way again.
Do you think that (and let's choose them as whipping boys of the day) Goldman Sachs has the right to have its offices where it likes, and according to whatever conditions it likes?
(Bear in mind, of course, that the moral duty of the CEO of Goldman Sachs is to his shareholders.)
He - and it's almost always a he - is morally obligated to let governments know the consequences of their decisions. If he's lying to the government (as in, he has no intention of moving staff abroad in the event of Hard Brexit), that would be reprehensible.
But if he is merely explaining what he will do, that that sounds perfectly reasonable.
Certainly, it is no different to what I would expect the CEO of Nissan or GM to say to the government if it was proposed that the UK was about to put a 50% tax on imported steel.
If someone walks up to you after you leave a nightclub at 2am, pulls a knife on you and asks you to hand over your wallet or he is going to spread your insides over the pavement, is he explaining to you the consequence of your decision of whether to hand over your wallet or not, or threatening you ?
Do you think that (and let's choose them as whipping boys of the day) Goldman Sachs has the right to have its offices where it likes, and according to whatever conditions it likes?
(Bear in mind, of course, that the moral duty of the CEO of Goldman Sachs is to his shareholders.)
He - and it's almost always a he - is morally obligated to let governments know the consequences of their decisions. If he's lying to the government (as in, he has no intention of moving staff abroad in the event of Hard Brexit), that would be reprehensible.
But if he is merely explaining what he will do, that that sounds perfectly reasonable.
Certainly, it is no different to what I would expect the CEO of Nissan or GM to say to the government if it was proposed that the UK was about to put a 50% tax on imported steel.
If someone walks up to you after you leave a nightclub at 2am, pulls a knife on you and asks you to hand over your wallet or he is going to spread your insides over the pavement, is he explaining to you the consequence of your decision of whether to hand over your wallet or not, or threatening you ?
Moving office is a legal activity. Mugging someone is not.
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
Fact checking ain't the panacea it's made out to be:
@Hurst Lama and others My outlook on foreign policy is really quite pragmatic.
An intervention on Libya would be to support some kind of occupation of the Libyan Mediterranean coast to stop the dangerous trakkifing of migrants through the Med which has a direct impact on Europe. It is madness that we spend all our energies on salvage operations which encourages these poor souls to make this disastrous, life threatening journey.
A military occupation of, even a chunk of, a foreign country? Are you sure? I think I can see where you are coming from in terms of the desired result, but history suggests that such occupations do not end well and the UK no longer has the manpower to do any such thing. It would require a significant expansion of the defence budget before any such open ended commitment could be entered into.
Of course there are those that say that Europe's best interests would have been better served if Cameron and Sarkozy had kept their paws out of Libya to start with, or a the very least confined themselves to the UN authorised actions.
I'm saying some kind of international coalition....... Even if Libya stabilises which doesn't seem likely, Europe is still hostage to that Govt. Gaddafi threatened to flood Europe with migrants. The only longer term solution strikes me as securing that area and controlling the sea traffic across the Med.
I doubt you would ever get an international coalition to go and occupy the Libyan coast. Who would join in?
As for commanding the sea traffic in the Med the EU nations, even without Britain, can do that. Unfortunately what happens at the moment is that having intercepted a boat full of people desperate to make their way to Europe the navies then give them their wish by acting as a ferry service to make sure they get there safely. This I am sure acts as an encouragement to the people traffickers to cram even more people into even more unsafe boats, safe in the knowledge that the taxpayers of the EU will finish the job for them.
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Maine is split into two regions - one much more urban than the other. When you look at the USA map as a whole, the rural areas are by default republican and the heavily urbanised areas Democrat. Or: Trump owns the land, Clinton the people.
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Maine is split into two regions - one much more urban than the other. When you look at the USA map as a whole, the rural areas are by default republican and the heavily urbanised areas Democrat. Or: Trump owns the land, Clinton the people.
Also Trump is outperforming with non college whites which Maine has much more than national average.
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Voters there probably like the fact that he isn't religious, unlike most Republican candidates.
Thanks. Trump leads by 14% in Maine 1, but is 22% behind in Maine 2. I suppose that's explained by the rural/urban divide.
But, even in 1, a 14% lead is the best by a Republican in ages. So, I guess 1 contains lots of fairly secular, but quite right wing, working class White voters. People who are perhaps not bothered by abortion, but are bothered by immigration?
If I were a Democrat, I would be very worried at what the +14% in Maine 2 portends. There are a lot of working class white voters in the rust belt. Most of whom would not be regarded as regular voters. You know - the ones in the coal industry that Clinton said she would destroy on the altar of Global warming.
Trump said he would destroy the coal industry too, just more obliquely by saying he would champion shale gas as the forefront of an energy revolution.
Shale gas is already destroying the coal industry. Look at the extraordinary wave of bankrupcies of coal companies in the US, and the fact that Powder River Basin coal is $11.80/tonne.
Well quite. But Trump is simultaneously saying he's going to revive coal whilst promoting its chief killer.
Goldman Sachs is doing what it has a moral and ethical imperative to do, to look after the interests of its shareholders inside the bounds of the law.
To compare that to a mugging is incredible. Absolutely astonishing.
You are a little transparent about your former loyalties
The point I was making is that the difference is largely one of tone, and the point at which it ceases being "useful information" and becomes coercion. Why do they have to tell the government what they might be thinking of doing, why not wait to see what the government actually does, and then react to it, the only plausible reason would be to attempt to alter the outcome.
Just realised that the new Corbynite Labour party reminds me of me, aged about 18 and a half.
A cocktail of insecurities and immaturities, symptomized by weirdly intense sarcasm, outbreaks of tedious sniggering, a constant, debilitating desire to strike a pose, and a generalised, aggressive wankiness where everyone else just sighs, and waits for you to grow up
Thing is, by my second year at Uni I was starting to grow up, and by the time I was 20 or 21 I was acceptable for human company.
I'm not sure we can have the same hopes for Labour
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Maine is split into two regions - one much more urban than the other. When you look at the USA map as a whole, the rural areas are by default republican and the heavily urbanised areas Democrat. Or: Trump owns the land, Clinton the people.
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Maine is split into two regions - one much more urban than the other. When you look at the USA map as a whole, the rural areas are by default republican and the heavily urbanised areas Democrat. Or: Trump owns the land, Clinton the people.
Also Trump is outperforming with non college whites which Maine has much more than national average.
O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
Voters there probably like the fact that he isn't religious, unlike most Republican candidates.
Thanks. Trump leads by 14% in Maine 1, but is 22% behind in Maine 2. I suppose that's explained by the rural/urban divide.
But, even in 1, a 14% lead is the best by a Republican in ages. So, I guess 1 contains lots of fairly secular, but quite right wing, working class White voters. People who are perhaps not bothered by abortion, but are bothered by immigration?
If I were a Democrat, I would be very worried at what the +14% in Maine 2 portends. There are a lot of working class white voters in the rust belt. Most of whom would not be regarded as regular voters. You know - the ones in the coal industry that Clinton said she would destroy on the altar of Global warming.
Trump said he would destroy the coal industry too, just more obliquely by saying he would champion shale gas as the forefront of an energy revolution.
Shale gas is already destroying the coal industry. Look at the extraordinary wave of bankrupcies of coal companies in the US, and the fact that Powder River Basin coal is $11.80/tonne.
Well quite. But Trump is simultaneously saying he's going to revive coal whilst promoting its chief killer.
Isn't that rather similar to Corbyn's policies of reopening coal mines whilst promoting green energy (or somesuch)?
Labour is now officially the party of cranks, fools and dangerous nutters. They make the old Lib Dems look mature and estimable. Fuck, they make Mebyon Kernow look statesmanlike
Doesn't this mean that the UKIP supporters should now migrate over TO Labour?
Well quite. But Trump is simultaneously saying he's going to revive coal whilst promoting its chief killer.
There is no way to revive the fortunes of the US coal industry*, short of banning shale gas. When natural gas was $12/mmcf, coal mines in Wyoming and West Virginia were highly profitable. With natural gas under $2.50, the market for coal is much, much smaller**.
* Yes, some coal will still be mined. But a whole bunch less, and at a much lower price. ** Natural gas is simply better for power generation than coal. The operating (i.e. non-fuel) costs for coal are much higher, because you have to deal with ash, with conveyor belts, etc.
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
That's the job for the other candidate - if they know their brief they should be able to pounce.
After the vaguely racist mugs from GE 2015...I presume Labour will producing Antisemitic anti-Zionist ones for sale at the conference...
One would hope there's an entire unit at Conservative Central Office dedicated to gathering evidence of Corbyn Labour's manifold associations with and endorsements of Irish Republican violence, Islamist Jihadism and anti-Semitism. If there's not enough evidence to attempt a thoroughgoing and permanent destruction of the Labour Party now, then there probably will be by 2020.
The Tories ought not to be reticent about going in for the kill on this one. They would be doing the country a great service.
Well quite. But Trump is simultaneously saying he's going to revive coal whilst promoting its chief killer.
There is no way to revive the fortunes of the US coal industry*, short of banning shale gas. When natural gas was $12/mmcf, coal mines in Wyoming and West Virginia were highly profitable. With natural gas under $2.50, the market for coal is much, much smaller**.
* Yes, some coal will still be mined. But a whole bunch less, and at a much lower price. ** Natural gas is simply better for power generation than coal. The operating (i.e. non-fuel) costs for coal are much higher, because you have to deal with ash, with conveyor belts, etc.
Presumably the relative small amount mined will be used as the reason for keeping costs of coal for domestic heating ridiculously high, owing to the lack of economy of scale in the market, with the major generators moving away from coal it should be a bumper time for rural people wanting coal in their furnaces.
Am thinking of getting an ultra-wide monitor, 21:9, 34" or 38" (they all seem to be curved these days), either LG or Dell...to replace some of my multi-monitor setup.
Does anybody have one, thoughts, etc?
I have been looking at the Dell Ultrasharp range recently. I got a new machine. The graphics card has a Display Port out, but claims to support multiple monitors. Turns out it is Display port 1.2 which allows you to daisy chain monitors together if they also support 1.2 and have a display port OUT connector. The new larger Dell Ultrasharps do...
So depending on your graphics card you could get 2 (or more) and you can run them in different orientations
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
Its not the job of the media, it would be impossible to fact check completely and in an unbiased fashion in real time in the middle of a debate, all that would come out would be the moderators own prejudices.
Its the job of the candidates opponent to call them on any statement they feel is inaccurate, for which they should be properly briefed and practised.
Saying in effect that Hillary sucks at debates and so its the job of the moderator and the TV company to pick up the slack for her inability to hold Trump on the accuracy of his statements won't wash, if she wins she will have to do the same with Putin.
Labour is now officially the party of cranks, fools and dangerous nutters. They make the old Lib Dems look mature and estimable. Fuck, they make Mebyon Kernow look statesmanlike
Oi, Sean, lay off Mebyon Kernow. We all know customs barriers at the Tamar, a 500% tax on pasties and the compulsory flogging of Prince Charles are sound policies for a happier Britain.
Discovered a LD Liz Leffman leaflet in my letter box today, first sign of the by-election in Chipping Norton, but then i've been stuck indoors all week with a sprained ankle.
Well quite. But Trump is simultaneously saying he's going to revive coal whilst promoting its chief killer.
There is no way to revive the fortunes of the US coal industry*, short of banning shale gas. When natural gas was $12/mmcf, coal mines in Wyoming and West Virginia were highly profitable. With natural gas under $2.50, the market for coal is much, much smaller**.
* Yes, some coal will still be mined. But a whole bunch less, and at a much lower price. ** Natural gas is simply better for power generation than coal. The operating (i.e. non-fuel) costs for coal are much higher, because you have to deal with ash, with conveyor belts, etc.
Yup - though if Trump offers a government that isn't actively death-to-coal that will be an improvement from the point of view of the miners and mining companies.
Goldman Sachs is doing what it has a moral and ethical imperative to do, to look after the interests of its shareholders inside the bounds of the law.
To compare that to a mugging is incredible. Absolutely astonishing.
You are a little transparent about your former loyalties
The point I was making is that the difference is largely one of tone, and the point at which it ceases being "useful information" and becomes coercion. Why do they have to tell the government what they might be thinking of doing, why not wait to see what the government actually does, and then react to it, the only plausible reason would be to attempt to alter the outcome.
When I left Goldman Sachs they stole half a million dollars worth* of stock from me. They didn't need to. Plenty of other leavers got to keep the stock they gotten as part of their bonuses, or at IPO.
I could have written Citibank or Blackrock or anyone else.
A Finance Co Inc (AFC) may or may not choose to continue the same scale operation in the UK post Brexit.
A part of the decision will we determined by the terms of the relationship between the UK and the EU, because the London is the financial capital of Europe. It's where Italian cable companies come when they need to do a share offering, or to get advice on an M&A offering.
The management of AFC is not just within its rights, but morally obliged to tell the government how it is likely to behave under certain scenarios.
The government, on the other hand, answers only to its voters. It is within its right - nay, ethically obliged - to tell AFC to f*ck off if it believes that (a) AFC is lying, (b) it would not be the right thing to give in to pressure, or (c) etc., etc., etc.
Corporations are allowed to threaten governments. Governments are allowed to threaten corporations. There is nothing unethical in looking after the interests of your shareholders or voters.
* I'm using the high point of Goldman's stock price, rather than the value when I left, because it makes the story sound better. I'm also ignoring capital gains taxes. So, probably the loss to me was more like $50,000 or so at the time. But still...
Labour is now officially the party of cranks, fools and dangerous nutters. They make the old Lib Dems look mature and estimable. Fuck, they make Mebyon Kernow look statesmanlike
It's the OMRLP I feel sorry for, they now have to rebrand as the Sensible Party.
Guido's timeline from Liverpool today is selective - but it paints a really unpleasant picture of life in Corbyn's Labour
9:46am: Corbyn tells Jewish peer who quit Labour over anti-Semitism to “reflect“.
9:56am: Corbyn says he backs war crimes investigations into British troops.
10:00am: Corbyn says he opposes giving more resources to MI6.
10:22am: McDonnell defends calling Esther McVey “a stain on humanity”.
10:40am: Yvette Cooper tells McDonnell to apologise.
11:06am: McDonnell doubles down, says “yes I do” think they were the right words.
11:15pm: Derek Hatton spotted in the conference hall.
11:52am: Ken Livingstone talks about Hitler on the BBC.
1:42am: Delegate rants about “Jewish MPs” and “Jewish plot to oust Corbyn”.
1:50pm: Fringe speaker compares Tory welfare policy to Nazis’ Arbeit Macht Frei.
5:00pm: Momentum host speaker who called for a Jewish man’s throat to be cut.
5:25pm: Anti-war merchandise mocking injured British soldiers on sale.
6:00pm: Jackie Walker says anti-Semitism in Labour is “exaggerated“.
6:30pm: Leaflets circulated: “Jewish Labour Movement does not belong in Labour”.
If that summary is accurate I would have thought that there were numerous criminal offences disclosed, not least under laws introduced by the last Labour government. I am sure no action or even investigation will be taken, but what does that show us about the modern Labour Party?
When I left Goldman Sachs they stole half a million dollars worth* of stock from me. They didn't need to. Plenty of other leavers got to keep the stock they gotten as part of their bonuses, or at IPO.
snip
* I'm using the high point of Goldman's stock price, rather than the value when I left, because it makes the story sound better. I'm also ignoring capital gains taxes. So, probably the loss to me was more like $50,000 or so at the time. But still...
While Corbyn is a sick joke, we know he will never be In government.
But what he has done is create an entirely new movement, masquerading as "Labour", which inherits de facto control of large swathes of local government.
Ow long therefore before we see the return of loony left controlled councils?
Corbyn and his ilk could wreak major damage on this country yet, even if at a national level the party is irrelevant.
Am thinking of getting an ultra-wide monitor, 21:9, 34" or 38" (they all seem to be curved these days), either LG or Dell...to replace some of my multi-monitor setup.
Does anybody have one, thoughts, etc?
I have been looking at the Dell Ultrasharp range recently. I got a new machine. The graphics card has a Display Port out, but claims to support multiple monitors. Turns out it is Display port 1.2 which allows you to daisy chain monitors together if they also support 1.2 and have a display port OUT connector. The new larger Dell Ultrasharps do...
So depending on your graphics card you could get 2 (or more) and you can run them in different orientations
Could you explain that please, preferably in English
Well quite. But Trump is simultaneously saying he's going to revive coal whilst promoting its chief killer.
There is no way to revive the fortunes of the US coal industry*, short of banning shale gas. When natural gas was $12/mmcf, coal mines in Wyoming and West Virginia were highly profitable. With natural gas under $2.50, the market for coal is much, much smaller**.
* Yes, some coal will still be mined. But a whole bunch less, and at a much lower price. ** Natural gas is simply better for power generation than coal. The operating (i.e. non-fuel) costs for coal are much higher, because you have to deal with ash, with conveyor belts, etc.
Presumably the relative small amount mined will be used as the reason for keeping costs of coal for domestic heating ridiculously high, owing to the lack of economy of scale in the market, with the major generators moving away from coal it should be a bumper time for rural people wanting coal in their furnaces.
It should, but you've just revealed the other reason why gas is fundamentally cheaper. Getting that coal to someone's furnace? That means loading it onto a railcart at the mine, moving it (on probably more than one train) to a destination terminal. Unloading it into a pile. Reloading it into a lorry. Unloading it at a local distribution centre. Reloading it in a smaller vehicle and getting it to the person's house.
Natural gas, on the other hand, will be piped in some places all the way to the home, factory or power station. And even if there is no piped gas, it only needs to get to the local bottling plant. Much, much cheaper than coal.
Guido's timeline from Liverpool today is selective - but it paints a really unpleasant picture of life in Corbyn's Labour
9:46am: Corbyn tells Jewish peer who quit Labour over anti-Semitism to “reflect“.
9:56am: Corbyn says he backs war crimes investigations into British troops.
10:00am: Corbyn says he opposes giving more resources to MI6.
10:22am: McDonnell defends calling Esther McVey “a stain on humanity”.
10:40am: Yvette Cooper tells McDonnell to apologise.
11:06am: McDonnell doubles down, says “yes I do” think they were the right words.
11:15pm: Derek Hatton spotted in the conference hall.
11:52am: Ken Livingstone talks about Hitler on the BBC.
1:42am: Delegate rants about “Jewish MPs” and “Jewish plot to oust Corbyn”.
1:50pm: Fringe speaker compares Tory welfare policy to Nazis’ Arbeit Macht Frei.
5:00pm: Momentum host speaker who called for a Jewish man’s throat to be cut.
5:25pm: Anti-war merchandise mocking injured British soldiers on sale.
6:00pm: Jackie Walker says anti-Semitism in Labour is “exaggerated“.
6:30pm: Leaflets circulated: “Jewish Labour Movement does not belong in Labour”.
If that summary is accurate I would have thought that there were numerous criminal offences disclosed, not least under laws introduced by the last Labour government. I am sure no action or even investigation will be taken, but what does that show us about the modern Labour Party?
If it is accurate of course.
I would not be surprised if it is all entirely accurate. And nor would most people who have paid any attention to Labour's descent into madness, to say nothing of Corbyn and McDonnell's extremist associations and the behaviour of some of the Far Left fringe outfits like STW that they endorse.
Criminal behaviour though? Peddling conspiracy theories and offending most peoples' taste and decency are not the same thing as incitement to violence and/or racial hatred. Most likely there has been plenty of the former around the Labour conference, but the latter has been absent or restricted to quiet, dark and expletive-strewn mutterings. Probably no criminal cases to answer.
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
That's the job for the other candidate - if they know their brief they should be able to pounce.
Them the other person denies or blisters poor changes the subject.
This is what happened between Trump and Jeb. Jeb started a fact that made Trump look bad, in response Trump stone cold lied to make himself look good. It took too long for the media post debate to identify the lie.
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
That's the job for the other candidate - if they know their brief they should be able to pounce.
Them the other person denies or blisters poor changes the subject.
This is what happened between Trump and Jeb. Jeb started a fact that made Trump look bad, in response Trump stone cold lied to make himself look good. It took too long for the media post debate to identify the lie.
If it took the media so long to do it, why would the moderator be any quicker?
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
Its not the job of the media, it would be impossible to fact check completely and in an unbiased fashion in real time in the middle of a debate, all that would come out would be the moderators own prejudices.
Its the job of the candidates opponent to call them on any statement they feel is inaccurate, for which they should be properly briefed and practised.
Saying in effect that Hillary sucks at debates and so its the job of the moderator and the TV company to pick up the slack for her inability to hold Trump on the accuracy of his statements won't wash, if she wins she will have to do the same with Putin.
No, the problem is the sheer volume of Trump's lies. If Hillary has to spend her allotted minutes directly calling out Trump each time, when does she get her own message across?
Am thinking of getting an ultra-wide monitor, 21:9, 34" or 38" (they all seem to be curved these days), either LG or Dell...to replace some of my multi-monitor setup.
Does anybody have one, thoughts, etc?
I have been looking at the Dell Ultrasharp range recently. I got a new machine. The graphics card has a Display Port out, but claims to support multiple monitors. Turns out it is Display port 1.2 which allows you to daisy chain monitors together if they also support 1.2 and have a display port OUT connector. The new larger Dell Ultrasharps do...
So depending on your graphics card you could get 2 (or more) and you can run them in different orientations
Could you explain that please, preferably in English
Instead of requiring an output cable from the video card (computer) to each monitor, you can 'daisychain' them together: you can have a cable from the computer to Monitor A, then another cable from Monitor A to Monitor B, and another from Monitor B to Monitor C.
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
Its not the job of the media, it would be impossible to fact check completely and in an unbiased fashion in real time in the middle of a debate, all that would come out would be the moderators own prejudices.
Its the job of the candidates opponent to call them on any statement they feel is inaccurate, for which they should be properly briefed and practised.
Saying in effect that Hillary sucks at debates and so its the job of the moderator and the TV company to pick up the slack for her inability to hold Trump on the accuracy of his statements won't wash, if she wins she will have to do the same with Putin.
No, the problem is the sheer volume of Trump's lies. If Hillary has to spend her allotted minutes directly calling out Trump each time, when does she get her own message across?
Yep, which means he has found a (probably) winning formula under the current system. TV debates clearly work best for blustering fibbers. But TV debates are too dynamic for real time fact checking in any way that would find bipartisan acceptability and be credible with the viewers. A new format needs to be found, but its unlikely to happen while the media are in love with live hand-to-hand political combat. In 2020 there will be two blustering fibbers at this rate as the formula apparently works.
Hillary has the secondary problem that her own credibility is shot and she has a reputation for telling whoppers, so the public are largely going to discount her attempts to call Trump out.
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
Its not the job of the media, it would be impossible to fact check completely and in an unbiased fashion in real time in the middle of a debate, all that would come out would be the moderators own prejudices.
Its the job of the candidates opponent to call them on any statement they feel is inaccurate, for which they should be properly briefed and practised.
Saying in effect that Hillary sucks at debates and so its the job of the moderator and the TV company to pick up the slack for her inability to hold Trump on the accuracy of his statements won't wash, if she wins she will have to do the same with Putin.
No, the problem is the sheer volume of Trump's lies. If Hillary has to spend her allotted minutes directly calling out Trump each time, when does she get her own message across?
The whole problem with Hilary and the reason she has not hammered Trump into the ground is that she has no message. Sanders did, even though it was a controversial one. So does Trump, for a given value of message: 'things are shit because Washington is in hock to big business and immigrants exist' (the fact that it is an inaccurate message is a routine detail).
Indeed, spending time calling out Trump on his lies would be a skilful thing to do, as she would then not have to explain her own dismal record on healthcare and foreign affairs, or explain why people should vote for her merely because she is a woman.
Labour is now officially the party of cranks, fools and dangerous nutters. They make the old Lib Dems look mature and estimable. Fuck, they make Mebyon Kernow look statesmanlike
It's the OMRLP I feel sorry for, they now have to rebrand as the Sensible Party.
This is just outrageous. I well remember the labour conference speech when Kinnock took on the militants and won leaving the way for Tony Blair's eventually taking and holding onto power.
Listening and watching today with ever increasing horror I never thought I would feel sorry for Yvette Cooper, Tristan Hunt, Chukka Umma and others as they are overpowered by the far left marxist party that Corbyn has turned labour into.
The moderates simply must declare non co-operation with Corbyn and create their own shadow cabinet and fight within the labour party for the survival of a realistic opposition to the government.
And I say this as a conservative party member who derives absolutely no pleasure in the destruction of labour. The conservative conference will give Theresa May the opportunity to demonstrate that there is only one party in the Country who will govern for all, protect us and respect and support our military.
How has it come to pass that any UK party can actively hate the Country, the national anthem, it's soldiers, is mysoginic and anti semitic and is endorsed by Hamas and the IRA.
Just unbelievable and totally unacceptable. The labour MP's have a huge responsibility to fight against Corbyn, after all he voted against his own party over 500 times
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
Its not the job of the media, it would be impossible to fact check completely and in an unbiased fashion in real time in the middle of a debate, all that would come out would be the moderators own prejudices.
Its the job of the candidates opponent to call them on any statement they feel is inaccurate, for which they should be properly briefed and practised.
Saying in effect that Hillary sucks at debates and so its the job of the moderator and the TV company to pick up the slack for her inability to hold Trump on the accuracy of his statements won't wash, if she wins she will have to do the same with Putin.
No, the problem is the sheer volume of Trump's lies. If Hillary has to spend her allotted minutes directly calling out Trump each time, when does she get her own message across?
The whole problem with Hilary and the reason she has not hammered Trump into the ground is that she has no message. Sanders did, even though it was a controversial one. So does Trump, for a given value of message: 'things are shit because Washington is in hock to big business and immigrants exist' (the fact that it is an inaccurate message is a routine detail).
Indeed, spending time calling out Trump on his lies would be a skilful thing to do, as she would then not have to explain her own dismal record on healthcare and foreign affairs, or explain why people should vote for her merely because she is a woman.
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
Its not the job of the media, it would be impossible to fact check completely and in an unbiased fashion in real time in the middle of a debate, all that would come out would be the moderators own prejudices.
Its the job of the candidates opponent to call them on any statement they feel is inaccurate, for which they should be properly briefed and practised.
Saying in effect that Hillary sucks at debates and so its the job of the moderator and the TV company to pick up the slack for her inability to hold Trump on the accuracy of his statements won't wash, if she wins she will have to do the same with Putin.
No, the problem is the sheer volume of Trump's lies. If Hillary has to spend her allotted minutes directly calling out Trump each time, when does she get her own message across?
The whole problem with Hilary and the reason she has not hammered Trump into the ground is that she has no message. Sanders did, even though it was a controversial one. So does Trump, for a given value of message: 'things are shit because Washington is in hock to big business and immigrants exist' (the fact that it is an inaccurate message is a routine detail).
Indeed, spending time calling out Trump on his lies would be a skilful thing to do, as she would then not have to explain her own dismal record on healthcare and foreign affairs, or explain why people should vote for her merely because she is a woman.
An earlier version;
Mao, Deng and Liang are on a boat. The boat sinks. Who is saved?
Southern's resume above is interesting. For me, personally, this election was a watershed.
This was the first election since 1977 when I started to vote, internal or external, that I did not vote.
I did not forget.
I couldn't vote for Corbyn as I have distinct memories from the 80's in London [ not Militant Tendency ]. Though, I would not categorise Corbyn or McDonnell as Trots, my personal preference would be to call them Loonies. That is what distinguishes them from Ken Livingston. Ken knew where his votes were. He opened up constituencies which others had simply ignored.
I could not vote for Smith. Until a couple of weeks before the election was announced, I had never heard of him ! I probably know even less about him now.
I probably fall in the third of Southern's five groups above but I could not even bring myself to vote for Smith. I should make it clear that I also would not have voted for Angela Eagle. I would not vote for people who voted to bomb Syria [ "we must do something" brigade - only God knows what we have done so far ! ] even after the Iraq disaster from which a lot of today's troubles can be traced. I actually agree with Corbyn on Trident.
I could have voted for Cooper or even Burnham or Nandy if they had stood. Maybe, not enthusiastically but I would have voted for one of them.
I am 61. Unlike Kinnock, I am sure I will see a Labour government again. Probably in 2022 or a bit later. I am going nowhere. I am not cutting my card up.
Southern's resume above is interesting. For me, personally, this election was a watershed.
This was the first election since 1977 when I started to vote, internal or external, that I did not vote.
I did not forget.
I couldn't vote for Corbyn as I have distinct memories from the 80's in London [ not Militant Tendency ]. Though, I would not categorise Corbyn or McDonnell as Trots, my personal preference would be to call them Loonies. That is what distinguishes them from Ken Livingston. Ken knew where his votes were. He opened up constituencies which others had simply ignored.
I could not vote for Smith. Until a couple of weeks before the election was announced, I had never heard of him ! I probably know even less about him now.
I probably fall in the third of Southern's five groups above but I could not even bring myself to vote for Smith. I should make it clear that I also would not have voted for Angela Eagle. I would not vote for people who voted to bomb Syria [ "we must do something" brigade - only God knows what we have done so far ! ] even after the Iraq disaster from which a lot of today's troubles can be traced. I actually agree with Corbyn on Trident.
I could have voted for Cooper or even Burnham or Nandy if they had stood. Maybe, not enthusiastically but I would have voted for one of them.
I am 61. Unlike Kinnock, I am sure I will see a Labour government again. Probably in 2022 or a bit later. I am going nowhere. I am not cutting my card up.
Labour members need to remain and fight for decency
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
it is absolutely ridiculous not to fact check outrageous lies from either candidate
Its not the job of the media, it would be impossible to fact check completely and in an unbiased fashion in real time in the middle of a debate, all that would come out would be the moderators own prejudices.
Its the job of the candidates opponent to call them on any statement they feel is inaccurate, for which they should be properly briefed and practised.
Saying in effect that Hillary sucks at debates and so its the job of the moderator and the TV company to pick up the slack for her inability to hold Trump on the accuracy of his statements won't wash, if she wins she will have to do the same with Putin.
No, the problem is the sheer volume of Trump's lies. If Hillary has to spend her allotted minutes directly calling out Trump each time, when does she get her own message across?
The whole problem with Hilary and the reason she has not hammered Trump into the ground is that she has no message. Sanders did, even though it was a controversial one. So does Trump, for a given value of message: 'things are shit because Washington is in hock to big business and immigrants exist' (the fact that it is an inaccurate message is a routine detail).
Indeed, spending time calling out Trump on his lies would be a skilful thing to do, as she would then not have to explain her own dismal record on healthcare and foreign affairs, or explain why people should vote for her merely because she is a woman.
An earlier version;
Mao, Deng and Liang are on a boat. The boat sinks. Who is saved?
China.
Actually Deng saved China with a lot of help from Lee Kuan Yew.
Guido's timeline from Liverpool today is selective - but it paints a really unpleasant picture of life in Corbyn's Labour
9:46am: Corbyn tells Jewish peer who quit Labour over anti-Semitism to “reflect“.
9:56am: Corbyn says he backs war crimes investigations into British troops.
10:00am: Corbyn says he opposes giving more resources to MI6.
10:22am: McDonnell defends calling Esther McVey “a stain on humanity”.
10:40am: Yvette Cooper tells McDonnell to apologise.
11:06am: McDonnell doubles down, says “yes I do” think they were the right words.
11:15pm: Derek Hatton spotted in the conference hall.
11:52am: Ken Livingstone talks about Hitler on the BBC.
1:42am: Delegate rants about “Jewish MPs” and “Jewish plot to oust Corbyn”.
1:50pm: Fringe speaker compares Tory welfare policy to Nazis’ Arbeit Macht Frei.
5:00pm: Momentum host speaker who called for a Jewish man’s throat to be cut.
5:25pm: Anti-war merchandise mocking injured British soldiers on sale.
6:00pm: Jackie Walker says anti-Semitism in Labour is “exaggerated“.
6:30pm: Leaflets circulated: “Jewish Labour Movement does not belong in Labour”.
If that summary is accurate I would have thought that there were numerous criminal offences disclosed, not least under laws introduced by the last Labour government. I am sure no action or even investigation will be taken, but what does that show us about the modern Labour Party?
If it is accurate of course.
I made the same point up thread about the "stain on humanity" double down. Of course lefties are righteous and the normal laws that apply to other political parties and the proles don't apply to them.
Again had this been the outcome at a Tory party conference then Twitter would be off the scale and the BBC news team in complete meltdown for weeks.
While Corbyn is a sick joke, we know he will never be In government.
But what he has done is create an entirely new movement, masquerading as "Labour", which inherits de facto control of large swathes of local government.
Ow long therefore before we see the return of loony left controlled councils?
Corbyn and his ilk could wreak major damage on this country yet, even if at a national level the party is irrelevant.
Good point. It won't be long as Derek Hatton was back in the fold today as well welcomed as a long lost comrade. Perhaps this is Labours strategy. As electoral success is beyond them at national level why not go for local level and then frustrate by will full non compliance anything the government tries to impose. A guerrilla war from the provinces. Hatton did this previously of course.
Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in the Kinnock household tonight.
Well the other candidates in that constituency will be cheering. Pity the voters who have to put up with his campaign twaddle.
Actually, it's a sensible move. You see, Labour don't have enough unfunny comedians with the intellectual sophistication of five year olds. Corbyn and Thornberry are feeling lonely and want someone to join them.
At least he wouldn't be allowed to wear a beret in the chamber
Won't he? Will he not claim discrimination if that is the case?
This is just outrageous. I well remember the labour conference speech when Kinnock took on the militants and won leaving the way for Tony Blair's eventually taking and holding onto power.
Listening and watching today with ever increasing horror I never thought I would feel sorry for Yvette Cooper, Tristan Hunt, Chukka Umma and others as they are overpowered by the far left marxist party that Corbyn has turned labour into.
The moderates simply must declare non co-operation with Corbyn and create their own shadow cabinet and fight within the labour party for the survival of a realistic opposition to the government.
And I say this as a conservative party member who derives absolutely no pleasure in the destruction of labour. The conservative conference will give Theresa May the opportunity to demonstrate that there is only one party in the Country who will govern for all, protect us and respect and support our military.
How has it come to pass that any UK party can actively hate the Country, the national anthem, it's soldiers, is mysoginic and anti semitic and is endorsed by Hamas and the IRA.
Just unbelievable and totally unacceptable. The labour MP's have a huge responsibility to fight against Corbyn, after all he voted against his own party over 500 times
I'd love to think the Conservative Party respect and support our military, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
But, the Labour Party is in the grip of awful people.
"... only one party in the Country who will govern for all, protect us and respect and support our military ..."
Which party do you have in mind that will support our military? Surely not the one that has been in government for the last six years.
No other party will back the military better than the conservative party
Which party cut military strength the most ? Ans: Blue is the colour.
Remind me - which party indeed the only party - has committed to 2% defence spending and renewing Trident.
Also which party, indeed the only party, is backing the prosecution of UK troops, is objecting to increasing M16, and allows disgusting literature on our disabled troops at their National Conference
This is just outrageous. I well remember the labour conference speech when Kinnock took on the militants and won leaving the way for Tony Blair's eventually taking and holding onto power.
Listening and watching today with ever increasing horror I never thought I would feel sorry for Yvette Cooper, Tristan Hunt, Chukka Umma and others as they are overpowered by the far left marxist party that Corbyn has turned labour into.
The moderates simply must declare non co-operation with Corbyn and create their own shadow cabinet and fight within the labour party for the survival of a realistic opposition to the government.
And I say this as a conservative party member who derives absolutely no pleasure in the destruction of labour. The conservative conference will give Theresa May the opportunity to demonstrate that there is only one party in the Country who will govern for all, protect us and respect and support our military.
How has it come to pass that any UK party can actively hate the Country, the national anthem, it's soldiers, is mysoginic and anti semitic and is endorsed by Hamas and the IRA.
Just unbelievable and totally unacceptable. The labour MP's have a huge responsibility to fight against Corbyn, after all he voted against his own party over 500 times
I'd love to think the Conservative Party respect and support our military, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
But, the Labour Party is in the grip of awful people.
I think you will see that support for the military will be at the centre of Theresa May's conference speech
"... only one party in the Country who will govern for all, protect us and respect and support our military ..."
Which party do you have in mind that will support our military? Surely not the one that has been in government for the last six years.
No other party will back the military better than the conservative party
Which party cut military strength the most ? Ans: Blue is the colour.
Remind me - which party indeed the only party - has committed to 2% defence spending and renewing Trident.
Also which party, indeed the only party, is backing the prosecution of UK troops, is objecting to increasing M16, and allows disgusting literature on our disabled troops at their National Conference
Indeed and don't forget the appointment of those defence stalwarts Lt. Col. Nugee and Red Ken to undertake Labours defence review.
Comments
Hispanics very large in Florida - as everyone who boards a shuttle train to WDW from the carparks knows (messages are repeated in Spanish).
https://i.sli.mg/7rUCyY.jpg
I suspect that is the closest that we could get to an Australian solution to boat people.
Your implied point that currently Labour has nobody of the stature of Atlee or Bevin I accept totally. More is the pity.
Am thinking of getting an ultra-wide monitor, 21:9, 34" or 38" (they all seem to be curved these days), either LG or Dell...to replace some of my multi-monitor setup.
Does anybody have one, thoughts, etc?
More seriously, one ultra wide, plus one normal which you can have in portrait orientation for reading sites like PB
I can imagine many like Joff, Rochdale, Tyson etc would sympathise (in this respect only) with the Southern lady who wrote in 1865: 'Calhoun and Clay are gone and they have been replaced by fools and madmen who have led us to ruin.' (I paraphrase as I don't have the book to hand - it's at school for A-level coursework).
Many Americans are doubtless feeling the same way again.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/780076981232828417
Hmmmm
Mugging someone is not.
I'm staggered, to be honest, at your comparison.
Goldman Sachs is doing what it has a moral and ethical imperative to do, to look after the interests of its shareholders inside the bounds of the law.
To compare that to a mugging is incredible. Absolutely astonishing.
As for commanding the sea traffic in the Med the EU nations, even without Britain, can do that. Unfortunately what happens at the moment is that having intercepted a boat full of people desperate to make their way to Europe the navies then give them their wish by acting as a ferry service to make sure they get there safely. This I am sure acts as an encouragement to the people traffickers to cram even more people into even more unsafe boats, safe in the knowledge that the taxpayers of the EU will finish the job for them.
9:46am: Corbyn tells Jewish peer who quit Labour over anti-Semitism to “reflect“.
9:56am: Corbyn says he backs war crimes investigations into British troops.
10:00am: Corbyn says he opposes giving more resources to MI6.
10:22am: McDonnell defends calling Esther McVey “a stain on humanity”.
10:40am: Yvette Cooper tells McDonnell to apologise.
11:06am: McDonnell doubles down, says “yes I do” think they were the right words.
11:15pm: Derek Hatton spotted in the conference hall.
11:52am: Ken Livingstone talks about Hitler on the BBC.
1:42am: Delegate rants about “Jewish MPs” and “Jewish plot to oust Corbyn”.
1:50pm: Fringe speaker compares Tory welfare policy to Nazis’ Arbeit Macht Frei.
5:00pm: Momentum host speaker who called for a Jewish man’s throat to be cut.
5:25pm: Anti-war merchandise mocking injured British soldiers on sale.
6:00pm: Jackie Walker says anti-Semitism in Labour is “exaggerated“.
6:30pm: Leaflets circulated: “Jewish Labour Movement does not belong in Labour”.
The point I was making is that the difference is largely one of tone, and the point at which it ceases being "useful information" and becomes coercion. Why do they have to tell the government what they might be thinking of doing, why not wait to see what the government actually does, and then react to it, the only plausible reason would be to attempt to alter the outcome.
Compare and contrast Vodafone and Gordon Brown's Mixer Taxes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4454870/Brown-changes-message-on-mixers.html
Antisemiticanti-Zionist ones for sale at the conference...* Yes, some coal will still be mined. But a whole bunch less, and at a much lower price.
** Natural gas is simply better for power generation than coal. The operating (i.e. non-fuel) costs for coal are much higher, because you have to deal with ash, with conveyor belts, etc.
The Tories ought not to be reticent about going in for the kill on this one. They would be doing the country a great service.
So depending on your graphics card you could get 2 (or more) and you can run them in different orientations
Its the job of the candidates opponent to call them on any statement they feel is inaccurate, for which they should be properly briefed and practised.
Saying in effect that Hillary sucks at debates and so its the job of the moderator and the TV company to pick up the slack for her inability to hold Trump on the accuracy of his statements won't wash, if she wins she will have to do the same with Putin.
Labour, on the other hand...
Although it could be argued he blew rather than sucked
When I left Goldman Sachs they stole half a million dollars worth* of stock from me. They didn't need to. Plenty of other leavers got to keep the stock they gotten as part of their bonuses, or at IPO.
I could have written Citibank or Blackrock or anyone else.
A Finance Co Inc (AFC) may or may not choose to continue the same scale operation in the UK post Brexit.
A part of the decision will we determined by the terms of the relationship between the UK and the EU, because the London is the financial capital of Europe. It's where Italian cable companies come when they need to do a share offering, or to get advice on an M&A offering.
The management of AFC is not just within its rights, but morally obliged to tell the government how it is likely to behave under certain scenarios.
The government, on the other hand, answers only to its voters. It is within its right - nay, ethically obliged - to tell AFC to f*ck off if it believes that (a) AFC is lying, (b) it would not be the right thing to give in to pressure, or (c) etc., etc., etc.
Corporations are allowed to threaten governments. Governments are allowed to threaten corporations. There is nothing unethical in looking after the interests of your shareholders or voters.
* I'm using the high point of Goldman's stock price, rather than the value when I left, because it makes the story sound better. I'm also ignoring capital gains taxes. So, probably the loss to me was more like $50,000 or so at the time. But still...
If it is accurate of course.
But what he has done is create an entirely new movement, masquerading as "Labour", which inherits de facto control of large swathes of local government.
Ow long therefore before we see the return of loony left controlled councils?
Corbyn and his ilk could wreak major damage on this country yet, even if at a national level the party is irrelevant.
Natural gas, on the other hand, will be piped in some places all the way to the home, factory or power station. And even if there is no piped gas, it only needs to get to the local bottling plant. Much, much cheaper than coal.
@HillaryClinton
Not one living president has said they believe Donald Trump has what it takes to be Commander-in-Chief. hrc.io/2d1agpY
Why doesn't she mention that 39 out of 43 former presidents don't have a bad word to say about him?
Pft.
Yet another half-truth from Hillary.
Criminal behaviour though? Peddling conspiracy theories and offending most peoples' taste and decency are not the same thing as incitement to violence and/or racial hatred. Most likely there has been plenty of the former around the Labour conference, but the latter has been absent or restricted to quiet, dark and expletive-strewn mutterings. Probably no criminal cases to answer.
This is what happened between Trump and Jeb. Jeb started a fact that made Trump look bad, in response Trump stone cold lied to make himself look good. It took too long for the media post debate to identify the lie.
Until May reveals what she has in mind we do not know. No point in commenting on a pig in a poke.
It *can* make configuration and cabling easier.
Hillary has the secondary problem that her own credibility is shot and she has a reputation for telling whoppers, so the public are largely going to discount her attempts to call Trump out.
Btw, does anyone know when the next reuters poll dump is due? And - does anyone other than nate silver actually have access to the tables?
http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/
What am I saying? Scrub that.....
Indeed, spending time calling out Trump on his lies would be a skilful thing to do, as she would then not have to explain her own dismal record on healthcare and foreign affairs, or explain why people should vote for her merely because she is a woman.
Listening and watching today with ever increasing horror I never thought I would feel sorry for Yvette Cooper, Tristan Hunt, Chukka Umma and others as they are overpowered by the far left marxist party that Corbyn has turned labour into.
The moderates simply must declare non co-operation with Corbyn and create their own shadow cabinet and fight within the labour party for the survival of a realistic opposition to the government.
And I say this as a conservative party member who derives absolutely no pleasure in the destruction of labour. The conservative conference will give Theresa May the opportunity to demonstrate that there is only one party in the Country who will govern for all, protect us and respect and support our military.
How has it come to pass that any UK party can actively hate the Country, the national anthem, it's soldiers, is mysoginic and anti semitic and is endorsed by Hamas and the IRA.
Just unbelievable and totally unacceptable. The labour MP's have a huge responsibility to fight against Corbyn, after all he voted against his own party over 500 times
Mao, Deng and Liang are on a boat. The boat sinks. Who is saved?
China.
This was the first election since 1977 when I started to vote, internal or external, that I did not vote.
I did not forget.
I couldn't vote for Corbyn as I have distinct memories from the 80's in London [ not Militant Tendency ]. Though, I would not categorise Corbyn or McDonnell as Trots, my personal preference would be to call them Loonies. That is what distinguishes them from Ken Livingston. Ken knew where his votes were. He opened up constituencies which others had simply ignored.
I could not vote for Smith. Until a couple of weeks before the election was announced, I had never heard of him ! I probably know even less about him now.
I probably fall in the third of Southern's five groups above but I could not even bring myself to vote for Smith. I should make it clear that I also would not have voted for Angela Eagle. I would not vote for people who voted to bomb Syria [ "we must do something" brigade - only God knows what we have done so far ! ] even after the Iraq disaster from which a lot of today's troubles can be traced. I actually agree with Corbyn on Trident.
I could have voted for Cooper or even Burnham or Nandy if they had stood. Maybe, not enthusiastically but I would have voted for one of them.
I am 61. Unlike Kinnock, I am sure I will see a Labour government again. Probably in 2022 or a bit later. I am going nowhere. I am not cutting my card up.
"... only one party in the Country who will govern for all, protect us and respect and support our military ..."
Which party do you have in mind that will support our military? Surely not the one that has been in government for the last six years.
Again had this been the outcome at a Tory party conference then Twitter would be off the scale and the BBC news team in complete meltdown for weeks.
10 a.m. Did Six Million Really Die? A panel discussion between David Irving, Nick Griffin, John McDonnell, and Ken Livingstone
11.30 a.m. The Eternal Jew. A presentation from former President Ahmedinejad of Iran.
12.30 p.m. Tory Women. Do we hang them, or do we shoot them? John McDonnell.
1.30 p.m. Break for Lunch.
2.30 p.m. British Soldiers, the Murderers Among Us. Gerry Adams and Phil Shiner.
3.30 p.m. ISIS or Al Qaeda? Open forum discussion about which is the more progressive movement.
5 p.m. Address from the Dear Leader.
Re Deng, brilliant at economics. Pity about Tiananman Square...
I'm surprised it's as high as 8%.
Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in the Kinnock household tonight.
Presumably, AQ as they are now an US ally.
They are all probably the ones that have a weird lefty guilt over their Jewish heritage i.e the Noam Chomsky's of this world.
Of the other two, one is her husband.
That leaves Carter.
It's really amazing this republicanism that means you get people on merit rather than on the basis of which family they're from.
But, the Labour Party is in the grip of awful people.
Also which party, indeed the only party, is backing the prosecution of UK troops, is objecting to increasing M16, and allows disgusting literature on our disabled troops at their National Conference
Cane't believe it's nearly 25 years since Freddie died