Heroic stuff - makes Corbyn look good at interviews.
This comes up frequently - some people feel it's hypocritical to want to have good services for everyone but to choose the best service available for your family. I don't see that at all. Suppose that the only treatment for cancer was private, you could afford it, and your child had cancer. Would it be hypocritical to pay for the treatment while arguing that the situation was appalling and it needed to be made generally available? Surely not.
For education, the choice is less apocalyptic, but it's still true that if the system currently gives an advantage to some types of school, you need as a parent to try to get your children there. That's not inconsistnet with wanting schools to be so good that the choice is unncssary. In Denmark, for instance, private schools are mainly for people with very special interests - e.g. somone who is passionately into music and wants to spend as much time as possible studying that. But because the state schools are mearly all pretty good, there isn't a market for provision of good general private schools.
I do think there's a case for politicians to avoid privilege for themselves (e.g. I don't use private healthcare although I could afford it), so they can understand the normal situaiton better. But to project that onto your non-political family? No.
That interesting Nick, I see it completely the other way around. If an Minister or even just an MP needs an operation and goes private to effectively jump the queue, fine. Our politicians are important (at least, they should be), so I have no problem with them getting special treatment.
Their children, however, are not special. The cancer example you give is (thankfully) rare, but yes I wouldn't complain if the unlikely scenario arose whereby a politician paid for their child to get a treatment that would otherwise not be available on the NHS.
But when it comes to education, I believe our politicians should set an example. Even those who don't have a problem with private education should send their kids to state schools.
Completely disagree, why should children be forced to be subject to their parents' political views, especially in a "one-shot" scenario like education? It may be that the child themself goes on to have significantly different views from the parent.
Eh? It's unlikely the child would spontaneously choose public school. Either way, it is a parental choice.
This comes up frequently - some people feel it's hypocritical to want to have good services for everyone but to choose the best service available for your family. I don't see that at all. Suppose that the only treatment for cancer was private, you could afford it, and your child had cancer. Would it be hypocritical to pay for the treatment while arguing that the situation was appalling and it needed to be made generally available? Surely not.
For education, the choice is less apocalyptic, but it's still true that if the system currently gives an advantage to some types of school, you need as a parent to try to get your children there. That's not inconsistnet with wanting schools to be so good that the choice is unncssary. In Denmark, for instance, private schools are mainly for people with very special interests - e.g. somone who is passionately into music and wants to spend as much time as possible studying that. But because the state schools are mearly all pretty good, there isn't a market for provision of good general private schools.
I do think there's a case for politicians to avoid privilege for themselves (e.g. I don't use private healthcare although I could afford it), so they can understand the normal situaiton better. But to project that onto your non-political family? No.
That interesting Nick, I see it completely the other way around. If an Minister or even just an MP needs an operation and goes private to effectively jump the queue, fine. Our politicians are important (at least, they should be), so I have no problem with them getting special treatment.
Their children, however, are not special. The cancer example you give is (thankfully) rare, but yes I wouldn't complain if the unlikely scenario arose whereby a politician paid for their child to get a treatment that would otherwise not be available on the NHS.
But when it comes to education, I believe our politicians should set an example. Even those who don't have a problem with private education should send their kids to state schools.
Completely disagree, why should children be forced to be subject to their parents' political views, especially in a "one-shot" scenario like education? It may be that the child themself goes on to have significantly different views from the parent.
Read my last sentence - I don't care about the politician's political views. I probably wouldn't mind if the politician paid for private tuition to help their child. When people send their kids to private schools I think it tends to be less about the quality of the education provided and more about segregating their kids from the riff raff. That's what I object to.
"Donald Trump is known for his hyperbole, but now the the news media seem to have adopted his penchant for exaggeration. Throughout the election, journalists and news publications have warned voters that Trump is a threat to nearly everything.
Here are six things the news media have said Trump will "destroy" by the time he either wins or loses the presidency:
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness? As opposed to wanting lines of communication with her team and advisors that was not on the official record, that could not be examined (it was thought) by Congress and her legion of enemies?
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
Still quite a lot better than the alternative.
Clinton will be an excellent president, and her support for open and free trade is something sorely needed by Brexit Britain.
She won't be excellent. Merely "shitty", which is about the same as Obama.
5% unemployment, 55% approval rating, obamacare reducing uninsured people by millions, killing Osama and making up with Cuba
Just watched the Shami interview. Oh dear. Shows that moving from a advocacy role at a leading think tank to front rank politician is harder than it might appear me thinks.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness? As opposed to wanting lines of communication with her team and advisors that was not on the official record, that could not be examined (it was thought) by Congress and her legion of enemies?
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
Still quite a lot better than the alternative.
Clinton will be an excellent president, and her support for open and free trade is something sorely needed by Brexit Britain.
She won't be excellent. Merely "shitty", which is about the same as Obama.
5% unemployment, 55% approval rating, obamacare reducing uninsured people by millions, killing Osama and making up with Cuba
What a terrible president
A power vacuum in the Middle East which has lead to the deaths of millions and allowed a newly belligerent Russia to outmanoeuvre the West. All to keep the House of Saud in power. Weak and useless.
The unemployment statistics are complete bullshit as well, absolute employment in the US is about 10 points lower than in the UK and yet we have a comparable unemployment rate.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness? As opposed to wanting lines of communication with her team and advisors that was not on the official record, that could not be examined (it was thought) by Congress and her legion of enemies?
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
There's a video of her saying precisely that circulating on Twitter.
"Donald Trump is known for his hyperbole, but now the the news media seem to have adopted his penchant for exaggeration. Throughout the election, journalists and news publications have warned voters that Trump is a threat to nearly everything.
Here are six things the news media have said Trump will "destroy" by the time he either wins or loses the presidency:
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness?
Not me, but add to the legion of comments saying '...but the alternative...'.
When your pitch is supposed to about your competence and experience compared to your opponent, but your defence of an error relies on, at best, admitting to being a careless fool, it is worrisome. But the alternative...
"Donald Trump is known for his hyperbole, but now the the news media seem to have adopted his penchant for exaggeration. Throughout the election, journalists and news publications have warned voters that Trump is a threat to nearly everything.
Here are six things the news media have said Trump will "destroy" by the time he either wins or loses the presidency:
Trump does come across as an unstable racist who admits he grabs women's vaginas without their consent.
we can see that FROM HIS OWN WORDS
Whereas in the UK you can grope to your heart's content as long as you make soothing sounds about gender equality and rights?
Can I???
Only if youre a politician Robert. I believe for example the LDs had a few problems some years back with groping and not much was done about it for quite some time.
But trying to make an equivalence between the two candidates is just plain silly.
You feel that having nasty views is more of a problem than getting people killed, its a view I suppose.
You may be right she won't do it again, but history is against you, people who do stuff, do it again, you condemn Trump (rightly) because he might behave aberrantly toward woman again, but you wont accept that Clinton might seeking to evade accountability in a dangerous ways again.
And how many people do you think Trump might have got killed if he had been in charge? No-one has any idea because he has never held any form of political office. And no-one will ever be able to know whether things might have been much better or worse had Clinton followed a different course of action in the same circumstances.
Claiming Trump and Clinton are equally bad is one-eyed politics. It's staggering, to be honest. Like equating George Galloway and Shami Chakrabarti.
Mr. Felix, Carney's rhetoric and rate cut both came in for much criticism here. On Hammond, I don't think it's wise for a Chancellor to refer to the economy being in for a 'rollercoaster'. That's hardly language to build and sustain confidence.
Morris - I totally agree, I've been most surprised by his tone since becoming Chancellor - he should be talking up the economy, instead of the reverse. He clearly needs a good slap.
Apart from the £ the economy is doing ok - the markets are spooked by May's talk of hard Brexit. I know the 'ultra' leavers don't want to hear this but the sand they're burying their heads in has clouded their judgement.
No country with a Balance of Payments deficit as horrenous as the UK's 'is doing ok'.
Uneven tan, bizarre hair, extensive experience in hosting light entertainment television, a liking for nonconsensual sexual contact with women including family members and those under the age of consent...
..."now then, now then, lads and lasses, I have had a letter from Jane, 12, from Nebraska, she says "Dear Mr Trump, can you fix it for me to go to Disneyland", jewellery, jewellery"...
I do think there's a case for politicians to avoid privilege for themselves (e.g. I don't use private healthcare although I could afford it), so they can understand the normal situaiton better. But to project that onto your non-political family? No.
I don't require politicians take vows of poverty or non-privilege in order to understand the normal situation better - we all know many decent or even great public servants who may well have been decidedly not normal, who do not truly 'understand' the normal situation, but are nevertheless able to be a force for good for normal people.
For me, it's only an issue if people are hugely critical of certain things seemingly on principle and then use them happily themselves. Either it is an issue for them or it isn't.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness?
Not me, but add to the legion of comments saying '...but the alternative...'.
When your pitch is supposed to about your competence and experience compared to your opponent, but your defence of an error relies on, at best, admitting to being a careless fool, it is worrisome. But the alternative...
It's a sad state of affairs when the only reason to vote for someone is that the other candidate is even worse. America badly needs to change the way candidates are selected.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness?
Not me, but add to the legion of comments saying '...but the alternative...'.
When your pitch is supposed to about your competence and experience compared to your opponent, but your defence of an error relies on, at best, admitting to being a careless fool, it is worrisome. But the alternative...
It's a sad state of affairs when the only reason to vote for someone is that the other candidate is even worse. America badly needs to change the way candidates are selected.
I know he has an axe to grind against Republicans, but John Oliver's piece on the primary system, for both sides, was quite illuminating - I know our system is far from perfect, and to a large degree it was confusing precisely because states have their own rules, but it was such a mess of a system.
I'm sure that will be the last straw for all those slightly weird PB Paedophile Information Exchange obsessives who posted endlessly and near libellously on the subject, many of whom also seem to be PB Trumpers.
Gosh, did I type 'I'm sure that will be'? I meant to type 'I'm sure that will not be'.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness?
Not me, but add to the legion of comments saying '...but the alternative...'.
When your pitch is supposed to about your competence and experience compared to your opponent, but your defence of an error relies on, at best, admitting to being a careless fool, it is worrisome. But the alternative...
It's a sad state of affairs when the only reason to vote for someone is that the other candidate is even worse. America badly needs to change the way candidates are selected.
I know he has an axe to grind against Republicans, but John Oliver's piece on the primary system, for both sides, was quite illuminating - I know our system is far from perfect, and to a large degree it was confusing precisely because states have their own rules, but it was such a mess of a system.
TBH, I find it difficult to see how the US can lecture others on democracy.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness?
Not me, but add to the legion of comments saying '...but the alternative...'.
When your pitch is supposed to about your competence and experience compared to your opponent, but your defence of an error relies on, at best, admitting to being a careless fool, it is worrisome. But the alternative...
It's a sad state of affairs when the only reason to vote for someone is that the other candidate is even worse. America badly needs to change the way candidates are selected.
I know he has an axe to grind against Republicans, but John Oliver's piece on the primary system, for both sides, was quite illuminating - I know our system is far from perfect, and to a large degree it was confusing precisely because states have their own rules, but it was such a mess of a system.
Yes and no. The Republicans have only themselves to blame for selecting Trump, and Ditto for Hillary. Both have had millions of voters select them as candidates. In large part the rivals were worse.
Uneven tan, bizarre hair, extensive experience in hosting light entertainment television, a liking for nonconsensual sexual contact with women including family members and those under the age of consent...
..."now then, now then, lads and lasses, I have had a letter from Jane, 12, from Nebraska, she says "Dear Mr Trump, can you fix it for me to go to Disneyland", jewellery, jewellery"...
It seems to me that an awful lot of people are not only anxious that Trump doesn't win, but also that he doesn;t run.
They don;t want the politics Trump represents put before the American people.
I was just about to say the same thing - the GOP are actively sabotaging the ground war, the media are almost 99% against - RNC bigwigs are using every excuse to run in the other direction.
My timeline is rammed with angry Trumpers - it's getting most heated. The GOP seems to be thinking that they'd rather kill off their own candidate than let him continue for another 30ish days.
And Trump is going CAPS LOCK on sticking with it.
Someone who's willing to describe his own daughter as "a piece of ass" is plainly unsuitable to be a Presidential nominee.
Unfortunately, so is his opponent.
Ridiculous. A father praising his daughter's attractiveness is the most natural thing in the world.
Most fathers wouldn't use that language do so.
Not unless they were Jimmy Saville types. Remarking that your daughter is beautiful is one thing, publically commenting on the quality of one of her secondary erogenous zones is quite another.
Mary Whitehouse did warn that such things would happen if the media were allowed to get away with a culture of sexualised filth though.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness?
Not me, but add to the legion of comments saying '...but the alternative...'.
When your pitch is supposed to about your competence and experience compared to your opponent, but your defence of an error relies on, at best, admitting to being a careless fool, it is worrisome. But the alternative...
It's a sad state of affairs when the only reason to vote for someone is that the other candidate is even worse. America badly needs to change the way candidates are selected.
I know he has an axe to grind against Republicans, but John Oliver's piece on the primary system, for both sides, was quite illuminating - I know our system is far from perfect, and to a large degree it was confusing precisely because states have their own rules, but it was such a mess of a system.
Yes and no. The Republicans have only themselves to blame for selecting Trump, and Ditto for Hillary. Both have had millions of voters select them as candidates. In large part the rivals were worse.
Oh, the systems are a mess and don't help, but the voters still own this, as we do with our choices.
" I think it tends to be less about the quality of the education provided and more about segregating their kids from the riff raff."
I know of some parents who believe the two are just different sides of the same coin. That is to say a school with discipline problems, uncontrolled bullying (especially of bright children who want to work and learn) and low expectations will not and, indeed, cannot provide a good quality of education for their child.
I can appreciate the argument that all schools ought to be good, but they are not. So what do you do if your local school is a dreadful one and you can afford the fees to go private (or your child is clever enough to obtain a bursary)? I know what I would do, so I would not condemn any politician for taking the same decision as I would make.
Where the hypocrisy issue comes in is when you have politicians condemning the existence of private schools and attacking them (e.g through the Charity Commission) as a matter of policy and at the same time sending their own children to one.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
I'm sure that will be the last straw for all those slightly weird PB Paedophile Information Exchange obsessives who posted endlessly and near libellously on the subject, many of whom also seem to be PB Trumpers.
Gosh, did I type 'I'm sure that will be'? I meant to type 'I'm sure that will not be'.
Apparently sticking your hand up a womans dress is a crime by an inferior culture in Germany or Rotherham, but fine and dandy if you are a rich celebrity in the USA. Just a little bit of locker room banter, nothing to see here.
Astonishingly bad justification. She's basically saying, suck it up poor people.
I'm anti grammar, but she is a complete hypocrite.
Honestly I don't think she handled the question any worse than others I've seen asked it. If anything she handled it a little better by being pretty open, comparatively, by in essence going 'Yes, I'm rich'. Not saying that is a good justification for condemning something and still using it, but there was less bullcrap about why.
Astonishingly bad justification. She's basically saying, suck it up poor people.
I'm anti grammar, but she is a complete hypocrite.
When someone spends a lifetime building a reputation as a person of principle it just seems so much worse when they sell out for power and position, than if they had just been an ambitious shit from the beginning.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness?
Not me, but add to the legion of comments saying '...but the alternative...'.
When your pitch is supposed to about your competence and experience compared to your opponent, but your defence of an error relies on, at best, admitting to being a careless fool, it is worrisome. But the alternative...
It's a sad state of affairs when the only reason to vote for someone is that the other candidate is even worse. America badly needs to change the way candidates are selected.
I know he has an axe to grind against Republicans, but John Oliver's piece on the primary system, for both sides, was quite illuminating - I know our system is far from perfect, and to a large degree it was confusing precisely because states have their own rules, but it was such a mess of a system.
TBH, I find it difficult to see how the US can lecture others on democracy.
you dont find it a touch ironic lecturing the US ?
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
They can kill you with a killer robot. There is no effective restraint on this power.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
This is true for domestic policy, but there are few checks on the President's power to influence foreign policy.
I'm sure that will be the last straw for all those slightly weird PB Paedophile Information Exchange obsessives who posted endlessly and near libellously on the subject, many of whom also seem to be PB Trumpers.
Gosh, did I type 'I'm sure that will be'? I meant to type 'I'm sure that will not be'.
Apparently sticking your hand up a womans dress is a crime by an inferior culture in Germany or Rotherham, but fine and dandy if you are a rich celebrity in the USA. Just a little bit of locker room banter, nothing to see here.
I think you will find few defending Savilesque behaviour.
The issue you should be pondering is what on earth have the liberal establishment got so wrong that someone like this is even a credible primary candidate, let alone still polling at or over 40% for the actual election.
I'm sure that will be the last straw for all those slightly weird PB Paedophile Information Exchange obsessives who posted endlessly and near libellously on the subject, many of whom also seem to be PB Trumpers.
Gosh, did I type 'I'm sure that will be'? I meant to type 'I'm sure that will not be'.
Farrage is wrong- he actually is running to be pope it seems.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
They can kill you with a killer robot. There is no effective restraint on this power.
I guess the founding fathers' foresight only went so far.
I'm sure that will be the last straw for all those slightly weird PB Paedophile Information Exchange obsessives who posted endlessly and near libellously on the subject, many of whom also seem to be PB Trumpers.
Gosh, did I type 'I'm sure that will be'? I meant to type 'I'm sure that will not be'.
Apparently sticking your hand up a womans dress is a crime by an inferior culture in Germany or Rotherham, but fine and dandy if you are a rich celebrity in the USA. Just a little bit of locker room banter, nothing to see here.
I think you will find few defending Savilesque behaviour.
The issue you should be pondering is what on earth have the liberal establishment got so wrong that someone like this is even a credible primary candidate, let alone still polling at or over 40% for the actual election.
ROFL
the chances of that happening are fairly slim, the only answer is to dissolve the people and elect a new one.
I'm sure that will be the last straw for all those slightly weird PB Paedophile Information Exchange obsessives who posted endlessly and near libellously on the subject, many of whom also seem to be PB Trumpers.
Gosh, did I type 'I'm sure that will be'? I meant to type 'I'm sure that will not be'.
Apparently sticking your hand up a womans dress is a crime by an inferior culture in Germany or Rotherham, but fine and dandy if you are a rich celebrity in the USA. Just a little bit of locker room banter, nothing to see here.
I think you will find few defending Savilesque behaviour.
The issue you should be pondering is what on earth have the liberal establishment got so wrong that someone like this is even a credible primary candidate, let alone still polling at or over 40% for the actual election.
Because the US 2 party system means anyone running as a Dem or Rep would get 40%
" I think it tends to be less about the quality of the education provided and more about segregating their kids from the riff raff."
I know of some parents who believe the two are just different sides of the same coin. That is to say a school with discipline problems, uncontrolled bullying (especially of bright children who want to work and learn) and low expectations will not and, indeed, cannot provide a good quality of education for their child.
I can appreciate the argument that all schools ought to be good, but they are not. So what do you do if your local school is a dreadful one and you can afford the fees to go private (or your child is clever enough to obtain a bursary)? I know what I would do, so I would not condemn any politician for taking the same decision as I would make.
Where the hypocrisy issue comes in is when you have politicians condemning the existence of private schools and attacking them (e.g through the Charity Commission) as a matter of policy and at the same time sending their own children to one.
Personally I thought that the PB poster on here, who suggested selection by behaviour and discipline, has it spot on.
Nothing wrong with Comprehensive education if the school is disciplined and gets the best out of pupils. As ill-disciplined kids with chaotic dysfunctional homes do not tend to get into Grammar schools that is a major reason for their popularity with parents.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
They can kill you with a killer robot. There is no effective restraint on this power.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
They can kill you with a killer robot. There is no effective restraint on this power.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
This is true for domestic policy, but there are few checks on the President's power to influence foreign policy.
US foreign policy always seems ignorant and Ill informed, so I guess my expectations of an improvement aren't that high. Obama has been better than his predecessors TBF. Hilary will probably be OK.
Uneven tan, bizarre hair, extensive experience in hosting light entertainment television, a liking for nonconsensual sexual contact with women including family members and those under the age of consent...
..."now then, now then, lads and lasses, I have had a letter from Jane, 12, from Nebraska, she says "Dear Mr Trump, can you fix it for me to go to Disneyland", jewellery, jewellery"...
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
They can kill you with a killer robot. There is no effective restraint on this power.
Which killer robots are these?
drones
I don't think there's a console and joystick on the President's desk, so some other checks and balances must exist.
I'm sure that will be the last straw for all those slightly weird PB Paedophile Information Exchange obsessives who posted endlessly and near libellously on the subject, many of whom also seem to be PB Trumpers.
Gosh, did I type 'I'm sure that will be'? I meant to type 'I'm sure that will not be'.
Apparently sticking your hand up a womans dress is a crime by an inferior culture in Germany or Rotherham, but fine and dandy if you are a rich celebrity in the USA. Just a little bit of locker room banter, nothing to see here.
I think you will find few defending Savilesque behaviour.
The issue you should be pondering is what on earth have the liberal establishment got so wrong that someone like this is even a credible primary candidate, let alone still polling at or over 40% for the actual election.
ROFL
the chances of that happening are fairly slim, the only answer is to dissolve the people and elect a new one.
Its the sort of thing hilary I'm sure would like to do, hence her open borders comment.
New Labour tried it and damn nearly got away with it.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
They can kill you with a killer robot. There is no effective restraint on this power.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
They can kill you with a killer robot. There is no effective restraint on this power.
Which killer robots are these?
drones
In what way are drones killer robots?
I think the answer is that they can be. One of my sons is involved with a project to identify hostile drones.
\Incidentally, Mr L, what do you think of the Ackroyd book. I’m a bit underwhelmed, TBH.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
They can kill you with a killer robot. There is no effective restraint on this power.
Which killer robots are these?
drones
I don't think there's a console and joystick on the President's desk, so some other checks and balances must exist.
Not really, they can be used with executive power, no need for congressional oversight.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
They can kill you with a killer robot. There is no effective restraint on this power.
Which killer robots are these?
drones
In what way are drones killer robots?
when they drone on incessantly about Brexit it makes you want to top yourself.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
They can kill you with a killer robot. There is no effective restraint on this power.
Which killer robots are these?
drones
I don't think there's a console and joystick on the President's desk, so some other checks and balances must exist.
I don't know enough of it to say for sure, although the critics say I think it amounts to courts which never say no and that is allowed with an imminent threat but defined in such a way the threat need not actually be imminent. Or am I thinking of wiretaps?
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
if you apply for any sort of grant from government you get ethnic and social screening.
I'm sure that will be the last straw for all those slightly weird PB Paedophile Information Exchange obsessives who posted endlessly and near libellously on the subject, many of whom also seem to be PB Trumpers.
Gosh, did I type 'I'm sure that will be'? I meant to type 'I'm sure that will not be'.
Apparently sticking your hand up a womans dress is a crime by an inferior culture in Germany or Rotherham, but fine and dandy if you are a rich celebrity in the USA. Just a little bit of locker room banter, nothing to see here.
Took them a long long time to work out it was iffy in Rotherham
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness? As opposed to wanting lines of communication with her team and advisors that was not on the official record, that could not be examined (it was thought) by Congress and her legion of enemies?
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
Still quite a lot better than the alternative.
Clinton will be an excellent president, and her support for open and free trade is something sorely needed by Brexit Britain.
She won't be excellent. Merely "shitty", which is about the same as Obama.
5% unemployment, 55% approval rating, obamacare reducing uninsured people by millions, killing Osama and making up with Cuba
What a terrible president
I've heard he wasn't even American.
The irony being of course that it was the Clinton campaign that pushed that line most ardently eight years ago!
On a more serious note, the Republicans are clearly aiming for Congress not the Presidency. That way, given the utter uselessness of both candidates, they can effectively control the US for the next 2-4 years before finding a vaguely plausible candidate.
The beauty of that strategy is that it works whichever one of the two losers known as candidates wins.
The snag is that many more moments like this from Trump and their voters will stay at home, handing the House to the Democrats.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
Hurst, you have to be kidding , where have we heard of keeping secret lists of foreigners by authorities. I can think of two perfect examples of why any intelligent person shoiuld be horrified to be associated with any such thing , that nice Mr Hitler in Germany and the equally nice Mr Lenin in Russia. This si what happens when you have extreme nationalist governments.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness? As opposed to wanting lines of communication with her team and advisors that was not on the official record, that could not be examined (it was thought) by Congress and her legion of enemies?
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
Still quite a lot better than the alternative.
Clinton will be an excellent president, and her support for open and free trade is something sorely needed by Brexit Britain.
She won't be excellent. Merely "shitty", which is about the same as Obama.
5% unemployment, 55% approval rating, obamacare reducing uninsured people by millions, killing Osama and making up with Cuba
What a terrible president
I've heard he wasn't even American.
The irony being of course that it was the Clinton campaign that pushed that line most ardently eight years ago!
On a more serious note, the Republicans are clearly aiming for Congress not the Presidency. That way, given the utter uselessness of both candidates, they can effectively control the US for the next 2-4 years before finding a vaguely plausible candidate.
The beauty of that strategy is that it works whichever one of the two losers known as candidates wins.
The snag is that many more moments like this from Trump and their voters will stay at home, handing the House to the Democrats.
quite. Split ballots rarely happen and trump's deplorables wont vote for people who 'betray' him
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
EU president Martin Schulz being asked to lead SPD against Merkel in the Federal Elections. He and Juncker cut a deal to keep themselves in their jobs in Europe into 2017 which has pissed off a lot of MEPs so it may be he has no other choice.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
if you apply for any sort of grant from government you get ethnic and social screening.
Alan its when they mov eonto the cleansing that is the concern
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
Hurst, you have to be kidding , where have we heard of keeping secret lists of foreigners by authorities. I can think of two perfect examples of why any intelligent person shoiuld be horrified to be associated with any such thing , that nice Mr Hitler in Germany and the equally nice Mr Lenin in Russia. This si what happens when you have extreme nationalist governments.
All European countries do it through the social security system.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
if you apply for any sort of grant from government you get ethnic and social screening.
Alan its when they mov eonto the cleansing that is the concern
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
Hurst, you have to be kidding , where have we heard of keeping secret lists of foreigners by authorities. I can think of two perfect examples of why any intelligent person shoiuld be horrified to be associated with any such thing , that nice Mr Hitler in Germany and the equally nice Mr Lenin in Russia. This si what happens when you have extreme nationalist governments.
All European countries do it through the social security system.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
Hurst, you have to be kidding , where have we heard of keeping secret lists of foreigners by authorities. I can think of two perfect examples of why any intelligent person shoiuld be horrified to be associated with any such thing , that nice Mr Hitler in Germany and the equally nice Mr Lenin in Russia. This si what happens when you have extreme nationalist governments.
Didn't know Lenin kept lists of foreigners. Moreover, given his very internationalist outlook that would have been out of character. Stalin did, of course, but that was later when he was paranoid about spies and saboteurs.
Also didn't know Hitler kept lists of foreigners in Germany. He had lists of foreigners he wanted to shoot when he invaded their countries. The British government had such lists, which helped enormously in interning dubious people on the outbreak of war.
@hurstllama I accept there's a huge difference between compiling the data and using it to ' name and shame ' Indivdual companies. I also accept there is an arguable public policy case for government to have such data given how much foriegn labour we're importing. However Rudd's ghastly policy proposal was to publish individual company data with the stated intention of ' nudging ' them to employ less foreigners. I'm glad that policy has been abandoned within days of the announcement. Tone matters in my view.
Major relief that we have someone who at least has a brain for detail opposing on Brexit front. Can't rely on Corbyn to do much.
Worth noting that Hilary Benn is standing to be chair of the backbench Brexit committee. The two of them could do a good job making the Government look divided and clueless over Brexit. Also, ensuring that 'Hard Brexit' doesn’t become 'Hard Right Brexit'.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
if you apply for any sort of grant from government you get ethnic and social screening.
Alan its when they mov eonto the cleansing that is the concern
Not everywhere's SNP Scotland malc.
SNP are not looking to deport "foreigners" they actually want them to live in Scotland, whereas where it is supposedly Better Together they cannot wait to fill the boats
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
Hurst, you have to be kidding , where have we heard of keeping secret lists of foreigners by authorities. I can think of two perfect examples of why any intelligent person shoiuld be horrified to be associated with any such thing , that nice Mr Hitler in Germany and the equally nice Mr Lenin in Russia. This si what happens when you have extreme nationalist governments.
All Universities record the "diversity" of job applicants.
I think the answer is that they can be. One of my sons is involved with a project to identify hostile drones.
\Incidentally, Mr L, what do you think of the Ackroyd book. I’m a bit underwhelmed, TBH.
Mr. Cole, the main difference between standard airpower and drones is the location of the pilot. If the bloke/lass who fires the missile is sitting in the aeroplane that is OK, but if they are sitting in a portacabin thousands of miles away the aeroplane that they are flying and fighting is suddenly a killer robot? Its nonsense.
Re Acroyd are you talking about "Foundation"? I thought it was fascinating and brilliant. A bit slow to start, but as the book goes on he develops the theme of how little England has actually changed over thousands of years.
On a related note, I was reading Bill Bryson's latest the other week in which he mentions the Uffington White Horse. The prehistoric sculpture cannot be seen for what it is except from 100s (1000?) of yards away, yet it was carved in the bronze age - 3,000 years ago. How? How did they manage that? The even bigger question is that why was it maintained? Without regular maintenance the Horse would have disappeared into the landscape within a few decades. So for the rest of the Bronze-age, all through the Iron-age, the arrival of the Romans, their departure, the dark ages, the medieval period, the Tudors and so on, local people maintained the Sculpture. Why?
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
Hurst, you have to be kidding , where have we heard of keeping secret lists of foreigners by authorities. I can think of two perfect examples of why any intelligent person shoiuld be horrified to be associated with any such thing , that nice Mr Hitler in Germany and the equally nice Mr Lenin in Russia. This si what happens when you have extreme nationalist governments.
Didn't know Lenin kept lists of foreigners. Moreover, given his very internationalist outlook that would have been out of character. Stalin did, of course, but that was later when he was paranoid about spies and saboteurs.
Also didn't know Hitler kept lists of foreigners in Germany. He had lists of foreigners he wanted to shoot when he invaded their countries. The British government had such lists, which helped enormously in interning dubious people on the outbreak of war.
you substitute other titles for foreigners , ethnic groups, etc , etc
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
Hurst, you have to be kidding , where have we heard of keeping secret lists of foreigners by authorities. I can think of two perfect examples of why any intelligent person shoiuld be horrified to be associated with any such thing , that nice Mr Hitler in Germany and the equally nice Mr Lenin in Russia. This si what happens when you have extreme nationalist governments.
All Universities record the "diversity" of job applicants.
As do most other employers by order of the government. The left have been hoist by their own petard on this.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
if you apply for any sort of grant from government you get ethnic and social screening.
Alan its when they mov eonto the cleansing that is the concern
Not everywhere's SNP Scotland malc.
SNP are not looking to deport "foreigners" they actually want them to live in Scotland, whereas where it is supposedly Better Together they cannot wait to fill the boats
I dont want to deport the foreigners from Scotland it's the Scots I want out.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
if you apply for any sort of grant from government you get ethnic and social screening.
Alan its when they mov eonto the cleansing that is the concern
Not everywhere's SNP Scotland malc.
There are more BAME people in Birmingham than there are in Scotland.
But has he? This is the key part of what The Guardian reported:
“I think [immigration] should be reduced and it should be reduced by making sure we have the skills in this country that are needed for the jobs that need to be done.”
Asked if he accepted that limits on immigration would mean an end to free movement and therefore a departure from the EU’s tariff-free single market, Starmer said: “We have to be open to adjustments of the freedom of movement rules and how they apply to this country. We have to be shrewd and careful.”
So, he doesn't actually advocate any controls at all. It looks suspiciously as though he's part of the No Borders tendency, just like Corbyn, but is using the theory that upskilling will eventually cause a large reduction in net immigration (which is debatable to say the least) as a thin excuse to try to persuade the public that no border controls are needed. There is a difference in tone from Corbyn's more blunt, and arguably more honest, approach, but nothing more.
He did also say that "We have to be open to adjustments of the freedom of movement rules" but that's a deliberately vague phrase which could mean almost anything. Fundamentally, uncontrolled immigration is one of the few things that both the Corbynites and the soft Left can unite around. It speaks to the essentially universalist nature of their philosophy. To forbid anybody who wants to come into the country from doing so is, logically, exclusive rather than inclusive, and therefore to be rejected (usually as the products of racism and xenophobia, two accusations so debased through overuse that they have tragically, for an increasingly large segment of the population, lost their ability to shock.)
In essence, most of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the overwhelming majority of the membership would appear to agree that all immigration is a good thing, and even when unfortunate side effects are - reluctantly - acknowledged, they can be easily resolved by throwing money at them. Their main divide on the issue is presentational - the soft Left makes emollient noises about listening to voters' concerns even as it carries on regardless; the hard Left simply dismisses the same concerns out of hand as the products either of wilful evil or of ignorance. Either way, there is every sign that Labour wishes to continue to shun any notion of compromise with the electorate on this issue.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
Hurst, you have to be kidding , where have we heard of keeping secret lists of foreigners by authorities. I can think of two perfect examples of why any intelligent person shoiuld be horrified to be associated with any such thing , that nice Mr Hitler in Germany and the equally nice Mr Lenin in Russia. This si what happens when you have extreme nationalist governments.
All Universities record the "diversity" of job applicants.
Schools as well. Moreover since any non-EU applicants have to have work visas, that's effectively a list right there.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
Hurst, you have to be kidding , where have we heard of keeping secret lists of foreigners by authorities. I can think of two perfect examples of why any intelligent person shoiuld be horrified to be associated with any such thing , that nice Mr Hitler in Germany and the equally nice Mr Lenin in Russia. This si what happens when you have extreme nationalist governments.
All Universities record the "diversity" of job applicants.
Schools as well. Moreover since any non-EU applicants have to have work visas, that's effectively a list right there.
Hasn't this lists of workers in firms policy been abandoned this morning?
That's why I find people (universally right wing) drawing equivalence between the two candidates quite disingenuous. They know that GOP have made a terrible choice and chosen probably one of the most unfit candidates to be President ever, but they always qualify this by saying Hillary is just as bad or words to that effect. They must know this isn't the case, but they cannot hide their right wing prejudices (sean fear is one of the worst culprits).
I'm centre left. I know Corbyn is a terrible choice for Labour, terrible and unfit to be PM, not just because of his inability to adapt his thinking to the modern world, living in the past, but also his competence. The re-shuffle this week displayed his inability to understand how to go about creating a plausible alternative.
That said, I am not so lefty partisan to say that Corbyn is terrible, but May is just as bad because she isn't. She is much more competent.
tyson, for once I agree with you.
I am one of those 'right-wingers' (more libertarian, actually) who was 'anyone but Trump' but who had hoped Trump, once chosen, would turn out to be not as terrible as feared. I do think Hillary will be terrible for the US, but since the debate I have switched to acknowledging that she is by far the lesser of two evils.
For me, his post-debate twitter storm with a former beauty pageant contestant was the final straw. It proved beyond all doubt that he cannot focus, is unable to prioritize and, worst of all, does not have the self-control to avoid rising to the bait. He would be a puppet on Putin's string, the more so the angrier Putin got him. This latest set of revelations only confirms to me that the man is a complete douche bag but, while clearly confirming me in my reluctant conclusion, given that was known all along, is somewhat less shocking to me than his twitter spat.
However, all that said, in analyzing the race even at this stage, I don't think Hillary has it in the bag. If the GOP move decisively against Trump but fail to dislodge him, she will win. But the GOP has proved remarkably ineffective so far. And there is such anger at the system here, and she is such a disliked and weak candidate, we cannot take it for granted that she won't lose it.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
This is true for domestic policy, but there are few checks on the President's power to influence foreign policy.
US foreign policy always seems ignorant and Ill informed, so I guess my expectations of an improvement aren't that high. Obama has been better than his predecessors TBF. Hilary will probably be OK.
The one thing that US foreign policy is not is ill-informed. Wrong on so many levels (in your view, and frequently mine), yes. But way better informed than any other country's. Indeed, I'd argue that too much information is part of the problem. But that is an entire essay, not a pb post.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.
The only saving grace is that their system is designed to box in the President who, without broad support, can get next to nothing done. The foresight of the founding fathers was incredible.
They can kill you with a killer robot. There is no effective restraint on this power.
Which killer robots are these?
drones
In what way are drones killer robots?
I think the answer is that they can be. One of my sons is involved with a project to identify hostile drones.
\Incidentally, Mr L, what do you think of the Ackroyd book. I’m a bit underwhelmed, TBH.
But trying to make an equivalence between the two candidates is just plain silly.
You feel that having nasty views is more of a problem than getting people killed, its a view I suppose.
You may be right she won't do it again, but history is against you, people who do stuff, do it again, you condemn Trump (rightly) because he might behave aberrantly toward woman again, but you wont accept that Clinton might seeking to evade accountability in a dangerous ways again.
And how many people do you think Trump might have got killed if he had been in charge? No-one has any idea because he has never held any form of political office. And no-one will ever be able to know whether things might have been much better or worse had Clinton followed a different course of action in the same circumstances.
Claiming Trump and Clinton are equally bad is one-eyed politics. It's staggering, to be honest. Like equating George Galloway and Shami Chakrabarti.
To quote A Few Good Men
"Ah there I was going to use the liar liar pants on fire defense, it's doesn't matter what you know, it only matters what you can prove."
Trump might have done something that may get people killed, Hillary did do something that might get people killed, see the important difference here.
Mr. Felix, Carney's rhetoric and rate cut both came in for much criticism here. On Hammond, I don't think it's wise for a Chancellor to refer to the economy being in for a 'rollercoaster'. That's hardly language to build and sustain confidence.
Morris - I totally agree, I've been most surprised by his tone since becoming Chancellor - he should be talking up the economy, instead of the reverse. He clearly needs a good slap.
Apart from the £ the economy is doing ok - the markets are spooked by May's talk of hard Brexit. I know the 'ultra' leavers don't want to hear this but the sand they're burying their heads in has clouded their judgement.
No country with a Balance of Payments deficit as horrenous as the UK's 'is doing ok'.
Fair point - but devaluation of the currency is not the solution any more than more borrowing. The solution is to cut spending - both private and public until equilibrium is restored. Very painful but in the long run the best outcome as everything becomes more efficient. Of course it affects current standard of living but it's fairer than pushing the problem down the road for the grandkids.
I'm sure that will be the last straw for all those slightly weird PB Paedophile Information Exchange obsessives who posted endlessly and near libellously on the subject, many of whom also seem to be PB Trumpers.
Gosh, did I type 'I'm sure that will be'? I meant to type 'I'm sure that will not be'.
Apparently sticking your hand up a womans dress is a crime by an inferior culture in Germany or Rotherham, but fine and dandy if you are a rich celebrity in the USA. Just a little bit of locker room banter, nothing to see here.
What went on in Rotherham was far far worse than Trump the serial groper. Sorry that you do not see it that way. Are you really a doctor?
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
Hurst, you have to be kidding , where have we heard of keeping secret lists of foreigners by authorities. I can think of two perfect examples of why any intelligent person shoiuld be horrified to be associated with any such thing , that nice Mr Hitler in Germany and the equally nice Mr Lenin in Russia. This si what happens when you have extreme nationalist governments.
It's currently standard practise in the country of that nice liberal Mr Obama.
U Turn: ! It seems the data on companies use of Foriegn workers will no longer be published. Though this means they'll still collect it. Plan to force firms to reveal foreign staff numbers abandoned
To be honest, Mr. Submarine, I am a bit lost on why recording the number of overseas workers is such a dreadful thing.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
Hurst, you have to be kidding , where have we heard of keeping secret lists of foreigners by authorities. I can think of two perfect examples of why any intelligent person shoiuld be horrified to be associated with any such thing , that nice Mr Hitler in Germany and the equally nice Mr Lenin in Russia. This si what happens when you have extreme nationalist governments.
It's currently standard practise in the country of that nice liberal Mr Obama.
Comments
The unemployment statistics are complete bullshit as well, absolute employment in the US is about 10 points lower than in the UK and yet we have a comparable unemployment rate.
Obamacare is failing as well.
We need actions, not mealy mouthed words.
When your pitch is supposed to about your competence and experience compared to your opponent, but your defence of an error relies on, at best, admitting to being a careless fool, it is worrisome. But the alternative...
Claiming Trump and Clinton are equally bad is one-eyed politics. It's staggering, to be honest. Like equating George Galloway and Shami Chakrabarti.
10% of republican voters say pussygate makes them like Trump more
..."now then, now then, lads and lasses, I have had a letter from Jane, 12, from Nebraska, she says "Dear Mr Trump, can you fix it for me to go to Disneyland", jewellery, jewellery"...
For me, it's only an issue if people are hugely critical of certain things seemingly on principle and then use them happily themselves. Either it is an issue for them or it isn't.
WATCH: Hillary Clinton saying in 2000 that She doesn't like emails because you can't hide it from investigators. https://t.co/dhR7cNZ8bc
Gosh, did I type 'I'm sure that will be'? I meant to type 'I'm sure that will not be'.
Mary Whitehouse did warn that such things would happen if the media were allowed to get away with a culture of sexualised filth though.
She's basically saying, suck it up poor people.
I'm anti grammar, but she is a complete hypocrite.
I know of some parents who believe the two are just different sides of the same coin. That is to say a school with discipline problems, uncontrolled bullying (especially of bright children who want to work and learn) and low expectations will not and, indeed, cannot provide a good quality of education for their child.
I can appreciate the argument that all schools ought to be good, but they are not. So what do you do if your local school is a dreadful one and you can afford the fees to go private (or your child is clever enough to obtain a bursary)? I know what I would do, so I would not condemn any politician for taking the same decision as I would make.
Where the hypocrisy issue comes in is when you have politicians condemning the existence of private schools and attacking them (e.g through the Charity Commission) as a matter of policy and at the same time sending their own children to one.
The issue you should be pondering is what on earth have the liberal establishment got so wrong that someone like this is even a credible primary candidate, let alone still polling at or over 40% for the actual election.
the chances of that happening are fairly slim, the only answer is to dissolve the people and elect a new one.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/09/keir-starmer-calls-for-immigration-to-be-reduced?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Nothing wrong with Comprehensive education if the school is disciplined and gets the best out of pupils. As ill-disciplined kids with chaotic dysfunctional homes do not tend to get into Grammar schools that is a major reason for their popularity with parents.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/09/plan-to-force-firms-to-reveal-foreign-staff-numbers-abandoned?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
New Labour tried it and damn nearly got away with it.
\Incidentally, Mr L, what do you think of the Ackroyd book. I’m a bit underwhelmed, TBH.
When I was working we had to record the sex, ethnic make-up, self-identifying skin colour and religion of all our people, and more latterly some attempts were made to force us to record sexual orientation (with some difficulty, I might add). What is so different about recording country of birth, which is something that has been on many application forms for donkey's years).
On a more serious note, the Republicans are clearly aiming for Congress not the Presidency. That way, given the utter uselessness of both candidates, they can effectively control the US for the next 2-4 years before finding a vaguely plausible candidate.
The beauty of that strategy is that it works whichever one of the two losers known as candidates wins.
The snag is that many more moments like this from Trump and their voters will stay at home, handing the House to the Democrats.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/ueber-die-politische-zukunft-von-martin-schulz-14472189.html
How to cement a marriage? The annual Wife Carrying Championships in Maine saw 44 couples competing for the top prize https://t.co/heDqxhSiU8
Also didn't know Hitler kept lists of foreigners in Germany. He had lists of foreigners he wanted to shoot when he invaded their countries. The British government had such lists, which helped enormously in interning dubious people on the outbreak of war.
\Incidentally, Mr L, what do you think of the Ackroyd book. I’m a bit underwhelmed, TBH.
Mr. Cole, the main difference between standard airpower and drones is the location of the pilot. If the bloke/lass who fires the missile is sitting in the aeroplane that is OK, but if they are sitting in a portacabin thousands of miles away the aeroplane that they are flying and fighting is suddenly a killer robot? Its nonsense.
Re Acroyd are you talking about "Foundation"? I thought it was fascinating and brilliant. A bit slow to start, but as the book goes on he develops the theme of how little England has actually changed over thousands of years.
On a related note, I was reading Bill Bryson's latest the other week in which he mentions the Uffington White Horse. The prehistoric sculpture cannot be seen for what it is except from 100s (1000?) of yards away, yet it was carved in the bronze age - 3,000 years ago. How? How did they manage that? The even bigger question is that why was it maintained? Without regular maintenance the Horse would have disappeared into the landscape within a few decades. So for the rest of the Bronze-age, all through the Iron-age, the arrival of the Romans, their departure, the dark ages, the medieval period, the Tudors and so on, local people maintained the Sculpture. Why?
NEW THREAD
“I think [immigration] should be reduced and it should be reduced by making sure we have the skills in this country that are needed for the jobs that need to be done.”
Asked if he accepted that limits on immigration would mean an end to free movement and therefore a departure from the EU’s tariff-free single market, Starmer said: “We have to be open to adjustments of the freedom of movement rules and how they apply to this country. We have to be shrewd and careful.”
So, he doesn't actually advocate any controls at all. It looks suspiciously as though he's part of the No Borders tendency, just like Corbyn, but is using the theory that upskilling will eventually cause a large reduction in net immigration (which is debatable to say the least) as a thin excuse to try to persuade the public that no border controls are needed. There is a difference in tone from Corbyn's more blunt, and arguably more honest, approach, but nothing more.
He did also say that "We have to be open to adjustments of the freedom of movement rules" but that's a deliberately vague phrase which could mean almost anything. Fundamentally, uncontrolled immigration is one of the few things that both the Corbynites and the soft Left can unite around. It speaks to the essentially universalist nature of their philosophy. To forbid anybody who wants to come into the country from doing so is, logically, exclusive rather than inclusive, and therefore to be rejected (usually as the products of racism and xenophobia, two accusations so debased through overuse that they have tragically, for an increasingly large segment of the population, lost their ability to shock.)
In essence, most of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the overwhelming majority of the membership would appear to agree that all immigration is a good thing, and even when unfortunate side effects are - reluctantly - acknowledged, they can be easily resolved by throwing money at them. Their main divide on the issue is presentational - the soft Left makes emollient noises about listening to voters' concerns even as it carries on regardless; the hard Left simply dismisses the same concerns out of hand as the products either of wilful evil or of ignorance. Either way, there is every sign that Labour wishes to continue to shun any notion of compromise with the electorate on this issue.
I am one of those 'right-wingers' (more libertarian, actually) who was 'anyone but Trump' but who had hoped Trump, once chosen, would turn out to be not as terrible as feared. I do think Hillary will be terrible for the US, but since the debate I have switched to acknowledging that she is by far the lesser of two evils.
For me, his post-debate twitter storm with a former beauty pageant contestant was the final straw. It proved beyond all doubt that he cannot focus, is unable to prioritize and, worst of all, does not have the self-control to avoid rising to the bait. He would be a puppet on Putin's string, the more so the angrier Putin got him. This latest set of revelations only confirms to me that the man is a complete douche bag but, while clearly confirming me in my reluctant conclusion, given that was known all along, is somewhat less shocking to me than his twitter spat.
However, all that said, in analyzing the race even at this stage, I don't think Hillary has it in the bag. If the GOP move decisively against Trump but fail to dislodge him, she will win. But the GOP has proved remarkably ineffective so far. And there is such anger at the system here, and she is such a disliked and weak candidate, we cannot take it for granted that she won't lose it.
"Ah there I was going to use the liar liar pants on fire defense, it's doesn't matter what you know, it only matters what you can prove."
Trump might have done something that may get people killed, Hillary did do something that might get people killed, see the important difference here.
- Employer
- Job title
- Location
- Nationality
And put it all online:
http://www.myvisajobs.com/GreenCard/SearchLCA.aspx?Y=2014&PN=2