"September 15. The British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, completed the Hajj after converting to Islam. He is believed to be the first British ambassador to perform the pilgrimage, one of the five pillars of Islam."
What ? The FO is an interesting place.
The FO's job is, surely, to represent the government and interests of the British to foreigners - not the other way round. In the world today it seems beyond perverse and actually insulting to have a Muslim convert dealing on our behalf with those scumbags. WTF?
A Muslim cannot be British ? or, vice versa ?
You are MaxPB and I claim my £5.
I tell you what wouldn't be possible - for the Saudi ambassador to convert to Christianity and still be ambassador.
I don't think a Saudi could convert at all. I am not 100% sure but definitely 99.9% sure. The sooner they are got rid of [ or, "taken down" ], the better.
But our Prime Ministers keep paying homage.
Nothing to do with being Saudi.
Islam takes a very dim view of people who convert from or renounce their faith.
The Pew foundation did some very disturbing polling on views of muslims in European countries towards people who left the faith
Has Corbyn/Labour promised to spend the £350mil on the NHS if they win next election? If not, he should (regardless of whether it actually exists or not).
It could be a great way of getting their Red Brexit position sorted. No free movement, hard brexit, "we will give you the Brexit you voted for, the £350mil you voted for, not the Tories' Banker's Brexit". When the experts/papers/commentators ridicule his spending plans - attack their misleading biased lies etc etc.
If he wants to use the Trump playbook, he will have to commit fully to it. I can't see it working for him, but it's worth a shot at this point I suppose.
If you look at the prospects for Labour winning in 2020 the day Miliband resigned, i.e., virtually zero, you could argue that Corbyn has not really done any worse than any other candidate would have done, and he has done badly in a way that can be recovered from. And the Red Brexit symphony as arranged by D.Trump is not a bad way to lose in 2020 if it at least keeps left wing ideas on the table as options. Keeping the Overton Window open a bit wider make be more helpful for Labour in 2025 than a more professional approach that saves a handful more marginal seats.
Labour is going nowhere under anyone if it can't start winning the battle of ideas first. A 100% income tax on income over £140,000 might not be a credible policy, but the idea that rich people are taking too big a share of the national cake could be a powerful one.
Yes. But Brexit Britain will also create jobs and industries, that would not have been created inside the stifling and stagnant EU. It's ludicrous to see Leaving the EU as solely negative. Nothing as dynamic and radical as Brexit can be solely bad (or solely good).
As I said before, Brexit is like having a baby. You're focusing entirely on the nappies, vomit, and sleepless nights. And yes, they will happen. But you're forgetting about that first smile.
I think the banks are mainly agitating to get a better deal.
One thing that is interesting is the response of technology/internet companies to Brexit, a lot of these companies were also said to be very wary of Brexit. Despite the vote the big tech companies are either proceeding as planned or have announced UK expansions. Over the last few months Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and now Snapchat have all announced positive news for the UK. I suppose partly this may be because such businesses are inherently global and the EU is just not that big a deal, but so far at least there's no real sign that leaving the EU will do the internet sector much harm.
Oh and SoftBank bought ARM for a fortune and committed to the UK remaining the HQ.
The main worry for the tech sector was access to skilled staff from the EU (and elsewhere). But the one thing all Brexiteers have said, even the loonies, is that there will be no restrictions on highly skilled immigrants with job offers. So that fear has been allayed.
Indeed post-Brexit the employment situation might even be better, because, in driving down unskilled immigration from the EU, the UK will create room to recruit MORE skilled people, from outside Europe.
Yes, I think May/Hammond will want to do that whilst declaring victory on an overall reduction in numbers.
For argument's sake, and I know these aren't the real numbers, if non-skilled/skilled immigration was 70:30 and topped out at 300k net per year, you could flip the ratios to 30:70 whilst increasing skilled migration by 50k a year, and still reduce net migration to 200k per year.
Although, one couldn't be sure what effect reducing low skilled migration by 150k per year relatively quickly would have..
@mrdavidwhitley: No look of terror is more terrified than that on a politician's face when asked precisely what extra controls on immigration they prefer.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?
Re: A&E, a significant factor has been the downgrading of the NHS Direct phoneline (now 111). It used to be staffed by qualified nurses and doctors; now to save a bit of cash it's entirely trained monkeys reading out instructions from a computer screen. As soon as someone calls up with symptoms that don't exactly match something on the system, they are referred to A&E to ensure arses are covered.
One of the worst examples of a false economy you will ever see.
Why can't they just be referred up within 111 to a qualified nurse/doctor?
When we used it most recently about a month ago (on behalf of the kid), we were given an appointment at an out-of-hours GP, which I'd much rather have than a visit to A&E.
Is that because you would expect to wait for hours at A&E, or because the GP's surgery was nearby and you knew it could provide the medication or other assistance needed, or for some other reason? [snip]
1. Because A&E at night is staffed by juniors. 2. Because A&E is set up to deal with accidents and emergencies and is less expert in paediatrics than a GP, though they do have better expertise in the hospital if necessary. 3. Because A&E at night can be filled with drunken twenty-somethings, especially at the weekend (which it wasn't) or December (which it was). 4. Yes, the shorter wait was an issue, particularly as kiddo became ill in mid-late evening (we phoned about 2230, IIRC).
Distance wasn't really a consideration. The GPs was slightly closer but we're talking 3 miles rather than 4, so very marginal and would have been more than outweighed had it been the other way round.
"September 15. The British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, completed the Hajj after converting to Islam. He is believed to be the first British ambassador to perform the pilgrimage, one of the five pillars of Islam."
What ? The FO is an interesting place.
The FO's job is, surely, to represent the government and interests of the British to foreigners - not the other way round. In the world today it seems beyond perverse and actually insulting to have a Muslim convert dealing on our behalf with those scumbags. WTF?
A Muslim cannot be British ? or, vice versa ?
You are MaxPB and I claim my £5.
I tell you what wouldn't be possible - for the Saudi ambassador to convert to Christianity and still be ambassador.
I don't think a Saudi could convert at all. I am not 100% sure but definitely 99.9% sure. The sooner they are got rid of [ or, "taken down" ], the better.
But our Prime Ministers keep paying homage.
Nothing to do with being Saudi.
Islam takes a very dim view of people who convert from or renounce their faith.
The Pew foundation did some very disturbing polling on views of muslims in European countries towards people who left the faith
Muslims have converted to other religions, mainly to Christianity. Agreed it is not allowed in Islam itself.
What do you think Missionaries do in Islamic countries ? Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf is a major exception.
At PythonAnywhere, they are much more concerned about Mrs May's requirement that customer data is handed over to the security services without so much as a warrant than about Brexit.
I am still shocked how little push back this has got. Not only handing over so much data, but to whom it can be released to. It is one thing for GCHQ to have it, but some of the agencies like the Food Standards Agency is just plain bonkers.
In comparison ID cards in any form, well that was the end of the world as we knew it. The state hoovering up all your online activity, hardly more than the odd article in the Guardian and some computer related online media.
Why are the Food Standards Agency bonkers? Food poisoning for example being an area under their jurisdiction can cause serious harm and even death. I could understand investigations they do that may justify their requiring such data. Of course I'd also prefer they required a warrant but then the same with other agencies.
Food poisoning investigations are like epidemiological investigations. Obtaining information from online habits will only give you partial data at best. The best and quickest way to do such investigations will always be on-the-ground inspectors interviewing the ill (or relatives and friends of the dead) and working back to a common factor(s), then pushing further back up the supply chain to the source.
I fail to see how the German outbreak of E. coli poisoning, with its cases in Germany, France and Belgium, and victims from other countries, with a wholesale supplier in Germany, a retail supplier in France, and an ultimate source in Egypt (Spain having been falsely accused in the meantime) could have been solved with national internet user data, nor that such data would have been anything other than a distraction.
Fun fact. In the US, the average Mickey D burger with salad has ingredients from 37 countries.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?
Yes. But Brexit Britain will also create jobs and industries, that would not have been created inside the stifling and stagnant EU. It's ludicrous to see Leaving the EU as solely negative. Nothing as dynamic and radical as Brexit can be solely bad (or solely good).
As I said before, Brexit is like having a baby. You're focusing entirely on the nappies, vomit, and sleepless nights. And yes, they will happen. But you're forgetting about that first smile.
I think the banks are mainly agitating to get a better deal.
One thing that is interesting is the response of technology/internet companies to Brexit, a lot of these companies were also said to be very wary of Brexit. Despite the vote the big tech companies are either proceeding as planned or have announced UK expansions. Over the last few months Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and now Snapchat have all announced positive news for the UK. I suppose partly this may be because such businesses are inherently global and the EU is just not that big a deal, but so far at least there's no real sign that leaving the EU will do the internet sector much harm.
Oh and SoftBank bought ARM for a fortune and committed to the UK remaining the HQ.
The
Who will do the dirty jobs ?
Most forecasters see net migration running at 150,000-200,000 a year, AFTER Brexit. Even May admits "tens of thousands" is just an aspiration. She won't promise this, because it is very hard to deliver.
There will still be plenty of people around. 150,000-200,000 a year is still massive by UK historical standards, but I think voters will accept it, as it is roughly half what we have now, and, crucially, we will choose who comes in. No more open door.
100k-150k would be possible, if there was a crackdown on family and spousal migration and students had to physically leave the UK and reapply for a visa to come back in to work as well.
I think voters would accept the sort of levels you describe if it was almost all about working here and there was annual debate in parliament about the types and quantities of visas to issue, together with any caps, with the ability to lobby one's MP, and clear accountability to voters for their decisions at elections.
Yes. But Brexit Britain will also create jobs and industries, that would not have been created inside the stifling and stagnant EU. It's ludicrous to see Leaving the EU as solely negative. Nothing as dynamic and radical as Brexit can be solely bad (or solely good).
As I said before, Brexit is like having a baby. You're focusing entirely on the nappies, vomit, and sleepless nights. And yes, they will happen. But you're forgetting about that first smile.
I think the banks are mainly agitating to get a better deal.
One thing that is interesting is the response of technology/internet companies to Brexit, a lot of these companies were also said to be very wary of Brexit. Despite the vote the big tech companies are either proceeding as planned or have announced UK expansions. Over the last few months Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and now Snapchat have all announced positive news for the UK. I suppose partly this may be because such businesses are inherently global and the EU is just not that big a deal, but so far at least there's no real sign that leaving the EU will do the internet sector much harm.
Oh and SoftBank bought ARM for a fortune and committed to the UK remaining the HQ.
Who will do the dirty jobs ?
Robots.
Rather interestingly, computers are actually still rather crap at some human tasks which our society doesn't place much value in e.g. cleaning. They are far better at doing low / mid level admin and clerical work.
For example, asking a computer to identify things in a room that need to be tidied away vs throw away, ML / AI is nowhere near good enough to work out subtle context e.g. just because something is on the floor doesn't mean it is garbage and just because something is on a shelf doesn't mean it isn't.
I would be far more concerned for my job if I was a entry level computer programmer or something to do with data entry / simple number crunching, than some traditional "dirty jobs". The real world is very complex and difficult for computers to learn to make the correct decisions, environments which can be controlled e.g. such as dealing with large sets of data, are where lots of progress is being made.
In truth, it was merely a quip. My BSc is in Comp Sci, my MSc in SWE, and I've dabbled with robotics, AI, ALife and machine learning on and off for years. I fancy I've got a pretty good grasp of what computers can and can't do.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes. But Brexit Britain will also create jobs and industries, that would not have been created inside the stifling and stagnant EU. It's ludicrous to see Leaving the EU as solely negative. Nothing as dynamic and radical as Brexit can be solely bad (or solely good).
As I said before, Brexit is like having a baby. You're focusing entirely on the nappies, vomit, and sleepless nights. And yes, they will happen. But you're forgetting about that first smile.
I think the banks are mainly agitating to get a better deal.
One thing that is interesting is the response of technology/internet companies to Brexit, a lot of these companies were also said to be very wary or Brexit. Despite the vote the big tech companies are either proceeding as planned or have announced UK expansions. Over the last few months Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and now Snapchat have all announced UK positive news for the UK. I suppose partly this may be because such businesses are inherently global and the EU is just not that big a deal, but so far at least there's no real sign that leaving the EU will do the internet sector much harm.
At PythonAnywhere, they are much more concerned about Mrs May's requirement that customer data is handed over to the security services without so much as a warrant than about Brexit.
I am still shocked how little push back this has got. Not only handing over so much data, but to whom it can be released to. It is one thing for GCHQ to have it, but some of the agencies like the Food Standards Agency is just plain bonkers.
In comparison ID cards in any form, well that was the end of the world as we knew it. The state hoovering up all your online activity, hardly more than the odd article in the Guardian and some computer related online media.
And obviously it is fundamentally flawed as you don't need to be a genius to sign up for things like a VPN service*.
* Yes we know the spooks can hack into these connections, but they do that already.
The CEO has seriously been talking about moving the business outside the UK to avoid the rules. It would be richly ironic - given he was a vociferous Leaver and penned an excellent article on VAT-mess - if he were to move the business to an EU country.
"September 15. The British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, completed the Hajj after converting to Islam. He is believed to be the first British ambassador to perform the pilgrimage, one of the five pillars of Islam."
What ? The FO is an interesting place.
The FO's job is, surely, to represent the government and interests of the British to foreigners - not the other way round. In the world today it seems beyond perverse and actually insulting to have a Muslim convert dealing on our behalf with those scumbags. WTF?
A Muslim cannot be British ? or, vice versa ?
You are MaxPB and I claim my £5.
I tell you what wouldn't be possible - for the Saudi ambassador to convert to Christianity and still be ambassador.
I don't think a Saudi could convert at all. I am not 100% sure but definitely 99.9% sure. The sooner they are got rid of [ or, "taken down" ], the better.
But our Prime Ministers keep paying homage.
You expect their replacements to be any better? We ought to have learned by now that 'taking down' regimes in the Arab world (or, for that matter, anywhere that doesn't have a liberal democratic tradition of some sort to build on), is a recipe for disaster. At least with Saudi, we've a half-decent idea of what that disaster would be.
@BBCNormanS: Shadow Chancellor @johnmcdonnellMP tells me companies cd be incentivised to introduce salary caps thru tax system
@BBCNormanS: Firms that agree salary caps cd be exempt from planned rise in corporation tax says @johnmcdonnellMP
So, not only would they forego the income tax from high earners, they would give up corporation tax too...
Are we running out of adjectives for the scale of fuckwittery on show today?
Whilst agreeing that it is a daft idea, you do realise that cutting the wage bill does increase profits. That means corporation tax take will also increase, all things being equal.
McDonnell said he would "incentivise" - he did not say "reduce".
BTW, I am not agreeing with this policy [sic].
If Corbyn is going to start using "Trumpian simplicity" as a policy for the media, he could have honed it better and it could sell.
For example, he could have said: "anyone can be paid any amount any amount ...but any remuneration above £1m, say, would attract a 10% surcharge payable by the employer"
The sell would have been as follows: £1m will be perceived as more than adequate by 99% of ordinary people [ I did not say PB Tories ]. It does not restrict any company paying any amount. Philip Green could pay himself £200m if he wanted to, as long as his company paid the surcharge.
Yes. But Brexit Britain will also create jobs and industries, that would not have been created inside the stifling and stagnant EU. It's ludicrous to see Leaving the EU as solely negative. Nothing as dynamic and radical as Brexit can be solely bad (or solely good).
As I said before, Brexit is like having a baby. You're focusing entirely on the nappies, vomit, and sleepless nights. And yes, they will happen. But you're forgetting about that first smile.
I think the banks are mainly agitating to get a better deal.
One thing that is interesting is the response of technology/internet companies to Brexit, a lot of these companies were also said to be very wary or Brexit. Despite the vote the big tech companies are either proceeding as planned or have announced UK expansions. Over the last few months Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and now Snapchat have all announced UK positive news for the UK. I suppose partly this may be because such businesses are inherently global and the EU is just not that big a deal, but so far at least there's no real sign that leaving the EU will do the internet sector much harm.
At PythonAnywhere, they are much more concerned about Mrs May's requirement that customer data is handed over to the security services without so much as a warrant than about Brexit.
I am still shocked how little push back this has got. Not only handing over so much data, but to whom it can be released to. It is one thing for GCHQ to have it, but some of the agencies like the Food Standards Agency is just plain bonkers.
In comparison ID cards in any form, well that was the end of the world as we knew it. The state hoovering up all your online activity, hardly more than the odd article in the Guardian and some computer related online media.
And obviously it is fundamentally flawed as you don't need to be a genius to sign up for things like a VPN service*.
* Yes we know the spooks can hack into these connections, but they do that already.
The CEO has seriously been talking about moving the business outside the UK to avoid the rules. It would be richly ironic - given he was a vociferous Leaver and penned an excellent article on VAT-mess - if he were to move the business to an EU country.
TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if lots of other countries don't adopt similar practices...just like all the idiotic talk of demanding that companies hand over encryption keys or put backdoors in software for the state to access material.
@BBCNormanS: Shadow Chancellor @johnmcdonnellMP tells me companies cd be incentivised to introduce salary caps thru tax system
@BBCNormanS: Firms that agree salary caps cd be exempt from planned rise in corporation tax says @johnmcdonnellMP
So, not only would they forego the income tax from high earners, they would give up corporation tax too...
Are we running out of adjectives for the scale of fuckwittery on show today?
It does seem a strange policy, even if his heart is in the right place. Deincentivise those who run companies, while incentivising the companies? What then is a "company"? I'd prefer nationalisation or other direct state involvement.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
What time-scale are you talking about? Post Bolshevik revolution? Pre-? What about the Great Game? Was that not also the British Empire trying to keep Russia from getting a warm water port? I seem to remember something about a Light Brigade and Crimea ...
If Britain's history has been about anything, surely it has been shifting alliances, either to neuter the Superpower when that was not us (or post-War our US ally), or to retain our status as the Superpower.
I expect this chart will have to make a few reappearances, given that it conflicts with the narrative of many on here.
I kept trying to point this out. Osborne did more for wage equality in this country than pretty much anyone else ever. Of course his other policies also favoured those with significant capital assets.
@mrdavidwhitley: No look of terror is more terrified than that on a politician's face when asked precisely what extra controls on immigration they prefer.
But why? Why the hell should it be hard to say "We will restrict unskilled immigration, and give preference to people with job offers in important economic sectors." I mean, it's not Mein Kampf. It's just common sense, to anyone in the country with an IQ over 9 and a functioning spinal cord.
It's also an inevitable corollary of Brexit, it is one of the main benefits of Brexit, a Brexit which Corbyn says he accepts (and probably wants). So Corbyn is simultaneously annoying the Remainers, by approving Brexit, and annoying the Leavers, by holding on to Free Movement.
He is a kind of political anti-genius.
But it's easy to forget just how much of a dogmatist he is: he hasn't changed his mind on anything since he was about 15 years old.
In the context of this, even if he realises the electoral importance of shifting his message, he is psychologically, and temperamentally, unable to do so, because it would require some fresh thinking to consider how to answer the obvious question, and he clearly lacks both the ability and will to do so.
So he'll continue to unravel to Corbyn 1.0 under the slightest pressure.
I love the way Switzerland has compulsory swimming lessons.
I seemed to remember quite a few US colleges have rules whereby you have learn to swim in order to graduate. Rules that have come out of drowning incidents.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?
We weren't on our own then either!
An Anglo-French expeditionary action - not dissimilar to Suez, actually - just 100 years earlier, and slightly more successful.
@BBCNormanS: Shadow Chancellor @johnmcdonnellMP tells me companies cd be incentivised to introduce salary caps thru tax system
@BBCNormanS: Firms that agree salary caps cd be exempt from planned rise in corporation tax says @johnmcdonnellMP
So, not only would they forego the income tax from high earners, they would give up corporation tax too...
Are we running out of adjectives for the scale of fuckwittery on show today?
It does seem a strange policy, even if his heart is in the right place. Deincentivise those who run companies, while incentivising the companies? What then is a "company"? I'd prefer nationalisation or other direct state involvement.
BTW you mean "forgo", not "forego".
I suspect McD is just trying to dig Jezza out of yet another unscripted hole. Incentives to have a maximum ratio between top and bottom might work. Or at least it sounds more planned than 100% tax for anyone earning more than Corbyn.
Meanwhile Hunt has got away from a dire day on the NHS front.
"September 15. The British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, completed the Hajj after converting to Islam. He is believed to be the first British ambassador to perform the pilgrimage, one of the five pillars of Islam."
What ? The FO is an interesting place.
The FO's job is, surely, to represent the government and interests of the British to foreigners - not the other way round. In the world today it seems beyond perverse and actually insulting to have a Muslim convert dealing on our behalf with those scumbags. WTF?
A Muslim cannot be British ? or, vice versa ?
You are MaxPB and I claim my £5.
I tell you what wouldn't be possible - for the Saudi ambassador to convert to Christianity and still be ambassador.
I don't think a Saudi could convert at all. I am not 100% sure but definitely 99.9% sure. The sooner they are got rid of [ or, "taken down" ], the better.
But our Prime Ministers keep paying homage.
Nothing to do with being Saudi.
Islam takes a very dim view of people who convert from or renounce their faith.
The Pew foundation did some very disturbing polling on views of muslims in European countries towards people who left the faith
Muslims have converted to other religions, mainly to Christianity. Agreed it is not allowed in Islam itself.
What do you think Missionaries do in Islamic countries ? Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf is a major exception.
Muslims have converted, they are very brave and some have died for their bravery.
You think Islamic countries tolerate the promotion of other faiths?
@mrdavidwhitley: No look of terror is more terrified than that on a politician's face when asked precisely what extra controls on immigration they prefer.
But why? Why the hell should it be hard to say "We will restrict unskilled immigration, and give preference to people with job offers in important economic sectors." I mean, it's not Mein Kampf. It's just common sense, to anyone in the country with an IQ over 9 and a functioning spinal cord.
It's also an inevitable corollary of Brexit, it is one of the main benefits of Brexit, a Brexit which Corbyn says he accepts (and probably wants). So Corbyn is simultaneously annoying the Remainers, by approving Brexit, and annoying the Leavers, by holding on to Free Movement.
He is a kind of political anti-genius.
If Corbyn did say that, then in principle you could say he would win a lot of votes (well, for the restricting unskilled immigration bit anyway), but who would he get to post leaflets through doors, canvass, etc.? The luvvies would desert him. He has a difficult job.
I love the way Switzerland has compulsory swimming lessons.
I seemed to remember quite a few US colleges have rules whereby you have learn to swim in order to graduate. Rules that have come out of drowning incidents.
I love the way Switzerland has compulsory swimming lessons.
I seemed to remember quite a few US colleges have rules whereby you have learn to swim in order to graduate. Rules that have come out of drowning incidents.
I posted the link for three reasons: one, because I wasn't aware that Switzerland was under the juristiction of the EHCR; two, because it was an unusually sane judgment; and three, because the article contains the most awesome line: "The court also noted that "very flexible arrangements" had been offered as a compromise, including allowing the girls to... change clothes with no boys in the room."
@mrdavidwhitley: No look of terror is more terrified than that on a politician's face when asked precisely what extra controls on immigration they prefer.
But why? Why the hell should it be hard to say "We will restrict unskilled immigration, and give preference to people with job offers in important economic sectors." I mean, it's not Mein Kampf. It's just common sense, to anyone in the country with an IQ over 9 and a functioning spinal cord.
It's also an inevitable corollary of Brexit, it is one of the main benefits of Brexit, a Brexit which Corbyn says he accepts (and probably wants). So Corbyn is simultaneously annoying the Remainers, by approving Brexit, and annoying the Leavers, by holding on to Free Movement.
He is a kind of political anti-genius.
Stephen Kinnock proposed just this in Observer on Sunday. Although I think the proposal involved agreed quotas for non-skilled in different sectors. The problem with that is the public might not agree with the agreed quota if you see what I mean.
I love the way Switzerland has compulsory swimming lessons.
I seemed to remember quite a few US colleges have rules whereby you have learn to swim in order to graduate. Rules that have come out of drowning incidents.
Corbyn would have benefited.
From a college education or swimming lessons or both? IMO, he is too thick for the first, to stubborn to listen to others for the second...
@Sean__Clare: "I'm not sure he was entirely comfortable with the words they'd written for him," labour aide on corbyn's briefed immigration lines
If they go into the election with Corbyn in place, and still giving these answers on immigration (and I see no reason why he should change) Labour could easily go under 20%.
@mrdavidwhitley: No look of terror is more terrified than that on a politician's face when asked precisely what extra controls on immigration they prefer.
But why? Why the hell should it be hard to say "We will restrict unskilled immigration, and give preference to people with job offers in important economic sectors." I mean, it's not Mein Kampf. It's just common sense, to anyone in the country with an IQ over 9 and a functioning spinal cord.
It's also an inevitable corollary of Brexit, it is one of the main benefits of Brexit, a Brexit which Corbyn says he accepts (and probably wants). So Corbyn is simultaneously annoying the Remainers, by approving Brexit, and annoying the Leavers, by holding on to Free Movement.
He is a kind of political anti-genius.
But it's easy to forget just how much of a dogmatist he is: he hasn't changed his mind on anything since he was about 15 years old.
In the context of this, even if he realises the electoral importance of shifting his message, he is psychologically, and temperamentally, unable to do so, because it would require some fresh thinking to consider how to answer the obvious question, and he clearly lacks both the ability and will to do so.
So he'll continue to unravel to Corbyn 1.0 under the slightest pressure.
It's going to be a very long three years for the Labour party...
I love the way Switzerland has compulsory swimming lessons.
I seemed to remember quite a few US colleges have rules whereby you have learn to swim in order to graduate. Rules that have come out of drowning incidents.
"September 15. The British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, completed the Hajj after converting to Islam. He is believed to be the first British ambassador to perform the pilgrimage, one of the five pillars of Islam."
What ? The FO is an interesting place.
The FO's job is, surely, to represent the government and interests of the British to foreigners - not the other way round. In the world today it seems beyond perverse and actually insulting to have a Muslim convert dealing on our behalf with those scumbags. WTF?
A Muslim cannot be British ? or, vice versa ?
You are MaxPB and I claim my £5.
I tell you what wouldn't be possible - for the Saudi ambassador to convert to Christianity and still be ambassador.
I don't think a Saudi could convert at all. I am not 100% sure but definitely 99.9% sure. The sooner they are got rid of [ or, "taken down" ], the better.
But our Prime Ministers keep paying homage.
You expect their replacements to be any better? We ought to have learned by now that 'taking down' regimes in the Arab world (or, for that matter, anywhere that doesn't have a liberal democratic tradition of some sort to build on), is a recipe for disaster. At least with Saudi, we've a half-decent idea of what that disaster would be.
Would you have said the same if they were not the largest oil producer in the world and continue to buy £billions of our arms at highly inflated prices including siphoning of some of those billions to various bank accounts [ ref: Tony Blair orders High Court trial re: BAE corruption to be abandoned "in the national interest" ]
@Sean__Clare: "I'm not sure he was entirely comfortable with the words they'd written for him," labour aide on corbyn's briefed immigration lines
If they go into the election with Corbyn in place, and still giving these answers on immigration (and I see no reason why he should change) Labour could easily go under 20%.
I love the way Switzerland has compulsory swimming lessons.
I seemed to remember quite a few US colleges have rules whereby you have learn to swim in order to graduate. Rules that have come out of drowning incidents.
I posted the link for three reasons: one, because I wasn't aware that Switzerland was under the juristiction of the EHCR; two, because it was an unusually sane judgment; and three, because the article contains the most awesome line: "The court also noted that "very flexible arrangements" had been offered as a compromise, including allowing the girls to... change clothes with no boys in the room."
@Sean__Clare: "I'm not sure he was entirely comfortable with the words they'd written for him," labour aide on corbyn's briefed immigration lines
If they go into the election with Corbyn in place, and still giving these answers on immigration (and I see no reason why he should change) Labour could easily go under 20%.
@mrdavidwhitley: No look of terror is more terrified than that on a politician's face when asked precisely what extra controls on immigration they prefer.
But why? Why the hell should it be hard to say "We will restrict unskilled immigration, and give preference to people with job offers in important economic sectors." I mean, it's not Mein Kampf. It's just common sense, to anyone in the country with an IQ over 9 and a functioning spinal cord.
It's also an inevitable corollary of Brexit, it is one of the main benefits of Brexit, a Brexit which Corbyn says he accepts (and probably wants). So Corbyn is simultaneously annoying the Remainers, by approving Brexit, and annoying the Leavers, by holding on to Free Movement.
He is a kind of political anti-genius.
Stephen Kinnock proposed just this in Observer on Sunday. Although I think the proposal involved agreed quotas for non-skilled in different sectors. The problem with that is the public might not agree with the agreed quota if you see what I mean.
I reckon 70% of British people would agree, reluctantly or happily, with such a proposal.
Seems fair. At least some people in Labour are doing some background thinking, ready for the post-Corbyn era.
I love the way Switzerland has compulsory swimming lessons.
I seemed to remember quite a few US colleges have rules whereby you have learn to swim in order to graduate. Rules that have come out of drowning incidents.
Students being students I imagine lesson one is "Don't go near the water if you're pissed".
@Sean__Clare: "I'm not sure he was entirely comfortable with the words they'd written for him," labour aide on corbyn's briefed immigration lines
If they go into the election with Corbyn in place, and still giving these answers on immigration (and I see no reason why he should change) Labour could easily go under 20%.
Depends where you think the votes have gone. To the Tories, could be less. But 150 would be right if there is a Lib Dem revivial and UKIP at current polling.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
What time-scale are you talking about? Post Bolshevik revolution? Pre-? What about the Great Game? Was that not also the British Empire trying to keep Russia from getting a warm water port? I seem to remember something about a Light Brigade and Crimea ...
If Britain's history has been about anything, surely it has been shifting alliances, either to neuter the Superpower when that was not us (or post-War our US ally), or to retain our status as the Superpower.
Yes. For the great majority of the last 200 years, the UK has been in opposition to Russia/USSR. The only real exception was in the early 20th century and that was as much as anything by the accident of Germany behaving stupidly rather than any fundamental change in Anglo-Russian interests. (1941-5 doesn't count as that was even more an accident of circumstances).
@Sean__Clare: "I'm not sure he was entirely comfortable with the words they'd written for him," labour aide on corbyn's briefed immigration lines
If they go into the election with Corbyn in place, and still giving these answers on immigration (and I see no reason why he should change) Labour could easily go under 20%.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?
We fought them with the French and Turks then
I know. Great power wars are usually fought in alliances - or at least, with the hope of bringing new countries into alliance. I can't think when Britain last intentionally fought a major war by itself (i.e. 1940-1 doesn't count as Britain co-ordinated its policy with France before 1939).
Mr. Eagles, unsurprising. A natural reaction to ever more power flowing to everywhere Not-England through devolution and the kickback against multi-culturalism.
Be nice if we got an English Parliament, but I can't see it happening anytime soon.
We don't need an English Parliament.
We already have a de facto English parliament
Indeed, an interesting unintended consequence of SNP winning all but 3 seats in Scotland.
Has always been a de facto English parliament, numbers are such that it cannot be anything else.
@Sean__Clare: "I'm not sure he was entirely comfortable with the words they'd written for him," labour aide on corbyn's briefed immigration lines
If they go into the election with Corbyn in place, and still giving these answers on immigration (and I see no reason why he should change) Labour could easily go under 20%.
Impossible to say with any real confidence without knowing where the votes had gone to. If they splinter in all random directions then Labour will survive with a high tally. If they coalesce around an alternative then a tipping point could be passed like in Scotland where 24.3% of the vote got 1 seat (<2%).
"September 15. The British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, completed the Hajj after converting to Islam. He is believed to be the first British ambassador to perform the pilgrimage, one of the five pillars of Islam."
What ? The FO is an interesting place.
The FO's job is, surely, to represent the government and interests of the British to foreigners - not the other way round. In the world today it seems beyond perverse and actually insulting to have a Muslim convert dealing on our behalf with those scumbags. WTF?
A Muslim cannot be British ? or, vice versa ?
You are MaxPB and I claim my £5.
I tell you what wouldn't be possible - for the Saudi ambassador to convert to Christianity and still be ambassador.
I don't think a Saudi could convert at all. I am not 100% sure but definitely 99.9% sure. The sooner they are got rid of [ or, "taken down" ], the better.
But our Prime Ministers keep paying homage.
Nothing to do with being Saudi.
Islam takes a very dim view of people who convert from or renounce their faith.
The Pew foundation did some very disturbing polling on views of muslims in European countries towards people who left the faith
Muslims have converted to other religions, mainly to Christianity. Agreed it is not allowed in Islam itself.
What do you think Missionaries do in Islamic countries ? Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf is a major exception.
Muslims have converted, they are very brave and some have died for their bravery.
You think Islamic countries tolerate the promotion of other faiths?
To be fair, there are Islamic countries quite tolerant of other religions. I got married in a Catholic Church in Dubai, for example.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?
We fought them with the French and Turks then
I know. Great power wars are usually fought in alliances - or at least, with the hope of bringing new countries into alliance. I can't think when Britain last intentionally fought a major war by itself (i.e. 1940-1 doesn't count as Britain co-ordinated its policy with France before 1939).
Mr. Eagles, unsurprising. A natural reaction to ever more power flowing to everywhere Not-England through devolution and the kickback against multi-culturalism.
Be nice if we got an English Parliament, but I can't see it happening anytime soon.
We don't need an English Parliament.
We already have a de facto English parliament
Indeed, an interesting unintended consequence of SNP winning all but 3 seats in Scotland.
Has always been a de facto English parliament, numbers are such that it cannot be anything else.
Except a couple of hypocritical exceptions:
Labour passing English-only tuition fee rises via Scottish Labour MPs when English-only MPs voted them down while Scottish Labour MSPs ensured Scottish students paid no fees to go to Scottish unis.
SNP voting down English sunday trading laws to be made the same as Scottish sunday trading laws despite the majority of English MPs agreeing to make the law the same as in Scotland.
SNP voting down English fox hunting laws to be made the same as Scottish fox hunting laws despite the majority of English MPs agreeing to make the law the same as in Scotland.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?
We fought them with the French and Turks then
I know. Great power wars are usually fought in alliances - or at least, with the hope of bringing new countries into alliance. I can't think when Britain last intentionally fought a major war by itself (i.e. 1940-1 doesn't count as Britain co-ordinated its policy with France before 1939).
Plus, in 1940 we had the empire with us.
If a major war is a war against another great power and the word "intentionally" means weren't attacked first then I think you'd have to go back to the War of Jenkins' Ear against Spain in the 1740s, so yes, quite a long time.
Edit: and come to think about it, other powers piled in on both sides when the War of the Austrian Succession broke out.
"September 15. The British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, completed the Hajj after converting to Islam. He is believed to be the first British ambassador to perform the pilgrimage, one of the five pillars of Islam."
What ? The FO is an interesting place.
The FO's job is, surely, to represent the government and interests of the British to foreigners - not the other way round. In the world today it seems beyond perverse and actually insulting to have a Muslim convert dealing on our behalf with those scumbags. WTF?
A Muslim cannot be British ? or, vice versa ?
You are MaxPB and I claim my £5.
I tell you what wouldn't be possible - for the Saudi ambassador to convert to Christianity and still be ambassador.
I don't think a Saudi could convert at all. I am not 100% sure but definitely 99.9% sure. The sooner they are got rid of [ or, "taken down" ], the better.
But our Prime Ministers keep paying homage.
Nothing to do with being Saudi.
Islam takes a very dim view of people who convert from or renounce their faith.
The Pew foundation did some very disturbing polling on views of muslims in European countries towards people who left the faith
Muslims have converted to other religions, mainly to Christianity. Agreed it is not allowed in Islam itself.
What do you think Missionaries do in Islamic countries ? Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf is a major exception.
Muslims have converted, they are very brave and some have died for their bravery.
You think Islamic countries tolerate the promotion of other faiths?
Not even here,good luck to the people who leave for another religion in this country.
We haven't even got to non muslim men dating muslim women from certain muslim communities might lead to violence,well where I live it would.
Mr. Eagles, unsurprising. A natural reaction to ever more power flowing to everywhere Not-England through devolution and the kickback against multi-culturalism.
Be nice if we got an English Parliament, but I can't see it happening anytime soon.
We don't need an English Parliament.
We already have a de facto English parliament
Indeed, an interesting unintended consequence of SNP winning all but 3 seats in Scotland.
Has always been a de facto English parliament, numbers are such that it cannot be anything else.
Except a couple of hypocritical exceptions:
Labour passing English-only tuition fee rises via Scottish Labour MPs when English-only MPs voted them down while Scottish Labour MSPs ensured Scottish students paid no fees to go to Scottish unis.
SNP voting down English sunday trading laws to be made the same as Scottish sunday trading laws despite the majority of English MPs agreeing to make the law the same as in Scotland.
SNP voting down English fox hunting laws to be made the same as Scottish fox hunting laws despite the majority of English MPs agreeing to make the law the same as in Scotland.
You expect that from labour, they hjave more faces than the town clock. On your SNP point , they voted that way because it would have affected Scotland, they asked for an amendment to exclude Scotland but were rebuffed so it became a UK matter and not an English matter. The SNP never ever vote on an English only matter but given the way it is structured there are precious few items that are completely English only and do not impact Scottish budget.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?
We fought them with the French and Turks then
I know. Great power wars are usually fought in alliances - or at least, with the hope of bringing new countries into alliance. I can't think when Britain last intentionally fought a major war by itself (i.e. 1940-1 doesn't count as Britain co-ordinated its policy with France before 1939).
@mrdavidwhitley: No look of terror is more terrified than that on a politician's face when asked precisely what extra controls on immigration they prefer.
But why? Why the hell should it be hard to say "We will restrict unskilled immigration, and give preference to people with job offers in important economic sectors." I mean, it's not Mein Kampf. It's just common sense, to anyone in the country with an IQ over 9 and a functioning spinal cord.
It's also an inevitable corollary of Brexit, it is one of the main benefits of Brexit, a Brexit which Corbyn says he accepts (and probably wants). So Corbyn is simultaneously annoying the Remainers, by approving Brexit, and annoying the Leavers, by holding on to Free Movement.
He is a kind of political anti-genius.
If Corbyn did say that, then in principle you could say he would win a lot of votes (well, for the restricting unskilled immigration bit anyway), but who would he get to post leaflets through doors, canvass, etc.? The luvvies would desert him. He has a difficult job.
Luvvies do NOT post leaflets. It's below them.
(Seriously,it's a common complaint about new members in Labour circles. )
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?
We fought them with the French and Turks then
I know. Great power wars are usually fought in alliances - or at least, with the hope of bringing new countries into alliance. I can't think when Britain last intentionally fought a major war by itself (i.e. 1940-1 doesn't count as Britain co-ordinated its policy with France before 1939).
The Boer War?
I suppose it depends on your criteria as to what constitutes a 'major' war. I'd argue that none of the Empire's wars should be considered major - casualties were pretty low by continental standards (Boer war ~55k casualties is possibly on the threshold, though contrast that with the roughly contemporary Russo-Japanese war where the Russians incurred over 90k casualties at Mukden alone).
The nature of Britain's geography has usually meant that we're providing the naval power and funding for more traditional continental powers, dating from the League of Cambrai onwards.
I love the way Switzerland has compulsory swimming lessons.
I seemed to remember quite a few US colleges have rules whereby you have learn to swim in order to graduate. Rules that have come out of drowning incidents.
I posted the link for three reasons: one, because I wasn't aware that Switzerland was under the juristiction of the EHCR; two, because it was an unusually sane judgment; and three, because the article contains the most awesome line: "The court also noted that "very flexible arrangements" had been offered as a compromise, including allowing the girls to... change clothes with no boys in the room."
It might be heresy but, in my view, such things shouldn't even be within the scope of the ECHR to consider.
I think there should be a much higher threshold and test for cases to come before it, focussed on major and persistent rights violations of the fundamental sort - like fair trials.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
What time-scale are you talking about? Post Bolshevik revolution? Pre-? What about the Great Game? Was that not also the British Empire trying to keep Russia from getting a warm water port? I seem to remember something about a Light Brigade and Crimea ...
If Britain's history has been about anything, surely it has been shifting alliances, either to neuter the Superpower when that was not us (or post-War our US ally), or to retain our status as the Superpower.
Yes. For the great majority of the last 200 years, the UK has been in opposition to Russia/USSR. The only real exception was in the early 20th century and that was as much as anything by the accident of Germany behaving stupidly rather than any fundamental change in Anglo-Russian interests. (1941-5 doesn't count as that was even more an accident of circumstances).
I think it is fairer to say we have allied with our friends across the pond more than we have unilaterally opposed Russia. Opposition with Russia has been part of our Special Relationship. Continuing opposition to Russia seems unlikely if America thaws it's relationship. I'd expect us to have a polite indifference to Russia for the next few years.
@Sean__Clare: "I'm not sure he was entirely comfortable with the words they'd written for him," labour aide on corbyn's briefed immigration lines
If they go into the election with Corbyn in place, and still giving these answers on immigration (and I see no reason why he should change) Labour could easily go under 20%.
Con 48%, Lab 19%, Lib Dem 12%, UKIP 14% and Greens 2% leads to the following seat distribution in a 650 seat parliament
Con 434, Lab 125, Lib Dems 11, UKIP 2, Greens 2, SNP 56, PC 4
Tory majority of 218
I think Baxtering breaks down with the Tories on 48%. Hard to see the LibDems holding any of their seats in Tory areas (and certainly not gaining any) - means they are going to be looking to take 6 or 8 off Labour to be on 11. Equally, the UKIP 2 looks highly suspect.
Tories on 48% nationally are going to be making inroads in Scotland - so SNP 56 looks suspect - and I suspect the Tories would do extremely well in Wales, with Labour at risk of vanishing in all but a couple of the Valleys seats.
In addition to (fears) of growing antisemitism in places like France, Israel is booming, with great education system, high tech job opportunities, new low cost (often subsidized by the state) housing developments, with all mod cons, community facilities etc etc etc.
Mr. Eagles, unsurprising. A natural reaction to ever more power flowing to everywhere Not-England through devolution and the kickback against multi-culturalism.
Be nice if we got an English Parliament, but I can't see it happening anytime soon.
We don't need an English Parliament.
We already have a de facto English parliament
Indeed, an interesting unintended consequence of SNP winning all but 3 seats in Scotland.
Has always been a de facto English parliament, numbers are such that it cannot be anything else.
Except a couple of hypocritical exceptions:
Labour passing English-only tuition fee rises via Scottish Labour MPs when English-only MPs voted them down while Scottish Labour MSPs ensured Scottish students paid no fees to go to Scottish unis.
SNP voting down English sunday trading laws to be made the same as Scottish sunday trading laws despite the majority of English MPs agreeing to make the law the same as in Scotland.
SNP voting down English fox hunting laws to be made the same as Scottish fox hunting laws despite the majority of English MPs agreeing to make the law the same as in Scotland.
You expect that from labour, they hjave more faces than the town clock. On your SNP point , they voted that way because it would have affected Scotland, they asked for an amendment to exclude Scotland but were rebuffed so it became a UK matter and not an English matter. The SNP never ever vote on an English only matter but given the way it is structured there are precious few items that are completely English only and do not impact Scottish budget.
Let us be honest - aligning English law with Scottish law was rejected as it gave the SNP an opportunity to piss off and defeat the Tories not due to high minded principles. Some would argue pissing off Tories is a high minded principle.
@Sean__Clare: "I'm not sure he was entirely comfortable with the words they'd written for him," labour aide on corbyn's briefed immigration lines
If they go into the election with Corbyn in place, and still giving these answers on immigration (and I see no reason why he should change) Labour could easily go under 20%.
Con 48%, Lab 19%, Lib Dem 12%, UKIP 14% and Greens 2% leads to the following seat distribution in a 650 seat parliament
Con 434, Lab 125, Lib Dems 11, UKIP 2, Greens 2, SNP 56, PC 4
Tory majority of 218
I think Baxtering breaks down with the Tories on 48%. Hard to see the LibDems holding any of their seats in Tory areas (and certainly not gaining any) - means they are going to be looking to take 6 or 8 off Labour to be on 11. Equally, the UKIP 2 looks highly suspect.
Tories on 48% nationally are going to be making inroads in Scotland - so SNP 56 looks suspect - and I suspect the Tories would do extremely well in Wales, with Labour at risk of vanishing in all but a couple of the Valleys seats.
Lab on 19% would hold on in the Valleys seats, as in other core ex-mining areas (Hemsworth, near me, for example) but Wales as a whole is trending away from Lab. Apart from that SNP figure being too high, the Baxter numbers look about right. LD within 7 of Lab would pick up some and UKIP might well do too.
I did a double take on the al queda / Bin Laden findings.
It should not be too surprising. If you think of it in terms of the WWC voting Brexit or Trump, they do so in large part not because they agree in detail with every aspect of, say, Trump's policies or vile utterances, but because he is their best expression of disgust and exasperation with the powers that be. I think AlQ and Bin Laden 'support' is a similar expression of disgust with muslim governments first, and frustration and exasperation at the Muslim world's impotence vs the West second.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?
We fought them with the French and Turks then
I know. Great power wars are usually fought in alliances - or at least, with the hope of bringing new countries into alliance. I can't think when Britain last intentionally fought a major war by itself (i.e. 1940-1 doesn't count as Britain co-ordinated its policy with France before 1939).
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
What time-scale are you talking about? Post Bolshevik revolution? Pre-? What about the Great Game? Was that not also the British Empire trying to keep Russia from getting a warm water port? I seem to remember something about a Light Brigade and Crimea ...
If Britain's history has been about anything, surely it has been shifting alliances, either to neuter the Superpower when that was not us (or post-War our US ally), or to retain our status as the Superpower.
Yes. For the great majority of the last 200 years, the UK has been in opposition to Russia/USSR. The only real exception was in the early 20th century and that was as much as anything by the accident of Germany behaving stupidly rather than any fundamental change in Anglo-Russian interests. (1941-5 doesn't count as that was even more an accident of circumstances).
I think it is fairer to say we have allied with our friends across the pond more than we have unilaterally opposed Russia. Opposition with Russia has been part of our Special Relationship. Continuing opposition to Russia seems unlikely if America thaws it's relationship. I'd expect us to have a polite indifference to Russia for the next few years.
Britain's alliance with the US only dates back to 1940, if you count lend-lease as the effective start; Britain's opposition to Russia has been continuous going back to the first half of the 19th cent. Where it goes now to a large extent depends on UK-EU relations.
Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.
It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.
Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?
Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.
It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.
The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters
Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?
We fought them with the French and Turks then
I know. Great power wars are usually fought in alliances - or at least, with the hope of bringing new countries into alliance. I can't think when Britain last intentionally fought a major war by itself (i.e. 1940-1 doesn't count as Britain co-ordinated its policy with France before 1939).
@Sean__Clare: "I'm not sure he was entirely comfortable with the words they'd written for him," labour aide on corbyn's briefed immigration lines
If they go into the election with Corbyn in place, and still giving these answers on immigration (and I see no reason why he should change) Labour could easily go under 20%.
Con 48%, Lab 19%, Lib Dem 12%, UKIP 14% and Greens 2% leads to the following seat distribution in a 650 seat parliament
Con 434, Lab 125, Lib Dems 11, UKIP 2, Greens 2, SNP 56, PC 4
Tory majority of 218
I think Baxtering breaks down with the Tories on 48%. Hard to see the LibDems holding any of their seats in Tory areas (and certainly not gaining any) - means they are going to be looking to take 6 or 8 off Labour to be on 11. Equally, the UKIP 2 looks highly suspect.
Tories on 48% nationally are going to be making inroads in Scotland - so SNP 56 looks suspect - and I suspect the Tories would do extremely well in Wales, with Labour at risk of vanishing in all but a couple of the Valleys seats.
Lab on 19% would hold on in the Valleys seats, as in other core ex-mining areas (Hemsworth, near me, for example) but Wales as a whole is trending away from Lab. Apart from that SNP figure being too high, the Baxter numbers look about right. LD within 7 of Lab would pick up some and UKIP might well do too.
The UKIP number is curious. I expect it would either be nothing or loads, depending on whether the blue collar Tories lent UKIP their votes to kick out Labour from fiefdoms held for eons.
We saw in 1997 that when the skids get under a party, then the mostly unlikely of dominoes start to fall.
From the masterminds who came up with a policy of nuclear submarines without nuclear warheads can we really be surprised at a policy of controlled migration without controls?
Home of some staggeringly amazing racing notably any number of King Georges.
I remember one in particular, Dessie's last. Unshipped the jock three out, stood up and shook himself off, before cantering, ears pricked, past the crowd in the stands who nearly lifted the roof off with cheering the riderless horse.
Farron needs to hone his attacks a bit. Insults need to be vaguely credible to be effective. The number of people who think Corbyn is a Tory is vanishingly small, like the number of people who think the LibDems are seriously progressive. "Labour is still undecided on the key issue of opposing Brexit, unlike us" would be plausible. "Corbyn is right-wing", not so much.
And the number of people who think Corbyn is an incompetent fool without a shred of credibility? My guess is that it's more than the number who have even heard of Tim Farron. In fact, it could be everyone in Britain except you :-D
Sadly I think you're on the nail. What's more I don't agree with Nick that people don't see Farron as progressive. I would say certainly more than Corbyn who most see as nothing other than a throw-back to a rather predjudiced illiberal and regressive era.
Does anyone think Corbyn is seen as 'progressive'?
@BBCNormanS: Shadow Chancellor @johnmcdonnellMP tells me companies cd be incentivised to introduce salary caps thru tax system
@BBCNormanS: Firms that agree salary caps cd be exempt from planned rise in corporation tax says @johnmcdonnellMP
So, not only would they forego the income tax from high earners, they would give up corporation tax too...
Are we running out of adjectives for the scale of fuckwittery on show today?
It does seem a strange policy, even if his heart is in the right place. Deincentivise those who run companies, while incentivising the companies? What then is a "company"? I'd prefer nationalisation or other direct state involvement.
BTW you mean "forgo", not "forego".
I may be naive, but I see salary caps as the more difficult route to go in terms of high pay. I've always thought it made more sense in large companies to force to a great degree an equalisation of conditions - lowest employee gets a 4% employee:4% employer pension with the possibility to retire at 62, then that's what the chief exec gets; the lowest employee gets an up to 5% bonus scheme, well, maybe the chief exec has some wiggle room to get 10% but that's the limit of it. And so forth. Some leeway could be made for the level of risk innate in holding a role, but this would be more geared towards front-line policemen, firemen, perhaps even heads of social services. Chief execs are vulnerable to their boards, no doubt, but I don't think the outcomes post-dismissal (a non-exec somewhere else) exactly see them in great difficulty.
Those running the services companies that clean all those corporate HQs or semi-private organisations sending front-line care workers would certainly be given pause for thought. The temptation to further expand casualisation and self-employment as a way round these things would have to be nipped in the bud, but perhaps it would be possible to dovetail that into existing things the HMRC and government are doing in this area.
I think it is fairer to say we have allied with our friends across the pond more than we have unilaterally opposed Russia. Opposition with Russia has been part of our Special Relationship. Continuing opposition to Russia seems unlikely if America thaws it's relationship. I'd expect us to have a polite indifference to Russia for the next few years.
Britain's alliance with the US only dates back to 1940, if you count lend-lease as the effective start; Britain's opposition to Russia has been continuous going back to the first half of the 19th cent. Where it goes now to a large extent depends on UK-EU relations.
Outside of the ex Communist states in Eastern Europe we were by far the biggest hawks against Russia in Western Europe as well as the best armed hawk in all of Europe. I suspect EU-Russia relations have as much to do with our future relationship (along with American ones) as vice versa.
@Sean__Clare: "I'm not sure he was entirely comfortable with the words they'd written for him," labour aide on corbyn's briefed immigration lines
If they go into the election with Corbyn in place, and still giving these answers on immigration (and I see no reason why he should change) Labour could easily go under 20%.
Con 48%, Lab 19%, Lib Dem 12%, UKIP 14% and Greens 2% leads to the following seat distribution in a 650 seat parliament
Con 434, Lab 125, Lib Dems 11, UKIP 2, Greens 2, SNP 56, PC 4
Tory majority of 218
I think Baxtering breaks down with the Tories on 48%. Hard to see the LibDems holding any of their seats in Tory areas (and certainly not gaining any) - means they are going to be looking to take 6 or 8 off Labour to be on 11. Equally, the UKIP 2 looks highly suspect.
Tories on 48% nationally are going to be making inroads in Scotland - so SNP 56 looks suspect - and I suspect the Tories would do extremely well in Wales, with Labour at risk of vanishing in all but a couple of the Valleys seats.
Lab on 19% would hold on in the Valleys seats, as in other core ex-mining areas (Hemsworth, near me, for example) but Wales as a whole is trending away from Lab. Apart from that SNP figure being too high, the Baxter numbers look about right. LD within 7 of Lab would pick up some and UKIP might well do too.
The UKIP number is curious. I expect it would either be nothing or loads, depending on whether the blue collar Tories lent UKIP their votes to kick out Labour from fiefdoms held for eons.
We saw in 1997 that when the skids get under a party, then the mostly unlikely of dominoes start to fall.
Nuttall seems hellbent on getting into Northern Labour... Ukip are holding events where members can suggest policy etc... in Derby! When I was into it all, everything was in Mayfair. I think that's all he is focussing on, rightly or wrongly
Comments
Islam takes a very dim view of people who convert from or renounce their faith.
The Pew foundation did some very disturbing polling on views of muslims in European countries towards people who left the faith
Labour is going nowhere under anyone if it can't start winning the battle of ideas first. A 100% income tax on income over £140,000 might not be a credible policy, but the idea that rich people are taking too big a share of the national cake could be a powerful one.
For argument's sake, and I know these aren't the real numbers, if non-skilled/skilled immigration was 70:30 and topped out at 300k net per year, you could flip the ratios to 30:70 whilst increasing skilled migration by 50k a year, and still reduce net migration to 200k per year.
Although, one couldn't be sure what effect reducing low skilled migration by 150k per year relatively quickly would have..
2. Because A&E is set up to deal with accidents and emergencies and is less expert in paediatrics than a GP, though they do have better expertise in the hospital if necessary.
3. Because A&E at night can be filled with drunken twenty-somethings, especially at the weekend (which it wasn't) or December (which it was).
4. Yes, the shorter wait was an issue, particularly as kiddo became ill in mid-late evening (we phoned about 2230, IIRC).
Distance wasn't really a consideration. The GPs was slightly closer but we're talking 3 miles rather than 4, so very marginal and would have been more than outweighed had it been the other way round.
What do you think Missionaries do in Islamic countries ? Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf is a major exception.
I fail to see how the German outbreak of E. coli poisoning, with its cases in Germany, France and Belgium, and victims from other countries, with a wholesale supplier in Germany, a retail supplier in France, and an ultimate source in Egypt (Spain having been falsely accused in the meantime) could have been solved with national internet user data, nor that such data would have been anything other than a distraction.
Fun fact. In the US, the average Mickey D burger with salad has ingredients from 37 countries.
snigger
McDonnell said he would "incentivise" - he did not say "reduce".
BTW, I am not agreeing with this policy [sic].
If Corbyn is going to start using "Trumpian simplicity" as a policy for the media, he could have honed it better and it could sell.
For example, he could have said: "anyone can be paid any amount any amount ...but any remuneration above £1m, say, would attract a 10% surcharge payable by the employer"
The sell would have been as follows: £1m will be perceived as more than adequate by 99% of ordinary people [ I did not say PB Tories ]. It does not restrict any company paying any amount. Philip Green could pay himself £200m if he wanted to, as long as his company paid the surcharge.
That would have some resonance with Joe Public.
BTW you mean "forgo", not "forego".
I love the way Switzerland has compulsory swimming lessons.
@Sean__Clare: "I'm not sure he was entirely comfortable with the words they'd written for him," labour aide on corbyn's briefed immigration lines
If Britain's history has been about anything, surely it has been shifting alliances, either to neuter the Superpower when that was not us (or post-War our US ally), or to retain our status as the Superpower.
In the context of this, even if he realises the electoral importance of shifting his message, he is psychologically, and temperamentally, unable to do so, because it would require some fresh thinking to consider how to answer the obvious question, and he clearly lacks both the ability and will to do so.
So he'll continue to unravel to Corbyn 1.0 under the slightest pressure.
Meanwhile Hunt has got away from a dire day on the NHS front.
Muslims have converted, they are very brave and some have died for their bravery.
You think Islamic countries tolerate the promotion of other faiths?
I posted the link for three reasons: one, because I wasn't aware that Switzerland was under the juristiction of the EHCR; two, because it was an unusually sane judgment; and three, because the article contains the most awesome line: "The court also noted that "very flexible arrangements" had been offered as a compromise, including allowing the girls to... change clothes with no boys in the room."
Science experiments you can recreate... https://t.co/mpiwmo6pAO
If you've kids, this video is superb
Please be honest !
Confirmation Hearing: Attorney General Nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions – LIVE @ 9:30am ET on C-SPAN3, @cspanRadio & here: https://t.co/3Va3h4AhCc https://t.co/PohJG5Kxoq
Con 48%, Lab 19%, Lib Dem 12%, UKIP 14% and Greens 2% leads to the following seat distribution in a 650 seat parliament
Con 434, Lab 125, Lib Dems 11, UKIP 2, Greens 2, SNP 56, PC 4
Tory majority of 218
didn't find it, but just found this one which was very interesting.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
I did a double take on the al queda / Bin Laden findings.
Labour passing English-only tuition fee rises via Scottish Labour MPs when English-only MPs voted them down while Scottish Labour MSPs ensured Scottish students paid no fees to go to Scottish unis.
SNP voting down English sunday trading laws to be made the same as Scottish sunday trading laws despite the majority of English MPs agreeing to make the law the same as in Scotland.
SNP voting down English fox hunting laws to be made the same as Scottish fox hunting laws despite the majority of English MPs agreeing to make the law the same as in Scotland.
If a major war is a war against another great power and the word "intentionally" means weren't attacked first then I think you'd have to go back to the War of Jenkins' Ear against Spain in the 1740s, so yes, quite a long time.
Edit: and come to think about it, other powers piled in on both sides when the War of the Austrian Succession broke out.
(Seriously,it's a common complaint about new members in Labour circles. )
The nature of Britain's geography has usually meant that we're providing the naval power and funding for more traditional continental powers, dating from the League of Cambrai onwards.
I think there should be a much higher threshold and test for cases to come before it, focussed on major and persistent rights violations of the fundamental sort - like fair trials.
Tories on 48% nationally are going to be making inroads in Scotland - so SNP 56 looks suspect - and I suspect the Tories would do extremely well in Wales, with Labour at risk of vanishing in all but a couple of the Valleys seats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2h7ggRUFws
In addition to (fears) of growing antisemitism in places like France, Israel is booming, with great education system, high tech job opportunities, new low cost (often subsidized by the state) housing developments, with all mod cons, community facilities etc etc etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6L9mS9ti6o&list=PL73YrgSr2jIwttfD1lx4Y8QTZeUtjAyMD&index=2
Oh, and whether Charlie F has resigned
Can't say about Charlie F.
I can't think of anything HE could have said that would have gone down well here.
We saw in 1997 that when the skids get under a party, then the mostly unlikely of dominoes start to fall.
Home of some staggeringly amazing racing notably any number of King Georges.
I remember one in particular, Dessie's last. Unshipped the jock three out, stood up and shook himself off, before cantering, ears pricked, past the crowd in the stands who nearly lifted the roof off with cheering the riderless horse.
Does anyone think Corbyn is seen as 'progressive'?
Those running the services companies that clean all those corporate HQs or semi-private organisations sending front-line care workers would certainly be given pause for thought. The temptation to further expand casualisation and self-employment as a way round these things would have to be nipped in the bud, but perhaps it would be possible to dovetail that into existing things the HMRC and government are doing in this area.