Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s challenge in retaining Stoke Central is equal if not

1235»

Comments

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028
    edited January 2017

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    You are born into a nation, you become a citizen of it, something which now even requires an oath of loyalty to those who want to join it, wishing ill on it would be a betrayal of that citizenship

    No it would not. It takes actions to betray that. Check the definition of the word betrayal, every version of the definition requires an action.
    Under the citizenship oath now required of those wishing to become British citizens they are required to respect the laws of the UK, if there is no respect for the law which will take the UK out of the EU then that is a betrayal of that oath
    Respect the law means to obey the law, it doesn't mean that you can't wish it's changed or else every opposition party ever would be traitors.
    There is a difference between perhaps wishing to change it in future and refusing to respect it when it is in place and openly disrespecting the Brexit vote which led to it
    Surely William Wilberforce didn't respect the law on slavery, and openly disrespected the process by which it was put in place and maintained? Ditto suffragettes and votes for women.

    I'm not drawing an equivalence between WW, the suffragettes and Remainers. I'm simply picking examples that happened with hindsight to have been on the right side of history to bring clarity to the point that dissent (even in strong terms) is not betrayal. But the same is true for dissenters on the wrong side of history.
    Suffragettes were of course imprisoned, Wilberforce wanted compensation for slaveowners he did not want the ruination of those who had made their livelihood from slavery. Neither were traitors to their nation
  • Options
    isam said:

    It's a nice little turn of phrase by Powell but not, I think, correct. Values quite often to all intents and purposes die because those people that espoused them are destroyed, subjugated, or absorbed into other, more dominant cultures.

    Yes but his point is that the values exist somewhere else and can't be destroyed.

    Anyway, I quoted that because he said he would fight for Britain if we had a Communist govt, i.e. He would do his best for his country even if he disagreed with the choice of govt
    I suppose Thatcher's point would be that by "defending our values" she clearly meant defending the practical application of our values. The values that led people to worship Odin or throw slaves to the lions still, presumably, exist on Powell's existential realm beyond space and time... but so bloomin' what if they died out a couple of millennia ago?

    Powell's point also implies that those German's who fought for the Nazis were wrong, and those Germans who actively sought to undermine them were wrong. Whilst I do understand why people kept their head down in the German ranks, Powell's argument on that cannot possibly be right.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930

    isam said:

    It's a nice little turn of phrase by Powell but not, I think, correct. Values quite often to all intents and purposes die because those people that espoused them are destroyed, subjugated, or absorbed into other, more dominant cultures.

    Yes but his point is that the values exist somewhere else and can't be destroyed.

    Anyway, I quoted that because he said he would fight for Britain if we had a Communist govt, i.e. He would do his best for his country even if he disagreed with the choice of govt
    I suppose Thatcher's point would be that by "defending our values" she clearly meant defending the practical application of our values. The values that led people to worship Odin or throw slaves to the lions still, presumably, exist on Powell's existential realm beyond space and time... but so bloomin' what if they died out a couple of millennia ago?

    Powell's point also implies that those German's who fought for the Nazis were wrong, and those Germans who actively sought to undermine them were wrong. Whilst I do understand why people kept their head down in the German ranks, Powell's argument on that cannot possibly be right.
    You mean 'fought against the Nazis?'
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    You are born into a nation, you become a citizen of it, something which now even requires an oath of loyalty to those who want to join it, wishing ill on it would be a betrayal of that citizenship

    No it would not. It takes actions to betray that. Check the definition of the word betrayal, every version of the definition requires an action.
    Under the citizenship oath now required of those wishing to become British citizens they are required to respect the laws of the UK, if there is no respect for the law which will take the UK out of the EU then that is a betrayal of that oath
    Respect the law means to obey the law, it doesn't mean that you can't wish it's changed or else every opposition party ever would be traitors.
    There is a difference between perhaps wishing to change it in future and refusing to respect it when it is in place and openly disrespecting the Brexit vote which led to it
    Surely William Wilberforce didn't respect the law on slavery, and openly disrespected the process by which it was put in place and maintained? Ditto suffragettes and votes for women.

    I'm not drawing an equivalence between WW, the suffragettes and Remainers. I'm simply picking examples that happened with hindsight to have been on the right side of history to bring clarity to the point that dissent (even in strong terms) is not betrayal. But the same is true for dissenters on the wrong side of history.
    Suffragettes were of course imprisoned, Wilberforce wanted compensation for slaveowners he did not want the ruination of those who had made their livelihood from slavery. Neither were traitors to their nation
    1. Only to the extent they broke the law by criminal damage and so on (and with hindsight I think most would say it was harsh!) People weren't imprisoned for "disrespecting" the law of the land, and nor was there any case for it whatsoever.

    2. Wilberforce too disrespected the law. The fact he argued for compensation to soften the blow (and build a coalition of support) didn't change the fact he quite rightly wanted to put people out of business. Just as laws on "legal highs" in modern times unashamedly sought to put people out of business.
  • Options
    isam said:

    isam said:

    It's a nice little turn of phrase by Powell but not, I think, correct. Values quite often to all intents and purposes die because those people that espoused them are destroyed, subjugated, or absorbed into other, more dominant cultures.

    Yes but his point is that the values exist somewhere else and can't be destroyed.

    Anyway, I quoted that because he said he would fight for Britain if we had a Communist govt, i.e. He would do his best for his country even if he disagreed with the choice of govt
    I suppose Thatcher's point would be that by "defending our values" she clearly meant defending the practical application of our values. The values that led people to worship Odin or throw slaves to the lions still, presumably, exist on Powell's existential realm beyond space and time... but so bloomin' what if they died out a couple of millennia ago?

    Powell's point also implies that those German's who fought for the Nazis were wrong, and those Germans who actively sought to undermine them were wrong. Whilst I do understand why people kept their head down in the German ranks, Powell's argument on that cannot possibly be right.
    You mean 'fought against the Nazis?'
    Sorry, I meant Powell's argument implies German's who fought for the Nazis were RIGHT, and those who undermined them were wrong. I'll edit.

  • Options
    63 of the UK's 650 MP's, a fraction off 10%, don't think the UK should exist and were explicitly elected on that platform. Are they " traitors " ? Are the people who voted for them traitors ?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It's a nice little turn of phrase by Powell but not, I think, correct. Values quite often to all intents and purposes die because those people that espoused them are destroyed, subjugated, or absorbed into other, more dominant cultures.

    Yes but his point is that the values exist somewhere else and can't be destroyed.

    Anyway, I quoted that because he said he would fight for Britain if we had a Communist govt, i.e. He would do his best for his country even if he disagreed with the choice of govt
    I suppose Thatcher's point would be that by "defending our values" she clearly meant defending the practical application of our values. The values that led people to worship Odin or throw slaves to the lions still, presumably, exist on Powell's existential realm beyond space and time... but so bloomin' what if they died out a couple of millennia ago?

    Powell's point also implies that those German's who fought for the Nazis were wrong, and those Germans who actively sought to undermine them were wrong. Whilst I do understand why people kept their head down in the German ranks, Powell's argument on that cannot possibly be right.
    You mean 'fought against the Nazis?'
    Sorry, I meant Powell's argument implies German's who fought for the Nazis were RIGHT, and those who undermined them were wrong. I'll edit.

    Maybe it does. It's an extreme example but I guess there must have been Germans who may or may not have voted for Hitler, but who were not Nazis, that felt they wanted to fight for Germany in the war rather than hope they lost.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    You are born into a nation, you become a citizen of it, something which now even requires an oath of loyalty to those who want to join it, wishing ill on it would be a betrayal of that citizenship

    No it would not. It takes actions to betray that. Check the definition of the word betrayal, every version of the definition requires an action.
    Under the citizenship oath now required of those wishing to become British citizens they are required to respect the laws of the UK, if there is no respect for the law which will take the UK out of the EU then that is a betrayal of that oath
    Respect the law means to obey the law, it doesn't mean that you can't wish it's changed or else every opposition party ever would be traitors.
    There is a difference between perhaps wishing to change it in future and refusing to respect it when it is in place and openly disrespecting the Brexit vote which led to it
    Surely William Wilberforce didn't respect the law on slavery, and openly disrespected the process by which it was put in place and maintained? Ditto suffragettes and votes for women.

    I'm not drawing an equivalence between WW, the suffragettes and Remainers. I'm simply picking examples that happened with hindsight to have been on the right side of history to bring clarity to the point that dissent (even in strong terms) is not betrayal. But the same is true for dissenters on the wrong side of history.
    Suffragettes were of course imprisoned, Wilberforce wanted compensation for slaveowners he did not want the ruination of those who had made their livelihood from slavery. Neither were traitors to their nation
    1. Only to the extent they broke the law by criminal damage and so on (and with hindsight I think most would say it was harsh!) People weren't imprisoned for "disrespecting" the law of the land, and nor was there any case for it whatsoever.

    2. Wilberforce too disrespected the law. The fact he argued for compensation to soften the blow (and build a coalition of support) didn't change the fact he quite rightly wanted to put people out of business. Just as laws on "legal highs" in modern times unashamedly sought to put people out of business.
    They undertook the criminal damage as a direct result of their disrespect of the law but neither they nor Wilberforce wanted the direct ruination of their country and the people in it as a result of the laws they opposed (which of course explains the latters support for compensation too)
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It's a nice little turn of phrase by Powell but not, I think, correct. Values quite often to all intents and purposes die because those people that espoused them are destroyed, subjugated, or absorbed into other, more dominant cultures.

    Yes but his point is that the values exist somewhere else and can't be destroyed.

    Anyway, I quoted that because he said he would fight for Britain if we had a Communist govt, i.e. He would do his best for his country even if he disagreed with the choice of govt
    I suppose Thatcher's point would be that by "defending our values" she clearly meant defending the practical application of our values. The values that led people to worship Odin or throw slaves to the lions still, presumably, exist on Powell's existential realm beyond space and time... but so bloomin' what if they died out a couple of millennia ago?

    Powell's point also implies that those German's who fought for the Nazis were wrong, and those Germans who actively sought to undermine them were wrong. Whilst I do understand why people kept their head down in the German ranks, Powell's argument on that cannot possibly be right.
    You mean 'fought against the Nazis?'
    Sorry, I meant Powell's argument implies German's who fought for the Nazis were RIGHT, and those who undermined them were wrong. I'll edit.

    Maybe it does. It's an extreme example but I guess there must have been Germans who may or may not have voted for Hitler, but who were not Nazis, that felt they wanted to fight for Germany in the war rather than hope they lost.
    Fortunately Brexit UK is not yet Nazi Germany!!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    63 of the UK's 650 MP's, a fraction off 10%, don't think the UK should exist and were explicitly elected on that platform. Are they " traitors " ? Are the people who voted for them traitors ?

    Have the SNP or their voters said they want the rUK to fail? :p
  • Options
    Married Calais Jungle charity chief who insisted volunteers should not have sex with migrants 'had a year-long affair with a toyboy Tunisian bodyguard she met in the camp'

    Clare Mosely's relationship with Mohamed Bajjar was 'well known' in The Jungle

    The 46-year-old set up Care4Calais in 2015, which had strict no sex rules

    It is alleged she moved in with the 27-year-old Tunisian, known as Kimo

    She has now split up with him because she fears he conned her out of thousands

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4119040/Married-Calais-Jungle-charity-chief-insisted-volunteers-not-sex-migrants-year-long-affair-toyboy-Tunisian-bodyguard-met-camp.html
  • Options
    @RobD I don't think that's really the point. We're an advanced liberal democracy. Our polity is so loose we successfully internalise a death wish for our state into that state's structures. Indeed in the case of Sinn Fein we pay them salaries and office costs despite them refusing to take the Oath to the Head of State.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    TOPPING said:

    For full disclosure, I am actually @SeanT.

    The other one is a pale imitation.

    I really, really hope this is a joke.....


    .....but wouldn't be THAT surprised if it wasn't.....I was going to make a joke about his crack addiction then decided against.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930

    Married Calais Jungle charity chief who insisted volunteers should not have sex with migrants 'had a year-long affair with a toyboy Tunisian bodyguard she met in the camp'

    Clare Mosely's relationship with Mohamed Bajjar was 'well known' in The Jungle

    The 46-year-old set up Care4Calais in 2015, which had strict no sex rules

    It is alleged she moved in with the 27-year-old Tunisian, known as Kimo

    She has now split up with him because she fears he conned her out of thousands

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4119040/Married-Calais-Jungle-charity-chief-insisted-volunteers-not-sex-migrants-year-long-affair-toyboy-Tunisian-bodyguard-met-camp.html

    Hope it was tens of thousands
  • Options
    All UK Citizens born in Northern Ireland have the absolute legal right to citizenship of a Foreign Power ( the Republic ) Increasing numbers are using it. Are they traitors ? We're the British legislators who gave them it traitors ?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    @RobD I don't think that's really the point. We're an advanced liberal democracy. Our polity is so loose we successfully internalise a death wish for our state into that state's structures. Indeed in the case of Sinn Fein we pay them salaries and office costs despite them refusing to take the Oath to the Head of State.

    That's the argument that was being had on here, that Remainers were hoping that Brexit would be a disaster.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    SeanT said:

    Don't wanna bang on, but the "Okinawa" episode of the Pacific is some of the most harrowing but compelling war-and-combat TV I have ever seen

    Without ever saying so, it makes the case for the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki more eloquently than anything else I've read, seen or heard. A forced conquest of Japan would have been apocalyptic.

    Bravura television.

    "Hacksaw RIdge" is worth a look too.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    New thread.
  • Options
    DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dadge said:

    SeanT said:

    felix said:

    Charles said:

    Roger said:

    Interesting, from the pro-Remain Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/13/eu-negotiator-wants-special-deal-over-access-to-city-post-brexit

    "The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator has shown the first signs of backing away from his hardline, no compromise approach after admitting he wants a deal with Britain that will guarantee the other 27 member states will continue to have easy access to the City."

    Now, that looks interesting.

    By then the British banks will be well set up in Paris Frankfurt and Dublin. I got a circular from Barclays France explaining some expansion plan they have in the pipeline. I imagine all the banks have plans
    Barclays France (The bits they didn't sell a few weeks ago) has always been a French company - originally part of DCO I believe. Not related to passporting.
    Roger is determined to see the UK destroyed by Brexit - he and his ilk are among the reasons why Remain lost.
    I think it's more they hate the idea they might turn out to be wrong.
    That's true of most Remoaners, but I think some of the more deranged - like Meeks - actively want to see the country suffer, and slide into penury and famine, as some kind of "punishment" for our grievous error.
    It wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen. Every time I hear another story of everyday xenophobia it does make me wish my own country ill. Even if before the referendum my fellow countryidiots had an excuse for being so shitty, they certainly have no excuse now that they've voted to pull up the drawbridge.
    It would be the best thing that would happen. I am going to Kevin Keegan style LOVE IT if Brexit is a complete disaster.
    If you dislike Brexit UK so much why don't you move to Brussels then?
    Because then I wouldn't be able to watch my neighbours gradually realise the consequences of their actions.

    Plus I don't like Brussels.
  • Options
    DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038

    SeanT said:

    Mods, can we have Dadge banned?

    That crosses the line.

    If MikeK can be suspended for race-baiting, I see no reason why Dadge shouldn't be carded for actually wishing disaster on all Britons, because he doesn't like the way we voted in a referendum.

    Why should we be surprised by treason?

    These sorts of people are like Philby, Burgess and Maclean: well-educated, upper-middle class types willingly selling out their own country to a foreign power in pursuit of their deluded and naive ideals.

    And there were plenty of others like them. Not all spies, sure, or as well-placed, but sympathetic.

    In the 1930s it was for Commmuism and the USSR. If they were alive today, it would be for the EU.

    As Orwell said in the 1940s: England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during God save the King than of stealing from a poor box.
    I used political rhetoric to make a reasonable point. I'm shocked at these silly responses.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028
    Dadge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dadge said:

    SeanT said:

    felix said:

    Charles said:

    Roger said:

    Interesting, from the pro-Remain Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/13/eu-negotiator-wants-special-deal-over-access-to-city-post-brexit

    "The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator has shown the first signs of backing away from his hardline, no compromise approach after admitting he wants a deal with Britain that will guarantee the other 27 member states will continue to have easy access to the City."

    Now, that looks interesting.

    By then the British banks will be well set up in Paris Frankfurt and Dublin. I got a circular from Barclays France explaining some expansion plan they have in the pipeline. I imagine all the banks have plans
    Barclays France (The bits they didn't sell a few weeks ago) has always been a French company - originally part of DCO I believe. Not related to passporting.
    Roger is determined to see the UK destroyed by Brexit - he and his ilk are among the reasons why Remain lost.
    I think it's more they hate the idea they might turn out to be wrong.
    That's true of most Remoaners, but I think some of the more deranged - like Meeks - actively want to see the country suffer, and slide into penury and famine, as some kind of "punishment" for our grievous error.
    It wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen. Every time I hear another story of everyday xenophobia it does make me wish my own country ill. Even if before the referendum my fellow countryidiots had an excuse for being so shitty, they certainly have no excuse now that they've voted to pull up the drawbridge.
    It would be the best thing that would happen. I am going to Kevin Keegan style LOVE IT if Brexit is a complete disaster.
    If you dislike Brexit UK so much why don't you move to Brussels then?
    Because then I wouldn't be able to watch my neighbours gradually realise the consequences of their actions.

    Plus I don't like Brussels.
    They knew the consequences of their actions, they wanted restoration of sovereignty and more control over immigration, if you dislike that so much I am sure you will be able to find one city still in the EU more accomodating
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    HYUFD said:

    Dadge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dadge said:

    SeanT said:

    felix said:

    Charles said:

    Roger said:

    Interesting, from the pro-Remain Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/13/eu-negotiator-wants-special-deal-over-access-to-city-post-brexit

    "The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator has shown the first signs of backing away from his hardline, no compromise approach after admitting he wants a deal with Britain that will guarantee the other 27 member states will continue to have easy access to the City."

    Now, that looks interesting.

    By then the British banks will be well set up in Paris Frankfurt and Dublin. I got a circular from Barclays France explaining some expansion plan they have in the pipeline. I imagine all the banks have plans
    Barclays France (The bits they didn't sell a few weeks ago) has always been a French company - originally part of DCO I believe. Not related to passporting.
    Roger is determined to see the UK destroyed by Brexit - he and his ilk are among the reasons why Remain lost.
    I think it's more they hate the idea they might turn out to be wrong.
    .
    It be the worst thing that could happen. for being so shitty, they certainly have no excuse now that they've voted to pull up the drawbridge.
    It would be the best thing that would happen. I am going to Kevin Keegan style LOVE IT if Brexit is a complete disaster.
    If you dislike Brexit UK so much why don't you move to Brussels then?
    Because then I wouldn't be able to watch my neighbours gradually realise the consequences of their actions.

    Plus I don't like Brussels.
    They knew the consequences of their actions, they wanted restoration of sovereignty and more control over immigration, if you dislike that so much I am sure you will be able to find one city still in the EU more accomodating
    Hardly -there were plenty of reports of Leave voters thinking that all immigrants would have to leave e day after the referendum. Including those from non-EU countries!
This discussion has been closed.