The American travel ban is time-limited (90 days for the named countries and 120 days for refugees) and is opposed by many Republicans, so it should (depending of course on what replaces it) be less of an issue after Easter. The Prince Charles stuff is trivial, so the bet is basically 5/1 against Trump himself deciding the game is not worth the candle (or just possibly HMQ being taken ill again).
I agree with Alastair: Ed Miliband looks to be on manoeuvres.
Of what form, I'm not sure, but it's very interesting.
He's wanting to be Labour leader again, he knew he could never beat David Cameron but Mrs May is eminently beatable, I think the's right.
The fact I tipped him at 200/1 as next Labour leader in a thread header is just mere coincidence.
Ed should be thanked by Labour for many reasons. But one stands out. His Labour party in 2015 increased the vote share of the party losing in the previous election.
In fact, since the war, this has happened only twice. Hague achieved it in 2001 with a small increase.
Labour in 2015 won 30.4% against 29% in 2010 when it lost. This despite getting massacred in Scotland.
The 1.4% increase in vote share remains the biggest increase by any party in the election after it lost.
Considering the Lib Dems went from 23% to 7.9%, that 1.4% increase is pretty piss poor.
Considering the Lib Dems went from 23% to 7.9%, the Tory increase is pretty piss poor
I remember when 35% was supposed to enough for Labour to win.
That 35% is potentially enough is as true now as it was then. The problem was that Ed didn't get 35%!
I agree with Alastair: Ed Miliband looks to be on manoeuvres.
Of what form, I'm not sure, but it's very interesting.
He's wanting to be Labour leader again, he knew he could never beat David Cameron but Mrs May is eminently beatable, I think the's right.
The fact I tipped him at 200/1 as next Labour leader in a thread header is just mere coincidence.
Maybe he feels guilty.
Trump said he won because of Brexit. Brexit came about because Dave won a majority in 2015. Ed was instrumental to Dave managing to win.
Ergo if Ed has not stood for the leadership, Trump may not have happened.
True Fact. Bigly.
And he destroyed labour with his £3 membership fee. He more than anyone is responsible for Corbyn and the end of his party
Miliband (i) presided over all the debacles in Scotland, his North London demeanour turning 40 Labour MPs into a solitary survivor, (ii) presided over the rule change for the Labour leadership and the introduction of the three-quidders, and (iii) misjudged the 2015 election catastrophically.
I don't think the Labour party could survive another period of Ed Miliband's leadership.
The Scottish result had little to do with Miliband. It was a direct consequence of the Indy Ref. I wonder who allowed the referendum to take place ?
Corbyn's on a roll - there's £19 queued up to back him as next PM on BF. (admittedly noone else is much bigger)
You see.. this is the problem.
Social and broadcast media has gone absolutely crazy over the last 24 hours. Most of this is the usual suspects, but it's been given more credence by a few tweets from Ruth Davidson and a few Tory MPs that suggests the nation is united in outrage.
It isn't. But you can see why some true believers are now getting excited and dipping their toes in the water, even if £19 is small beer.
I'm a fan of Corbyn supporters (and others) living within their means. Undoubtedly there's many of his fans mixed in with the shrewd hedge funds making up the full £19 there.
I agree with Alastair: Ed Miliband looks to be on manoeuvres.
Of what form, I'm not sure, but it's very interesting.
He's wanting to be Labour leader again, he knew he could never beat David Cameron but Mrs May is eminently beatable, I think the's right.
The fact I tipped him at 200/1 as next Labour leader in a thread header is just mere coincidence.
May would trounce Ed Miliband, he is even less suited to lead post Brexit UK than he was in 2015. Corbynistas could also argue with some validity why replace a leader who is a genuine socialist with a half hearted one and who, unlike Corbyn, is already a proven general election loser!
Kinnock was a double election loser!
Kinnock increased the Labour share of the vote by 3% in 1987 and gained around 20 seats and saved the party from oblivion, Miliband increased the Labour share by about 1%, lost around 30 seats and sent his party over a cliff!
I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
@Casino_Royale I can see your thinking - decent value bet. That all said, none the wiser as to what his recent interventions are about.
Perhaps it's just that as a senior member of the PLP (I hesitate to use the traditional, elder statesman) he's realised he should act as if he is one. He's showing his vaunted moral courage.
I agree with Alastair: Ed Miliband looks to be on manoeuvres.
Of what form, I'm not sure, but it's very interesting.
He's wanting to be Labour leader again, he knew he could never beat David Cameron but Mrs May is eminently beatable, I think the's right.
The fact I tipped him at 200/1 as next Labour leader in a thread header is just mere coincidence.
Ed should be thanked by Labour for many reasons. But one stands out. His Labour party in 2015 increased the vote share of the party losing in the previous election.
In fact, since the war, this has happened only twice. Hague achieved it in 2001 with a small increase.
Labour in 2015 won 30.4% against 29% in 2010 when it lost. This despite getting massacred in Scotland.
The 1.4% increase in vote share remains the biggest increase by any party in the election after it lost.
Considering the Lib Dems went from 23% to 7.9%, that 1.4% increase is pretty piss poor.
Considering the Lib Dems went from 23% to 7.9%, the Tory increase is pretty piss poor
I remember when 35% was supposed to enough for Labour to win.
35% may well have been enough for Ed Miliband to become PM.
The Queen is not going to sideline Charles. Both HRH and Prince Charles are very capable of icy civility, but I cannot see Trump managing it. Indeed often the best way to deal with loathsome braggarts is to be polite to them. They cannot handle it.
Incidentally, I would expect Prince William's world view is little different to his father, and grandfather.
I agree with Alastair: Ed Miliband looks to be on manoeuvres.
Of what form, I'm not sure, but it's very interesting.
He's wanting to be Labour leader again, he knew he could never beat David Cameron but Mrs May is eminently beatable, I think the's right.
The fact I tipped him at 200/1 as next Labour leader in a thread header is just mere coincidence.
Ed should be thanked by Labour for many reasons. But one stands out. His Labour party in 2015 increased the vote share of the party losing in the previous election by the biggest % ever.
In fact, since the war, this has happened only twice. Hague achieved it in 2001 with a small increase.
Labour in 2015 won 30.4% against 29% in 2010 when it lost. This despite getting massacred in Scotland.
The 1.4% increase in vote share remains the biggest increase by any party in the election after it lost. Of course, in England, the increase was even more.
The increase was either in safe Labour seats or safe Conservative seats, or Lib Dem seats. Labour fell back where it mattered.
You can mock as much as you like. But it was the highest increase since the war. Labour in 1955, 1974(F). Tories: 1966, 1974 (O), 2001.
And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?
And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?
I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
Dave and George were Liberal Democrats. Mrs May is acting like a Tory, should get more support.
I agree with Alastair: Ed Miliband looks to be on manoeuvres.
Of what form, I'm not sure, but it's very interesting.
He's wanting to be Labour leader again, he knew he could never beat David Cameron but Mrs May is eminently beatable, I think the's right.
The fact I tipped him at 200/1 as next Labour leader in a thread header is just mere coincidence.
Maybe he feels guilty.
Trump said he won because of Brexit. Brexit came about because Dave won a majority in 2015. Ed was instrumental to Dave managing to win.
Ergo if Ed has not stood for the leadership, Trump may not have happened.
True Fact. Bigly.
And he destroyed labour with his £3 membership fee. He more than anyone is responsible for Corbyn and the end of his party
Miliband (i) presided over all the debacles in Scotland, his North London demeanour turning 40 Labour MPs into a solitary survivor, (ii) presided over the rule change for the Labour leadership and the introduction of the three-quidders, and (iii) misjudged the 2015 election catastrophically.
I don't think the Labour party could survive another period of Ed Miliband's leadership.
The Scottish result had little to do with Miliband. It was a direct consequence of the Indy Ref. I wonder who allowed the referendum to take place ?
Completely wrong.
The IndyRef took place because Miliband presided over the carnage at Holyrood in 2011.
It was because the SNP won an absolute majority -- something Labour thought was impossible because they gerrymandered the rules -- that there was an IndyRef.
Who was in charge of Labour in 2011, who was responsible for the debacle -- Ed Miliband.
Slipping in under the radar whilst everyone screams about you-know-who. Although we have been here so many times before that I dare say that the can will be kicked down the road at the last minute yet again.
Most probably, anyway...
Do they need Trump's approval of anything whatsoever? If they do, this could be the real thing.
I agree with Alastair: Ed Miliband looks to be on manoeuvres.
Of what form, I'm not sure, but it's very interesting.
He's wanting to be Labour leader again, he knew he could never beat David Cameron but Mrs May is eminently beatable, I think the's right.
The fact I tipped him at 200/1 as next Labour leader in a thread header is just mere coincidence.
May would trounce Ed Miliband, he is even less suited to lead post Brexit UK than he was in 2015. Corbynistas could also argue with some validity why replace a leader who is a genuine socialist with a half hearted one and who, unlike Corbyn, is already a proven general election loser!
Kinnock was a double election loser!
Kinnock increased the Labour share of the vote by 3% in 1987 and gained around 20 seats and saved the party from oblivion, Miliband increased the Labour share by about 1%, lost around 30 seats and sent his party over a cliff!
1983 was the election after the loss of government. 1987 was the election after that.
Best thing the French left could do would be to not stand a candidate and back Macron.
Why would the French left back a Blairite like Macron in round 1? At best they will hold their noses for him in round 2 if he manages to get there
Because a final 2 of Fillon and Le Pen is no good at all for the left and hopefully after Trump the left worldwide will realise that they need to compromise and slowly win back power rather than going all in on fringe candidates that have no hope of winning.
And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?
People die of cancer and get murdered in death camps of their own free will, do they?
I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the Tories
I agree with Alastair: Ed Miliband looks to be on manoeuvres.
Of what form, I'm not sure, but it's very interesting.
He's wanting to be Labour leader again, he knew he could never beat David Cameron but Mrs May is eminently beatable, I think the's right.
The fact I tipped him at 200/1 as next Labour leader in a thread header is just mere coincidence.
Ed should be thanked by Labour for many reasons. But one stands out. His Labour party in 2015 increased the vote share of the party losing in the previous election.
In fact, since the war, this has happened only twice. Hague achieved it in 2001 with a small increase.
Labour in 2015 won 30.4% against 29% in 2010 when it lost. This despite getting massacred in Scotland.
The 1.4% increase in vote share remains the biggest increase by any party in the election after it lost.
At least he won more seats than Foot did in 1983!
After losing 40 in Scotland. In England, there was a swing to Labour.
I agree with Alastair: Ed Miliband looks to be on manoeuvres.
Of what form, I'm not sure, but it's very interesting.
He's wanting to be Labour leader again, he knew he could never beat David Cameron but Mrs May is eminently beatable, I think the's right.
The fact I tipped him at 200/1 as next Labour leader in a thread header is just mere coincidence.
May would trounce Ed Miliband, he is even less suited to lead post Brexit UK than he was in 2015. Corbynistas could also argue with some validity why replace a leader who is a genuine socialist with a half hearted one and who, unlike Corbyn, is already a proven general election loser!
Kinnock was a double election loser!
Kinnock increased the Labour share of the vote by 3% in 1987 and gained around 20 seats and saved the party from oblivion, Miliband increased the Labour share by about 1%, lost around 30 seats and sent his party over a cliff!
1983 was the election after the loss of government. 1987 was the election after that.
Yes and it was 1983 which was the disaster and Kinnock saved the party from that. Miliband was the third worst postwar Labour leader after Foot and Brown
I think that just looks worse, as if the UK is complicit.
It's grown up action for British citizens. I don't think those who would have been affected give two hoots about how it looks. They are now able to travel to the US easily. I think this was a completely botched operation and overall not a very good idea, but Trump is delivering on a campaign promise. He just should have brought the rest of the US goverment to the party!
And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?
People die of cancer and get murdered in death camps of their own free will, do they?
I can only really ask you to ponder the stupidity of that response.
This may be taken out of Theresa May's hands. What happens if the House of Commons votes to rescind the invitation? Given the small majority and the noises from numerous Conservative MPs, that's imaginable.
Interesting. Does the Commons have the power to do that or is inviting a head of State on a State visit one of the few things still covered by Royal Prerogative? Serious question. I don't know.
I think it's within the Royal Prerogative (but Parliament can always legislate to overrule the government). Could this government ignore a vote in the House of Commons? I don't think it has the authority to do so.
He's coming. There will be a petition and a march and we will likely see a firm hand on protesters a la the Chinese visit.
Question is how much if anything his EOs and the reaction to them will teach or change him.
Best thing the French left could do would be to not stand a candidate and back Macron.
Why would the French left back a Blairite like Macron in round 1? At best they will hold their noses for him in round 2 if he manages to get there
Because a final 2 of Fillon and Le Pen is no good at all for the left and hopefully after Trump the left worldwide will realise that they need to compromise and slowly win back power rather than going all in on fringe candidates that have no hope of winning.
Given they have just voted heavily for Hamon over Valls unlikely, indeed economically Le Pen is left of Macron
@JGForsyth: If Macron wins in France after quitting the Socialists, suspect it’ll make some in UK Labour think anew abt splitting & forming a new party
I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the Tories
What's the basis you're so certain about personable and/or hard-working?
@JGForsyth: If Macron wins in France after quitting the Socialists, suspect it’ll make some in UK Labour think anew abt splitting & forming a new party
There already is one, Macron is basically a Cleggite LD candidate
@JGForsyth: If Macron wins in France after quitting the Socialists, suspect it’ll make some in UK Labour think anew abt splitting & forming a new party
There already is one, Macron is basically a Cleggite LD candidate
LDs are still more screwed than Labour. No more a lifeboat than the Titanic
I think that just looks worse, as if the UK is complicit.
Either that or that Donald is throwing us titbits. I preferred the old Britain, which was comfortably equidistant from the US and Europe. For many, our new role as a quasi-autonomous American dominion will take some getting used to.
This may be taken out of Theresa May's hands. What happens if the House of Commons votes to rescind the invitation? Given the small majority and the noises from numerous Conservative MPs, that's imaginable.
Interesting. Does the Commons have the power to do that or is inviting a head of State on a State visit one of the few things still covered by Royal Prerogative? Serious question. I don't know.
They obviously couldn't vote to rescind it - as surely technically it's the Queen who invites him. What they could do however is make it incredibly awkward by voting to censure Trump, or pass a motion saying parliament does not support the visit. Coupled with media attacks from all the UK's other leading non-government political figures - Khan, Sturgeon, Corbyn if still in situ, even Davidson and the Tories' Cameroon wing and it could be a potential nightmare, especially as he's famously needy, she wants that trade deal and it would be on our media's patch - no getting away with two quick questions. Protests would dwarf Bush, firstly because of social media, and secondly because Trump actively horrifies far more than the usual suspects.
The political problem for May with Trump is this. Up until now she's had a relatively easy ride setting out a Brexit that appeases illiberal sentiments, which suits her because that's where potential votes are for the Tories and kicks the can down the road on the tougher questions. She's had an easy ride because liberals are divided between three parties and over what to do about Brexit. Tories are largely silent because they're in power and hope for the best, Labour (ex and current) are divided umpteen ways between the younger Corbynistas, who are mostly in the continuity remain camp, metropolitan centrists whose main concern is single market membership Brexit or no Brexit, the party's old right who're concerned about looking like they're defying their leave voters and the leadership who don't have a clue because they don't get why it's all so important. Then there's the Lib Dems who sniff a great opportunity in being solidly 'remain'. Trump unites all those groups in horror and gives a hard Brexit a repulsive face.
If, and it's a big if, Labour were led by a proper leader, he/she'd have responded to May's 12 points with their own plan prioritising the single market and now be arguing that May's Brexit means Trump and tying her to him at every opportunity and with every fresh outrage (and there'll be plenty more). Alas, that's not the case, but the events of the past few days have united people who've been tearing lumps out of each other for months.
And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?
People die of cancer and get murdered in death camps of their own free will, do they?
I can only really ask you to ponder the stupidity of that response.
No, that doesn't wotk. I said, why allow cancer and death camps, and you said "God doesn't deny man free will." How is the existence of cancer explained by the fact that people have free will?
And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?
But didn't he intervene at Sodom and Gomorrah?
And in the Flood, and numerous times in the OT. I will admit I struggle with that aspect to God. But the point stands that God gave man free will - what would be the point in a creating a race toy robots? We are free to choose good or the other, that's why we are capable of doing great evil to each other.
This may be taken out of Theresa May's hands. What happens if the House of Commons votes to rescind the invitation? Given the small majority and the noises from numerous Conservative MPs, that's imaginable.
Interesting. Does the Commons have the power to do that or is inviting a head of State on a State visit one of the few things still covered by Royal Prerogative? Serious question. I don't know.
They obviously couldn't vote to rescind it - as surely technically it's the Queen who invites him. What they could do however is make it incredibly awkward by voting to censure Trump, or pass a motion saying parliament does not support the visit. Coupled with media attacks from all the UK's other leading non-government political figures - Khan, Sturgeon, Corbyn if still in situ, even Davidson and the Tories' Cameroon wing and it could be a potential nightmare, especially as he's famously needy, she wants that trade deal and it would be on our media's patch - no getting away with two quick questions. Protests would dwarf Bush, firstly because of social media, and secondly because Trump actively horrifies far more than the usual suspects.
The political problem for May with Trump is this. Up until now she's had a relatively easy ride setting out a Brexit that appeases illiberal sentiments, which suits her because that's where potential votes are for the Tories and kicks the can down the road on the tougher questions. She's had an easy ride because liberals are divided between three parties and over what to do about Brexit. Tories are largely silent because they're in power and hope for the best, Labour (ex and current) are divided umpteen ways between the younger Corbynistas, who are mostly in the continuity remain camp, metropolitan centrists whose main concern is single market membership Brexit or no Brexit, the party's old right who're concerned about looking like they're defying their leave voters and the leadership who don't have a clue because they don't get why it's all so important. Then there's the Lib Dems who sniff a great opportunity in being solidly 'remain'. Trump unites all those groups in horror and gives a hard Brexit a repulsive face.
If, and it's a big if, Labour were led by a proper leader, he/she'd have responded to May's 12 points with their own plan prioritising the single market and now be arguing that May's Brexit means Trump and tying her to him at every opportunity and with every fresh outrage (and there'll be plenty more). Alas, that's not the case, but the events of the past few days have united people who've been tearing lumps out of each other for months.
And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?
But didn't he intervene at Sodom and Gomorrah?
And in the Flood, and numerous times in the OT. I will admit I struggle with that aspect to God. But the point stands that God gave man free will - what would be the point in a creating a race toy robots? We are free to choose good or the other, that's why we are capable of doing great evil to each other.
Have you read East of Eden? That's the meaning of Timshel
I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the Tories
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score. She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the Tories
What's the basis you're so certain about personable and/or hard-working?
Cameron was more arrogant and aggressive, May works longer hours without chillaxing
I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the Tories
What's the basis you're so certain about personable and/or hard-working?
Cameron was more arrogant and aggressive, May works longer hours without chillaxing
I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the Tories
What's the basis you're so certain about personable and/or hard-working?
Cameron was more arrogant and aggressive, May works longer hours without chillaxing
HTF do you know ?
Blatantly obvious through endless press reports and his attitude to backbenchers in contrast to May's and Cameron took more vacations and took more hours off
I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the Tories
What's the basis you're so certain about personable and/or hard-working?
Cameron was more arrogant and aggressive, May works longer hours without chillaxing
British Citizens with dual nationality will not be affected by the US travel ban unless they are flying to America from one of the seven muslim - majority countries named in President Trump's Executive Order
That page is wrong, surely? It suggests that the order only applies to people travelling from those countries. That is not the case?
I doubt the UK government are making this up. Boris has spoken directly to Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon.
What an utter mess!
This is the text of the order:
I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the Tories
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score. She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair did
My advice is to take Hamon now and see if he can hold on to that reasonably competitive position. His 44 is pretty attractive, with the scandals currently enveloping the major three.
That page is wrong, surely? It suggests that the order only applies to people travelling from those countries. That is not the case?
I doubt the UK government are making this up. Boris has spoken directly to Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon.
What an utter mess!
This is the text of the order:
I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?
People die of cancer and get murdered in death camps of their own free will, do they?
I can only really ask you to ponder the stupidity of that response.
No, that doesn't wotk. I said, why allow cancer and death camps, and you said "God doesn't deny man free will." How is the existence of cancer explained by the fact that people have free will?
Mercury, transfats, radiation, modern working/sleep patterns, nitrogen fertilisers, pesticides, soy, hormone-treated meat, refined sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup, smoking, air pollution - which one is God responsible for?
I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the Tories
What's the basis you're so certain about personable and/or hard-working?
Cameron was more arrogant and aggressive, May works longer hours without chillaxing
So no evidence then.
Plenty of evidence from Cameron's attitude to his backbenchers
That page is wrong, surely? It suggests that the order only applies to people travelling from those countries. That is not the case?
I doubt the UK government are making this up. Boris has spoken directly to Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon.
What an utter mess!
This is the text of the order:
I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
Yeah, it all hinges on the definition of the word "from"
Yes, but if you take the other interpretation then this part of Boris's statement doesn't make sense:
If you are a UK national who happens to be travelling from one of those countries to the US, then the order does not apply to you – even if you were born in one of those countries.
Ed Miliband does not come across as being gifted politically.
Mind you he was better than Corbyn or Gordon Brown.
I think the current state of politics can all be traced back to Blair changing the voting system for European elections, which enabled UKIP to get a foothold. Farage would probably never have won a FPTP seat in the European Parliament yet alone Westminster. This change was done by Blair because he felt so threatened by a potential Conservative resurgence that did not really start until 2005. The system in Scotland allowed the SNP to become the principle party after only a few parliamentary elections. The irony was Labour were warned by the Tories about the potential consequences on both accounts and Labour did it anyway, so Blair has Brexit and Scottish nationalism to add to the charge sheet of screw-ups.
I would still vote Labour if a reasonable leader came along but I wonder if they can get something even worse than Corbyn? That surely must be the challenge!
The SNP went from nowhere in 2003 to minority government in 2007. On just the constituency vote they went from 24% of the vote to 33% - beating out labour by a percentage point. in 2011 they got 45% of the constituency vote and on fptp seats it was pretty much a one party state.
If it was JFK two hours sounds like he was fast tracked.
I have travelled with a Baghdad born British Muslim to the States a couple of times. We always take plenty of reading material, as he always gets put into a quaratine room for a couple of hours after getting to US immigration.
I suspect the 2 hours was after getting to the desk.
And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?
But didn't he intervene at Sodom and Gomorrah?
And in the Flood, and numerous times in the OT. I will admit I struggle with that aspect to God. But the point stands that God gave man free will - what would be the point in a creating a race toy robots? We are free to choose good or the other, that's why we are capable of doing great evil to each other.
I don't think the death camp victims exercised much free will about it. Were they collateral damage in an exercise to explore the free will of their killers? That seems a bit unfair. Can you really imagine a God who could see the holocaust unfold in real time and think "I am ultimately responsible for this and I could stop it in a moment. But I won't." Really?
And please explain how people die of cancer of their own free will.
My advice is to take Hamon now and see if he can hold on to that reasonably competitive position. His 44 is pretty attractive, with the scandals currently enveloping the major three.
I agree with Alastair: Ed Miliband looks to be on manoeuvres.
Of what form, I'm not sure, but it's very interesting.
He's wanting to be Labour leader again, he knew he could never beat David Cameron but Mrs May is eminently beatable, I think the's right.
The fact I tipped him at 200/1 as next Labour leader in a thread header is just mere coincidence.
Ed should be thanked by Labour for many reasons. But one stands out. His Labour party in 2015 increased the vote share of the party losing in the previous election by the biggest % ever.
In fact, since the war, this has happened only twice. Hague achieved it in 2001 with a small increase.
Labour in 2015 won 30.4% against 29% in 2010 when it lost. This despite getting massacred in Scotland.
The 1.4% increase in vote share remains the biggest increase by any party in the election after it lost. Of course, in England, the increase was even more.
Comments
I wonder who allowed the referendum to take place ?
Yes. Flip it over. The Edstone is back.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
Incidentally, I would expect Prince William's world view is little different to his father, and grandfather.
Who, hypothetically, would make this claim and whom would they identify as the maker of the hypothetical payments?
The IndyRef took place because Miliband presided over the carnage at Holyrood in 2011.
It was because the SNP won an absolute majority -- something Labour thought was impossible because they gerrymandered the rules -- that there was an IndyRef.
Who was in charge of Labour in 2011, who was responsible for the debacle -- Ed Miliband.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/british-tibetan-women-arrested-for-staging-protest-during-chinese-president-xi-jinpings-visit-to-a3097426.html
Oh, wait...
https://twitter.com/kattykaybbc/status/825799056656056322
Question is how much if anything his EOs and the reaction to them will teach or change him.
@JGForsyth: If Macron wins in France after quitting the Socialists, suspect it’ll make some in UK Labour think anew abt splitting & forming a new party
No special exemption for the UK.
https://twitter.com/BBCHamedani/status/825782966408318977
The political problem for May with Trump is this. Up until now she's had a relatively easy ride setting out a Brexit that appeases illiberal sentiments, which suits her because that's where potential votes are for the Tories and kicks the can down the road on the tougher questions. She's had an easy ride because liberals are divided between three parties and over what to do about Brexit. Tories are largely silent because they're in power and hope for the best, Labour (ex and current) are divided umpteen ways between the younger Corbynistas, who are mostly in the continuity remain camp, metropolitan centrists whose main concern is single market membership Brexit or no Brexit, the party's old right who're concerned about looking like they're defying their leave voters and the leadership who don't have a clue because they don't get why it's all so important. Then there's the Lib Dems who sniff a great opportunity in being solidly 'remain'. Trump unites all those groups in horror and gives a hard Brexit a repulsive face.
If, and it's a big if, Labour were led by a proper leader, he/she'd have responded to May's 12 points with their own plan prioritising the single market and now be arguing that May's Brexit means Trump and tying her to him at every opportunity and with every fresh outrage (and there'll be plenty more). Alas, that's not the case, but the events of the past few days have united people who've been tearing lumps out of each other for months.
Edit: Mr @TOPPING says the same but with extra added humour.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 21% Hamon 15% Melenchon 10%
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/29/97001-20170129FILWWW00198-sondage-exclusif-fillon-et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete-au-premier-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php
The future is Macron !
Macron !
British Citizens with dual nationality will not be affected by the US travel ban unless they are flying to America from one of the seven muslim - majority countries named in President Trump's Executive Order
So Mo should be OK
I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/01/29/donald-trumps-answer-immigration-wrong-right-problem-solve/
"Donald Trump's answer on immigration is questionable, but he's right that there is a problem to solve"
If you are a UK national who happens to be travelling from one of those countries to the US, then the order does not apply to you – even if you were born in one of those countries.
I suspect the 2 hours was after getting to the desk.
And please explain how people die of cancer of their own free will.