That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
This is the polling company that gives Trump an overall net approval rating while all the others have him at record lows. At the very least it comes with a substantial health warning.
Thinking a bit more about Bradshaw's view: where was this concern for Britain's interest (as he sees it) when it came to surrendering multiple veto rights in the Lisbon Treaty? Or voting against a referendum on that, despite it being in the Labour manifesto? Or surrendering half the rebate in return for a promise from Chirac he'd contemplate the possibility of thinking about perhaps a minor amendment to the CAP [which never happened]?
Bradshaw may genuinely believe being in the EU is in the British interest, but that same interest never stopped him supporting flinging away powers and money into the gaping maw of Brussels.
My guess would be that the Tories take Copeland by a whisker, while Labour holds Stoke fairly easily.
Stoke is the really big one. If Labour loses that to UKIP there is no hiding place. Likewise, if UKIP does not take Stoke it's hard to see how it can ever win. By contrast, a Tory win in Copeland will merely confirm what we already know: as long as Corbyn leads Labour the Tories are guaranteed a huge majority at the GE. Stoke is existential for two parties. Copeland isn't.
why bother quoting this rubbish? he's been a councillor their since 2010, at the very least. that seems fairly local to me
Since you didn't read the text:
He went to Keele University and lived in Newcastle where he was a councillor, double jobbing in Tristram Hunt’s constituency office as he waited to be parachuted in. As far back as five years ago the Stoke Sentinel ran a letter asking why outsider Snell was hanging round Stoke, suggesting he was sniffing for a seat. In a 2011 tweet to the Tory whip Therese Coffey that rather undermines his claims to be “local“, Snell admitted he is “still a Suffolk-boy at heart”.
Moral of story - don't pretend your candidate is something he isn't.
Nothing wrong with 'Having chosen to make my home in the Potteries'.....
Sounds like he has been local since he went to University there. Nuttall meanwhile cannot name the six towns...
Nuttall isnt pretending to be a local candidate, so that would seem to be fair enough.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
What rubbish.
I guess many of the same people who criticised the judges over their A50 decision will be defending Trump over this: people who judge politics (at least their own brand of it) over the law.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
What's your point? Since when did popularity make something right?
My point is that if you restricted yourself to watching TV, reading the papers, and clicking Twitter, you'd get the sense this Ban is wildly unpopular, causing near riots, huge snowflake rallies, blah blah
In fact it's supported by the American voter almost two to one.
Speaking ahead of the Commons debate, Brexit Secretary David Davis said that after last year's referendum MPs will be considering a very simple question: "Do we trust the people or not?"
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
I'd agree with that. The Conservatives are clearly targetting Copeland whereas Labour have to put effort into both seats. If there's not a narrowing of Labour's percentage lead, it'll be a poor result for the Conservatives in the context of current polling.
However, to take the seat would make it the largest opposition majority overturned by a government at a by-election since well before WWII. Consequently, to not take it would not be the greatest disaster for the Tories.
A gain would be a catastrophe for the Tories. It would almost certainly end Corbyn's leadership.
A narrow defeat would serve their political interests far better - albeit not the country's.
Corbyn would survive a Copeland loss, losing Stoke too on the sane night would be more difficult for him however he can blame it on non Corbynista candidates in both seats. His landslide re election by party members less than 6 months ago has also renewed his mandate
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
What rubbish.
I guess many of the same people who criticised the judges over their A50 decision will be defending Trump over this: people who judge politics (at least their own brand of it) over the law.
Yawn. The AG isn't a judge, and she is a political party member and appointee. Aside from that your comparison is spot on.
@Antifrank I've backed Labour to hold both seats individually with a small Double on top. I'm just not admitting it publically as my underlying assumptions for those bets have proved wrong about everything recently.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
This is the polling company that gives Trump an overall net approval rating while all the others have him at record lows. At the very least it comes with a substantial health warning.
Isn't there a PB rule about trashing the poll you don't agree with
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
What rubbish.
I guess many of the same people who criticised the judges over their A50 decision will be defending Trump over this: people who judge politics (at least their own brand of it) over the law.
According to Sky:
"Ms Yates, who had been appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, told Justice Department lawyers in a letter on Monday that they would not defend Mr Trump's travel order in court.
She had said that she did not believe the order would be "consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what's right".
Right or wrong this is the policy of the administration. I am not sure what you expect to happen to a government official who refuses to carry out instructions and seeks to block their implementation but to me a sacking looks fairly inevitable. This does not mean that she is wrong in her views, just that those views and her actions are not compatible with her continuing to hold the office to which she was appointed.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
What rubbish.
I guess many of the same people who criticised the judges over their A50 decision will be defending Trump over this: people who judge politics (at least their own brand of it) over the law.
Yawn. The AG isn't a judge, and she is a political party member and appointee. Aside from that your comparison is spot on.
So that makes her incapable of (in her very qualified experience) assessing whether a prima facie dubious law is constitutional or not?
My guess would be that the Tories take Copeland by a whisker, while Labour holds Stoke fairly easily.
Stoke is the really big one. If Labour loses that to UKIP there is no hiding place. Likewise, if UKIP does not take Stoke it's hard to see how it can ever win. By contrast, a Tory win in Copeland will merely confirm what we already know: as long as Corbyn leads Labour the Tories are guaranteed a huge majority at the GE. Stoke is existential for two parties. Copeland isn't.
I work in Ipswich. Funnily enough my boss told me yesterday she went to school with Gareth Snell. Apparently they all thought he was going to end up an MP and he pushed her off her chair once. One way to gain a seat I suppose.
My guess would be that the Tories take Copeland by a whisker, while Labour holds Stoke fairly easily.
Stoke is the really big one. If Labour loses that to UKIP there is no hiding place. Likewise, if UKIP does not take Stoke it's hard to see how it can ever win. By contrast, a Tory win in Copeland will merely confirm what we already know: as long as Corbyn leads Labour the Tories are guaranteed a huge majority at the GE. Stoke is existential for two parties. Copeland isn't.
why bother quoting this rubbish? he's been a councillor their since 2010, at the very least. that seems fairly local to me
Since you didn't read the text:
He went to Keele University and lived in Newcastle where he was a councillor, double jobbing in Tristram Hunt’s constituency office as he waited to be parachuted in. As far back as five years ago the Stoke Sentinel ran a letter asking why outsider Snell was hanging round Stoke, suggesting he was sniffing for a seat. In a 2011 tweet to the Tory whip Therese Coffey that rather undermines his claims to be “local“, Snell admitted he is “still a Suffolk-boy at heart”.
Moral of story - don't pretend your candidate is something he isn't.
Nothing wrong with 'Having chosen to make my home in the Potteries'.....
Sounds like he has been local since he went to University there. Nuttall meanwhile cannot name the six towns...
This carpetbagger jerk Snell regards the people of Stoke as sh1t for having voted for Brexit. Labour must have a death wish if they think he'll do.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
What rubbish.
I guess many of the same people who criticised the judges over their A50 decision will be defending Trump over this: people who judge politics (at least their own brand of it) over the law.
Unlike British judges, US AG's are politically partisan. Given that she was instructing her department to ignore the Executive Order, her departure was inevitable.
My guess would be that the Tories take Copeland by a whisker, while Labour holds Stoke fairly easily.
Stoke is the really big one. If Labour loses that to UKIP there is no hiding place. Likewise, if UKIP does not take Stoke it's hard to see how it can ever win. By contrast, a Tory win in Copeland will merely confirm what we already know: as long as Corbyn leads Labour the Tories are guaranteed a huge majority at the GE. Stoke is existential for two parties. Copeland isn't.
I expect Labour to lose both.
If there is one thing that could shake my belief that Labour will hold these seats, it is that prediction. You made both the big calls correctly last year even when everyone else (including, perhaps especially, me) thought you were merely being pessimistic because you hated the thought of those outcomes so much.
But - I don't know. I think Stoke is marginal more because of the poor qualities of Hunt than any other reason, and now Labour have a local candidate, I think that will trump the Uitlander Nuttall. And I would point out that that logic led me to predict a comfortable Tory hold in Gloucester by local Old Etonian and banker (and frankly, rather dull and not very intelligent) Richard Graham at a time everyone was swooning over the ex-wing commander, state-educated woman and all-round good thing Labour had put up, who had never been to Gloucester before selection.
The fact I believe both Copeland candidates are local does however somewhat negate that advantage there.
To be fair, although I expect Labour to lose I don't know if they will! Of the two Copeland looks more certain. I would be genuinely surprised if Labour holds on there as it is up against a well organised, experienced opponent. Stoke is much harder to call because so much depends on UKIP being able to galvanise non-voters and persude erstwhile Tories to switch. If Nuttall can't do it there, it really does put UKIP's ongoing viability into doubt.
On the plus side, if UKIP is seen as tied to Trump this increases the chances of Dr. Foxinsox's tip on them (at 9) to be under 20% coming off.
F1: just checked the dates. Four weeks (27 Feb) until the first test starts. Second runs from 7 to 10 March. Be glad when it finally gets underway.
Edited extra bit: intriguing gossip line, assuming it's honest: "Fernando Alonso is confident in his McLaren car's power, but is unsure how aerodynamically successful his 2017 ride will be. (Marca)"
Right or wrong this is the policy of the administration. I am not sure what you expect to happen to a government official who refuses to carry out instructions and seeks to block their implementation but to me a sacking looks fairly inevitable. This does not mean that she is wrong in her views, just that those views and her actions are not compatible with her continuing to hold the office to which she was appointed.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
It also took getting on for a decade. The SNP's breakthrough came in 2007, when it formed its first (minority) government. Labour's collapse wasn't assured until 2015 (or possibly 2014 if you regard the GE result as inevitable after the SIndyRef swing). For those intervening years, split voting was common and loyalties were up for grabs. Blaming Miliband is a bit unfair: Scottish Labour's problems date back to late-stage Blair and also to Scottish Labour's woeful leadership from Wendy Alexander onwards.
It is certainly true that Wendy Alexander onwards, there have been a succession of disastrous leadership choices for SLAB.
The tipping point was 2011, when the SNP with a manifesto pledge of an IndyRef, took a majority in Holyrood. That was on Ed Miliband’s watch.
For sure, it had been building for some time. Decades really.
But, 2011 was when the spaceship crossed the event horizon with Hapless Ed in command.
I still think that's more than a bit unfair. Going in to the 2011 election, Labour was well clear. It was only during the campaign that a huge switcharound took place and that surely has to reflect on Iain Gray much more than Miliband? That's not to say he wasn't without blame entirely but I'd have thought that local factors predominated.
Fair point.
Remarkably, although the battlefield is covered with the wounded MSPs and MPs of the Labour Party, Iain Gray is still standing. He is still the MSP for East Lothian.
His local voters can obviously see something in him that the rest of us missed.
I notice that the pro-Trump petition is getting high support in constituencies with a significant Jewish population - Finchley, Hendon, Hackney N, Blackley and Bury S.
I suspect this will enrage some leftists even more.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
What's your point? Since when did popularity make something right?
My point is that if you restricted yourself to watching TV, reading the papers, and clicking Twitter, you'd get the sense this Ban is wildly unpopular, causing near riots, huge snowflake rallies, blah blah
In fact it's supported by the American voter almost two to one.
Yeah. So what?
it's politically interesting, Unlike you.
Ah come on. That really hurts. :-(
Given that Trump got elected, I thought we could take it for granted there is a constituency for this kind of guff.
So much so, that the outrage he has generated was clearly intended. A trap that a load of people have walked right into.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
What rubbish.
I guess many of the same people who criticised the judges over their A50 decision will be defending Trump over this: people who judge politics (at least their own brand of it) over the law.
According to Sky:
"Ms Yates, who had been appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, told Justice Department lawyers in a letter on Monday that they would not defend Mr Trump's travel order in court.
She had said that she did not believe the order would be "consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what's right".
Right or wrong this is the policy of the administration. I am not sure what you expect to happen to a government official who refuses to carry out instructions and seeks to block their implementation but to me a sacking looks fairly inevitable. This does not mean that she is wrong in her views, just that those views and her actions are not compatible with her continuing to hold the office to which she was appointed.
She took an osth to uphold the constitution, not to obey the President. At her confirmation hearing Senator Sessions asked her about this specifically, pointing out her duty was to the former not the latter. Neither the State Department nor the AG's office was consulted on the order before it was issued. Clearly, Trump has every right to fire her. Essentially calling her a traitor having done so is probably taking it a bit too far.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
Its what he was elected to do. I think the protesters here and in the us will find they are in a minority. Trump is lesser of two evils and people have run out of patience with muslims and the inability to condemn or stop the attacks being carried out in their name. I think this is what a lot people feel, vulgar as it may be.
Right or wrong this is the policy of the administration. I am not sure what you expect to happen to a government official who refuses to carry out instructions and seeks to block their implementation but to me a sacking looks fairly inevitable. This does not mean that she is wrong in her views, just that those views and her actions are not compatible with her continuing to hold the office to which she was appointed.
Surely the answer is that is for the Courts to determine not the officials tasked with implementation. The Constitution gives the President some powers in this area but also requires an absence of discrimination. The extent of the order will be tested and it is the job of the government's orders to make the case, something she was refusing to do.
On the plus side, if UKIP is seen as tied to Trump this increases the chances of Dr. Foxinsox's tip on them (at 9) to be under 20% coming off.
F1: just checked the dates. Four weeks (27 Feb) until the first test starts. Second runs from 7 to 10 March. Be glad when it finally gets underway.
Edited extra bit: intriguing gossip line, assuming it's honest: "Fernando Alonso is confident in his McLaren car's power, but is unsure how aerodynamically successful his 2017 ride will be. (Marca)"
Would've thought that'd be the other way around.
I think in Stoke and Copeland Pro-Leave Brexit driven voters will vote Tory or stay at home. Tories are more associated with Trump than UKIP now. I think Tories will take second place.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
What's your point? Since when did popularity make something right?
My point is that if you restricted yourself to watching TV, reading the papers, and clicking Twitter, you'd get the sense this Ban is wildly unpopular, causing near riots, huge snowflake rallies, blah blah
In fact it's supported by the American voter almost two to one.
Yeah. So what?
it's politically interesting, Unlike you.
Ah come on. That really hurts. :-(
Given that Trump got elected, I thought we could take it for granted there is a constituency for this kind of guff.
So much so, that the outrage he has generated was clearly intended. A trap that a load of people have walked right into.
This is what he wants.
Well, we keep being told he is massively and historically unpopular. And the media reaction to the Muslim Ban seems to imply this "colossal act of American self harm" blah blah, would presumably make that unpopularity worse.
But no. Lots of Americans, a plurality, possibly a majority are eagerly in favour of it. 53% want to force ALL Muslim immigrants to "register" with the government. An official registry of Muslims. That's pretty astonishing.
I don't agree with it, but it gives you sense of how the mood is changing across the west (look at Austria's burqa ban yesterday, or the Dutch prime minister basically telling Muslims to like it or lump it, and F off home)
I think we have reached a pivotal point, when the progressive multicultural consensus, essentially in force in the West since the 1960s, is finally breaking down. Islam is the cause.
Islam is the scapegoat. Globalisation and poverty is the cause.
If The Clash of Civilisations is to be believed, we are seeing the beginning of a showdown between Islam and the Judeo/Christian developed world. Islam (which means 'submission' in Arabic) is theologically incompatible with western liberties (and decadence). Our tolerant liberalism seems incapable of recognising or, more importantly, defending itself without having to compromise some of those very liberties in so doing. We are culturally tolerant of profound intolerance (of an Islamic variety) but some in our midst are utterly intolerant of our own intolerances (in defence of our own traditional culture or physical safety). This seems racist to me. If we block Muslims we're Hitler. If we don't they'll win in the end. I'm very conflicted here. Is there a way to defeat radical Islam utterly without taking out 'moderate' Islam in the process? Maybe. Let's err on the side of caution.
Mr. T, the French election rounds take place either side of the Russian Grand Prix. We'll see whether that holds true in France, though personally I can't see Le Pen winning. The Trump association will cause her some harm and the system is practically designed to assist a mainstream candidate over one from the political fringe.
Mind you, there could well be another terrorist attack in France. Can't quite recall when the last one was, but they've had an awful lot in the last few years. In the privacy of the polling booth, people can make their views known without having to defend it against the chattering classes or media.
So the US Attorney General believes an Executive Order is unlawful.
Instead of going through a process to persuade the AG and others that it is lawful, Trump immediately sacks the AG and replaces her with someone who immediately declares it lawful. In the meantime, Trump accuses the ex-AG of 'betrayal'.
The AG is a Democratic Party member and was appointed by Obama, I am sure there is more than a hint of partisan politics on both sides.
What rubbish.
I guess many of the same people who criticised the judges over their A50 decision will be defending Trump over this: people who judge politics (at least their own brand of it) over the law.
According to Sky:
"Ms Yates, who had been appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, told Justice Department lawyers in a letter on Monday that they would not defend Mr Trump's travel order in court.
She had said that she did not believe the order would be "consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what's right".
Right or wrong this is the policy of the administration. I am not sure what you expect to happen to a government official who refuses to carry out instructions and seeks to block their implementation but to me a sacking looks fairly inevitable. This does not mean that she is wrong in her views, just that those views and her actions are not compatible with her continuing to hold the office to which she was appointed.
She took an osth to uphold the constitution, not to obey the President. At her confirmation hearing Senator Sessions asked her about this specifically, pointing out her duty was to the former not the latter. Neither the State Department nor the AG's office was consulted on the order before it was issued. Clearly, Trump has every right to fire her. Essentially calling her a traitor having done so is probably taking it a bit too far.
Amazing coincidence it was Sessions asking that very question.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
Its what he was elected to do. I think the protesters here and in the us will find they are in a minority. Trump is lesser of two evils and people have run out of patience with muslims and the inability to condemn or stop the attacks being carried out in their name. I think this is what a lot people feel, vulgar as it may be.
Absolutely. I am just waiting for students of political science and anthropology to condemn wholeheartedly the actions of Bissonnette.
The politics of Trump's implosion are threefold and none of those three are to do with here today, gone tomorrow polling on whether US voters don't like Muslim immigrants. #1 Look at the way even mainstream US global brands are fleeing Trump. It may risk some domestic custom but they can see the Global soft power car crash coming. #2 The speed f what is happen by. It's not just that the worst fears over Trump are being realised it's the speed. He'll either very quickly cross the event horizon or do something outragous to regain momentum. #3 Realignment. Trump has taken some old Democratic votes. Look now at how many deep date conservatives can see the Global disaster that is coming and are saying so publically. The shift to an Open/Closed paradigm is going to be profound.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
What's your point? Since when did popularity make something right?
My point is that if you restricted yourself to watching TV, reading the papers, and clicking Twitter, you'd get the sense this Ban is wildly unpopular, causing near riots, huge snowflake rallies, blah blah
In fact it's supported by the American voter almost two to one.
Yeah. So what?
it's politically interesting, Unlike you.
Ah come on. That really hurts. :-(
Given that Trump got elected, I thought we could take it for granted there is a constituency for this kind of guff.
So much so, that the outrage he has generated was clearly intended. A trap that a load of people have walked right into.
This is what he wants.
Well, we keep being told he is massively and historically unpopular. And the media reaction to the Muslim Ban suggested this "colossal act of American self harm" blah blah, would make that unpopularity worse.
But no. Lots of Americans, a plurality, possibly a majority are eagerly in favour of it. 53% want to force ALL Muslim immigrants to "register" with the government. An official registry of Muslims. That's pretty astonishing.
I don't agree with it, but it gives you sense of how the mood is changing across the west (look at Austria's burqa ban yesterday, or the Dutch prime minister basically telling Muslims to like it or lump it, and F off home)
I think we have reached a pivotal point, when the progressive multicultural consensus, essentially in force in the West since the 1960s, is finally breaking down. Islam is the cause.
Now stop it - any more of this and Yvette Cooper's eyes are gonna really pop out of her head! what a terrible thing to have on your conscience.
Right or wrong this is the policy of the administration. I am not sure what you expect to happen to a government official who refuses to carry out instructions and seeks to block their implementation but to me a sacking looks fairly inevitable. This does not mean that she is wrong in her views, just that those views and her actions are not compatible with her continuing to hold the office to which she was appointed.
Surely the answer is that is for the Courts to determine not the officials tasked with implementation. The Constitution gives the President some powers in this area but also requires an absence of discrimination. The extent of the order will be tested and it is the job of the government's orders to make the case, something she was refusing to do.
She's like a barrister who refuses to follow his client's instructions on ethical grounds. The barrister may or may not be correct, but plainly can't continue to act for the client.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
What's your point? Since when did popularity make something right?
My point is that if you restricted yourself to watching TV, reading the papers, and clicking Twitter, you'd get the sense this Ban is wildly unpopular, causing near riots, huge snowflake rallies, blah blah
In fact it's supported by the American voter almost two to one.
Yeah. So what?
it's politically interesting, Unlike you.
Ah come on. That really hurts. :-(
Given that Trump got elected, I thought we could take it for granted there is a constituency for this kind of guff.
So much so, that the outrage he has generated was clearly intended. A trap that a load of people have walked right into.
This is what he wants.
Well, we I think we have reached a pivotal point, when the progressive multicultural consensus, essentially in force in the West since the 1960s, is finally breaking down. Islam is the cause.
Islam is the scapegoat. Globalisation and poverty is the cause.
OK, fair point. It's globalisation AND Islam. But there is a reason all these parties are rising on the back of anti-Islamic feeling. It's because people feel, very specifically, anti-Islamic. And, sadly, they have good reason.
Denying this is farcical.
Who is denying anything? Clearly with attacks like 9/11 still burning in the memory many people hate and fear Islam.
But...
Islam did not cause the rustbelt. Islam did not cause Mexican immigration. Islam did not cause over 1000 gun deaths this month.
Topically, here's a link to a review by US blogger Alexander Scott of Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem (book published 1963, review published yesterday). 3 stand out points:
1. During the 30s the Nazis were genuinely willing to let Jews emigrate to wherever they wished. The rest of the world ensured this was a non-starter by refusing to take them in.
2. Extraordinary variations in the way occupied countries dealt with the final solution. Bulgaria, Denmark and Italy (!) said to themselves Feck this, we don't do genocide and just dragged their heels when the SS asked for info on who was Jewish, where they lived etc. so that no Danish Jews, only 48 Bulgarian Jews and an unspecified but small number of Italian Jews died in the holocaust. Rumania on the other hand took to pogroms so enthusiastically that the SS had to ask them to tone it down a bit. Difficult not to make quasi-racial judgments about these nations in light of this info.
3. Very good anti-Trump visual gag about 2/3 of the way down.
Seats never change from an opposition party to the governing party in mid-term by-elections?
No they don't. Which is why I've bet against it. But then mature liberal demcracies don't vote to be poorer ( Brexit ) or collapse western order ( Trump ). The normal rules are broken. Which is why I couldn't get silly prices.
Though there is much more recent precident for a UKIP win in Stoke. After Romsey in 2000 Charles Kennedy said it was a " protest vote against a Conservative government that has already left office. "
I think the difference is the Lib Dems were masters at Byelections. UKIP aren't. Yet.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
What's your point? Since when did popularity make something right?
My point is that if you restricted yourself to watching TV, reading the papers, and clicking Twitter, you'd get the sense this Ban is wildly unpopular, causing near riots, huge snowflake rallies, blah blah
In fact it's supported by the American voter almost two to one.
Yeah. So what?
it's politically interesting, Unlike you.
Ah come on. That really hurts. :-(
Given that Trump got elected, I thought we could take it for granted there is a constituency for this kind of guff.
So much so, that the outrage he has generated was clearly intended. A trap that a load of people have walked right into.
This is what he wants.
Well, we I think we have reached a pivotal point, when the progressive multicultural consensus, essentially in force in the West since the 1960s, is finally breaking down. Islam is the cause.
Islam is the scapegoat. Globalisation and poverty is the cause.
OK, fair point. It's globalisation AND Islam. But there is a reason all these parties are rising on the back of anti-Islamic feeling. It's because people feel, very specifically, anti-Islamic. And, sadly, they have good reason.
Denying this is farcical.
There's an element of that but the Brexit vote shows there is much more to it than Islam.
The highest Leave votes were in deprived areas which had received large scale and unprepared for immigration from Eastern Europe.
And its interesting that there was much higher Leave support among working class Muslim voters than expected. Newham for example.
Well, we keep being told he is massively and historically unpopular. And the media reaction to the Muslim Ban suggested this "colossal act of American self harm" blah blah, would make that unpopularity worse.
But no. Lots of Americans, a plurality, possibly a majority are eagerly in favour of it. 53% want to force ALL Muslim immigrants to "register" with the government. An official registry of Muslims. That's pretty astonishing.
I don't agree with it, but it gives you sense of how the mood is changing across the west (look at Austria's burqa ban yesterday, or the Dutch prime minister basically telling Muslims to like it or lump it, and F off home)
I think we have reached a pivotal point, when the progressive multicultural consensus, essentially in force in the West since the 1960s, is finally breaking down. Islam is the cause.
I think there are two very different points being conflated there.
I think it is perfectly acceptable for a country to say "these are our rules that we are settled upon as a nation. If you wish to visit or live in our country then you obey these rules."
Every country does that and I would actually suggest it improves community cohesion far more than multiculturalism.
I do not think it is acceptable for a country to say that someone is banned because of an accident of birth. Particularly not a country that is completely founded on immigration. It is stupid, counter productive and immoral.
I detest Islam just as I detest all religions. They are infantile mumbo jumbo based on ignorance and insecurity. But as long as the adherents stay within the laws of the country I think it is no government's business to tell them they are not welcome.
Topically, here's a link to a review by US blogger Alexander Scott of Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem (book published 1963, review published yesterday). 3 stand out points:
1. During the 30s the Nazis were genuinely willing to let Jews emigrate to wherever they wished. The rest of the world ensured this was a non-starter by refusing to take them in.
2. Extraordinary variations in the way occupied countries dealt with the final solution. Bulgaria, Denmark and Italy (!) said to themselves Feck this, we don't do genocide and just dragged their heels when the SS asked for info on who was Jewish, where they lived etc. so that no Danish Jews, only 48 Bulgarian Jews and an unspecified but small number of Italian Jews died in the holocaust. Rumania on the other hand took to pogroms so enthusiastically that the SS had to ask them to tone it down a bit. Difficult not to make quasi-racial judgments about these nations in light of this info.
3. Very good anti-Trump visual gag about 2/3 of the way down.
The Croatian Ustashi and Hungarian Arrow Cross were also enthusiastic participants in the Final Solution.
The twoRotherham by elections this week should give us a guide as to the respective standings of the four parties. Brinsworth is on paper a three way Lab, UKIP, Lib Dems and Dinnington Lab and UKIP. Again on paper UKIP are in a very good position to win both but will they?
On SeanT's point, I think that those of us who object to Trump's plans may well be in a minority here too - my impression from constituency feedback is that about a third oppose them, a third support them and the remainder think it's a matter for the Americans. Trump is a good political strategist, and he may be trying to draw fire on a relatively popular move so that when he does something with genuinely adverse consequences for most people (say a trade war), people shrug off the protests as "oh, them again".
But. I don't think that one should only object to crazy policies when the objection has prior majority support. It's the job of politicians to say what they honestly believe and try to persuade and change opinion. We need to be careful with our arguments, though: we can't judge assume that everyone agrees. At a rally in my area last night, I focused on the indiscriminate natrure of the ban and the fact that Trump was elected with a minority of the votes, and argued that we needed to encourage the majority who hadn't voted for him by showing international concern for the direction that America is taking. It wasn't as sharp a point as several of the other speakers, but afterwards I talked to several bystanders who said it had persuaded them more than the "Dump Trump" demands.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
This is the polling company that gives Trump an overall net approval rating while all the others have him at record lows. At the very least it comes with a substantial health warning.
Didn't like them apples? Try this. A different pollster.
"By a narrow 48 - 42 percent, American voters support "suspending immigration from terror prone regions, even if it means turning away refugees."
By a broader 53 - 41 percent, voters support requiring immigrants from Muslim countries to register with the federal government. "
More Americans support Trump's proposals than oppose them. Indeed it looks like the American people would like to go further than Trump, and have a registry for ALL Muslim immigrants.
A transgender woman has been denied direct contact with her five children on the basis they would be shunned by their ultra-Orthodox Jewish community if she were allowed to meet them.
The woman will be allowed only to send letters to her children, after a judge concluded there was a real chance of “the children and their mother being marginalised or excluded by the ultra-Orthodox community” if face-to-face contact were permitted.
Mr Justice Peter Jackson stated that he had reached the conclusion with “real regret, knowing the pain that it must cause”. The transgender woman – identified only as J – had brought the case seeking to have contact with the children.
As a result of the ruling, her contact with each child will be limited to letters four times a year, with the suggestion that these could be sent to mark three Jewish religious holidays – Pesach, Sukkot and Hanukkah – and the children’s birthdays.
The judge noted his concerns over the clash between the ultra-Orthodox faith and transgender rights, saying: “It is painful to find these vulnerable groups in conflict.”
If The Clash of Civilisations is to be believed, we are seeing the beginning of a showdown between Islam and the Judeo/Christian developed world. Islam (which means 'submission' in Arabic) is theologically incompatible with western liberties (and decadence). Our tolerant liberalism seems incapable of recognising or, more importantly, defending itself without having to compromise some of those very liberties in so doing. We are culturally tolerant of profound intolerance (of an Islamic variety) but some in our midst are utterly intolerant of our own intolerances (in defence of our own traditional culture or physical safety). This seems racist to me. If we block Muslims we're Hitler. If we don't they'll win in the end. I'm very conflicted here. Is there a way to defeat radical Islam utterly without taking out 'moderate' Islam in the process? Maybe. Let's err on the side of caution.
A very interesting point about moderate Islam. Why can't Islam clean it's own house? I'm fed up with the West being pilloried for not preventing Islamist atrocities but then pilloried for interfering with Islam. Why do the West (mainly USA) have to be the world's police. Islam should sort out its own mess.
Also, just seen the Attorney General news. On the face of it, looks quite disturbing.
I agree. If the AG believed the EO was unconstitutional she should have argued her case internally.
To instruct her lawyers not to file a defence in court is to attempt to frustrate the President's authority
To do so when just a caretaker (48 hours left?) is nakedly political.
Trump was within his rights to fire her
Is she a traitor?
If the AG was not given sight of an EO before it is issued how could she have argued the case against it internally? Once it was out there, decisions had to be made about enforcing it. She made a decision the President didn't like. He fired her. Fine. Then he labelled her a traitor. Not fine.
If The Clash of Civilisations is to be believed, we are seeing the beginning of a showdown between Islam and the Judeo/Christian developed world. Islam (which means 'submission' in Arabic) is theologically incompatible with western liberties (and decadence). Our tolerant liberalism seems incapable of recognising or, more importantly, defending itself without having to compromise some of those very liberties in so doing. We are culturally tolerant of profound intolerance (of an Islamic variety) but some in our midst are utterly intolerant of our own intolerances (in defence of our own traditional culture or physical safety). This seems racist to me. If we block Muslims we're Hitler. If we don't they'll win in the end. I'm very conflicted here. Is there a way to defeat radical Islam utterly without taking out 'moderate' Islam in the process? Maybe. Let's err on the side of caution.
A very interesting point about moderate Islam. Why can't Islam clean it's own house? I'm fed up with the West being pilloried for not preventing Islamist atrocities but then pilloried for interfering with Islam. Why do the West (mainly USA) have to be the world's police. Islam should sort out its own mess.
Interesting question. Quick reply.
Largely imo because simplistic diving back to the original text which is often the habit of radicals gives a lot of quite nasty things which are understood as a literal divine instruction. Both Jews and Christians sit looser to the text of the Holy Book, and there is more scope for ending up with something more peaceful.
The solution might be as simple as another thousand years for it to become a bit more ambiguous.
Hannan is Dr Frankenstein* horified his monster is no longer obeying orders. He's more elitist than I am. I'm really elitst but I know I don't and never will run the world. Hannan and his ilk thought they could fire up a protectionist, poorly formally educated and xenophobic mob to win EEA membership. Guess what ? The Monster they created has other ideas.
When this is all over it's the EEA Brexiters alongside the Lexiters who should be rounded up and shot.
* As an aide after a life time of using it as a turn of phrase I actually read Frankenstein last year. It's an astonishly modern work. I was really taken aback by how good it is.
Mr. Rog, that may be related to the essentially fundamental nature of Islam and the vast majority of its adherents. Not much room for debate or reform when you believe a book is literally the word of God.
Christianity has its fundamentalists/literalists too, of course, but there's a huge number of conservatives and liberals influencing things as well.
The Labour Brand is stronger than many people think.
It took an exceptional series of events and an exceptional politician (Alex Salmond) to destroy Labour in Scotland. And a North London idiot (Ed Miliband).
Labour will most likely hold both seats, though I expect Copeland will be very close.
It also took getting on for a decade. The SNP's breakthrough came in 2007, when it formed its first (minority) government. Labour's collapse wasn't assured until 2015 (or possibly 2014 if you regard the GE result as inevitable after the SIndyRef swing). For those intervening years, split voting was common and loyalties were up for grabs. Blaming Miliband is a bit unfair: Scottish Labour's problems date back to late-stage Blair and also to Scottish Labour's woeful leadership from Wendy Alexander onwards.
It is certainly true that Wendy Alexander onwards, there have been a succession of disastrous leadership choices for SLAB.
The tipping point was 2011, when the SNP with a manifesto pledge of an IndyRef, took a majority in Holyrood. That was on Ed Miliband’s watch.
For sure, it had been building for some time. Decades really.
But, 2011 was when the spaceship crossed the event horizon with Hapless Ed in command.
I still think that's more than a bit unfair. Going in to the 2011 election, Labour was well clear. It was only during the campaign that a huge switcharound took place and that surely has to reflect on Iain Gray much more than Miliband? That's not to say he wasn't without blame entirely but I'd have thought that local factors predominated.
Blaming 2011 on ed milliband is moronic. Brown's poliical assassination of "threats" in Scottish Labour followed by Gray's disastrous campaign performance is the reason for 2011.
Wendy Alexander had exactly the right strategy in 07-11 which was to say "bring it on" to the idea of IndyRef. She was over ruled and dumped.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
Great to see that you don't 'believe that people that appose our point of view should be gagged'.
I see that there's is a concerted effort to identify the signees of the other petition with Remoaner areas. Is there a similar breakdown of the signatories for this one to see how many are from stinky underwear, low education Leave constituencies, or are the numbers too meagre?
Mr. Submarine, cheers for the book suggestion. Got a ridiculous to-read list, but may give Frankenstein a look one day. I thought the writing technique of Dracula was very interesting but really disliked the book (very much a slog). That said, I'm currently reading something I detested when I first read it (over a decade ago, I think) and am enjoying it quite a bit now.
Ah, Dan "of course we'll stay in the Single Market if we Leave" Hannah? Not sure I rate his political judgment much.
Why don't you actually read his argument - four good bases for attacking the Trump immigration EO - few, if any of which, feature in the protests - which is why Trump will sail blithely on.
Some never learn - don't attack Trump because he's a bad person (even if that stokes your own, needy sense of moral superiority) - attack him because he has bad ideas
Some never learn - don't attack Trump because he's a bad person (even if that stokes your own, needy sense of moral superiority) - attack him because he has bad ideas
As SeanT has pointed out, his bad ideas are popular, so attacking them has no effect.
And he is, on any objective level, a very bad person. To not point that out seems counterproductive.
The idea that the left did not oppose wars in the Middle East is demonstrably wrong. It's what Jeremy Corbyn did for 40 years - often very wrongly so, in my view. Trump is the right's creation and the right is tied to him. And, in fact, the easiest way to end ongoing conflict in the Middle East is to abandon Israel. Quite rightly, that won't happen.
Topically, here's a link to a review by US blogger Alexander Scott of Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem (book published 1963, review published yesterday). 3 stand out points:
1. During the 30s the Nazis were genuinely willing to let Jews emigrate to wherever they wished. The rest of the world ensured this was a non-starter by refusing to take them in.
A transgender woman has been denied direct contact with her five children on the basis they would be shunned by their ultra-Orthodox Jewish community if she were allowed to meet them.
The woman will be allowed only to send letters to her children, after a judge concluded there was a real chance of “the children and their mother being marginalised or excluded by the ultra-Orthodox community” if face-to-face contact were permitted.
Mr Justice Peter Jackson stated that he had reached the conclusion with “real regret, knowing the pain that it must cause”. The transgender woman – identified only as J – had brought the case seeking to have contact with the children.
As a result of the ruling, her contact with each child will be limited to letters four times a year, with the suggestion that these could be sent to mark three Jewish religious holidays – Pesach, Sukkot and Hanukkah – and the children’s birthdays.
The judge noted his concerns over the clash between the ultra-Orthodox faith and transgender rights, saying: “It is painful to find these vulnerable groups in conflict.”
Mr. Submarine, cheers for the book suggestion. Got a ridiculous to-read list, but may give Frankenstein a look one day. I thought the writing technique of Dracula was very interesting but really disliked the book (very much a slog). That said, I'm currently reading something I detested when I first read it (over a decade ago, I think) and am enjoying it quite a bit now.
Frankenstein is free on Google books if you get round to it. Though I share your pain. For 2017 I've set a 3 out, 1 in policy on books to dent my backlog !
If The Clash of Civilisations is to be believed, we are seeing the beginning of a showdown between Islam and the Judeo/Christian developed world. Islam (which means 'submission' in Arabic) is theologically incompatible with western liberties (and decadence). Our tolerant liberalism seems incapable of recognising or, more importantly, defending itself without having to compromise some of those very liberties in so doing. We are culturally tolerant of profound intolerance (of an Islamic variety) but some in our midst are utterly intolerant of our own intolerances (in defence of our own traditional culture or physical safety). This seems racist to me. If we block Muslims we're Hitler. If we don't they'll win in the end. I'm very conflicted here. Is there a way to defeat radical Islam utterly without taking out 'moderate' Islam in the process? Maybe. Let's err on the side of caution.
A very interesting point about moderate Islam. Why can't Islam clean it's own house? I'm fed up with the West being pilloried for not preventing Islamist atrocities but then pilloried for interfering with Islam. Why do the West (mainly USA) have to be the world's police. Islam should sort out its own mess.
What is this monolithic 'Islam' that is going to 'clean its own house'?
The world's third most populous democracy is predominantly Muslim.
The world's biggest one party dictatorship is officially atheist.
Topically, here's a link to a review by US blogger Alexander Scott of Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem (book published 1963, review published yesterday). 3 stand out points:
1. During the 30s the Nazis were genuinely willing to let Jews emigrate to wherever they wished. The rest of the world ensured this was a non-starter by refusing to take them in.
I wonder if the Nazis robbing them of all wealth on their way out with ludicrous exit fees and the like had anything to do with that.
If The Clash of Civilisations is to be believed, we are seeing the beginning of a showdown between Islam and the Judeo/Christian developed world. Islam (which means 'submission' in Arabic) is theologically incompatible with western liberties (and decadence). Our tolerant liberalism seems incapable of recognising or, more importantly, defending itself without having to compromise some of those very liberties in so doing. We are culturally tolerant of profound intolerance (of an Islamic variety) but some in our midst are utterly intolerant of our own intolerances (in defence of our own traditional culture or physical safety). This seems racist to me. If we block Muslims we're Hitler. If we don't they'll win in the end. I'm very conflicted here. Is there a way to defeat radical Islam utterly without taking out 'moderate' Islam in the process? Maybe. Let's err on the side of caution.
A very interesting point about moderate Islam. Why can't Islam clean it's own house? I'm fed up with the West being pilloried for not preventing Islamist atrocities but then pilloried for interfering with Islam. Why do the West (mainly USA) have to be the world's police. Islam should sort out its own mess.
Interesting question. Quick reply.
Largely imo because simplistic diving back to the original text which is often the habit of radicals gives a lot of quite nasty things which are understood as a literal divine instruction. Both Jews and Christians sit looser to the text of the Holy Book, and there is more scope for ending up with something more peaceful.
The solution might be as simple as another thousand years for it to become a bit more ambiguous.
IMO.
Also, frankly, because the Umma is dominated by the Arabian petro-states, which are in turn in thrall to the more extreme Wahhabist sects. Their money funds the madrassas, which creates the intellectual climate/tone to the religion. Tricky to unpick, at this point.
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
Great to see that you don't 'believe that people that appose our point of view should be gagged'.
I see that there's is a concerted effort to identify the signees of the other petition with Remoaner areas. Is there a similar breakdown of the signatories for this one to see how many are from stinky underwear, low education Leave constituencies, or are the numbers too meagre?
Certainly a lot of signatures from East Kent, Yorkshire and Essex yes
Hannan is Dr Frankenstein* horified his monster is no longer obeying orders. He's more elitist than I am. I'm really elitst but I know I don't and never will run the world. Hannan and his ilk thought they could fire up a protectionist, poorly formally educated and xenophobic mob to win EEA membership. Guess what ? The Monster they created has other ideas.
When this is all over it's the EEA Brexiters alongside the Lexiters who should be rounded up and shot.
* As an aide after a life time of using it as a turn of phrase I actually read Frankenstein last year. It's an astonishly modern work. I was really taken aback by how good it is.
Clearly you are someone who has never actually bothered to read anything that Hannan has written. His whole political career has been based on attempting to change our political system to give more power to individuals and away from elites. You are right on one thing, unlike Hannan, you really are elitist. It soaks through everything you write.
So that makes her incapable of (in her very qualified experience) assessing whether a prima facie dubious law is constitutional or not?
No. It makes her incapable of holding her position as she is going against the stated policy, and to be fair, manifesto commitments of the administration in which she is serving. She stated her opinion. which may well be right, however her boss disagrees, she can either follow him, or make way for someone that can, thats the way the cookie crumbles.
Mr. P, disagree. If someone is relatively popular, or their policy is, then pointing and shrieking how unclean they are will not persuade those who are lukewarm supporters to change their mind because the implication is guilt by association. Not "You're wrong on policy because of reasons X and Y" but "You're morally wrong to support this Wicked Creature."
There's also a problem with the president being head of state. I gather many Americans try to rally round and support the president regardless of whether they voted for him, and may see it as a duty to do so. Opposing specific policies is better, and easier, than opposing the President.
Well, perhaps. I'm not American, of course. And I prefer logos to pathos.
Also, just seen the Attorney General news. On the face of it, looks quite disturbing.
I agree. If the AG believed the EO was unconstitutional she should have argued her case internally.
To instruct her lawyers not to file a defence in court is to attempt to frustrate the President's authority
To do so when just a caretaker (48 hours left?) is nakedly political.
Trump was within his rights to fire her
Is she a traitor?
She's a betrayer apparently.
'betrayer noun [ C ] (NOT LOYAL) a person who is not loyal to their country or to another person, often doing something harmful such as giving information to an enemy:
betrayers of the nation's interests Judas Iscariot is remembered as Christ's betrayer.'
There's also a problem with the president being head of state. I gather many Americans try to rally round and support the president regardless of whether they voted for him, and may see it as a duty to do so. Opposing specific policies is better, and easier, than opposing the President.
Well, perhaps. I'm not American, of course. And I prefer logos to pathos.
Mr. Submarine, ah, I'd forgotten about free books due to the copyright going. That is a nice aspect of e-readers.
Mr. HYUFD, reminds me a bit of a piece I saw (vox pops) a few days ago from Leeds. The reporter ended by saying the city had voted to Remain. Technically true, but it was something like a 50.2% Remain vote, so also a bit misleading. It was just about the most evenly split of voting areas (a surprise given it was also the third largest).
That awful, terrible, illegal, unconstitutional, quasi-Hitlerite, moustache-bristling, jackboot-polishing, massively unpopular Donald Trump Muslim Ban is... supported by 57% of US voters.
Great to see that you don't 'believe that people that appose our point of view should be gagged'.
I see that there's is a concerted effort to identify the signees of the other petition with Remoaner areas. Is there a similar breakdown of the signatories for this one to see how many are from stinky underwear, low education Leave constituencies, or are the numbers too meagre?
The highest areas for this new petition are all Conservative except Clacton and Blackley(?) as far as I can see.
A transgender woman has been denied direct contact with her five children on the basis they would be shunned by their ultra-Orthodox Jewish community if she were allowed to meet them.
The woman will be allowed only to send letters to her children, after a judge concluded there was a real chance of “the children and their mother being marginalised or excluded by the ultra-Orthodox community” if face-to-face contact were permitted.
Mr Justice Peter Jackson stated that he had reached the conclusion with “real regret, knowing the pain that it must cause”. The transgender woman – identified only as J – had brought the case seeking to have contact with the children.
As a result of the ruling, her contact with each child will be limited to letters four times a year, with the suggestion that these could be sent to mark three Jewish religious holidays – Pesach, Sukkot and Hanukkah – and the children’s birthdays.
The judge noted his concerns over the clash between the ultra-Orthodox faith and transgender rights, saying: “It is painful to find these vulnerable groups in conflict.”
Religious exteremes are rarely pleasant (Jewish,Muslim, Plymouth Bretheren, whatever) but the pandering from the judge is very distressing. I'd be surprised if this is the end of it.
24 hours on and I'm basically none the wiser. President Trump is, whether some like it or not, a duly elected and recognised Head of State. I don't quite see the precipitous rush to invite him over here in all honesty - it does smack of hanging on to his coat tails which isn't a good image for a proud independently-minded "Global Britain" but clearly I have a different understanding to that than the Prime Minister.
IF Trump comes, there are plenty of ways for people to make a protest just as the veterans did the last time the Japanese Emperor came. Instead of making a lot of noise, a dignified silence can be far more effective.
The travel restrictions are a muddle of contradictions and absurdities - as others have said, why not include Saudi Arabia ? My other thought is that banning travel won't stop terrorism if the terrorists were born and brought up in your country and radicalised over the Internet. It smacks of the age-old desire of Governments to be seen to be doing something as inactivity advertises impotence.
That said, Trump can hardly be blamed for sacking the Attorney General who openly defied him. It's part of the messy Transition process in the US that the incoming President has to deal with officials from the previous administration while his own candidates seek Senate and Congressional approval to take their posts.
It's worth pointing out many countries have travel restrictions on people from other countries - I suppose it's the fact that the US, an iconically open country whose very history and identity was so strongly built by immigrants and those fleeing persecution, that is now doing this so publicly, that stands out.
Mr. P, mildly amused that the argument appears to be we can't influence 'colossi' but can influence the EU. Pay for, perhaps. But influence? With vetoes cast to the wind, and the eurozone endowed with a critical mass for QMV?
Mr. Submarine, ah, I'd forgotten about free books due to the copyright going. That is a nice aspect of e-readers.
Mr. HYUFD, reminds me a bit of a piece I saw (vox pops) a few days ago from Leeds. The reporter ended by saying the city had voted to Remain. Technically true, but it was something like a 50.2% Remain vote, so also a bit misleading. It was just about the most evenly split of voting areas (a surprise given it was also the third largest).
Indeed, even the biggest city in Yorkshire very nearly went Leave
Topically, here's a link to a review by US blogger Alexander Scott of Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem (book published 1963, review published yesterday). 3 stand out points:
1. During the 30s the Nazis were genuinely willing to let Jews emigrate to wherever they wished. The rest of the world ensured this was a non-starter by refusing to take them in.
2. Extraordinary variations in the way occupied countries dealt with the final solution. Bulgaria, Denmark and Italy (!) said to themselves Feck this, we don't do genocide and just dragged their heels when the SS asked for info on who was Jewish, where they lived etc. so that no Danish Jews, only 48 Bulgarian Jews and an unspecified but small number of Italian Jews died in the holocaust. Rumania on the other hand took to pogroms so enthusiastically that the SS had to ask them to tone it down a bit. Difficult not to make quasi-racial judgments about these nations in light of this info.
3. Very good anti-Trump visual gag about 2/3 of the way down.
The Croatian Ustashi and Hungarian Arrow Cross were also enthusiastic participants in the Final Solution.
"Difficult not to make quasi-racial judgments about these nations in light of this info."
Except that would be wrong. Pretty well all societies contain elements who are capable of such actions. Read Timothy Snyder's 'Black Earth', which is the best and most cold eyed analysis of the holocaust I've seen. His conclusion, which he supports with pretty compelling evidence, is that the single most significant factor in cooperation with the nazi holocaust - irrespective of political system, or even the extent of anti semitism in a given society - was whether the institutions of the state had been destroyed. In regions where the state had been dismantled first by the soviets and then by the nazis, the holocaust was the most complete. The statistics are quite compelling.
OT. Interesting Newsnight last night with Guy Verhofstadt. An EU negotiator ex PM of Belgium who famously humiliated Farage over his expenses in the EU parliament. Intriguingly he talked about an idea he was working on for the 48% who wanted to keep their ties with Europe. He wouldn't spell out details other than to say many British wanted to remain in the EU and he was working on an idea. Start watching at 25 mins
A transgender woman has been denied direct contact with her five children on the basis they would be shunned by their ultra-Orthodox Jewish community if she were allowed to meet them.
The woman will be allowed only to send letters to her children, after a judge concluded there was a real chance of “the children and their mother being marginalised or excluded by the ultra-Orthodox community” if face-to-face contact were permitted.
Mr Justice Peter Jackson stated that he had reached the conclusion with “real regret, knowing the pain that it must cause”. The transgender woman – identified only as J – had brought the case seeking to have contact with the children.
As a result of the ruling, her contact with each child will be limited to letters four times a year, with the suggestion that these could be sent to mark three Jewish religious holidays – Pesach, Sukkot and Hanukkah – and the children’s birthdays.
The judge noted his concerns over the clash between the ultra-Orthodox faith and transgender rights, saying: “It is painful to find these vulnerable groups in conflict.”
Religious exteremes are rarely pleasant (Jewish,Muslim, Plymouth Bretheren, whatever) but the pandering from the judge is very distressing. I'd be surprised if this is the end of it.
Those kids deserve better than that.
They've been failed by their own community and our legal system.
Re Islam and Modernity: Complex topic but #1 Islam is a younger religion than Christianity. Where was western liberalism in 14th century Europe ? #2 Translation breeds reflexivity. The Latin west's aberration on Latin aside Christianity has always translated scriptures into vernacular. Even the Vulgate is of course it's self a translation. And the early church write the new testament in Koine Greek the Lingua Franca of the time not the Aramaic of Palestine. The Qu'ran however is by definition always in 8th century Arabic everywhere for all time. #3 Islam just gets a bad press. Nazism ? Eurasian Communism ? Pol Pot ? Maoism ? The transatlantic slave trade ? Etc etc #4 We know Islam is compatible with high civilisation because for centuries in the Islamic Golden Age it was. #5 Every Islamic country on earth combined would be swatted like a fly by the west military if we moved to a war economy. But China ? Or Russia with it's legacy nukes ? The threat is that we've fallen for Terrorism. Which is the weapon of the loser.
OT. Interesting Newsnight last night with Guy Verhofstadt. An EU negotiator ex PM of Belgium who famously humiliated Farage over his expenses in the EU parliament. Intriguingly he talked about an idea he was working on for the 48% who wanted to keep their ties with Europe. He wouldn't spell out details other than to say many British wanted to remain in the EU and he was working on an idea. Start watching at 25 mins
Topically, here's a link to a review by US blogger Alexander Scott of Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem (book published 1963, review published yesterday). 3 stand out points:
1. During the 30s the Nazis were genuinely willing to let Jews emigrate to wherever they wished. The rest of the world ensured this was a non-starter by refusing to take them in.
2. Extraordinary variations in the way occupied countries dealt with the final solution. Bulgaria, Denmark and Italy (!) said to themselves Feck this, we don't do genocide and just dragged their heels when the SS asked for info on who was Jewish, where they lived etc. so that no Danish Jews, only 48 Bulgarian Jews and an unspecified but small number of Italian Jews died in the holocaust. Rumania on the other hand took to pogroms so enthusiastically that the SS had to ask them to tone it down a bit. Difficult not to make quasi-racial judgments about these nations in light of this info.
3. Very good anti-Trump visual gag about 2/3 of the way down.
The Croatian Ustashi and Hungarian Arrow Cross were also enthusiastic participants in the Final Solution.
"Difficult not to make quasi-racial judgments about these nations in light of this info."
Except that would be wrong. Pretty well all societies contain elements who are capable of such actions. Read Timothy Snyder's 'Black Earth', which is the best and most cold eyed analysis of the holocaust I've seen. His conclusion, which he supports with pretty compelling evidence, is that the single most significant factor in cooperation with the nazi holocaust - irrespective of political system, or even the extent of anti semitism in a given society - was whether the institutions of the state had been destroyed. In regions where the state had been dismantled first by the soviets and then by the nazis, the holocaust was the most complete. The statistics are quite compelling.
Quite right. Snyder has written a brilliant book, which should be more widely known. Bleak, though, truly bleak.
It should be a warning from history that the worst things happen when there is no state. Which brings to mind the mess the Americans made of post-war Iraq.
@Richard_Tyndall Wrong again. I've read plenty of Hannan. It's why I think he should be utterly ashamed of having associated with that particular Leave campaign and why it's now reasonable to call him a hypocrite who's getting his cumupance.
If The Clash of Civilisations is to be believed, we are seeing the beginning of a showdown between Islam and the Judeo/Christian developed world. Islam (which means 'submission' in Arabic) is theologically incompatible with western liberties (and decadence). Our tolerant liberalism seems incapable of recognising or, more importantly, defending itself without having to compromise some of those very liberties in so doing. We are culturally tolerant of profound intolerance (of an Islamic variety) but some in our midst are utterly intolerant of our own intolerances (in defence of our own traditional culture or physical safety). This seems racist to me. If we block Muslims we're Hitler. If we don't they'll win in the end. I'm very conflicted here. Is there a way to defeat radical Islam utterly without taking out 'moderate' Islam in the process? Maybe. Let's err on the side of caution.
A very interesting point about moderate Islam. Why can't Islam clean it's own house? I'm fed up with the West being pilloried for not preventing Islamist atrocities but then pilloried for interfering with Islam. Why do the West (mainly USA) have to be the world's police. Islam should sort out its own mess.
Interesting question. Quick reply.
Largely imo because simplistic diving back to the original text which is often the habit of radicals gives a lot of quite nasty things which are understood as a literal divine instruction. Both Jews and Christians sit looser to the text of the Holy Book, and there is more scope for ending up with something more peaceful.
The solution might be as simple as another thousand years for it to become a bit more ambiguous.
IMO.
That depends on whether it is radicalism*1.0001^1000 or radicalism * .9999^1000
Mr. T, wasn't the rumour that the EU wanted to allow UK citizens to opt-in *but* that would entail those citizens being subject to EU law over UK law?
Mr. Submarine, the evil examples you cite have been and gone. They're not fair comparisons.
Mr. Pong, indeed. The judgement indicates the judge feels the children's religious group is more important than their mother [or father, as you like, when terms like 'transgender woman' are used I can never recall if that's transitioned to, or from].
Comments
This is the polling company that gives Trump an overall net approval rating while all the others have him at record lows. At the very least it comes with a substantial health warning.
Common sense has no place here! Have you seen Twitter?
Bradshaw may genuinely believe being in the EU is in the British interest, but that same interest never stopped him supporting flinging away powers and money into the gaping maw of Brussels.
I guess many of the same people who criticised the judges over their A50 decision will be defending Trump over this: people who judge politics (at least their own brand of it) over the law.
http://news.sky.com/story/govt-urges-mps-to-respect-brexit-result-as-two-day-debate-begins-10749589?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
Oh. Whoops !
"Ms Yates, who had been appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, told Justice Department lawyers in a letter on Monday that they would not defend Mr Trump's travel order in court.
She had said that she did not believe the order would be "consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what's right".
Right or wrong this is the policy of the administration. I am not sure what you expect to happen to a government official who refuses to carry out instructions and seeks to block their implementation but to me a sacking looks fairly inevitable. This does not mean that she is wrong in her views, just that those views and her actions are not compatible with her continuing to hold the office to which she was appointed.
F1: just checked the dates. Four weeks (27 Feb) until the first test starts. Second runs from 7 to 10 March. Be glad when it finally gets underway.
Edited extra bit: intriguing gossip line, assuming it's honest: "Fernando Alonso is confident in his McLaren car's power, but is unsure how aerodynamically successful his 2017 ride will be. (Marca)"
Would've thought that'd be the other way around.
Remarkably, although the battlefield is covered with the wounded MSPs and MPs of the Labour Party, Iain Gray is still standing. He is still the MSP for East Lothian.
His local voters can obviously see something in him that the rest of us missed.
I suspect this will enrage some leftists even more.
Given that Trump got elected, I thought we could take it for granted there is a constituency for this kind of guff.
So much so, that the outrage he has generated was clearly intended. A trap that a load of people have walked right into.
This is what he wants.
I think the protesters here and in the us will find they are in a minority. Trump is lesser of two evils and people have run out of patience with muslims and the inability to condemn or stop the attacks being carried out in their name. I think this is what a lot people feel, vulgar as it may be.
Seats never change from an opposition party to the governing party in mid-term by-elections?
Mind you, there could well be another terrorist attack in France. Can't quite recall when the last one was, but they've had an awful lot in the last few years. In the privacy of the polling booth, people can make their views known without having to defend it against the chattering classes or media.
I still think Le Pen is unlikely to win, though.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/liberals-are-attacking-trumps-ban-worst-possible-way-1603780
To instruct her lawyers not to file a defence in court is to attempt to frustrate the President's authority
To do so when just a caretaker (48 hours left?) is nakedly political.
Trump was within his rights to fire her
But...
Islam did not cause the rustbelt.
Islam did not cause Mexican immigration.
Islam did not cause over 1000 gun deaths this month.
... and so on.
1. During the 30s the Nazis were genuinely willing to let Jews emigrate to wherever they wished. The rest of the world ensured this was a non-starter by refusing to take them in.
2. Extraordinary variations in the way occupied countries dealt with the final solution. Bulgaria, Denmark and Italy (!) said to themselves Feck this, we don't do genocide and just dragged their heels when the SS asked for info on who was Jewish, where they lived etc. so that no Danish Jews, only 48 Bulgarian Jews and an unspecified but small number of Italian Jews died in the holocaust. Rumania on the other hand took to pogroms so enthusiastically that the SS had to ask them to tone it down a bit. Difficult not to make quasi-racial judgments about these nations in light of this info.
3. Very good anti-Trump visual gag about 2/3 of the way down.
Though there is much more recent precident for a UKIP win in Stoke. After Romsey in 2000 Charles Kennedy said it was a " protest vote against a Conservative government that has already left office. "
I think the difference is the Lib Dems were masters at Byelections. UKIP aren't. Yet.
The highest Leave votes were in deprived areas which had received large scale and unprepared for immigration from Eastern Europe.
And its interesting that there was much higher Leave support among working class Muslim voters than expected. Newham for example.
I think it is perfectly acceptable for a country to say "these are our rules that we are settled upon as a nation. If you wish to visit or live in our country then you obey these rules."
Every country does that and I would actually suggest it improves community cohesion far more than multiculturalism.
I do not think it is acceptable for a country to say that someone is banned because of an accident of birth. Particularly not a country that is completely founded on immigration. It is stupid, counter productive and immoral.
I detest Islam just as I detest all religions. They are infantile mumbo jumbo based on ignorance and insecurity. But as long as the adherents stay within the laws of the country I think it is no government's business to tell them they are not welcome.
But. I don't think that one should only object to crazy policies when the objection has prior majority support. It's the job of politicians to say what they honestly believe and try to persuade and change opinion. We need to be careful with our arguments, though: we can't judge assume that everyone agrees. At a rally in my area last night, I focused on the indiscriminate natrure of the ban and the fact that Trump was elected with a minority of the votes, and argued that we needed to encourage the majority who hadn't voted for him by showing international concern for the direction that America is taking. It wasn't as sharp a point as several of the other speakers, but afterwards I talked to several bystanders who said it had persuaded them more than the "Dump Trump" demands.
Looking at other responses it does suggest significant problems for Trump further down the line.
A transgender woman has been denied direct contact with her five children on the basis they would be shunned by their ultra-Orthodox Jewish community if she were allowed to meet them.
The woman will be allowed only to send letters to her children, after a judge concluded there was a real chance of “the children and their mother being marginalised or excluded by the ultra-Orthodox community” if face-to-face contact were permitted.
Mr Justice Peter Jackson stated that he had reached the conclusion with “real regret, knowing the pain that it must cause”. The transgender woman – identified only as J – had brought the case seeking to have contact with the children.
As a result of the ruling, her contact with each child will be limited to letters four times a year, with the suggestion that these could be sent to mark three Jewish religious holidays – Pesach, Sukkot and Hanukkah – and the children’s birthdays.
The judge noted his concerns over the clash between the ultra-Orthodox faith and transgender rights, saying: “It is painful to find these vulnerable groups in conflict.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/30/transgender-woman-denied-direct-access-to-ultra-orthodox-jewish-children
Received a few call outs to go spend a day campaigning in Copeland.
If the AG was not given sight of an EO before it is issued how could she have argued the case against it internally? Once it was out there, decisions had to be made about enforcing it. She made a decision the President didn't like. He fired her. Fine. Then he labelled her a traitor. Not fine.
Largely imo because simplistic diving back to the original text which is often the habit of radicals gives a lot of quite nasty things which are understood as a literal divine instruction. Both Jews and Christians sit looser to the text of the Holy Book, and there is more scope for ending up with something more peaceful.
The solution might be as simple as another thousand years for it to become a bit more ambiguous.
IMO.
When this is all over it's the EEA Brexiters alongside the Lexiters who should be rounded up and shot.
* As an aide after a life time of using it as a turn of phrase I actually read Frankenstein last year. It's an astonishly modern work. I was really taken aback by how good it is.
Christianity has its fundamentalists/literalists too, of course, but there's a huge number of conservatives and liberals influencing things as well.
Wendy Alexander had exactly the right strategy in 07-11 which was to say "bring it on" to the idea of IndyRef. She was over ruled and dumped.
I see that there's is a concerted effort to identify the signees of the other petition with Remoaner areas. Is there a similar breakdown of the signatories for this one to see how many are from stinky underwear, low education Leave constituencies, or are the numbers too meagre?
Some never learn - don't attack Trump because he's a bad person (even if that stokes your own, needy sense of moral superiority) - attack him because he has bad ideas
And he is, on any objective level, a very bad person. To not point that out seems counterproductive.
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/825294829299040256
I'm tempted to go all Daily Mail on that judge.
The world's third most populous democracy is predominantly Muslim.
The world's biggest one party dictatorship is officially atheist.
There's also a problem with the president being head of state. I gather many Americans try to rally round and support the president regardless of whether they voted for him, and may see it as a duty to do so. Opposing specific policies is better, and easier, than opposing the President.
Well, perhaps. I'm not American, of course. And I prefer logos to pathos.
'betrayer noun [ C ] (NOT LOYAL)
a person who is not loyal to their country or to another person, often doing something harmful such as giving information to an enemy:
betrayers of the nation's interests
Judas Iscariot is remembered as Christ's betrayer.'
Mr. HYUFD, reminds me a bit of a piece I saw (vox pops) a few days ago from Leeds. The reporter ended by saying the city had voted to Remain. Technically true, but it was something like a 50.2% Remain vote, so also a bit misleading. It was just about the most evenly split of voting areas (a surprise given it was also the third largest).
24 hours on and I'm basically none the wiser. President Trump is, whether some like it or not, a duly elected and recognised Head of State. I don't quite see the precipitous rush to invite him over here in all honesty - it does smack of hanging on to his coat tails which isn't a good image for a proud independently-minded "Global Britain" but clearly I have a different understanding to that than the Prime Minister.
IF Trump comes, there are plenty of ways for people to make a protest just as the veterans did the last time the Japanese Emperor came. Instead of making a lot of noise, a dignified silence can be far more effective.
The travel restrictions are a muddle of contradictions and absurdities - as others have said, why not include Saudi Arabia ? My other thought is that banning travel won't stop terrorism if the terrorists were born and brought up in your country and radicalised over the Internet. It smacks of the age-old desire of Governments to be seen to be doing something as inactivity advertises impotence.
That said, Trump can hardly be blamed for sacking the Attorney General who openly defied him. It's part of the messy Transition process in the US that the incoming President has to deal with officials from the previous administration while his own candidates seek Senate and Congressional approval to take their posts.
It's worth pointing out many countries have travel restrictions on people from other countries - I suppose it's the fact that the US, an iconically open country whose very history and identity was so strongly built by immigrants and those fleeing persecution, that is now doing this so publicly, that stands out.
Except that would be wrong. Pretty well all societies contain elements who are capable of such actions.
Read Timothy Snyder's 'Black Earth', which is the best and most cold eyed analysis of the holocaust I've seen. His conclusion, which he supports with pretty compelling evidence, is that the single most significant factor in cooperation with the nazi holocaust - irrespective of political system, or even the extent of anti semitism in a given society - was whether the institutions of the state had been destroyed.
In regions where the state had been dismantled first by the soviets and then by the nazis, the holocaust was the most complete. The statistics are quite compelling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08d65k0/newsnight-30012017
They've been failed by their own community and our legal system.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/30/bond-markets-sniff-mounting-risks-france-italy/
It should be a warning from history that the worst things happen when there is no state. Which brings to mind the mess the Americans made of post-war Iraq.
Mr. Submarine, the evil examples you cite have been and gone. They're not fair comparisons.
Mr. Pong, indeed. The judgement indicates the judge feels the children's religious group is more important than their mother [or father, as you like, when terms like 'transgender woman' are used I can never recall if that's transitioned to, or from].