Is this a case of caveat emptor, and/or are the leaseholders taking the p*ss ?
(Why would you get a leasehold on a new, non-shared ownership house anyway?)
Its drawing attention to a deceptive and dysfunctional system that needs reforming.
It suggests we need ground rent control for leaseholders, not just protection for tenants as they have in Germany.
But I think by creating leasehold single family houses - where freehold works fine - the developers are taking the piss and exploiting a housing shortage which they're very happy with and to which no politician seems to propose the obvious solution - build more.
Richard Bacon MP does, and was responsible for the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, but he's in a minority.
Squiffy the Clown Archaelogists have just found an ancient book that had been lost for years called 'Irish Country Dancing part 2, What to do with your arms.'
'I am glad for example the Mr Corbyn has been so forthright about his views on Palestine, Irish republicanism, Israel, Islamic Terrorism and so forth, it means the voters get to consider a fuller picture of him when them put their tick in the box. For the same reason it was good to know about the nasty views of Mr Griffin and his associates.'
I guess Im going to have to repeat my usual reminders on this:
Corbyn' critical views on Israel re: Palestine are much more in tune with those of the public, who whenever polled show overwhelmingly negative views of Israel. Just because those in the westminster bubble have a love affair with the racist apartheid state, just like they did with another now thankfully defunct racist apartheid state not so long ago, doesnt mean that is widely shared.
Corbyn's view on Islamic terrorism is also a popular one - that rather than fawning and scraping before the biggest sponsors of terrorism and the cancer of salafi extremism in the world at the GCC, we should be doing what we can to slice off their insidious global tentacles at source.
Irish republicanism is essentially an irrelevance in the second decade of the 21st century, and his views that a peace deal would require the involvement of all parties proved 100% correct.
The lack of coverage of the male victims is somewhat disturbing. But such are the times. Now everybody just assumes it was only girls. I agree entirely this doesn't lessen or heighten the horror, but we should try and remember such disgraces accurately (much as we remember gypsies and homosexuals killed in the Holocaust, as well as the huge number of Jews).
Likewise, the funding for male victims of domestic violence is (from what I gather) a pittance against what women get, despite the proportion of male victims regularly being estimated around 35-45% (one Canadian study, I think from last year, actually had men as the majority gender of victims).
Hate Speech is simply speech one strongly dislikes.
If you ar
Preciions, which is why no-platforming is idiotic.
No one is silencing them. They can arrange their own meetings etc. No one should be forced to give them a platform or promote their views.
A fine line.
There is nssociates.
Quite. His blustering performance on Question Time was the beginning of the end for Nick Griffin. His party went into freefall soon after.
If Milo has horrible views (I'm not sure he does, I think he's more of a provocateur) then let him speak, and let him be revealed as the Nazi-boy he is. Or not.
Rioting to stop him speaking, and burning down trees, and punching and pepperspraying those who came to hear him speak is just ridiculous. And depressing.
It really is. Depressing and stupid. I don't know this Milo person very well, but I suspect he is just another wind-up-the-lefties merchant who only gets attention because he is good at winding up a certain kind of lefty. If he was ignored he would probably disappear very quickly indeed.
If you really want to be depressed by the dreadful safe-spacing mess into which American academe is descending, read this, written by an actual Ivy League student
Good choice of video Roger. Every single thing Milo says in that clip is true.
It's all very prejudicial. Lots of twisting facts. '100,000,000 people live in countries where homosexuality is a crime and they're ALL Muslim'. Well there might be 100,000.000 people who live in Muslim countries where homosexuality is illegal but there are many Christian countries where it's illegal too . His Rochdale story is also misleading if you don't know the facts. It implies 14.000 girls were ceremoniously lined up to be raped.
But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.
'I am glad for example the Mr Corbyn has been so forthright about his views on Palestine, Irish republicanism, Israel, Islamic Terrorism and so forth, it means the voters get to consider a fuller picture of him when them put their tick in the box. For the same reason it was good to know about the nasty views of Mr Griffin and his associates.'
I guess Im going to have to repeat my usual reminders on this:
Corbyn' critical views on Israel re: Palestine are much more in tune with those of the public, who whenever polled show overwhelmingly negative views of Israel. Just because those in the westminster bubble have a love affair with the racist apartheid state, just like they did with another now thankfully defunct racist apartheid state not so long ago, doesnt mean that is widely shared.
Corbyn's view on Islamic terrorism is also a popular one - that rather than fawning and scraping before the biggest sponsors of terrorism and the cancer of salafi extremism in the world at the GCC, we should be doing what we can to slice off their insidious global tentacles at source.
Irish republicanism is essentially an irrelevance in the second decade of the 21st century, and his views that a peace deal would require the involvement of all parties proved 100% correct.
How fortunate the public discern that Corbyn is actually a man of wit and discretion... That must be why Labour is riding high in the polls.
Macron is just a boring europhile centrist, isn't he? (I confess my knowledge of the more obscure candidates is poor)
Why would the French vote for another version of Hollande??
No, he's he a charismatic europhile centrist. Think Blair.
Rough guide (others may disagree):
Le Pen: nationalist with more ability to tack on issues than her dad had Fillon: grey hardline conservative, mildly Europe-friendly Macron: as above Hamon: populist charismatic leftist with hard-to-achieve policies (think Syriza) Melanchon: classic leftist, not sure what his views on Europe are
Hollande's approach - classic social democracy with some sops to the left - was Valls' approach. He lost.
If Fillon fades because of alleged personal issues, voters can choose between ultra-nationalism (most French still say ugh), Syriza-style populism (oo-er), communist-leaning leftism (um, it's 2017), and centrism. That's why Macron is now favourite.
Trump's continued, and highly entertaining, volatility (or insanity, if you prefer) just underlines what an incredible job TMay did in Washington.
Most leaders can't have a ten minute phone call with the POTUS, without him threatening to invade their country and drop neutron bombs on their favourite national parks. TMay went into the crazy lion's den, got feted and cheered, did an actual live press conference without a hitch, and escaped with nothing but a mildly embarrassing shot of some hand holding.
Whatever your politics, she did very very well. She rises in my estimation daily.
It's easy to get on well with Trump, just tell him he's great.
Yes. But beyond the necessary flattery of a narcissist, May also managed to get Trump to 1. commit to NATO, and 2. confess he would let his Def Sec choose whether or not to torture people (i.e. not)
I know she's not flavour of the month amongst Remainers, but looking back TMay handled Trump exceedingly well, in very tricky circumstances. Perhaps he responds to authoritative women better than other men, who he sees as rivals. That might be especially true if the women have a British accent.
Trump's commitment to NATO is untested, to say the least. As for torture - probably best to wait and see. What we know for sure is that Trump says one thing and does another. But, you are right, May is tied to him keeping his word.
If you can just try and get beyond your tiresome partisanship, and Remainery whingeing, you have to admit - in terms of the job she had to do in DC - TMay did jolly well, as every day since has proved. Trump is barking. She made him appear sane, and got away largely without embarrassment. 9/10 for the lady.
As for the ongoing politics, yes, we shall see.
a golden carriage ride down the Mall.
Oh I doubt he's getting that - just a drive from the back of the Palace to the front, just like George Bush.....
Hate Speech is simply speech one strongly dislikes.
If you ar
Preciions, which is why no-platforming is idiotic.
No one is silencing them. They can arrange their own meetings etc. No one should be forced to give them a platform or promote their views.
A fine line.
There is nssociates.
Quite. His blustering performance on Question Time was the beginning of the end for Nick Griffin. His party went into freefall soon after.
If Milo has horrible views (I'm not sure he does, I think he's more of a provocateur) then let him speak, and let him be revealed as the Nazi-boy he is. Or not.
Rioting to stop him speaking, and burning down trees, and punching and pepperspraying those who came to hear him speak is just ridiculous. And depressing.
It really is. Depressing and stupid. I don't know this Milo person very well, but I suspect he is just another wind-up-the-lefties merchant who only gets attention because he is good at winding up a certain kind of lefty. If he was ignored he would probably disappear very quickly indeed.
If you really want to be depressed by the dreadful safe-spacing mess into which American academe is descending, read this, written by an actual Ivy League student
Good choice of video Roger. Every single thing Milo says in that clip is true.
It's all very prejudicial. Lots of twisting facts. '100,000,000 people live in countries where homosexuality is a crime and they're ALL Muslim'. Well there might be 100,000.000 people who live in Muslim countries where homosexuality is illegal but there are many Christian countries where it's illegal too . His Rochdale story is also misleading if you don't know the facts. It implies 14.000 girls were ceremoniously lined up to be raped.
But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.
Was Churchill preaching hate in the 1930s? Just wondering.
I've been thinking about the Trump Border Tax Adjustment (BTA), and what it means for the Canadian oil & gas industry.
To recap, under the BTA, companies can recoup domestic costs against tax, but not imports.
Now, imagine you are an oil refiner. Typically you buy oil (and I'm simplifying here, but not much), for $50, spend $5 to convert it diesel, gasoline, etc., and sell it for $60, earning a $5 profit on which you pay roughly $1.50 of tax.
If a refiner buys a barrel of Canadian oil, paying $50, it will not be able to offset that against tax. The result is that its tax bill will be $15.00 + $1.50, or $16.50.
The US produces about 9m barrels of oil per day, and consumes about 17m.
Canada has no meaningful ability to sell crude oil (beyond a small amount from the off-shore fields of White Rose, Hibernian, etc.) to customers other than the US. 99% of its oil exports have exactly one market; and those barrels (which are already some of the most expensive to produce in the world) are just worth $15 less to a US refiner.
I think it's fair to say that Canada would regard the imposition of a BTA to be an extremely hostile act.
I think we have to assume that it will be more sophisticated than that (particularly as regards import of raw materials); otherwise the economically rational thing to do in this case is move the refinery north of the Canadian border. But you're right, as currently stated that would seem to be how the mechanism would work.
Trump's continued, and highly entertaining, volatility (or insanity, if you prefer) just underlines what an incredible job TMay did in Washington.
Most leaders can't have a ten minute phone call with the POTUS, without him threatening to invade their country and drop neutron bombs on their favourite national parks. TMay went into the crazy lion's den, got feted and cheered, did an actual live press conference without a hitch, and escaped with nothing but a mildly embarrassing shot of some hand holding.
Whatever your politics, she did very very well. She rises in my estimation daily.
It's easy to get on well with Trump, just tell him he's great.
Yes. But beyond the necessary flattery of a narcissist, May also managed to get Trump to 1. commit to NATO, and 2. confess he would let his Def Sec choose whether or not to torture people (i.e. not)
I know she's not flavour of the month amongst Remainers, but looking back TMay handled Trump exceedingly well, in very tricky circumstances. Perhaps he responds to authoritative women better than other men, who he sees as rivals. That might be especially true if the women have a British accent.
Trump's commitment to NATO is untested, to say the least. As for torture - probably best to wait and see. What we know for sure is that Trump says one thing and does another. But, you are right, May is tied to him keeping his word.
If you can just try and get beyond your tiresome partisanship, and Remainery whingeing, you have to admit - in terms of the job she had to do in DC - TMay did jolly well, as every day since has proved. Trump is barking. She made him appear sane, and got away largely without embarrassment. 9/10 for the lady.
As for the ongoing politics, yes, we shall see.
She gave him a weekend with the Queen and a golden carriage ride down the Mall. For a barking-mad narcissist that is a dream come true; so he behaved himself - more or less - for a 24-hour period. May has now played all the cards she had to play. The true test of her skill will be what happens now.
Or as William Spooner might say " She gave him a week-end carriage down the Mall and a Golden shower with the Queen"
Donald J Trump Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!
I can see why Trump is pissed about this. Obama signed the US up to potentially excepting people currently located on Manus Island and Nauru in detention centres only in November.
Most of the people are Iranian. So for Trump that is politically terrible if on one hand he is saying there is a ban, sorry temporary pause, on all Iranians and on the other hand expecting to take in a load of Iranians that Australia won't deal with.
That may be so, but normally a president takes advice and considers that sort of thing before signing an executive order or making a policy statement.
I've been thinking about the Trump Border Tax Adjustment (BTA), and what it means for the Canadian oil & gas industry.
To recap, under the BTA, companies can recoup domestic costs against tax, but not imports.
Now, imagine you are an oil refiner. Typically you buy oil (and I'm simplifying here, but not much), for $50, spend $5 to convert it diesel, gasoline, etc., and sell it for $60, earning a $5 profit on which you pay roughly $1.50 of tax.
If a refiner buys a barrel of Canadian oil, paying $50, it will not be able to offset that against tax. The result is that its tax bill will be $15.00 + $1.50, or $16.50.
The US produces about 9m barrels of oil per day, and consumes about 17m.
Canada has no meaningful ability to sell crude oil (beyond a small amount from the off-shore fields of White Rose, Hibernian, etc.) to customers other than the US. 99% of its oil exports have exactly one market; and those barrels (which are already some of the most expensive to produce in the world) are just worth $15 less to a US refiner.
I think it's fair to say that Canada would regard the imposition of a BTA to be an extremely hostile act.
I think we have to assume that it will be more sophisticated than that (particularly as regards import of raw materials); otherwise the economically rational thing to do in this case is move the refinery north of the Canadian border. But you're right, as currently stated that would seem to be how the mechanism would work.
There will be an absolute orgy of special pleading. Will raw materials be exempt? Or will it only be for raw materials that the US doesn't produce in scale? What about businesses with long-term contracts that will suddenly become unprofitable?
And then there's reflexivity: the fact that prices will adjust to maintain the balance of supply and demand. (Essentially, could the US dollar simply rise 15% to completely eradicate the effects of the BTA?)
Hate Speech is simply speech one strongly dislikes.
If you ar
Preciions, which is why no-platforming is idiotic.
No one is silencing them. They can arrange their own meetings etc. No one should be forced to give them a platform or promote their views.
A fine line.
There is nssociates.
Quite. epressing.
It really is. Depressing and stupid. I don't know this Milo person very well, but I suspect he is just another wind-up-the-lefties merchant who only gets attention because he is good at winding up a certain kind of lefty. If he was ignored he would probably disappear very quickly indeed.
Good choice of video Roger. Every single thing Milo says in that clip is true.
snip
But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.
No, he's pointing out, very bluntly, that some aspects of the Muslim faith, as practised in dozens of countries, and eagerly applauded by millions of Muslims, are disgusting and vile. Like killing gays. And they are.
So in this example it isn't hate speech, it's simply uncomfortable facts that some Muslims, and their lefty apologists, just don't want to hear.
If they don't like what he says, let them walk out of the auditorium, or stage their own debates, let them challenge his arguments with their own. Instead they burn down buildings and knock members of the audience unconscious. Brilliant.
The Left is devouring itself with this mad, violent, identity politics bullshit. If this madness continues, someone even WORSE than Trump will come along, and duly get elected.
This compendium of SJW candidates for DNC chair says it all.
You have to really side-eye Trudeau on breaking his promise in regard to electoral reform. And I'm someone who actually likes him.
I bet you liked Blair.
For most of his time as PM I was a kid. But generally I grew up in anti-Blair household and so those views filtered down to me.
I apologise then.
Well done Tyke, not many on here would do same
I think there should be an award for 2017... Poster who apologised when wrong the most often.
Is that the person who apologised most often when wrong or was wrong most often and apologised?
I think the second one. Easier to monitor! I'm sure we are all wrong enough times to have a shot at the award which will likely be won by someone with three or possibly four apologies!
James Forsyth: Imagine if Donald Trump declared that Islam had ‘no place’ in his country, or proposed banning the burqa ‘wherever legally possible’. There wouldn’t be enough space in Trafalgar Square for all the protestors. British ministers would be forced to the Commons to make clear their disagreement with the President of the United States. And there would be millions more signatures on the petition demanding that his state visit invitation be rescinded.
The Trump White House, of course, hasn’t said either of these things. They are the on-the-record positions of two heads of governments in the EU. Robert Fico, prime minister of Slovakia, has declared that Islam has no place in his country, while Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, wants the burqa banned wherever possible. It is a striking feature of British politics that we care more about statements by the US President than those of the leaders of the countries with whom we have been in ‘ever closer union’ for 40-odd years.
Good choice of video Roger. Every single thing Milo says in that clip is true.
But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.
No, he's pointing out, very bluntly, that some aspects of the Muslim faith, as practised in dozens of countries, and eagerly applauded by millions of Muslims, are disgusting and vile. Like killing gays. And they are.
So in this example it isn't hate speech, it's simply uncomfortable facts that some Muslims, and their lefty apologists, just don't want to hear.
If they don't like what he says, let them walk out of the auditorium, or stage their own debates, let them challenge his arguments with their own. Instead they burn down buildings and knock members of the audience unconscious. Brilliant.
The Left is devouring itself with this mad, violent, identity politics bullshit. If this madness continues, someone even WORSE than Trump will come along, and duly get elected.
There was a documentary some years ago about Oswald Mosely's march through the East End. It interviewd Lefties and Commies who stood up to the fascists many of whom were beaten up by a very partisan police force.
But they were now the 'Heroes of Cable Street' who had fought the fascists on behalf of their Jewish neigbours.
The right-wing on on a run just now but we'll have to wait a few years before we start selecting heroes and villains.
I've been thinking about the Trump Border Tax Adjustment (BTA), and what it means for the Canadian oil & gas industry.
To recap, under the BTA, companies can recoup domestic costs against tax, but not imports.
Now, imagine you are an oil refiner. Typically you buy oil (and I'm simplifying here, but not much), for $50, spend $5 to convert it diesel, gasoline, etc., and sell it for $60, earning a $5 profit on which you pay roughly $1.50 of tax.
If a refiner buys a barrel of Canadian oil, paying $50, it will not be able to offset that against tax. The result is that its tax bill will be $15.00 + $1.50, or $16.50.
The US produces about 9m barrels of oil per day, and consumes about 17m.
I think it's fair to say that Canada would regard the imposition of a BTA to be an extremely hostile act.
I think we have to assume that it will be more sophisticated than that (particularly as regards import of raw materials); otherwise the economically rational thing to do in this case is move the refinery north of the Canadian border. But you're right, as currently stated that would seem to be how the mechanism would work.
There will be an absolute orgy of special pleading. Will raw materials be exempt? Or will it only be for raw materials that the US doesn't produce in scale? What about businesses with long-term contracts that will suddenly become unprofitable?
And then there's reflexivity: the fact that prices will adjust to maintain the balance of supply and demand. (Essentially, could the US dollar simply rise 15% to completely eradicate the effects of the BTA?)
More likely (knowing the way the US tax system works), there will be a further increase in complexity. On the assumption (*probably* reasonable) that it's primarily manufacturing being targeted, one could imagine that the tax calcs could require an imputed foreign cost of sales, in excess of raw materials cost.
[Simple potential example - steel; costs ~$300 per tonne, input raw materials (crudely) two tonnes of iron ore at $80 per tonne, one tonne of coke at $50 per tonne; imputed manufacturing cost of sales $90, against which BTA is assessed]
In practice, given the need for certification of all this, it would act as a hefty NTB. And you're right, special pleading would abound; certainly, if I were negotiating a new free trade deal with the US, exemption from the BTA would be right at the top of the list of objectives.
Could the USD rise to eliminate the impact? Possible, but it would create significant commodity pricing dislocations, I think.
I've been thinking about the Trump Border Tax Adjustment (BTA), and what it means for the Canadian oil & gas industry.
To recap, under the BTA, companies can recoup domestic costs against tax, but not imports.
Now, imagine you are an oil refiner. Typically you buy oil (and I'm simplifying here, but not much), for $50, spend $5 to convert it diesel, gasoline, etc., and sell it for $60, earning a $5 profit on which you pay roughly $1.50 of tax.
If a refiner buys a barrel of Canadian oil, paying $50, it will not be able to offset that against tax. The result is that its tax bill will be $15.00 + $1.50, or $16.50.
The US produces about 9m barrels of oil per day, and consumes about 17m.
Canada has no meaningful ability to sell crude oil (beyond a small amount from the off-shore fields of White Rose, Hibernian, etc.) to customers other than the US. 99% of its oil exports have exactly one market; and those barrels (which are already some of the most expensive to produce in the world) are just worth $15 less to a US refiner.
I think it's fair to say that Canada would regard the imposition of a BTA to be an extremely hostile act.
I think we have to assume that it will be more sophisticated than that (particularly as regards import of raw materials); otherwise the economically rational thing to do in this case is move the refinery north of the Canadian border. But you're right, as currently stated that would seem to be how the mechanism would work.
There will be an absolute orgy of special pleading. Will raw materials be exempt? Or will it only be for raw materials that the US doesn't produce in scale? What about businesses with long-term contracts that will suddenly become unprofitable?
And then there's reflexivity: the fact that prices will adjust to maintain the balance of supply and demand. (Essentially, could the US dollar simply rise 15% to completely eradicate the effects of the BTA?)
There will be an absolute orgy of special pleading.
Of course there will. Then again, that might be a feature rather than a bug, with a grifter in the White House.
As Ms Cooper is now calling for a 'debate on immigration', did she exhange any words with Ed Miiband on the subject in 2015 as he had mugs for sale and a pledge on immigration controls carved into stone.
James Forsyth: It is a striking feature of British politics that we care more about statements by the US President than those of the leaders of the countries with whom we have been in ‘ever closer union’ for 40-odd years.
And our delusion is that we think this makes us unique within Europe rather than simply being a reflection of American power combined with the fact that we share a language. The truth is that every country in Europe cares more about statements by the US President than those of the leader of a randomly chosen European neighbour.
Good choice of video Roger. Every single thing Milo says in that clip is true.
It's all very prejudicial. Lots of twisting facts. '100,000,000 people live in countries where homosexuality is a crime and they're ALL Muslim'. Well there might be 100,000.000 people who live in Muslim countries where homosexuality is illegal but there are many Christian countries where it's illegal too . d.
But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.
As for your comment about "many Christian countries where homosexuality is illegal", that's simply not true. There's a handful left, and their laws are often notably lenient, or unenforced
And, more often than not it's a hang over of (usually British) colonial legislation.....
Good choice of video Roger. Every single thing Milo says in that clip is true.
But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.
No, he's pointing out, very bluntly, that some aspects of the Muslim faith, as practised in dozens of countries, and eagerly applauded by millions of Muslims, are disgusting and vile. Like killing gays. And they are.
So in this example it isn't hate speech, it's simply uncomfortable facts that some Muslims, and their lefty apologists, just don't want to hear.
If they don't like what he says, let them walk out of the auditorium, or stage their own debates, let them challenge his arguments with their own. Instead they burn down buildings and knock members of the audience unconscious. Brilliant.
The Left is devouring itself with this mad, violent, identity politics bullshit. If this madness continues, someone even WORSE than Trump will come along, and duly get elected.
There was a documentary some years ago about Oswald Mosely's march through the East End. It interviewd Lefties and Commies who stood up to the fascists many of whom were beaten up by a very partisan police force.
But they were now the 'Heroes of Cable Street' who had fought the fascists on behalf of their Jewish neigbours.
The right-wing on on a run just now but we'll have to wait a few years before we start selecting heroes and villains.
The Fascists, these days, are mostly found within Islam. Which is why the Left's embrace of radical Islam is so bizarre, and suicidal. And sad.
They needed something to replace the ideological anti-American rallying core when Communism collapsed. It's a kind of oppositionist methadone, I think.
And then there's reflexivity: the fact that prices will adjust to maintain the balance of supply and demand. (Essentially, could the US dollar simply rise 15% to completely eradicate the effects of the BTA?)
That's exactly what some of the economists advocating this say will happen, which is why they claim that it is neutral in terms of effect on US international trade.
Personally, I think that's the kind of simplistic view of the world which economists often seem to have. Even if they are right in the long term, the short-term disruption would be enormous.
Regarding my earlier point about Trumper activist thinking - I watched this earlier and it really made an impact. Stephen Molyneux isn't usually given to getting all intense, he's normally poking fun at poor arguments or pulling a face at stupidity when it comes to political philosophy.
His missives over the last few weeks have become quite dark, rather than mocking. He's a huge thought-influencer amongst the right in the US. That he's shifting like this makes me rather concerned re the mood music.
I met Theresa May in 2002 - and asked her a question at Spring Forum) - and that's exactly what I found her to be like. Put me right off her, and I almost wrote her off.
But, then again, Margaret Thatcher was also fairly conformist and anodyne until she took the leadership.
Perhaps ambitious female politicians just like to keep their powder dry? (two points of evidence..)
Good choice of video Roger. Every single thing Milo says in that clip is true.
It's all very prejudicial. Lots of twisting facts. '100,000,000 people live in countries where homosexuality is a crime and they're ALL Muslim'. Well there might be 100,000.000 people who live in Muslim countries where homosexuality is illegal but there are many Christian countries where it's illegal too . d.
But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.
As for your comment about "many Christian countries where homosexuality is illegal", that's simply not true. There's a handful left, and their laws are often notably lenient, or unenforced
And, more often than not it's a hang over of (usually British) colonial legislation.....
Donald J Trump If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?
Good choice of video Roger. Every single thing Milo says in that clip is true.
But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.
snip
The Left is devouring itself with this mad, violent, identity politics bullshit. If this madness continues, someone even WORSE than Trump will come along, and duly get elected.
There was a documentary some years ago about Oswald Mosely's march through the East End. It interviewd Lefties and Commies who stood up to the fascists many of whom were beaten up by a very partisan police force.
But they were now the 'Heroes of Cable Street' who had fought the fascists on behalf of their Jewish neigbours.
The right-wing on on a run just now but we'll have to wait a few years before we start selecting heroes and villains.
The Fascists, these days, are mostly found within Islam. Which is why the Left's embrace of radical Islam is so bizarre, and suicidal. And sad.
They needed something to replace the ideological anti-American rallying core when Communism collapsed. It's a kind of oppositionist methadone, I think.
Having endured a lot of streamed intvs with dozens of protesters dressed as vaginas and others screaming about Nazis - I honestly can't think of one who knew anything beyond emoting at random without any facts. It makes the anti-Brexit campaigners look informed.
I found it quite endearingly stupid at the beginning - now it's just dangerously out of control.
He certainly is, latest Panel base has No ahead by 8% in any indyref2 i.e. no change from final 2014 polls
So only needs change just above MOE for YES victory, good starting point given it was 30% last time.
The chance for the SNP was 2014. Just can't see independence happening now, particularly given the post Brexit polls. If leaving the EU won't win round the 55% then I doubt anything will.
Comments
Anyone else having problems placing bets with Betfair at the moment?
Ignore.. seems to be fixed now.
But I think by creating leasehold single family houses - where freehold works fine - the developers are taking the piss and exploiting a housing shortage which they're very happy with and to which no politician seems to propose the obvious solution - build more.
Richard Bacon MP does, and was responsible for the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, but he's in a minority.
Squiffy the Clown
Archaelogists have just found an ancient book that had been lost for years called 'Irish Country Dancing part 2, What to do with your arms.'
I guess Im going to have to repeat my usual reminders on this:
Corbyn' critical views on Israel re: Palestine are much more in tune with those of the public, who whenever polled show overwhelmingly negative views of Israel. Just because those in the westminster bubble have a love affair with the racist apartheid state, just like they did with another now thankfully defunct racist apartheid state not so long ago, doesnt mean that is widely shared.
Corbyn's view on Islamic terrorism is also a popular one - that rather than fawning and scraping before the biggest sponsors of terrorism and the cancer of salafi extremism in the world at the GCC, we should be doing what we can to slice off their insidious global tentacles at source.
Irish republicanism is essentially an irrelevance in the second decade of the 21st century, and his views that a peace deal would require the involvement of all parties proved 100% correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
The lack of coverage of the male victims is somewhat disturbing. But such are the times. Now everybody just assumes it was only girls. I agree entirely this doesn't lessen or heighten the horror, but we should try and remember such disgraces accurately (much as we remember gypsies and homosexuals killed in the Holocaust, as well as the huge number of Jews).
Likewise, the funding for male victims of domestic violence is (from what I gather) a pittance against what women get, despite the proportion of male victims regularly being estimated around 35-45% (one Canadian study, I think from last year, actually had men as the majority gender of victims).
/endspeech
But this isn't the point. The man is preaching hate and as we have seen in too many examples very ignorant people pick up the batton and act on it.
Rough guide (others may disagree):
Le Pen: nationalist with more ability to tack on issues than her dad had
Fillon: grey hardline conservative, mildly Europe-friendly
Macron: as above
Hamon: populist charismatic leftist with hard-to-achieve policies (think Syriza)
Melanchon: classic leftist, not sure what his views on Europe are
Hollande's approach - classic social democracy with some sops to the left - was Valls' approach. He lost.
If Fillon fades because of alleged personal issues, voters can choose between ultra-nationalism (most French still say ugh), Syriza-style populism (oo-er), communist-leaning leftism (um, it's 2017), and centrism. That's why Macron is now favourite.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9626444/Walter-Harrison.html
And then there's reflexivity: the fact that prices will adjust to maintain the balance of supply and demand. (Essentially, could the US dollar simply rise 15% to completely eradicate the effects of the BTA?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9wIwhGJMEw
and this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02uhSjrkcDM
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/827097905483960320
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/827100036844703744
I'm sure we are all wrong enough times to have a shot at the award which will likely be won by someone with three or possibly four apologies!
Imagine if Donald Trump declared that Islam had ‘no place’ in his country, or proposed banning the burqa ‘wherever legally possible’. There wouldn’t be enough space in Trafalgar Square for all the protestors. British ministers would be forced to the Commons to make clear their disagreement with the President of the United States. And there would be millions more signatures on the petition demanding that his state visit invitation be rescinded.
The Trump White House, of course, hasn’t said either of these things. They are the on-the-record positions of two heads of governments in the EU. Robert Fico, prime minister of Slovakia, has declared that Islam has no place in his country, while Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, wants the burqa banned wherever possible. It is a striking feature of British politics that we care more about statements by the US President than those of the leaders of the countries with whom we have been in ‘ever closer union’ for 40-odd years.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/what-no-10-has-learned-about-dealing-with-the-donald/
But they were now the 'Heroes of Cable Street' who had fought the fascists on behalf of their Jewish neigbours.
The right-wing on on a run just now but we'll have to wait a few years before we start selecting heroes and villains.
[Simple potential example - steel; costs ~$300 per tonne, input raw materials (crudely) two tonnes of iron ore at $80 per tonne, one tonne of coke at $50 per tonne; imputed manufacturing cost of sales $90, against which BTA is assessed]
In practice, given the need for certification of all this, it would act as a hefty NTB. And you're right, special pleading would abound; certainly, if I were negotiating a new free trade deal with the US, exemption from the BTA would be right at the top of the list of objectives.
Could the USD rise to eliminate the impact? Possible, but it would create significant commodity pricing dislocations, I think.
Of course there will. Then again, that might be a feature rather than a bug, with a grifter in the White House.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/02/yvette-cooper-calls-for-national-debate-on-immigration-as-she-launches-inquiry
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/827104925704474624
Personally, I think that's the kind of simplistic view of the world which economists often seem to have. Even if they are right in the long term, the short-term disruption would be enormous.
https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/827107069551587328
His missives over the last few weeks have become quite dark, rather than mocking. He's a huge thought-influencer amongst the right in the US. That he's shifting like this makes me rather concerned re the mood music.
12 mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZhHm_xQScE
But, then again, Margaret Thatcher was also fairly conformist and anodyne until she took the leadership.
Perhaps ambitious female politicians just like to keep their powder dry? (two points of evidence..)
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html
NEW THREAD
If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?
Good vs Bad Ideas
I think this is how many "lefties" are feeling right now
@RubinReport @Sargon_of_Akkad @GadSaad @DaveCullenCF @TylerPreston20 #Berkely https://t.co/HrBx7Ijb6L
Donald J Trump
If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?
I found it quite endearingly stupid at the beginning - now it's just dangerously out of control.