"...It is one reason why I am contemplating a serious career change.
In the end, you can only beat your head against a brick wall for so long before you decide that there are better things to do with your life - and head."
Are you still pondering, Mrs. Free? Is there anything to really ponder about? You children are grown up, so what is stopping you doing what you want to do? Is it money? It was for me when I was thinking about bailing out of the public sector do do what I really wanted to do. In the end I just went for it and hang the financial security. There are a lot more important things in life, like enjoying it, we only get one crack at it and there isn't much to be said for being a financially secure corpse.
I know that there are at least three others who regularly post on this site who have made similar life changing decisions and all of us seem to have done OK. Financially at the very least we have all kept the lupine pest from lolling around on the front doorstep and I think we have all been much happier doing what we wanted to do.
Dear Mr Llama: you are a very wise fellow.
I have in fact made my decision. But I am in the process of deciding precisely how I move to what I want to do and so it feels as if the decision-making hasn't yet been completed.
I don't suppose I will starve (and I have rainy day funds for just this purpose) but those to whom I've spoken say that the greater risk is that I will end up taking too much on (as I'm inclined to do by nature) and end up busier than ever. So I need to guard against that as I really want my remaining decades to be enjoyable and healthy.
I will miss my team though. They are jewels more precious than rubies and having built a really first-class team, the best in its class in the City, it does feel like a wrench. The work is one thing. But persuading people to put their trust in you and building a team and giving them interesting work and watching them develop and grow and fulfill their potential is the one thing I am immensely proud of. It is a great privilege. We are so focused on systems these days that we forget that, in the end, human beings are what matter. We are not simply economic units.
But as the Eldest Son put it to me: "You have created one job and team. You can go off now and create another."
So that is what I will do. But I will also have a good and relaxing summer in the Lakes I hope followed by three weeks in Canada celebrating my 25th wedding anniversary to help me refocus my life.
But I will also admit to being a bit apprehensive. Like standing on the edge of the water wondering what it will be like to jump in.........
There are a very large number. Keswick, for example. But usually they are there becuase their old catchment area is so vast/inaccessible it is not possible for children to make daily commutes to it. I don't quite think that is the case in Newport.
Tends to be focused in rural areas yes, interesting there are a few of them about
I think Royal Wolverhampton still takes boarders as well even though it is technically now a state school. There is more than a suggestion that this is to have the best of both worlds!
Funny, when I was likely to stand for Parliament, I was told I might get sued by Jim Messina for linking to Mark Pack's website! Bankrupts cant MP's they told me!
Gentle encouragement!
Mind you, I didn't really have any chance of winning so it didnt matter anyway
Does Aaron have any chance? Caroline Flint is sitting on a majority of 8,000+ in a seat that has been held by Labour since the party came into existence. If Aaron can overturn Caroline then hats off to him!
The Conservatives are odds on favs in Dagenham, once the biggest council estate in Europe... nothing makes sense anymore
That's a seat to watch. If TM's poll lead slips back among C2DE's, lump on lab here.
UKIP seem to be quite well organised locally, which may save him.
He has a fairly solid core of ~17k voters going back to 2001. It hasn't decayed like in many of labs ex-industrial northern seats.
Also, Cruddas *is* blue labour. If any labour MP can counter the ex-Lab>UKIP>con surge, it's him. He's pretty much written Theresa May's script.
Yeah Cruddas is pretty much the opposite of a Corbynite, I really like him. Labour have all 51 council seats and UKIP are 2nd in 50 of them
I think UKIP are a bet at 23 w Skybet and 21 w Betfred.. I laid a bit of the Tories at 1.7. First bet of the GE was Lab at 1.5!
Funny, when I was likely to stand for Parliament, I was told I might get sued by Jim Messina for linking to Mark Pack's website! Bankrupts cant MP's they told me!
Gentle encouragement!
Mind you, I didn't really have any chance of winning so it didnt matter anyway
Does Aaron have any chance? Caroline Flint is sitting on a majority of 8,000+ in a seat that has been held by Labour since the party came into existence. If Aaron can overturn Caroline then hats off to him!
The Conservatives are odds on favs in Dagenham, once the biggest council estate in Europe... nothing makes sense anymore
That's a seat to watch. If TM's poll lead slips back among C2DE's, lump on lab here.
Also UKIP seem to be quite well organised locally, which may save him.
He has a fairly solid core of ~17k voters going back to 2001. It hasn't decayed like in many of labs ex-industrial northern seats.
Finally, Cruddas *is* blue labour. If any labour MP can counter the ex-Lab>UKIP>con surge, it's him. Theresa May has nicked his script.
Against that it is in bigly trouble using lease/remain seperate swings, transitional matrices or just plain old UNS !
There are a very large number. Keswick, for example. But usually they are there becuase their old catchment area is so vast/inaccessible it is not possible for children to make daily commutes to it. I don't quite think that is the case in Newport.
Tends to be focused in rural areas yes, interesting there are a few of them about
I think Royal Wolverhampton still takes boarders as well even though it is technically now a state school. There is more than a suggestion that this is to have the best of both worlds!
I don't find Nick to be especially partisan. I think he posted after the 2010 election that there were things that he knew from canvassing but wasn't at liberty to say publicly (and he did caveat his postings by saying he was a loyal Labour MP which would inform what he would say publicly, but that he would endeavour to not post things that he knew to be untrue.) , but I don't think he has been ramping or campaigning on here.
He's also quite willing to get into the statistical side of things, which I like.
I recall Stewart Jackson was more keen to get into the partisan back and forth, which PB.com isn't really the best venue.
Both are informative, and, more importantly, polite. Neither villifies those who do not agree with them. That this is effective politics - Nick has previously said that you don't persuade anyone to agree with you by abusing you - takes nothing away from it's laudability on a site such as this.
I've noticed that since I stepped back from the front line, the more aggressive comments towards me have eased off. I sort of miss them.
Where's SeanT when you need him?
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
Funny, when I was likely to stand for Parliament, I was told I might get sued by Jim Messina for linking to Mark Pack's website! Bankrupts cant MP's they told me!
Gentle encouragement!
Mind you, I didn't really have any chance of winning so it didnt matter anyway
Does Aaron have any chance? Caroline Flint is sitting on a majority of 8,000+ in a seat that has been held by Labour since the party came into existence. If Aaron can overturn Caroline then hats off to him!
The Conservatives are odds on favs in Dagenham, once the biggest council estate in Europe... nothing makes sense anymore
That's a seat to watch. If TM's poll lead slips back among C2DE's, lump on lab here.
UKIP seem to be quite well organised locally, which may save him.
He has a fairly solid core of ~17k voters going back to 2001. It hasn't decayed like in many of labs ex-industrial northern seats.
Also, Cruddas *is* blue labour. If any labour MP can counter the ex-Lab>UKIP>con surge, it's him. He's pretty much written Theresa May's script.
Yeah Cruddas is pretty much the opposite of a Corbynite, I really like him. Labour have all 51 council seats and UKIP are 2nd in 50 of them
I think UKIP are a bet at 23 w Skybet and 21 w Betfred.. I laid a bit of the Tories at 1.7. First bet of the GE was Lab at 1.5!
Backing UKIP generally to get a seat by laying sub 0.5 on Betfair is better I think ?
I'm not a serious gambler, but I have bet a fiver on Labour getting betwixt 30 and 35 percent of the vote at 9/2 and another fiver on them getting between 200 and 249 seats at 7/1. I still expect to collect both bets. I also have high hopes of the Tories taking Clegg and Farron's seats at 10/1 and 8/1 respectively, and Labour holding Burnley at 7/4. All those fiver bets went on last Monday, by the way, and all the odds have now shortened.
Huh ? 30-35% is not impossible. 200 -249 seats ? Well, I believe 190 is possible 200 + at 7/1 seems right.
Farron's seat is more likely to fall. Clegg is pretty safe, I think.
Presumably the LDs will be pushing hard on the "Only Clegg can keep Corbyn out" line, with bar charts from 2015. It's a very Remain area, and the LDs did well in the constituency in the locals last year, so I would be surprised if it fell.
She didn't predict that - she predicted a narrow Hillary victory
At one point, yes. But you (and others) miss the point.
She refused to join the echo-chamber and she contributed news and opinions from sources that weren't in the Hillary camp. Plato showed us that there were two sides to the election.
O/T but I got my Conservative election mailing through the door in SW Edinburgh today. The graph is an absolute classic of the genre - so wish I could share it
What malevolent force Corbyn and Momentum are (and betting post)
Jeremy Corbyn's core campaign team of dedicated activists, Momentum, has been diverting campaigners away from the marginal seats of some of his most vocal critics, including Wes Streeting and Neil Coyle.
The hard-left group created a marginal map, launched last Thursday, in which voters type in their postcodes and are directed to their 'nearest marginal'.
The Telegraph checked postcodes in the marginal seats to see whether they were included on the map.
However, voters in the seats of 36 out of the 50 former Labour MPs with the lowest majorities, when the Telegraph checked, were directed to other constituencies.
O/T but I got my Conservative election mailing through the door in SW Edinburgh today. The graph is an absolute classic of the genre - so wish I could share it
I don't find Nick to be especially partisan. I think he posted after the 2010 election that there were things that he knew from canvassing but wasn't at liberty to say publicly (and he did caveat his postings by saying he was a loyal Labour MP which would inform what he would say publicly, but that he would endeavour to not post things that he knew to be untrue.) , but I don't think he has been ramping or campaigning on here.
He's also quite willing to get into the statistical side of things, which I like.
I recall Stewart Jackson was more keen to get into the partisan back and forth, which PB.com isn't really the best venue.
Both are informative, and, more importantly, polite. Neither villifies those who do not agree with them. That this is effective politics - Nick has previously said that you don't persuade anyone to agree with you by abusing you - takes nothing away from it's laudability on a site such as this.
.... I've noticed that since I stepped back from the front line, the more aggressive comments towards me have eased off...
To be honest Nick, most of us have come to the conclusion that you and Jeremy are MI5 sleeper agents with a lifelong mission to destroy the Labour Party. Once your work is complete you'll never have to buy a drink again.
O/T but I got my Conservative election mailing through the door in SW Edinburgh today. The graph is an absolute classic of the genre - so wish I could share it
What malevolent force Corbyn and Momentum are (and betting post)
Jeremy Corbyn's core campaign team of dedicated activists, Momentum, has been diverting campaigners away from the marginal seats of some of his most vocal critics, including Wes Streeting and Neil Coyle.
The hard-left group created a marginal map, launched last Thursday, in which voters type in their postcodes and are directed to their 'nearest marginal'.
The Telegraph checked postcodes in the marginal seats to see whether they were included on the map.
However, voters in the seats of 36 out of the 50 former Labour MPs with the lowest majorities, when the Telegraph checked, were directed to other constituencies.
O/T but I got my Conservative election mailing through the door in SW Edinburgh today. The graph is an absolute classic of the genre - so wish I could share it
O/T but I got my Conservative election mailing through the door in SW Edinburgh today. The graph is an absolute classic of the genre - so wish I could share it
What malevolent force Corbyn and Momentum are (and betting post)
Jeremy Corbyn's core campaign team of dedicated activists, Momentum, has been diverting campaigners away from the marginal seats of some of his most vocal critics, including Wes Streeting and Neil Coyle.
The hard-left group created a marginal map, launched last Thursday, in which voters type in their postcodes and are directed to their 'nearest marginal'.
The Telegraph checked postcodes in the marginal seats to see whether they were included on the map.
However, voters in the seats of 36 out of the 50 former Labour MPs with the lowest majorities, when the Telegraph checked, were directed to other constituencies.
O/T but I got my Conservative election mailing through the door in SW Edinburgh today. The graph is an absolute classic of the genre - so wish I could share it
Funny, when I was likely to stand for Parliament, I was told I might get sued by Jim Messina for linking to Mark Pack's website! Bankrupts cant MP's they told me!
Gentle encouragement!
Mind you, I didn't really have any chance of winning so it didnt matter anyway
Does Aaron have any chance? Caroline Flint is sitting on a majority of 8,000+ in a seat that has been held by Labour since the party came into existence. If Aaron can overturn Caroline then hats off to him!
The Conservatives are odds on favs in Dagenham, once the biggest council estate in Europe... nothing makes sense anymore
That's a seat to watch. If TM's poll lead slips back among C2DE's, lump on lab here.
UKIP seem to be quite well organised locally, which may save him.
He has a fairly solid core of ~17k voters going back to 2001. It hasn't decayed like in many of labs ex-industrial northern seats.
Also, Cruddas *is* blue labour. If any labour MP can counter the ex-Lab>UKIP>con surge, it's him. He's pretty much written Theresa May's script.
Yeah Cruddas is pretty much the opposite of a Corbynite, I really like him. Labour have all 51 council seats and UKIP are 2nd in 50 of them
I think UKIP are a bet at 23 w Skybet and 21 w Betfred.. I laid a bit of the Tories at 1.7. First bet of the GE was Lab at 1.5!
Backing UKIP generally to get a seat by laying sub 0.5 on Betfair is better I think ?
O/T but I got my Conservative election mailing through the door in SW Edinburgh today. The graph is an absolute classic of the genre - so wish I could share it
What malevolent force Corbyn and Momentum are (and betting post)
Jeremy Corbyn's core campaign team of dedicated activists, Momentum, has been diverting campaigners away from the marginal seats of some of his most vocal critics, including Wes Streeting and Neil Coyle.
The hard-left group created a marginal map, launched last Thursday, in which voters type in their postcodes and are directed to their 'nearest marginal'.
The Telegraph checked postcodes in the marginal seats to see whether they were included on the map.
However, voters in the seats of 36 out of the 50 former Labour MPs with the lowest majorities, when the Telegraph checked, were directed to other constituencies.
O/T but I got my Conservative election mailing through the door in SW Edinburgh today. The graph is an absolute classic of the genre - so wish I could share it
Such a lot of trouble to shrink the already unthreatening LibDem bar so it is smaller than its 4.9%!
The LDs themselves would be proud. Nice identical gap but different proportions between 1-2 and 2-3.
I like the far larger picture of Ruth Davidson, although in fairness they have included both the name and a picture for the actual candidate, and the name of the party.
Miles Briggs makes me think of a personality test.
Both are informative, and, more importantly, polite. Neither villifies those who do not agree with them. That this is effective politics - Nick has previously said that you don't persuade anyone to agree with you by abusing you - takes nothing away from it's laudability on a site such as this.
I've noticed that since I stepped back from the front line, the more aggressive comments towards me have eased off. I sort of miss them.
Where's SeanT when you need him?
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
As David Cameron said, the referendum (even though it destroyed his career) has lanced the pulsing boil that ached between the buttocks of British political life (OK he didn't quite put it like that but hey)
The poison is being drained. We are all Brexiteers now, reluctant or eager, sad or giddy. The nation decided, so we move on and do the best we can, apart from a few wankers on Twitter.
I'll make another prediction: in ten years Brexit will seem natural and normal, and we will be perfectly friendly with all our European friends and allies and neighbours, and we will probably be back in some tweaked form of the Single Market (without Free Movement, which I expect the EU will adjust anyway).
Quite right, and Remainers should realise that the comparison isn't between the Coalition years and post Brexit vote uncertainty. If Cameron hadn't offered a referendum, it is likely the Conservatives would not have a majority, and UKIP would have several MP's causing havoc inc Farage
BBC website "stories more popular then the GE" update:
Still all of the top 10, including dinosaur asteroids, Avril Lavigne conspiracy theories, the latest "offensive" McDonalds ad and Noel Edmonds suing Lloyds.
Nobody is going to change their minds now. Can't we just have the election this Thursday and be done with it?
I don't find Nick to be especially partisan. I think he posted after the 2010 election that there were things that he knew from canvassing but wasn't at liberty to say publicly (and he did caveat his postings by saying he was a loyal Labour MP which would inform what he would say publicly, but that he would endeavour to not post things that he knew to be untrue.) , but I don't think he has been ramping or campaigning on here.
He's also quite willing to get into the statistical side of things, which I like.
I recall Stewart Jackson was more keen to get into the partisan back and forth, which PB.com isn't really the best venue.
Both are informative, and, more importantly, polite. Neither villifies those who do not agree with them. That this is effective politics - Nick has previously said that you don't persuade anyone to agree with you by abusing you - takes nothing away from it's laudability on a site such as this.
I've noticed that since I stepped back from the front line, the more aggressive comments towards me have eased off. I sort of miss them.
Where's SeanT when you need him?
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
As David Cameron said, the referendum (even though it destroyed his career) has lanced the pulsing boil that ached between the buttocks of British political life (OK he didn't quite put it like that but hey)
The poison is being drained. We are all Brexiteers now, reluctant or eager, sad or giddy. The nation decided, so we move on and do the best we can, apart from a few wankers on Twitter.
I'll make another prediction: in ten years Brexit will seem natural and normal, and we will be perfectly friendly with all our European friends and allies and neighbours, and we will probably be back in some tweaked form of the Single Market (without Free Movement, which I expect the EU will adjust anyway).
+1
People who voted based on a few quarters depressed GDP were kind of missing the point...
Sort of on topic, I've had some very sensible Labour types I know be pretty blase about the Corbyn IRA stuff. They take the view as occasionally expressed on here that it basically no different than other politicians shaking hands with bad people at one point or another. I'd say there is a qualitative difference from most of those counter examples, but it does lead me to believe the eve less sensible will not be much fazed by it en masse, even though some undoubtedly will be.
I admit I am not massively exercised by Corbyn's fellow travelling with the IRA. There are complicated and conflated reasons. We're supposed to have moved on from the Troubles. It's a bitter pill to swallow to accept as pillars of our society baby murderers who haven't acknowledged their evil deeds let alone atoned for them, but we swallow the pill because it has to be better than the killings. I have less energy for Corbyn who of course didn't kill anyone. Many people compromised with the killers. They were doing that in the course of duty while Jeremy Corbyn was freelancing, but it is all very murky and Corbyn doesn't really stand out from the murk.
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
"...It is one reason why I am contemplating a serious career change.
In the end, you can only beat your head against a brick wall for so long before you decide that there are better things to do with your life - and head."
Are you still pondering, Mrs. Free? Is there anything to really ponder about? You children are grown up, so what is stopping you doing what you want to do? Is it money? It was for me when I was thinking about bailing out of the public sector do do what I really wanted to do. In the end I just went for it and hang the financial security. There are a lot more important things in life, like enjoying it, we only get one crack at it and there isn't much to be said for being a financially secure corpse.
I know that there are at least three others who regularly post on this site who have made similar life changing decisions and all of us seem to have done OK. Financially at the very least we have all kept the lupine pest from lolling around on the front doorstep and I think we have all been much happier doing what we wanted to do.
Dear Mr Llama: you are a very wise fellow.
But I will also admit to being a bit apprehensive. Like standing on the edge of the water wondering what it will be like to jump in.........
A friend of mine in publishing recently abandoned his quite lucrative but increasingly dispiriting career to become... an artisanal butcher and foodie dude in Kent.
He had the life, the Chiswick house, the private schools for the kids, etc
Cushioned by London property prices he was able to sell up at a fat profit, buy a nice four bedroom oast house in Sandwich, and use the capital to invest in samphire picking and kombucha pickling.
It wasn't the bravest decision by any means (that London property left him with half a million capital as a safety net). But nonetheless it was a big wrench in terms of friends, connections, lifestyle.
He's never been happier. He walks the dogs and smokes his own bacon and sells it at intriguingly increasing profit. He is fulfilling himself, creatively, after a lifetime of corporate obedience.
How interesting, I know the bloke you're talking about, not in person but he was recommended to me
BBC website "stories more popular then the GE" update:
Still all of the top 10, including dinosaur asteroids, Avril Lavigne conspiracy theories, the latest "offensive" McDonalds ad and Noel Edmonds suing Lloyds.
Nobody is going to change their minds now. Can't we just have the election this Thursday and be done with it?
You missed the talking sex doll story. Surely a game changer?
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
As David Cameron said, the referendum (even though it destroyed his career) has lanced the pulsing boil that ached between the buttocks of British political life (OK he didn't quite put it like that but hey)
The poison is being drained. We are all Brexiteers now, reluctant or eager, sad or giddy. The nation decided, so we move on and do the best we can, apart from a few wankers on Twitter.
I'll make another prediction: in ten years Brexit will seem natural and normal, and we will be perfectly friendly with all our European friends and allies and neighbours, and we will probably be back in some tweaked form of the Single Market (without Free Movement, which I expect the EU will adjust anyway).
Yes, a good point. We are all brexiteers now. Some ardent, some reluctant. This election has really rammed that home.
Having a laugh with a mate the other day I suggested that in 100 years time, when all of this is ancient history, there will probably be pubs with names like The Remoaner's Arms. And Britain will carry on being Britain, come what may.
My remainer friends are still convinced that when the EU starts playing silly buggers during negotiations, "reluctant" leavers will be crying out to stay in the EU. Good luck with that...
She didn't predict that - she predicted a narrow Hillary victory
At one point, yes. But you (and others) miss the point.
She refused to join the echo-chamber and she contributed news and opinions from sources that weren't in the Hillary camp. Plato showed us that there were two sides to the election.
She is Jesus!
My final guess was that Hillary would lose Florida, Iowa, Maine 2, and Ohio, but narrowly hold Penn. and the Mid West, eking out a 278/260 victory. So, I bet on Trump, as the odds were attractive.
Macron says he is not in favour of Eurozone debt mutualisation for any past debts. First diplomatic victory for Merkel?
If you'l excuse me for delving into the technical, the best proposed/suggestd Eurozone debt mutualisation plan was this:
- there would be an amount of mutualised debt up to, say, 60%* of GDP that countries were allowed to issue - such debt is still issued by the country, and the country is still responsible for the repayment and debt service, but in the event of default the Eurozone was jointly and severally responsible for its repayment (in all likelihood, the ECB would step up) - this would mean that the first chunk of debt a country issued would be very cheap, but that any additional debt on top of the 60% was very expensive - this would be phased in by countries issuing new Eurozone guaranteed debt, not by converting existing debt - the effect of this would be to remove all funding risk from highly indebted countries for about 6 to 10 years (as very few Eurozone countries have that much to roll over in the near term)
I don't think it's likely to happen. But if common Eurozone debt were to come about, this is likely how it would be implemented.
* The 60% is just a placeholder. Use whatever number you prefer.
Sort of on topic, I've had some very sensible Labour types I know be pretty blase about the Corbyn IRA stuff. They take the view as occasionally expressed on here that it basically no different than other politicians shaking hands with bad people at one point or another. I'd say there is a qualitative difference from most of those counter examples, but it does lead me to believe the eve less sensible will not be much fazed by it en masse, even though some undoubtedly will be.
I admit I am not massively exercised by Corbyn's fellow travelling with the IRA. There are complicated and conflated reasons. We're supposed to have moved on from the Troubles. It's a bitter pill to swallow to accept as pillars of our society baby murderers who haven't acknowledged their evil deeds let alone atoned for them, but we swallow the pill because it has to be better than the killings. I have less energy for Corbyn who of course didn't kill anyone. Many people compromised with the killers. They were doing that in the course of duty while Jeremy Corbyn was freelancing, but it is all very murky and Corbyn doesn't really stand out from the murk.
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
Once you've decided that Corbyn is unfit to be Prime Minister (like 75-80% of the voters) it's a waste of energy to start raging about him.
I don't find Nick to be especially partisan. I think he posted after the 2010 election that there were things that he knew from canvassing but wasn't at liberty to say publicly (and he did caveat his postings by saying he was a loyal Labour MP which would inform what he would say publicly, but that he would endeavour to not post things that he knew to be untrue.) , but I don't think he has been ramping or campaigning on here.
He's also quite willing to get into the statistical side of things, which I like.
I recall Stewart Jackson was more keen to get into the partisan back and forth, which PB.com isn't really the best venue.
Both are informative, and, more importantly, polite. Neither villifies those who do not agree with them. That this is effective politics - Nick has previously said that you don't persuade anyone to agree with you by abusing you - takes nothing away from it's laudability on a site such as this.
I've noticed that since I stepped back from the front line, the more aggressive comments towards me have eased off. I sort of miss them.
Where's SeanT when you need him?
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
One thing is, the election isn't really under way till manifestos are officially published, and none have yet (I think - don't know the precise state of play with Labour's). Another is that the war has gone underground, with online micro-targeting of ads. This time in 2010 we were having a laugh about DC's shiny forehead on Tory billboards, this time ads will crop up on the facebook feeds of those pre-identified via Big Data as susceptible to photos of shiny foreheads.
I don't think Brexit will feature much though. Ancient history, and not contentious on an inter-party basis.
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
As David Cameron said, the referendum (even though it destroyed his career) has lanced the pulsing boil that ached between the buttocks of British political life (OK he didn't quite put it like that but hey)
The poison is being drained. We are all Brexiteers now, reluctant or eager, sad or giddy. The nation decided, so we move on and do the best we can, apart from a few wankers on Twitter.
I'll make another prediction: in ten years Brexit will seem natural and normal, and we will be perfectly friendly with all our European friends and allies and neighbours, and we will probably be back in some tweaked form of the Single Market (without Free Movement, which I expect the EU will adjust anyway).
Yes, a good point. We are all brexiteers now. Some ardent, some reluctant. This election has really rammed that home.
Having a laugh with a mate the other day I suggested that in 100 years time, when all of this is ancient history, there will probably be pubs with names like The Remoaner's Arms. And Britain will carry on being Britain, come what may.
My remainer friends are still convinced that when the EU starts playing silly buggers during negotiations, "reluctant" leavers will be crying out to stay in the EU. Good luck with that...
"...It is one reason why I am contemplating a serious career change.
In the end, you can only beat your head against a brick wall for so long before you decide that there are better things to do with your life - and head."
Are you still pondering, Mrs. Free? Is there anything to really ponder about? You children are grown up, so what is stopping you doing what you want to do? Is it money? It was for me when I was thinking about bailing out of the public sector do do what I really wanted to do. In the end I just went for it and hang the financial security. There are a lot more important things in life, like enjoying it, we only get one crack at it and there isn't much to be said for being a financially secure corpse.
I know that there are at least three others who regularly post on this site who have made similar life changing decisions and all of us seem to have done OK. Financially at the very least we have all kept the lupine pest from lolling around on the front doorstep and I think we have all been much happier doing what we wanted to do.
Dear Mr Llama: you are a very wise fellow.
But I will also admit to being a bit apprehensive. Like standing on the edge of the water wondering what it will be like to jump in.........
A friend of mine in publishing recently abandoned his quite lucrative but increasingly dispiriting career to become... an artisanal butcher and foodie dude in Kent.
He had the life, the Chiswick house, the private schools for the kids, etc
Cushioned by London property prices he was able to sell up at a fat profit, buy a nice four bedroom oast house in Sandwich, and use the capital to invest in samphire picking and kombucha pickling.
It wasn't the bravest decision by any means (that London property left him with half a million capital as a safety net). But nonetheless it was a big wrench in terms of friends, connections, lifestyle.
He's never been happier. He walks the dogs and smokes his own bacon and sells it at intriguingly increasing profit. He is fulfilling himself, creatively, after a lifetime of corporate obedience.
How interesting, I know the bloke you're talking about, not in person but he was recommended to me
A week to go til the deadline and I'm not registered to vote. Just moved to a new build and postcode not recognised by electoral register website. Contacted local council for a form, but yet to receive despite two emails and a phone call. Hope I'm not disenfranchised.
Funny, when I was likely to stand for Parliament, I was told I might get sued by Jim Messina for linking to Mark Pack's website! Bankrupts cant MP's they told me!
Gentle encouragement!
Mind you, I didn't really have any chance of winning so it didnt matter anyway
Does Aaron have any chance? Caroline Flint is sitting on a majority of 8,000+ in a seat that has been held by Labour since the party came into existence. If Aaron can overturn Caroline then hats off to him!
The Conservatives are odds on favs in Dagenham, once the biggest council estate in Europe... nothing makes sense anymore
I am sorry, Mr. Sam, the Conservatives are odds on favourite to take Dagenham at the GE next month? Are you sure? Not wishing to cast aspersions or anything, but you haven't read the odds the wrong way round have you? Almost certainly not, but I felt I had to check.
There is very little about this election that is making sense to me.
Sort of on topic, I've had some very sensible Labour types I know be pretty blase about the Corbyn IRA stuff. They take the view as occasionally expressed on here that it basically no different than other politicians shaking hands with bad people at one point or another. I'd say there is a qualitative difference from most of those counter examples, but it does lead me to believe the eve less sensible will not be much fazed by it en masse, even though some undoubtedly will be.
I admit I am not massively exercised by Corbyn's fellow travelling with the IRA. There are complicated and conflated reasons. We're supposed to have moved on from the Troubles. It's a bitter pill to swallow to accept as pillars of our society baby murderers who haven't acknowledged their evil deeds let alone atoned for them, but we swallow the pill because it has to be better than the killings. I have less energy for Corbyn who of course didn't kill anyone. Many people compromised with the killers. They were doing that in the course of duty while Jeremy Corbyn was freelancing, but it is all very murky and Corbyn doesn't really stand out from the murk.
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
Once you've decided that Corbyn is unfit to be Prime Minister (like 75-80% of the voters) it's a waste of energy to start raging about him.
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
As David Cameron said, the referendum (even though it destroyed his career) has lanced the pulsing boil that ached between the buttocks of British political life (OK he didn't quite put it like that but hey)
The poison is being drained. We are all Brexiteers now, reluctant or eager, sad or giddy. The nation decided, so we move on and do the best we can, apart from a few wankers on Twitter.
I'll make another prediction: in ten years Brexit will seem natural and normal, and we will be perfectly friendly with all our European friends and allies and neighbours, and we will probably be back in some tweaked form of the Single Market (without Free Movement, which I expect the EU will adjust anyway).
Yes, a good point. We are all brexiteers now. Some ardent, some reluctant. This election has really rammed that home.
Having a laugh with a mate the other day I suggested that in 100 years time, when all of this is ancient history, there will probably be pubs with names like The Remoaner's Arms. And Britain will carry on being Britain, come what may.
My remainer friends are still convinced that when the EU starts playing silly buggers during negotiations, "reluctant" leavers will be crying out to stay in the EU. Good luck with that...
Speaking for all of us, are you?
Well, if you aren't a brexiteer yet you are without doubt an involuntary brexitee.
Sort of on topic, I've had some very sensible Labour types I know be pretty blase about the Corbyn IRA stuff. They take the view as occasionally expressed on here that it basically no different than other politicians shaking hands with bad people at one point or another. I'd say there is a qualitative difference from most of those counter examples, but it does lead me to believe the eve less sensible will not be much fazed by it en masse, even though some undoubtedly will be.
I admit I am not massively exercised by Corbyn's fellow travelling with the IRA. There are complicated and conflated reasons. We're supposed to have moved on from the Troubles. It's a bitter pill to swallow to accept as pillars of our society baby murderers who haven't acknowledged their evil deeds let alone atoned for them, but we swallow the pill because it has to be better than the killings. I have less energy for Corbyn who of course didn't kill anyone. Many people compromised with the killers. They were doing that in the course of duty while Jeremy Corbyn was freelancing, but it is all very murky and Corbyn doesn't really stand out from the murk.
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
Sorry but how is openly sympathising with people who murdered innocents in any fucking way at all "murky"?
Here's an article from the Guardian on the subject. The Guardian. Not the Mail, not England football fans.
"Obviously if the peace process is to continue we must draw a line somewhere on the past and its crimes. But that does not mean we have to indulge republicans at every turn."
100% correct.
Corbyn's support of the IRA's murderers is unforgivable to me, or many others who nevertheless have - as you say - moved on from the Troubles.
One of my all time favourite puns was when I put in a Wrath of Khan reference into a thread header.
"He tasks me! He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him round the Moons of Newbury, round the Angus Maelstrom, and round Pendle's flames before I give him up!"
I'm not sure 'caught' is the right word here - it implies he was doing something secretive. Whereas tweeting suggests he was quite happy for all and sundry to know his opinions.
She didn't predict that - she predicted a narrow Hillary victory
At one point, yes. But you (and others) miss the point.
She refused to join the echo-chamber and she contributed news and opinions from sources that weren't in the Hillary camp. Plato showed us that there were two sides to the election.
She is Jesus!
SeanF
My final guess was that Hillary would lose Florida, Iowa, Maine 2, and Ohio, but narrowly hold Penn. and the Mid West, eking out a 278/260 victory. So, I bet on Trump, as the odds were attractive.
Roger
It formatted wrongly. My only contribution was the sarcastic 'She is Jesus'. you have Geoff from Gibraltar to thank for the rest of the cloying nonsense. But if you guessed right I'm certain reading Plato's links didn't point you in the right direction.
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
As David Cameron said, the referendum (even though it destroyed his career) has lanced the pulsing boil that ached between the buttocks of British political life (OK he didn't quite put it like that but hey)
The poison is being drained. We are all Brexiteers now, reluctant or eager, sad or giddy. The nation decided, so we move on and do the best we can, apart from a few wankers on Twitter.
I'll make another prediction: in ten years Brexit will seem natural and normal, and we will be perfectly friendly with all our European friends and allies and neighbours, and we will probably be back in some tweaked form of the Single Market (without Free Movement, which I expect the EU will adjust anyway).
Yes, a good point. We are all brexiteers now. Some ardent, some reluctant. This election has really rammed that home.
Having a laugh with a mate the other day I suggested that in 100 years time, when all of this is ancient history, there will probably be pubs with names like The Remoaner's Arms. And Britain will carry on being Britain, come what may.
My remainer friends are still convinced that when the EU starts playing silly buggers during negotiations, "reluctant" leavers will be crying out to stay in the EU. Good luck with that...
Speaking for all of us, are you?
Well, if you aren't a brexiteer yet you are without doubt an involuntary brexitee.
I don't find Nick to be especially partisan. I think he posted after the 2010 election that there were things that he knew from canvassing but wasn't at liberty to say publicly (and he did caveat his postings by saying he was a loyal Labour MP which would inform what he would say publicly, but that he would endeavour to not post things that he knew to be untrue.) , but I don't think he has been ramping or campaigning on here.
He's also quite willing to get into the statistical side of things, which I like.
I recall Stewart Jackson was more keen to get into the partisan back and forth, which PB.com isn't really the best venue.
Both are informative, and, more importantly, polite. Neither villifies those who do not agree with them. That this is effective politics - Nick has previously said that you don't persuade anyone to agree with you by abusing you - takes nothing away from it's laudability on a site such as this.
I've noticed that since I stepped back from the front line, the more aggressive comments towards me have eased off. I sort of miss them.
Where's SeanT when you need him?
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
It should be about Brexit. The Leave campaign didn't have a plan and Theresa May whose annointment this election is designed for, still doesn't have a plan now.
Macron says he is not in favour of Eurozone debt mutualisation for any past debts. First diplomatic victory for Merkel?
If you'l excuse me for delving into the technical, the best proposed/suggestd Eurozone debt mutualisation plan was this:
- there would be an amount of mutualised debt up to, say, 60%* of GDP that countries were allowed to issue - such debt is still issued by the country, and the country is still responsible for the repayment and debt service, but in the event of default the Eurozone was jointly and severally responsible for its repayment (in all likelihood, the ECB would step up) - this would mean that the first chunk of debt a country issued would be very cheap, but that any additional debt on top of the 60% was very expensive - this would be phased in by countries issuing new Eurozone guaranteed debt, not by converting existing debt - the effect of this would be to remove all funding risk from highly indebted countries for about 6 to 10 years (as very few Eurozone countries have that much to roll over in the near term)
I don't think it's likely to happen. But if common Eurozone debt were to come about, this is likely how it would be implemented.
* The 60% is just a placeholder. Use whatever number you prefer.
Mr Robert, jolly good. Where would such a plan leave Greece, which already has debts that will never be repaid, and, for that matter, Italy and Portugal?
I'm content for such choices to be made by the consumer, not Government.
Clear labelling is the only criteria I'd impose.
Agreed. (Which, I would note, counts out NAFTA. A law requiring foods that contained GM ingredients be labelled as such was struck down by an ISDS tribunal.)
Sort of on topic, I've had some very sensible Labour types I know be pretty blase about the Corbyn IRA stuff. They take the view as occasionally expressed on here that it basically no different than other politicians shaking hands with bad people at one point or another. I'd say there is a qualitative difference from most of those counter examples, but it does lead me to believe the eve less sensible will not be much fazed by it en masse, even though some undoubtedly will be.
I admit I am not massively exercised by Corbyn's fellow travelling with the IRA. There are complicated and conflated reasons. We're supposed to have moved on from the Troubles. It's a bitter pill to swallow to accept as pillars of our society baby murderers who haven't acknowledged their evil deeds let alone atoned for them, but we swallow the pill because it has to be better than the killings. I have less energy for Corbyn who of course didn't kill anyone. Many people compromised with the killers. They were doing that in the course of duty while Jeremy Corbyn was freelancing, but it is all very murky and Corbyn doesn't really stand out from the murk.
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
Sorry but how is openly sympathising with people who murdered innocents in any fucking way at all "murky"?
Here's an article from the Guardian on the subject. The Guardian. Not the Mail, not England football fans.
"Obviously if the peace process is to continue we must draw a line somewhere on the past and its crimes. But that does not mean we have to indulge republicans at every turn."
100% correct.
Corbyn's support of the IRA's murderers is unforgivable to me, or many others who nevertheless have - as you say - moved on from the Troubles.
Whereas the Tories just had mates like General Pinochet:
"During the period of Pinochet's rule, various investigations have identified the murder of 1,200 to 3,200 people with up to 80,000 people forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 tortured. According to the Chilean government, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,095." (Wikipedia)
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
As David Cameron said, the referendum (even though it destroyed his career) has lanced the pulsing boil that ached between the buttocks of British political life (OK he didn't quite put it like that but hey)
The poison is being drained. We are all Brexiteers now, reluctant or eager, sad or giddy. The nation decided, so we move on and do the best we can, apart from a few wankers on Twitter.
I'll make another prediction: in ten years Brexit will seem natural and normal, and we will be perfectly friendly with all our European friends and allies and neighbours, and we will probably be back in some tweaked form of the Single Market (without Free Movement, which I expect the EU will adjust anyway).
Yes, a good point. We are all brexiteers now. Some ardent, some reluctant. This election has really rammed that home.
Having a laugh with a mate the other day I suggested that in 100 years time, when all of this is ancient history, there will probably be pubs with names like The Remoaner's Arms. And Britain will carry on being Britain, come what may.
My remainer friends are still convinced that when the EU starts playing silly buggers during negotiations, "reluctant" leavers will be crying out to stay in the EU. Good luck with that...
Speaking for all of us, are you?
Well, if you aren't a brexiteer yet you are without doubt an involuntary brexitee.
Sort of on topic, I've had some very sensible Labour types I know be pretty blase about the Corbyn IRA stuff. They take the view as occasionally expressed on here that it basically no different than other politicians shaking hands with bad people at one point or another. I'd say there is a qualitative difference from most of those counter examples, but it does lead me to believe the eve less sensible will not be much fazed by it en masse, even though some undoubtedly will be.
I admit I am not massively exercised by Corbyn's fellow travelling with the IRA. There are complicated and conflated reasons. We're supposed to have moved on from the Troubles. It's a bitter pill to swallow to accept as pillars of our society baby murderers who haven't acknowledged their evil deeds let alone atoned for them, but we swallow the pill because it has to be better than the killings. I have less energy for Corbyn who of course didn't kill anyone. Many people compromised with the killers. They were doing that in the course of duty while Jeremy Corbyn was freelancing, but it is all very murky and Corbyn doesn't really stand out from the murk.
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
Sorry but how is openly sympathising with people who murdered innocents in any fucking way at all "murky"?
Here's an article from the Guardian on the subject. The Guardian. Not the Mail, not England football fans.
"Obviously if the peace process is to continue we must draw a line somewhere on the past and its crimes. But that does not mean we have to indulge republicans at every turn."
100% correct.
Corbyn's support of the IRA's murderers is unforgivable to me, or many others who nevertheless have - as you say - moved on from the Troubles.
Whereas the Tories just had mates like General Pinochet:
"During the period of Pinochet's rule, various investigations have identified the murder of 1,200 to 3,200 people with up to 80,000 people forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 tortured. According to the Chilean government, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,095." (Wikipedia)
Yep. I've always wondered how Tories on here felt about this.
I don't find Nick to be especially partisan. I think he posted after the 2010 election that there were things that he knew from canvassing but wasn't at liberty to say publicly (and he did caveat his postings by saying he was a loyal Labour MP which would inform what he would say publicly, but that he would endeavour to not post things that he knew to be untrue.) , but I don't think he has been ramping or campaigning on here.
He's also quite willing to get into the statistical side of things, which I like.
I recall Stewart Jackson was more keen to get into the partisan back and forth, which PB.com isn't really the best venue.
Both are informative, and, more importantly, polite. Neither villifies those who do not agree with them. That this is effective politics - Nick has previously said that you don't persuade anyone to agree with you by abusing you - takes nothing away from it's laudability on a site such as this.
I've noticed that since I stepped back from the front line, the more aggressive comments towards me have eased off. I sort of miss them.
Where's SeanT when you need him?
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
It should be about Brexit. The Leave campaign didn't have a plan and Theresa May whose annointment this election is designed for, still doesn't have a plan now.
Let's see the opposition lead with that and see where it gets them. It might well be true, but is it a vote winner?
Sort of on topic, I've had some very sensible Labour types I know be pretty blase about the Corbyn IRA stuff. They take the view as occasionally expressed on here that it basically no different than other politicians shaking hands with bad people at one point or another. I'd say there is a qualitative difference from most of those counter examples, but it does lead me to believe the eve less sensible will not be much fazed by it en masse, even though some undoubtedly will be.
I admit I am not massively exercised by Corbyn's fellow travelling with the IRA. There are complicated and conflated reasons. We're supposed to have moved on from the Troubles. It's a bitter pill to swallow to accept as pillars of our society baby murderers who haven't acknowledged their evil deeds let alone atoned for them, but we swallow the pill because it has to be better than the killings. I have less energy for Corbyn who of course didn't kill anyone. Many people compromised with the killers. They were doing that in the course of duty while Jeremy Corbyn was freelancing, but it is all very murky and Corbyn doesn't really stand out from the murk.
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
Sorry but how is openly sympathising with people who murdered innocents in any fucking way at all "murky"?
Here's an article from the Guardian on the subject. The Guardian. Not the Mail, not England football fans.
"Obviously if the peace process is to continue we must draw a line somewhere on the past and its crimes. But that does not mean we have to indulge republicans at every turn."
100% correct.
Corbyn's support of the IRA's murderers is unforgivable to me, or many others who nevertheless have - as you say - moved on from the Troubles.
Whereas the Tories just had mates like General Pinochet:
"During the period of Pinochet's rule, various investigations have identified the murder of 1,200 to 3,200 people with up to 80,000 people forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 tortured. According to the Chilean government, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,095." (Wikipedia)
Yep. I've always wondered how Tories on here felt about this.
I feel ..... Nothing.
Pinochet, unlike the IRA was no danger to this country.
Sort of on topic, I've had some very sensible Labour types I know be pretty blase about the Corbyn IRA stuff. They take the view as occasionally expressed on here that it basically no different than other politicians shaking hands with bad people at one point or another. I'd say there is a qualitative difference from most of those counter examples, but it does lead me to believe the eve less sensible will not be much fazed by it en masse, even though some undoubtedly will be.
I admit I am not massively exercised by Corbyn's fellow travelling with the IRA. There are complicated and conflated reasons. We're supposed to have moved on from the Troubles. It's a bitter pill to swallow to accept as pillars of our society baby murderers who haven't acknowledged their evil deeds let alone atoned for them, but we swallow the pill because it has to be better than the killings. I have less energy for Corbyn who of course didn't kill anyone. Many people compromised with the killers. They were doing that in the course of duty while Jeremy Corbyn was freelancing, but it is all very murky and Corbyn doesn't really stand out from the murk.
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
Sorry but how is openly sympathising with people who murdered innocents in any fucking way at all "murky"?
Here's an article from the Guardian on the subject. The Guardian. Not the Mail, not England football fans.
"Obviously if the peace process is to continue we must draw a line somewhere on the past and its crimes. But that does not mean we have to indulge republicans at every turn."
100% correct.
Corbyn's support of the IRA's murderers is unforgivable to me, or many others who nevertheless have - as you say - moved on from the Troubles.
Whereas the Tories just had mates like General Pinochet:
"During the period of Pinochet's rule, various investigations have identified the murder of 1,200 to 3,200 people with up to 80,000 people forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 tortured. According to the Chilean government, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,095." (Wikipedia)
Yep. I've always wondered how Tories on here felt about this.
I feel ..... Nothing.
Pinochet, unlike the IRA was no danger to this country.
So the morality of these things only matter when they pose a direct threat to us? Well, it's one view I guess.
This was probably posted earlier, but Is an excellent assessment of the madness involved in Andrew Murray's appointment to lead the Labour campaign. And all the more powerful coming from a Labour supporter. Love the Christopher Hitchens quote...
Have ANY Labour candidates commented on this lunacy so far? I know their attitude seems to be that JC must "own" the inevitable defeat, but I think we are now at the point where anyone with a shred of decency should disown him without equivocation.
SeanT's witticisms aside, it's noticeable how less aggressive people (here and elsewhere) seem to be now everyone's not constanty fighting over Europe.
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
As David Cameron said, the referendum (even though it destroyed his career) has lanced the pulsing boil that ached between the buttocks of British political life (OK he didn't quite put it like that but hey)
The poison is being drained. We are all Brexiteers now, reluctant or eager, sad or giddy. The nation decided, so we move on and do the best we can, apart from a few wankers on Twitter.
I'll make another prediction: in ten years Brexit will seem natural and normal, and we will be perfectly friendly with all our European friends and allies and neighbours, and we will probably be back in some tweaked form of the Single Market (without Free Movement, which I expect the EU will adjust anyway).
Yes, a good point. We are all brexiteers now. Some ardent, some reluctant. This election has really rammed that home.
Having a laugh with a mate the other day I suggested that in 100 years time, when all of this is ancient history, there will probably be pubs with names like The Remoaner's Arms. And Britain will carry on being Britain, come what may.
My remainer friends are still convinced that when the EU starts playing silly buggers during negotiations, "reluctant" leavers will be crying out to stay in the EU. Good luck with that...
Speaking for all of us, are you?
The trend is your friend... 52% last year now 68% according to YouGov, isn't it?
Sort of on topic, I've had some very sensible Labour types I know be pretty blase about the Corbyn IRA stuff. They take the view as occasionally expressed on here that it basically no different than other politicians shaking hands with bad people at one point or another. I'd say there is a qualitative difference from most of those counter examples, but it does lead me to believe the eve less sensible will not be much fazed by it en masse, even though some undoubtedly will be.
I admit I am not massively exercised by Corbyn's fellow travelling with the IRA. There are complicated and conflated reasons. We're supposed to have moved on from the Troubles. It's a bitter pill to swallow to accept as pillars of our society baby murderers who haven't acknowledged their evil deeds let alone atoned for them, but we swallow the pill because it has to be better than the killings. I have less energy for Corbyn who of course didn't kill anyone. Many people compromised with the killers. They were doing that in the course of duty while Jeremy Corbyn was freelancing, but it is all very murky and Corbyn doesn't really stand out from the murk.
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
Sorry but how is openly sympathising with people who murdered innocents in any fucking way at all "murky"?
Here's an article from the Guardian on the subject. The Guardian. Not the Mail, not England football fans.
"Obviously if the peace process is to continue we must draw a line somewhere on the past and its crimes. But that does not mean we have to indulge republicans at every turn."
100% correct.
Corbyn's support of the IRA's murderers is unforgivable to me, or many others who nevertheless have - as you say - moved on from the Troubles.
Whereas the Tories just had mates like General Pinochet:
"During the period of Pinochet's rule, various investigations have identified the murder of 1,200 to 3,200 people with up to 80,000 people forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 tortured. According to the Chilean government, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,095." (Wikipedia)
I guess there was a loyalty to Pinochet for his assistance during the Falklands.
I know some viewed him as the lesser of two evils.
He was a horrible human being, but Chile moved on.
Sort of on topic, I've had some very sensible Labour types I know be pretty blase about the Corbyn IRA stuff. They take the view as occasionally expressed on here that it basically no different than other politicians shaking hands with bad people at one point or another. I'd say there is a qualitative difference from most of those counter examples, but it does lead me to believe the eve less sensible will not be much fazed by it en masse, even though some undoubtedly will be.
I admit I am not massively exercised by Corbyn's fellow travelling with the IRA. There are complicated and conflated reasons. We're supposed to have moved on from the Troubles. It's a bitter pill to swallow to accept as pillars of our society baby murderers who haven't acknowledged their evil deeds let alone atoned for them, but we swallow the pill because it has to be better than the killings. I have less energy for Corbyn who of course didn't kill anyone. Many people compromised with the killers. They were doing that in the course of duty while Jeremy Corbyn was freelancing, but it is all very murky and Corbyn doesn't really stand out from the murk.
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
Sorry but how is openly sympathising with people who murdered innocents in any fucking way at all "murky"?
Here's an article from the Guardian on the subject. The Guardian. Not the Mail, not England football fans.
"Obviously if the peace process is to continue we must draw a line somewhere on the past and its crimes. But that does not mean we have to indulge republicans at every turn."
100% correct.
Corbyn's support of the IRA's murderers is unforgivable to me, or many others who nevertheless have - as you say - moved on from the Troubles.
Whereas the Tories just had mates like General Pinochet:
"During the period of Pinochet's rule, various investigations have identified the murder of 1,200 to 3,200 people with up to 80,000 people forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 tortured. According to the Chilean government, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,095." (Wikipedia)
Yep. I've always wondered how Tories on here felt about this.
I feel ..... Nothing.
Pinochet, unlike the IRA was no danger to this country.
You're in distinguished company. Maggie felt the same
Sort of on topic, I've had some very sensible Labour types I know be pretty blase about the Corbyn IRA stuff. They take the view as occasionally expressed on here that it basically no different than other politicians shaking hands with bad people at one point or another. I'd say there is a qualitative difference from most of those counter examples, but it does lead me to believe the eve less sensible will not be much fazed by it en masse, even though some undoubtedly will be.
I admit I am not massively exercised by Corbyn's fellow travelling with the IRA. There are complicated and conflated reasons. We're supposed to have moved on from the Troubles. It's a bitter pill to swallow to accept as pillars of our society baby murderers who haven't acknowledged their evil deeds let alone atoned for them, but we swallow the pill because it
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
Sorry but how is openly sympathising with people who murdered innocents in any fucking way at all "murky"?
Here's an article from the Guardian on the subject. The Guardian. Not the Mail, not England football fans.
"Obviously if the peace process is to continue we must draw a line somewhere on the past and its crimes. But that does not mean we have to indulge republicans at every turn."
100% correct.
Corbyn's support of the IRA's murderers is unforgivable to me, or many others who nevertheless have - as you say - moved on from the Troubles.
Whereas the Tories just had mates like General Pinochet:
"During the period of Pinochet's rule, various investigations have identified the murder of 1,200 to 3,200 people with up to 80,000 people forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 tortured. According to the Chilean government, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,095." (Wikipedia)
Yep. I've always wondered how Tories on here felt about this.
I feel ..... Nothing.
Pinochet, unlike the IRA was no danger to this country.
So the morality of these things only matter when they pose a direct threat to us? Well, it's one view I guess.
Largely yes. Lots of our allies have been brutes.
But, for a British politician to side with people who kill British citizens is treachery.
The mother of one of those murdered in the Birmingham pub bombings has already slammed the Labour leadership in the Birmingham Mail. When those bombs and others were planted ask yourself whose side the hard-left were on; that of those doing the planting or that of the British subjects about to be murdered. That such a question arises in the context of Labour's leadership says it all about that party and the shower running it. The "morons" should hang their heads in shame. Perhaps they should consider that Guardian t-shirt question - "What would Clem do?"
I went to two comprehensives with boarding houses, both wete only about 10% of the school and mostly army kids, though the second one seemed also to hava a lot of kids in care of social services.
President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and National Security Agency.
Comments
Burnley, Edinburgh South, Harrow West even...
https://theroyalschool.co.uk/
I think UKIP are a bet at 23 w Skybet and 21 w Betfred.. I laid a bit of the Tories at 1.7. First bet of the GE was Lab at 1.5!
For an election that was called over Europe, over Brexit, over the subject that's had us all at each other's throats for the last year or more, it's really quite astounding how low key Brexit has been in the campaigns - and the conversations - so far.
It's been an election about Britsh Rail and fox hunting and Hamas and the IRA and the 50% tax rate and energy price caps and 1983.
But so far for me at least it hasn't really been about Brexit. Yet.
You get Thurrock that way too !
She didn't predict that - she predicted a narrow Hillary victory
At one point, yes. But you (and others) miss the point.
She refused to join the echo-chamber and she contributed news and opinions from sources that weren't in the Hillary camp. Plato showed us that there were two sides to the election.
She is Jesus!
https://twitter.com/ExileInScotland/status/864214971659550724
I like the far larger picture of Ruth Davidson, although in fairness they have included both the name and a picture for the actual candidate, and the name of the party.
Miles Briggs makes me think of a personality test.
Still all of the top 10, including dinosaur asteroids, Avril Lavigne conspiracy theories, the latest "offensive" McDonalds ad and Noel Edmonds suing Lloyds.
Nobody is going to change their minds now. Can't we just have the election this Thursday and be done with it?
People who voted based on a few quarters depressed GDP were kind of missing the point...
I am really more interested in what's happening now. I am not aware of Corbyn being egregious. Unlike Liam Fox who said Rodrigo Duterte, killer of drug addicts in cold blood, "shares our values" How dare Fox speak for us!
Having a laugh with a mate the other day I suggested that in 100 years time, when all of this is ancient history, there will probably be pubs with names like The Remoaner's Arms. And Britain will carry on being Britain, come what may.
My remainer friends are still convinced that when the EU starts playing silly buggers during negotiations, "reluctant" leavers will be crying out to stay in the EU. Good luck with that...
At one point, yes. But you (and others) miss the point.
She refused to join the echo-chamber and she contributed news and opinions from sources that weren't in the Hillary camp. Plato showed us that there were two sides to the election.
She is Jesus!
My final guess was that Hillary would lose Florida, Iowa, Maine 2, and Ohio, but narrowly hold Penn. and the Mid West, eking out a 278/260 victory. So, I bet on Trump, as the odds were attractive.
- there would be an amount of mutualised debt up to, say, 60%* of GDP that countries were allowed to issue
- such debt is still issued by the country, and the country is still responsible for the repayment and debt service, but in the event of default the Eurozone was jointly and severally responsible for its repayment (in all likelihood, the ECB would step up)
- this would mean that the first chunk of debt a country issued would be very cheap, but that any additional debt on top of the 60% was very expensive
- this would be phased in by countries issuing new Eurozone guaranteed debt, not by converting existing debt
- the effect of this would be to remove all funding risk from highly indebted countries for about 6 to 10 years (as very few Eurozone countries have that much to roll over in the near term)
I don't think it's likely to happen. But if common Eurozone debt were to come about, this is likely how it would be implemented.
* The 60% is just a placeholder. Use whatever number you prefer.
I don't think Brexit will feature much though. Ancient history, and not contentious on an inter-party basis.
There is very little about this election that is making sense to me.
Here's an article from the Guardian on the subject. The Guardian. Not the Mail, not England football fans.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jun/02/northernireland.kevintoolis
"Obviously if the peace process is to continue we must draw a line somewhere on the past and its crimes. But that does not mean we have to indulge republicans at every turn."
100% correct.
Corbyn's support of the IRA's murderers is unforgivable to me, or many others who nevertheless have - as you say - moved on from the Troubles.
She refused to join the echo-chamber and she contributed news and opinions from sources that weren't in the Hillary camp. Plato showed us that there were two sides to the election.
She is Jesus!
SeanF
My final guess was that Hillary would lose Florida, Iowa, Maine 2, and Ohio, but narrowly hold Penn. and the Mid West, eking out a 278/260 victory. So, I bet on Trump, as the odds were attractive.
Roger
It formatted wrongly. My only contribution was the sarcastic 'She is Jesus'. you have Geoff from Gibraltar to thank for the rest of the cloying nonsense. But if you guessed right I'm certain reading Plato's links didn't point you in the right direction.
Politically incorrect tweets, not that funny, but hardly outrageous to the man in the street I'd say
"During the period of Pinochet's rule, various investigations have identified the murder of 1,200 to 3,200 people with up to 80,000 people forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 tortured. According to the Chilean government, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,095." (Wikipedia)
(I made myself laugh with that one!)
Pinochet, unlike the IRA was no danger to this country.
https://twitter.com/jamesdelingpole/status/864226025634488324
https://capx.co/corbyns-campaign-chief-is-an-apologist-for-tyranny/
Have ANY Labour candidates commented on this lunacy so far? I know their attitude seems to be that JC must "own" the inevitable defeat, but I think we are now at the point where anyone with a shred of decency should disown him without equivocation.
I know some viewed him as the lesser of two evils.
He was a horrible human being, but Chile moved on.
They haven't got the time, they are too busy engaging in sectarianism.
But, for a British politician to side with people who kill British citizens is treachery.
Dear me.
The mother of one of those murdered in the Birmingham pub bombings has already slammed the Labour leadership in the Birmingham Mail. When those bombs and others were planted ask yourself whose side the hard-left were on; that of those doing the planting or that of the British subjects about to be murdered. That such a question arises in the context of Labour's leadership says it all about that party and the shower running it. The "morons" should hang their heads in shame. Perhaps they should consider that Guardian t-shirt question - "What would Clem do?"
I don't know if they still have them.
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and National Security Agency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0f98c8a44c2a
And I'm not sure its a really good school anymore.