Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
That may well be so. But those protesting against the removal were not doing so because they wanted historical accuracy or because they were against historical revisionism. This was not a polite protest by history professors. The protestors were doing so to make a point about how they should be in charge and able to oppress others ie blacks and were doing so in the most offensive way possible. And they seemed determined on violence and did use it, as a result of which a young woman has been killed and others injured.
They may have had a legal right to protest and be offensive. But others are entitled to object and protest also. And there is a moral difference between those who use their right to free speech to champion Nazism and the oppression of blacks and those who use this same right to protest against these things. The former are morally disgraceful. Trump failed to make - and perhaps even understand - this distinction in his comments on the violence. That is why he is rightly being criticised.
I was not a big fan of Obama TBH. But he was right when he said that slavery was America's original sin. Its consequences are being played out on the streets of Virginia.
I do remember one survey that found 20% of Trump's voters in the Primaries thought that ending slavery was a bad thing, and 17% weren't sure.
The issue turns on whether his position as a sensible, straight-talking politician who doesn't go in for spin or subterfuge can overcome, or render irrelevant his toffness. A bit like Nige, that public school-educated, commodity-dealing man of the people. But moreso, obvs.
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
The issue turns on whether his position as a sensible, straight-talking politician who doesn't go in for spin or subterfuge can overcome, or render irrelevant his toffness. A bit like Nige, that public school-educated, commodity-dealing man of the people. But moreso, obvs.
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
JRM makes me think of John Major - unabashed Tory, finance history, willing to debate in public. Obviously he has a different background, but otherwise the similarities are striking.
The issue turns on whether his position as a sensible, straight-talking politician who doesn't go in for spin or subterfuge can overcome, or render irrelevant his toffness. A bit like Nige, that public school-educated, commodity-dealing man of the people. But moreso, obvs.
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
JRM makes me think of John Major - unabashed Tory, finance background, willing to debate in public. Obviously he has a different background, but otherwise the similarities are striking.
Plus of course he was born with a tin spoon in his mouth, but he has made a huge success of his chosen career. Some will not forgive him the leg up he got from his family, and fair enough, but he is no Jacob nice but dim
There's a small statue of Constantine the Great outside York Minster. If we're pulling down statues and monuments to those who held slaves, then we can kiss goodbye to the Romans.
Constantine was not leader of a republic which held as self evident "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...", Mr.D.
(Edit) Nor are his statues emblems for lost causers and white supremacists.
Not a knockdown point; the well-known slave-owner Thomas Jefferson had an anti-slavery rant in his first draft of the DoE. It was deleted prior to signature.
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
Except it is not the South that is inflamed. Indeed it was the people of Charlottesville that wanted the statue gone, and a killer from Ohio who wanted it preserved.
The profiles of the racists protesting is one of alt.rights ists and neo-nazis who had travelled to protest there from across middle America.
Mr. B, Republican Rome was also heavily into slavery.
As was the African economy before the British Empire arrived on the scene.
Read here yesterday Napoleon reintroduced it to France.
In what other nation are the statues of those who led the armies of an insurrection in defence of the institution of slavery still extant on a large scale as totems for white supremacists, Mr.D ?
Incidentally, I was running through the list of Prime Ministers and excluding Churchill - who was First Lord of the Admiralty in 1940 but had also previously been Chancellor - who do you think was what last PM who was not either the acknowledged Leader of the Opposition or a holder of a Great Office of State?
It is a very easy answer, when you think about it.
Hint - he had once commanded the second-largest army in Europe.
Arguably Beaconsfield wasn't de facto leader of the opposition when he finally became PM. Although he had been chancellor for a couple of months a decade before...
Wellington probably
Disraeli was Chancellor in 1868 when he became PM for the first time. (And he wasn't Beaconsfield in 1874 either - that came later.)
You are right, it was Wellington in 1828.
I'd forgotten he had a couple of extra turns as Chancellor when he couldn't command a majority of the house of Commons...
The issue turns on whether his position as a sensible, straight-talking politician who doesn't go in for spin or subterfuge can overcome, or render irrelevant his toffness. A bit like Nige, that public school-educated, commodity-dealing man of the people. But moreso, obvs.
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
There is a market for politicians who appear to be unspun. Corbyn is not quite as unspun as he claims. And he - and his supporters - have been more than capable of subterfuge.
Nor is Mogg quite as unspun as he claims. As far as I can tell his main claims to fame are that he wears suits, has a nanny who must have remarkable stamina and be quite old by now, is very polite and once made a good joke at Dimbleby's expense.
Culturally inconvenient statues coming down ? I think we can all agree that was the right thing to do in Palmyra. The band and Baez's cover should probably be banned too.
Surely it was also wrong to remove all those Communist statues after the wall fell down, Saddam's statues in Iraq and obviously wrong to remove statues of Kim Jung In after he gets deposed?
There's a difference between an immediate response to overthrowing a despotic regime and a politically motivated campaign 150 years later.
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
That may well be so. But those protesting against the removal were not doing so because they wanted historical accuracy or because they were against historical revisionism. This was not a polite protest by history professors. The protestors were doing so to make a point about how they should be in charge and able to oppress others ie blacks and were doing so in the most offensive way possible. And they seemed determined on violence and did use it, as a result of which a young woman has been killed and others injured.
They may have had a legal right to protest and be offensive. But others are entitled to object and protest also. And there is a moral difference between those who use their right to free speech to champion Nazism and the oppression of blacks and those who use this same right to protest against these things. The former are morally disgraceful. Trump failed to make - and perhaps even understand - this distinction in his comments on the violence. That is why he is rightly being criticised.
I was not a big fan of Obama TBH. But he was right when he said that slavery was America's original sin. Its consequences are being played out on the streets of Virginia.
I do remember one survey that found 20% of Trump's voters in the Primaries thought that ending slavery was a bad thing, and 17% weren't sure.
That was a Economist/YouGov exit poll.
It actually threw up some fun results:
...from the same Economist /YouGov poll:
Only 71% of American blacks approve of the Emancipation Proclamation. Five percent disapprove and 24% aren’t sure.
32% of American blacks back President Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to round up Japanese-Americans and put them in camps during World War II … almost exactly the same percentage as among Trump voters.
More than 30% of those UNDER 30 are not sure that President Harry Truman’s 1948 executive order desegregating the U.S. military was a good idea. 15% are sure it wasn’t.
43% of likely Democratic primary voters, a very liberal slice of America, approve of President George W. Bush’s pro-torture executive order after 9/11.
So welcome to some very off the wall results in that survey!
Mr. B, not sure. But there is, as I said, the statue of a man who had his own wife and eldest son executed whilst presiding over a slave-ridden empire outside York Minster.
Caesar massacred hundreds of thousands of tribesmen who were conducting peace negotiations.
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
That may well be
I was not a big fan of Obama TBH. But he was right when he said that slavery was America's original sin. Its consequences are being played out on the streets of Virginia.
I do remember one survey that found 20% of Trump's voters in the Primaries thought that ending slavery was a bad thing, and 17% weren't sure.
That was a Economist/YouGov exit poll.
It actually threw up some fun results:
...from the same Economist /YouGov poll:
Only 71% of American blacks approve of the Emancipation Proclamation. Five percent disapprove and 24% aren’t sure.
32% of American blacks back President Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to round up Japanese-Americans and put them in camps during World War II … almost exactly the same percentage as among Trump voters.
More than 30% of those UNDER 30 are not sure that President Harry Truman’s 1948 executive order desegregating the U.S. military was a good idea. 15% are sure it wasn’t.
43% of likely Democratic primary voters, a very liberal slice of America, approve of President George W. Bush’s pro-torture executive order after 9/11.
So welcome to some very off the wall results in that survey!
FPT - I have no dog in the fight of America's cultural wars, and the violence of the weekend looked appalling. But I will say this: I detest the removal of statues of historical figures who don't measure up to today's standards.
Robert Lee was the Confederacy's leading general, and an extremely skilled military tactician. There's quite a bit about him as a person that was interesting too. He was a key figure in the history of the US, and the South in particular. In some respects he was a "nicer" man than many of the North's politicians and generals.
I would teach children about him, and not instigate cultural vandalism.
There are remarkably few figures who'd make the cut in the UK, and we'd be pulling down most statues of Cromwell, Henry VIII and most of those on the plinths in Traflagar Square if we followed the same approach.
Robert Lee didn't measure up to the standards of the time.
He was a traitor to the Republic who commanded the forces of an illegal succession that killed hundreds of thousands.
Depends on what side you favoured.
Treason never prospers, for if it succeeds, it ceases to be treason.
Surely secedes...
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason
The issue turns on whether his position as a sensible, straight-talking politician who doesn't go in for spin or subterfuge can overcome, or render irrelevant his toffness. A bit like Nige, that public school-educated, commodity-dealing man of the people. But moreso, obvs.
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
There is a market for politicians who appear to be unspun. Corbyn is not quite as unspun as he claims. And he - and his supporters - have been more than capable of subterfuge.
Nor is Mogg quite as unspun as he claims. As far as I can tell his main claims to fame are that he wears suits, has a nanny who must have remarkable stamina and be quite old by now, is very polite and once made a good joke at Dimbleby's expense.
Am I missing something?
I'm as surprised as anyone, but his ability to actually listen to questions and provide cogent and often witty answers on pretty much all platforms - in parliament, in public, on the radio and on TV - puts him head and shoulders above many MPs and most in the cabinet and shadow cabinet.
His positions, whilst traditional Tory, are so well explained and politely put that they seem to get an honest hearing where Cameron, May and others cannot.
Culturally inconvenient statues coming down ? I think we can all agree that was the right thing to do in Palmyra. The band and Baez's cover should probably be banned too.
Surely it was also wrong to remove all those Communist statues after the wall fell down, Saddam's statues in Iraq and obviously wrong to remove statues of Kim Jung In after he gets deposed?
There's a difference between an immediate response to overthrowing a despotic regime and a politically motivated campaign 150 years later.
Surely each generation gets to choose it's heroes. We are not bound to keep a statue just because someone long forgotten once put one there.
Culturally inconvenient statues coming down ? I think we can all agree that was the right thing to do in Palmyra. The band and Baez's cover should probably be banned too.
Surely it was also wrong to remove all those Communist statues after the wall fell down, Saddam's statues in Iraq and obviously wrong to remove statues of Kim Jung In after he gets deposed?
There's a difference between an immediate response to overthrowing a despotic regime and a politically motivated campaign 150 years later.
The statue was only erected in the 1920s - it's erection was a politically motivated campaign over 50 yeas later.
The issue turns on whether his position as a sensible, straight-talking politician who doesn't go in for spin or subterfuge can overcome, or render irrelevant his toffness. A bit like Nige, that public school-educated, commodity-dealing man of the people. But moreso, obvs.
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
There is a market for politicians who appear to be unspun. Corbyn is not quite as unspun as he claims. And he - and his supporters - have been more than capable of subterfuge.
Nor is Mogg quite as unspun as he claims. As far as I can tell his main claims to fame are that he wears suits, has a nanny who must have remarkable stamina and be quite old by now, is very polite and once made a good joke at Dimbleby's expense.
Am I missing something?
He has a view on what he wants. As far as I've studied him (which I haven't). Which is perhaps the point; he appears to be a pretty straight guy, and that might be enough. He is no fool either, and has enough money to be able to rise above the perception of money-grabbing self-interest by politicians.
The issue turns on whether his position as a sensible, straight-talking politician who doesn't go in for spin or subterfuge can overcome, or render irrelevant his toffness. A bit like Nige, that public school-educated, commodity-dealing man of the people. But moreso, obvs.
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
There is a market for politicians who appear to be unspun. Corbyn is not quite as unspun as he claims. And he - and his supporters - have been more than capable of subterfuge.
Nor is Mogg quite as unspun as he claims. As far as I can tell his main claims to fame are that he wears suits, has a nanny who must have remarkable stamina and be quite old by now, is very polite and once made a good joke at Dimbleby's expense.
Am I missing something?
I don't think anyone is unspun, really: as you say, certainly not Corbyn. On the other hand JRM's oddities are not obviously intended to please the crowd - comparisons to Boris Johnson are lazy and wrong.
I still find it extraordinary - JRM confesses to being too loaded to bother to claim MPs expenses, but it is not he but Richard Burgon (on a different topic sadly edited out) who gets derided by the audience for "living in a Westminster bubble".
Culturally inconvenient statues coming down ? I think we can all agree that was the right thing to do in Palmyra. The band and Baez's cover should probably be banned too.
Surely it was also wrong to remove all those Communist statues after the wall fell down, Saddam's statues in Iraq and obviously wrong to remove statues of Kim Jung In after he gets deposed?
There's a difference between an immediate response to overthrowing a despotic regime and a politically motivated campaign 150 years later.
Surely each generation gets to choose it's heroes. We are not bound to keep a statue just because someone long forgotten once put one there.
Nor are we bound to turf it out because someone or some movement who may well soon be long forgotten disagrees.
Remember, that causes such as Rhodes must fall and the nascent US iconoclasm are hardly majority sports - they're minority positions often pandered too by identity politics.
The issue turns on whether his position as a sensible, straight-talking politician who doesn't go in for spin or subterfuge can overcome, or render irrelevant his toffness. A bit like Nige, that public school-educated, commodity-dealing man of the people. But moreso, obvs.
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
There is a market for politicians who appear to be unspun. Corbyn is not quite as unspun as he claims. And he - and his supporters - have been more than capable of subterfuge.
Nor is Mogg quite as unspun as he claims. As far as I can tell his main claims to fame are that he wears suits, has a nanny who must have remarkable stamina and be quite old by now, is very polite and once made a good joke at Dimbleby's expense.
Am I missing something?
I'm as surprised as anyone, but his ability to actually listen to questions and provide cogent and often witty answers on pretty much all platforms - in parliament, in public, on the radio and on TV - puts him head and shoulders above many MPs and most in the cabinet and shadow cabinet.
His positions, whilst traditional Tory, are so well explained and politely put that they seem to get an honest hearing where Cameron, May and others cannot.
Mogg is eloquent. He also gets a hearing because he sounds fresh compared to machine pols.
But he is also breathtakingly arrogant, somewhat pompous and detached.
Culturally inconvenient statues coming down ? I think we can all agree that was the right thing to do in Palmyra. The band and Baez's cover should probably be banned too.
Surely it was also wrong to remove all those Communist statues after the wall fell down, Saddam's statues in Iraq and obviously wrong to remove statues of Kim Jung In after he gets deposed?
There's a difference between an immediate response to overthrowing a despotic regime and a politically motivated campaign 150 years later.
The statue was only erected in the 1920s - it's erection was a politically motivated campaign over 50 yeas later.
The issue turns on whether his position as a sensible, straight-talking politician who doesn't go in for spin or subterfuge can overcome, or render irrelevant his toffness. A bit like Nige, that public school-educated, commodity-dealing man of the people. But moreso, obvs.
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
There is a market for politicians who appear to be unspun. Corbyn is not quite as unspun as he claims. And he - and his supporters - have been more than capable of subterfuge.
Nor is Mogg quite as unspun as he claims. As far as I can tell his main claims to fame are that he wears suits, has a nanny who must have remarkable stamina and be quite old by now, is very polite and once made a good joke at Dimbleby's expense.
Am I missing something?
I'm as surprised as anyone, but his ability to actually listen to questions and provide cogent and often witty answers on pretty much all platforms - in parliament, in public, on the radio and on TV - puts him head and shoulders above many MPs and most in the cabinet and shadow cabinet.
His positions, whilst traditional Tory, are so well explained and politely put that they seem to get an honest hearing where Cameron, May and others cannot.
But he is also breathtakingly arrogant, somewhat pompous and detached.
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
I was not a big fan of Obama TBH. But he was right when he said that slavery was America's original sin. Its consequences are being played out on the streets of Virginia.
You realise he was just quoting the West Wing?
Lord Marbury : "The darkness in our sunshine, the shadow in our souls, the biblical sins of the fathers. For Americans, it's slavery. Slavery is your original sin. That and your unfortunate history with your aborigines." Toby : "Native Americans." Lord Marbury : "For the English, it's Ireland."
Culturally inconvenient statues coming down ? I think we can all agree that was the right thing to do in Palmyra. The band and Baez's cover should probably be banned too.
Surely it was also wrong to remove all those Communist statues after the wall fell down, Saddam's statues in Iraq and obviously wrong to remove statues of Kim Jung In after he gets deposed?
There's a difference between an immediate response to overthrowing a despotic regime and a politically motivated campaign 150 years later.
The problem with that is that, although the campaign might be 150 years later, the negative aspects behind the character commemorated still thrive in US society. It is as much about today as it is about when he lived. This is exactly why he inspires neo-Nazis and repels others.
Statues of Boudicea and other far historical figures differ as they were so long ago that no-one is affected by their actions, and the characters themselves have undergone a Waverleyisation that means the statues represent a fiction rather than fact. Boudicea isn't commemorated because of her actions; she is commemorated as a quasi-fictional image of Britain.
As the action of the neo-Nazi thugs show, the statue represents nothing positive. Perhaps in another 150 years that may be different, but sadly it isn't at the moment.
The issue turns on whether his position as a sensible, straight-talking politician who doesn't go in for spin or subterfuge can overcome, or render irrelevant his toffness. A bit like Nige, that public school-educated, commodity-dealing man of the people. But moreso, obvs.
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
There is a market for politicians who appear to be unspun. Corbyn is not quite as unspun as he claims. And he - and his supporters - have been more than capable of subterfuge.
Nor is Mogg quite as unspun as he claims. As far as I can tell his main claims to fame are that he wears suits, has a nanny who must have remarkable stamina and be quite old by now, is very polite and once made a good joke at Dimbleby's expense.
Am I missing something?
I'm as surprised as anyone, but his ability to actually listen to questions and provide cogent and often witty answers on pretty much all platforms - in parliament, in public, on the radio and on TV - puts him head and shoulders above many MPs and most in the cabinet and shadow cabinet.
His positions, whilst traditional Tory, are so well explained and politely put that they seem to get an honest hearing where Cameron, May and others cannot.
He's a superb performer. Not many Tories could get a round of applause on Have I Got News for You.
I'd have thought he is an asset to the Conservatives doing that kind of thing, being a semi-independent advocate for their policies, rather than trying to climb the greasy government pole and having to take inauthentic positions.
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
Except it is not the South that is inflamed. Indeed it was the people of Charlottesville that wanted the statue gone, and a killer from Ohio who wanted it preserved.
The profiles of the racists protesting is one of alt.rights ists and neo-nazis who had travelled to protest there from across middle America.
If you took a poll of the old states of the Confederacy I bet a majority would want the statue to stay
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
If he was so anti slavery how come he was a slave holder himself?
He freed the slaves on his father's plantation when he came of age
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
I was not a big fan of Obama TBH. But he was right when he said that slavery was America's original sin. Its consequences are being played out on the streets of Virginia.
You realise he was just quoting the West Wing?
Lord Marbury : "The darkness in our sunshine, the shadow in our souls, the biblical sins of the fathers. For Americans, it's slavery. Slavery is your original sin. That and your unfortunate history with your aborigines." Toby : "Native Americans." Lord Marbury : "For the English, it's Ireland."
Rees-Mogg is more a potential Tory opposition leader than PM for me so I agree with him on that. I think the next Tory leader and PM will be either Boris or Davis but Davis could be tainted by compromises in the Brexit talks. However those who diss Rees-Mogg as too much of a maverick and too extreme should remember the same was said of Corbyn
To me, Boris comes across as a posh buffoon and JRM comes across as an other-worldly dilettante. I cannot envision either of them as capable leaders.
Still, I am not a Tory Party member, so I guess if the Tories think one of these two is the way forward then elect one of them leader and see what the voters think.
Boris leads the polls of next Tory potential leaders with all voters
And there we have it demonstrated in minutes - someone more arrogant, pompous and self regarding.
On the radio she said (roughly) "He's nice, very generous and has been kind and welcoming to me as a new MP. But he's not the face that I want the Tory party to present to the country"
I'd have thought nice, kind, generous and welcoming would be a distinct improvement over the current set up!
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
If he was so anti slavery how come he was a slave holder himself?
He freed the slaves on his plantation
Unlike Jefferson. Difficult not to see the Founding Fathers as a bunch of proto-Trumps. "We will make a great declaration – and nobody makes declarations better than us."
The issue turns on whether his position as a sensible, straight-talking politician who doesn't go in for spin or subterfuge can overcome, or render irrelevant his toffness. A bit like Nige, that public school-educated, commodity-dealing man of the people. But moreso, obvs.
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
There is a market for politicians who appear to be unspun. Corbyn is not quite as unspun as he claims. And he - and his supporters - have been more than capable of subterfuge.
Nor is Mogg quite as unspun as he claims. As far as I can tell his main claims to fame are that he wears suits, has a nanny who must have remarkable stamina and be quite old by now, is very polite and once made a good joke at Dimbleby's expense.
Am I missing something?
I'm as surprised as anyone, but his ability to actually listen to questions and provide cogent and often witty answers on pretty much all platforms - in parliament, in public, on the radio and on TV - puts him head and shoulders above many MPs and most in the cabinet and shadow cabinet.
His positions, whilst traditional Tory, are so well explained and politely put that they seem to get an honest hearing where Cameron, May and others cannot.
But he is also breathtakingly arrogant, somewhat pompous and detached.
Anymore than any politician? I think not....
Hang on. His Moggesty is definitely more detached. He revels in it.
And there we have it demonstrated in minutes - someone more arrogant, pompous and self regarding.
Heidi Allen's my MP, and she appears to be none of those things. I'd agree if you were talking about her immediate predecessor, who was invisible within the constituency.
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
I was not a big fan of Obama TBH. But he was right when he said that slavery was America's original sin. Its consequences are being played out on the streets of Virginia.
You realise he was just quoting the West Wing?
Lord Marbury : "The darkness in our sunshine, the shadow in our souls, the biblical sins of the fathers. For Americans, it's slavery. Slavery is your original sin. That and your unfortunate history with your aborigines." Toby : "Native Americans." Lord Marbury : "For the English, it's Ireland."
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
If he was so anti slavery how come he was a slave holder himself?
He freed the slaves on his father's plantation when he came of age
He freed the slaves on his father-in-laws plantation after holding on to them for the maximum of 5 years that his father-in-law's will allowed.
Mr. rkrkrk, willing the destruction of history and historical artefacts is unwise.
Mr. Jonathan, modernity and progress are not the same thing. Someone living in Rome during Vespasian's reign would not be delighted with the situation two, or four, centuries later.
Mr. rkrkrk, willing the destruction of history and historical artefacts is unwise.
Mr. Jonathan, modernity and progress are not the same thing. Someone living in Rome during Vespasian's reign would not be delighted with the situation two, or four, centuries later.
This country suffers from an excess of nostalgia, not modernity.
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
Mr. rkrkrk, willing the destruction of history and historical artefacts is unwise.
Mr. Jonathan, modernity and progress are not the same thing. Someone living in Rome during Vespasian's reign would not be delighted with the situation two, or four, centuries later.
This country suffers from an excess of nostalgia, not modernity.
Oddly, Corbyn suffers from immense nostalgia: not just politically, but his fondness for manhole covers shows he is wedded to the past, not the future.
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
I was not a big fan of Obama TBH. But he was right when he said that slavery was America's original sin. Its consequences are being played out on the streets of Virginia.
You realise he was just quoting the West Wing?
Lord Marbury : "The darkness in our sunshine, the shadow in our souls, the biblical sins of the fathers. For Americans, it's slavery. Slavery is your original sin. That and your unfortunate history with your aborigines." Toby : "Native Americans." Lord Marbury : "For the English, it's Ireland."
So? Does that make it less correct?
No, but it does make him less insightful.
Why? You can still have a deep understanding of something, and a perception of it, even if it's been said before. Otherwise there would be precious little room left to be insightful.
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
How is he wrong? Once we are out we are free to sign free trade deals. Giving that up as part of a transition is not ideal. We would in the transition have lost our ability to shape EU rules (limited as it was) without yet gaining our freedom we were seeking.
If a transition deal is in the form of a time limited trade deal then that shouldn't prevent us from seeking and signing other permanent deals.
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
Why should it? Provided that they don't come into effect before the end of the transition period there will be no issue with negotiating and signing while in transition (that's one of the primary benefits of having such a period)
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
How is he wrong? Once we are out we are free to sign free trade deals. Giving that up as part of a transition is not ideal. We would in the transition have lost our ability to shape EU rules (limited as it was) without yet gaining our freedom we were seeking.
If a transition deal is in the form of a time limited trade deal then that shouldn't prevent us from seeking and signing other permanent deals.
We can't still be in the EU (= a transition deal) and have an FTA with a third party country at the same time as this would give rise to regulatory arbitrage.
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
How is he wrong? Once we are out we are free to sign free trade deals. Giving that up as part of a transition is not ideal. We would in the transition have lost our ability to shape EU rules (limited as it was) without yet gaining our freedom we were seeking.
If a transition deal is in the form of a time limited trade deal then that shouldn't prevent us from seeking and signing other permanent deals.
We can't still be in the EU (= a transition deal) and have an FTA with a third party country at the same time as this would give rise to regulatory arbitrage.
But the reality is a transition deal will not take the form of still being in the EU, will it?
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
I was not a big fan of Obama TBH. But he was right when he said that slavery was America's original sin. Its consequences are being played out on the streets of Virginia.
You realise he was just quoting the West Wing?
Lord Marbury : "The darkness in our sunshine, the shadow in our souls, the biblical sins of the fathers. For Americans, it's slavery. Slavery is your original sin. That and your unfortunate history with your aborigines." Toby : "Native Americans." Lord Marbury : "For the English, it's Ireland."
So? Does that make it less correct?
No, but it does make him less insightful.
Why? You can still have a deep understanding of something, and a perception of it, even if it's been said before. Otherwise there would be precious little room left to be insightful.
In this context @Cyclefree was praising him, and implying that he had come up with the phrase. I pointed out that he had just lifted it from a TV script.
What he said was certainly arguable - and, I think, a useful concept to introduce to the debate.
Rees-Mogg is more a potential Tory opposition leader than PM for me so I agree with him on that. I think the next Tory leader and PM will be either Boris or Davis but Davis could be tainted by compromises in the Brexit talks. However those who diss Rees-Mogg as too much of a maverick and too extreme should remember the same was said of Corbyn
To me, Boris comes across as a posh buffoon and JRM comes across as an other-worldly dilettante. I cannot envision either of them as capable leaders.
Still, I am not a Tory Party member, so I guess if the Tories think one of these two is the way forward then elect one of them leader and see what the voters think.
Boris leads the polls of next Tory potential leaders with all voters
Fine. Give him the job.
He is not exactly being measured against a field of sparkling talent.
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
How is he wrong? Once we are out we are free to sign free trade deals. Giving that up as part of a transition is not ideal. We would in the transition have lost our ability to shape EU rules (limited as it was) without yet gaining our freedom we were seeking.
If a transition deal is in the form of a time limited trade deal then that shouldn't prevent us from seeking and signing other permanent deals.
We can't still be in the EU (= a transition deal) and have an FTA with a third party country at the same time as this would give rise to regulatory arbitrage.
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
How is he wrong? Once we are out we are free to sign free trade deals. Giving that up as part of a transition is not ideal. We would in the transition have lost our ability to shape EU rules (limited as it was) without yet gaining our freedom we were seeking.
If a transition deal is in the form of a time limited trade deal then that shouldn't prevent us from seeking and signing other permanent deals.
Presumably it would be easy and fine to sign trade deals which come into effect once the transition period has ended.
But trade deals coming into effect before that period would need to be compliant with our arrangements with the EU. I suppose that's possible in the cases where the EU has already negotiated something with that country.
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
Why should it? Provided that they don't come into effect before the end of the transition period there will be no issue with negotiating and signing while in transition (that's one of the primary benefits of having such a period)
Ah yes well of course. Provided they don't come into effect until after the transition period. I think that's fair to be able to negotiate. Not 100% sure that was what he was stating, though.
A reality check: The Moggster does NOT stand a good chance if he gets into the final two. In fact, he would stand very little chance against almost any other possible candidate.
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
How is he wrong? Once we are out we are free to sign free trade deals. Giving that up as part of a transition is not ideal. We would in the transition have lost our ability to shape EU rules (limited as it was) without yet gaining our freedom we were seeking.
If a transition deal is in the form of a time limited trade deal then that shouldn't prevent us from seeking and signing other permanent deals.
We can't still be in the EU (= a transition deal) and have an FTA with a third party country at the same time as this would give rise to regulatory arbitrage.
But the reality is a transition deal will not take the form of still being in the EU, will it?
Of course it will. We will still be bound by all the contractual demands that exist now. That, surely, is the nature of a transition deal. No cliff edge. All things as is.
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
I was not a big fan of Obama TBH. But he was right when he said that slavery was America's original sin. Its consequences are being played out on the streets of Virginia.
You realise he was just quoting the West Wing?
Lord Marbury : "The darkness in our sunshine, the shadow in our souls, the biblical sins of the fathers. For Americans, it's slavery. Slavery is your original sin. That and your unfortunate history with your aborigines." Toby : "Native Americans." Lord Marbury : "For the English, it's Ireland."
So? Does that make it less correct?
No, but it does make him less insightful.
Why? You can still have a deep understanding of something, and a perception of it, even if it's been said before. Otherwise there would be precious little room left to be insightful.
In this context @Cyclefree was praising him, and implying that he had come up with the phrase. I pointed out that he had just lifted it from a TV script.
What he said was certainly arguable - and, I think, a useful concept to introduce to the debate.
Did she imply that? She just said that he had said it. Neither does the fact that it was said before mean that he has a lack of insight.
“He is not the modern face of the Tory party that we are desperate, or I am certainly and colleagues are certainly desperate, to prove is out there.”
Says more about her than him frankly.
Quite.
That, and the fact that she thinks her say is of such value that a threat to flounce off will be met with anything but laughter.
Yes, because the Brexit loons of the Conservative party are keen for it to become a narrower and less inclusive party.
Evidence ?
We've had Soubry and Allen threaten to flounce out over the weekend if things don't go their way - suggests the tiny Europhile rump are the ones with a problem.
A reality check: The Moggster does NOT stand a good chance if he gets into the final two. In fact, he would stand very little chance against almost any other possible candidate.
Disagree entirely.
c/f Cameron
Though, the reality is the chances of there being a member wide election whilst in Govt. are slim.
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
How is he wrong? Once we are out we are free to sign free trade deals. Giving that up as part of a transition is not ideal. We would in the transition have lost our ability to shape EU rules (limited as it was) without yet gaining our freedom we were seeking.
If a transition deal is in the form of a time limited trade deal then that shouldn't prevent us from seeking and signing other permanent deals.
We can't still be in the EU (= a transition deal) and have an FTA with a third party country at the same time as this would give rise to regulatory arbitrage.
But the reality is a transition deal will not take the form of still being in the EU, will it?
Of course it will. We will still be bound by all the contractual demands that exist now. That, surely, is the nature of a transition deal. No cliff edge. All things as is.
Why would we still be in the EU?
The "transition" part of the word "transition" is gone if there's no transitioning going on.
“He is not the modern face of the Tory party that we are desperate, or I am certainly and colleagues are certainly desperate, to prove is out there.”
Says more about her than him frankly.
Quite.
That, and the fact that she thinks her say is of such value that a threat to flounce off will be met with anything but laughter.
Yes, because the Brexit loons of the Conservative party are keen for it to become a narrower and less inclusive party.
Evidence ?
We've had Soubry and Allen threaten to flounce out over the weekend if things don't go their way - suggests the tiny Europhile rump are the ones with a problem.
LOL. And who pi**ed off before the referendum? The Euroloons to UKIP. They actually flounced and have seriously damaged the party.
A healthy Conservative party, just a like a healthy Labour party, needs to appeal to as broad a constituency as possible.
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
“He is not the modern face of the Tory party that we are desperate, or I am certainly and colleagues are certainly desperate, to prove is out there.”
Says more about her than him frankly.
Quite.
That, and the fact that she thinks her say is of such value that a threat to flounce off will be met with anything but laughter.
Yes, because the Brexit loons of the Conservative party are keen for it to become a narrower and less inclusive party.
Evidence ?
We've had Soubry and Allen threaten to flounce out over the weekend if things don't go their way - suggests the tiny Europhile rump are the ones with a problem.
LOL. And who pi**ed off before the referendum? The Euroloons to UKIP. They actually flounced and have seriously damaged the party.
A healthy Conservative party, just a like a healthy Labour party, needs to appeal to as broad a constituency as possible.
If Soubry and Allen want to follow the career path of Carswell and Mark Reckless then er..
“He is not the modern face of the Tory party that we are desperate, or I am certainly and colleagues are certainly desperate, to prove is out there.”
Says more about her than him frankly.
Quite.
That, and the fact that she thinks her say is of such value that a threat to flounce off will be met with anything but laughter.
Yes, because the Brexit loons of the Conservative party are keen for it to become a narrower and less inclusive party.
Evidence ?
We've had Soubry and Allen threaten to flounce out over the weekend if things don't go their way - suggests the tiny Europhile rump are the ones with a problem.
LOL. And who pi**ed off before the referendum? The Euroloons to UKIP. They actually flounced and have seriously damaged the party.
A healthy Conservative party, just a like a healthy Labour party, needs to appeal to as broad a constituency as possible.
Eh?
UKIP have no MPs. They forced a democratic decision that resulted in the Tory vote share returning to mid 40s. How has that seriously damaged the party?
Lee was a traitor. He had taken an oath to the Republic and broke it by serving with the South.
This is really simple.
I have no idea what I am supposed to have been quoting (mid or otherwise) of Kevin O'Higgins.
He had resigned his commission on refusing the command of the Union army. That ended his oath to the Union.
Moreover his oath as a member of the Virginia militia was to defend Virginia.
Can you not see how your points don't measure up or to be exact, apply rather better to you?
I have no time for the far right protesters but if there was one thing guaranteed to inflame the South in the US it is trying to remove a statue of one of their most iconic figures, General Robert E Lee especially as many have pointed out he was personally anti slavery anyway
I was not a big fan of Obama TBH. But he was right when he said that slavery was America's original sin. Its consequences are being played out on the streets of Virginia.
You realise he was just quoting the West Wing?
Lord Marbury : "The darkness in our sunshine, the shadow in our souls, the biblical sins of the fathers. For Americans, it's slavery. Slavery is your original sin. That and your unfortunate history with your aborigines." Toby : "Native Americans." Lord Marbury : "For the English, it's Ireland."
So? Does that make it less correct?
No, but it does make him less insightful.
Why? You can still have a deep understanding of something, and a perception of it, even if it's been said before. Otherwise there would be precious little room left to be insightful.
In this context @Cyclefree was praising him, and implying that he had come up with the phrase. I pointed out that he had just lifted it from a TV script.
What he said was certainly arguable - and, I think, a useful concept to introduce to the debate.
Errr, Slavery being referred to as America's Original Sin predates the West Wing.
“He is not the modern face of the Tory party that we are desperate, or I am certainly and colleagues are certainly desperate, to prove is out there.”
Says more about her than him frankly.
Quite.
That, and the fact that she thinks her say is of such value that a threat to flounce off will be met with anything but laughter.
Yes, because the Brexit loons of the Conservative party are keen for it to become a narrower and less inclusive party.
Evidence ?
We've had Soubry and Allen threaten to flounce out over the weekend if things don't go their way - suggests the tiny Europhile rump are the ones with a problem.
LOL. And who pi**ed off before the referendum? The Euroloons to UKIP. They actually flounced and have seriously damaged the party.
A healthy Conservative party, just a like a healthy Labour party, needs to appeal to as broad a constituency as possible.
That 'flouncing' helped get us a referendum - which has produced a fantastic result for the country.
...and yet you mutter about "seriously damaged the party".
Sounds like Jacob will get the Jezza treatment from the CPP if he becomes leader!
He needs to get into the last two before he could conceivably become leader. That means he needs support in Parliament too.
Presumably the Brexiteers will want to ensure they have one of their number in the final two.
That depends when the next leadership election is. If it's not until after we have Left the EU, then the distinction will become irrelevant.
True. If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
Bernard Jenkin this morning saying that a transition deal should not inhibit the UK from signing free trade deals. What is it with some Brexiters? Is there a course they go on to learn how to be morons?
How is he wrong? Once we are out we are free to sign free trade deals. Giving that up as part of a transition is not ideal. We would in the transition have lost our ability to shape EU rules (limited as it was) without yet gaining our freedom we were seeking.
If a transition deal is in the form of a time limited trade deal then that shouldn't prevent us from seeking and signing other permanent deals.
We can't still be in the EU (= a transition deal) and have an FTA with a third party country at the same time as this would give rise to regulatory arbitrage.
But the reality is a transition deal will not take the form of still being in the EU, will it?
Of course it will. We will still be bound by all the contractual demands that exist now. That, surely, is the nature of a transition deal. No cliff edge. All things as is.
Why would we still be in the EU?
The "transition" part of the word "transition" is gone if there's no transitioning going on.
What do you imagine a transition deal will look like? A have cake and eat it transition? It means that we will continue to benefit from EU membership and be bound by the EU rules. Or it is not a transition. It is a leaving.
A reality check: The Moggster does NOT stand a good chance if he gets into the final two. In fact, he would stand very little chance against almost any other possible candidate.
This is a membership that elected IDS... Surely anything is possible?
A reality check: The Moggster does NOT stand a good chance if he gets into the final two. In fact, he would stand very little chance against almost any other possible candidate.
Disagree entirely.
c/f Cameron
Though, the reality is the chances of there being a member wide election whilst in Govt. are slim.
Precisely - c/f Cameron. You have hit the nail on the head.
Also, I think there will be a full member-wide election this time. I think the most likely scenario is Theresa May bowing out with grace in 2019, having delivered Brexit (in nominal terms at least). She'll probably remain as caretaker leader and PM whilst we have the leadership contest.
Comments
Let us not forget there is a market for unspun politicians right now, on whichever side.
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/896968559544414208
'hold my pint'
Behold His Moggesty.
The profiles of the racists protesting is one of alt.rights ists and neo-nazis who had travelled to protest there from across middle America.
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897004404716580865
Nor is Mogg quite as unspun as he claims. As far as I can tell his main claims to fame are that he wears suits, has a nanny who must have remarkable stamina and be quite old by now, is very polite and once made a good joke at Dimbleby's expense.
Am I missing something?
It actually threw up some fun results:
...from the same Economist /YouGov poll:
Only 71% of American blacks approve of the Emancipation Proclamation. Five percent disapprove and 24% aren’t sure.
32% of American blacks back President Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to round up Japanese-Americans and put them in camps during World War II … almost exactly the same percentage as among Trump voters.
More than 30% of those UNDER 30 are not sure that President Harry Truman’s 1948 executive order desegregating the U.S. military was a good idea. 15% are sure it wasn’t.
43% of likely Democratic primary voters, a very liberal slice of America, approve of President George W. Bush’s pro-torture executive order after 9/11.
So welcome to some very off the wall results in that survey!
Caesar massacred hundreds of thousands of tribesmen who were conducting peace negotiations.
Mr. Charles, indeed.
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason
His positions, whilst traditional Tory, are so well explained and politely put that they seem to get an honest hearing where Cameron, May and others cannot.
Watch this from 8.38 onwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCEpSWQsRPE
I still find it extraordinary - JRM confesses to being too loaded to bother to claim MPs expenses, but it is not he but Richard Burgon (on a different topic sadly edited out) who gets derided by the audience for "living in a Westminster bubble".
Google: Nicola Sturgeon traitor
About 240,000 results (0.59 seconds)
https://www.thecanary.co/2017/03/15/telegraph-calls-beheading-traitor-nicola-sturgeon-image/
Remember, that causes such as Rhodes must fall and the nascent US iconoclasm are hardly majority sports - they're minority positions often pandered too by identity politics.
But he is also breathtakingly arrogant, somewhat pompous and detached.
https://twitter.com/HuffPostUKPol/status/897008784446509056
https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320
Apply that through history and sooner or later every statue will be gone.
Lord Marbury : "The darkness in our sunshine, the shadow in our souls, the biblical sins of the fathers. For Americans, it's slavery. Slavery is your original sin. That and your unfortunate history with your aborigines."
Toby : "Native Americans."
Lord Marbury : "For the English, it's Ireland."
Statues of Boudicea and other far historical figures differ as they were so long ago that no-one is affected by their actions, and the characters themselves have undergone a Waverleyisation that means the statues represent a fiction rather than fact. Boudicea isn't commemorated because of her actions; she is commemorated as a quasi-fictional image of Britain.
As the action of the neo-Nazi thugs show, the statue represents nothing positive. Perhaps in another 150 years that may be different, but sadly it isn't at the moment.
Not many Tories could get a round of applause on Have I Got News for You.
I'd have thought he is an asset to the Conservatives doing that kind of thing, being a semi-independent advocate for their policies, rather than trying to climb the greasy government pole and having to take inauthentic positions.
Sooner or later all statues are gone anyway.
"'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings..."
I'd have thought nice, kind, generous and welcoming would be a distinct improvement over the current set up!
Now, if only I'd voted for her.
Then the choices are BJ, Fox, Davis, Patel (?), Gove... or JRM.
I could imagine BJ and Gove conspiring to destroy each other, Fox is tainted goods and has failed previously, Davis might decide he doesn't want it...
JRM would be in with a chance if he went for it I think.
Mr. Jonathan, modernity and progress are not the same thing. Someone living in Rome during Vespasian's reign would not be delighted with the situation two, or four, centuries later.
If there's a transition deal in 2019 then I expect the next leadership election will be before that has expired.
The Speaker dressing as a supply teacher and removing the wigs from the clerks suggests that's not uniformly true.
In any case - I understand the movement is trying to remove the statue not destroy it.
Ms Allen is unable to mention a policy that JRM is in favour of that she disagrees with - she just doesn't want him as he's "posh".
Says more about her than him frankly.
If a transition deal is in the form of a time limited trade deal then that shouldn't prevent us from seeking and signing other permanent deals.
That, and the fact that she thinks her say is of such value that a threat to flounce off will be met with anything but laughter.
What he said was certainly arguable - and, I think, a useful concept to introduce to the debate.
He is not exactly being measured against a field of sparkling talent.
But trade deals coming into effect before that period would need to be compliant with our arrangements with the EU. I suppose that's possible in the cases where the EU has already negotiated something with that country.
(And before anyone says, I'm not an Obama fan).
We've had Soubry and Allen threaten to flounce out over the weekend if things don't go their way - suggests the tiny Europhile rump are the ones with a problem.
Actually flouncing means more - but threats are rarely followed through by minor politicians.
c/f Cameron
Though, the reality is the chances of there being a member wide election whilst in Govt. are slim.
The "transition" part of the word "transition" is gone if there's no transitioning going on.
But I suppose that doesn't actually carry much weight any more....
A healthy Conservative party, just a like a healthy Labour party, needs to appeal to as broad a constituency as possible.
This is a game that can be played all day to no value,
UKIP have no MPs. They forced a democratic decision that resulted in the Tory vote share returning to mid 40s. How has that seriously damaged the party?
...and yet you mutter about "seriously damaged the party".
Priorities.
Also, I think there will be a full member-wide election this time. I think the most likely scenario is Theresa May bowing out with grace in 2019, having delivered Brexit (in nominal terms at least). She'll probably remain as caretaker leader and PM whilst we have the leadership contest.