The man police were reported to have shot dead at a roadblock on the outskirts of Barcelona after the Las Ramblas terror attack was already dead, police have revealed.
Catalonian police confirmed that it was the owner of the Ford Focus - and not the driver - who was found inside after it was abandoned.
The man had been stabbed to death in the passenger seat in a possible carjacking by the third suspect arrested in the wake of the attacks, it has been suggested.
I still believe that Corbyn is a liability to Labour getting elected.
I doubt very much he'll still be around by the next GE. I doubt he'd have made it to 2020 had it not been for the snap election (possibly a factor in calling it, get the stonking majority before he's gone).
However even now that his stock has improved due to the better than expected election loss, I doubt he'll make it to 2022. Nor are the Tories likely to go for another snap election any time soon.
Unless health issues intervene, or some other as yet unknown black swan, he's bound to lead Labour in 2022. Why would he resign having put up with all the shit he has to date from the PLP? And who would seriously be able to challenge him?
No, he'll be leading Labour and the Tories better hope they have salvaged something credible from Brexit and have a more than half decent campaigner.
I still believe that Corbyn is a liability to Labour getting elected.
I doubt very much he'll still be around by the next GE. I doubt he'd have made it to 2020 had it not been for the snap election (possibly a factor in calling it, get the stonking majority before he's gone).
However even now that his stock has improved due to the better than expected election loss, I doubt he'll make it to 2022. Nor are the Tories likely to go for another snap election any time soon.
Unless health issues intervene, or some other as yet unknown black swan, he's bound to lead Labour in 2022. Why would he resign having put up with all the shit he has to date from the PLP? And who would seriously be able to challenge him?
No, he'll be leading Labour and the Tories better hope they have salvaged something credible from Brexit and have a more than half decent campaigner.
Five years is a very long time for events or challenges to intervene.
I have to say i'm increasingly sick of "old people" and I'm 63 with thier sense of entitlement, rigid views and yearning for a past that is long gone. They claim they act in the interests of thier children and grand children but they don't really because they know best. Thier will be much grieving for the passing of Brucie but FGS it was bland shit thoughtless TV. Where are our young super heroes coming from? (rant over will go back in my cave)
I have to say i'm increasingly sick of "old people" and I'm 63 with thier sense of entitlement, rigid views and yearning for a past that is long gone. They claim they act in the interests of thier children and grand children but they don't really because they know best. Thier will be much grieving for the passing of Brucie but FGS it was bland shit thoughtless TV. Where are our young super heroes coming from? (rant over will go back in my cave)
I have to say i'm increasingly sick of "old people" and I'm 63 with thier sense of entitlement, rigid views and yearning for a past that is long gone. They claim they act in the interests of thier children and grand children but they don't really because they know best. Thier will be much grieving for the passing of Brucie but FGS it was bland shit thoughtless TV. Where are our young super heroes coming from? (rant over will go back in my cave)
Do you encounter these oldies, or hear about them second-hand, or hypothesize their existence? The over 80s I know are all busy on their ipads when they aren't watching Game of Thrones on their hdtvs.
So May is now only twice as unpopular as Corbyn? And less popular here than Trump is in the US? Strike up the band!
A twenty point improvement is not to be sniffed at
Yeah I bet Cameron's rating never improved by that wide a margin, so even TSE must surely now concede she is the better PM.
But it is correct that she is more unpopular with the UK - almost twice as unpopular - as Trump is with the US. Remarkable.
According to FiveThirtyEight.com, in the US 55.4% disapprove Trump and 37.8% approve... so I make that a net -17.6%, so no, she's no longer twice as unpopular as Trump!
(Edit: got my approve disapprove round the wrong way , now corrected, but the net result was right!)
So May is now only twice as unpopular as Corbyn? And less popular here than Trump is in the US? Strike up the band!
A twenty point improvement is not to be sniffed at
Yeah I bet Cameron's rating never improved by that wide a margin, so even TSE must surely now concede she is the better PM.
But it is correct that she is more unpopular with the UK - almost twice as unpopular - as Trump is with the US. Remarkable.
Wrong.
IIRC Dave saw a 40% improvement in a month back in the Autumn of 2007.
And I think he saw a 20% swing in a month the Autumn of 2011, which was a correction following the hit he took after the phone hacking revelations involving Millie Dowler.
So May is now only twice as unpopular as Corbyn? And less popular here than Trump is in the US? Strike up the band!
A twenty point improvement is not to be sniffed at
Yeah I bet Cameron's rating never improved by that wide a margin, so even TSE must surely now concede she is the better PM.
But it is correct that she is more unpopular with the UK - almost twice as unpopular - as Trump is with the US. Remarkable.
According to FiveThirtyEight.com, in the US 55.4% disapprove Trump and 37.8% approve... so I make that a net -17.6%, so no, she's no longer twice as unpopular as Trump!
(Edit: got my approve disapprove round the wrong way , now corrected, but the net result was right!)
I have to say i'm increasingly sick of "old people" and I'm 63 with thier sense of entitlement, rigid views and yearning for a past that is long gone. They claim they act in the interests of thier children and grand children but they don't really because they know best. Thier will be much grieving for the passing of Brucie but FGS it was bland shit thoughtless TV. Where are our young super heroes coming from? (rant over will go back in my cave)
Do you encounter these oldies, or hear about them second-hand, or hypothesize their existence? The over 80s I know are all busy on their ipads when they aren't watching Game of Thrones on their hdtvs.
I meet them every evening, but it was only a rant. The ones I know use their ipads to read the Daily Mail every day. It is only a small sub sample of well off pensioners but just occasionaly they get on my tits.
So May is now only twice as unpopular as Corbyn? And less popular here than Trump is in the US? Strike up the band!
A twenty point improvement is not to be sniffed at
Yeah I bet Cameron's rating never improved by that wide a margin, so even TSE must surely now concede she is the better PM.
But it is correct that she is more unpopular with the UK - almost twice as unpopular - as Trump is with the US. Remarkable.
Wrong.
IIRC Dave saw a 40% improvement in a month back in the Autumn of 2007.
And I think he saw a 20% swing in a month the Autumn of 2011, which was a correction following the hit he took after the phone hacking revelations involving Millie Dowler.
It's all fluff and noise anyway at this stage and I think Mike is over-egging it somewhat to claim the GE2017 gloss has started to come off Corbyn...
He avoided what virtually every one of us (and all the pundits) expected to be a Labour decimation and that keep him going until the next GE (which he will then enter in a markedly better position than GE2017!)
So May is now only twice as unpopular as Corbyn? And less popular here than Trump is in the US? Strike up the band!
A twenty point improvement is not to be sniffed at
Yeah I bet Cameron's rating never improved by that wide a margin, so even TSE must surely now concede she is the better PM.
But it is correct that she is more unpopular with the UK - almost twice as unpopular - as Trump is with the US. Remarkable.
According to FiveThirtyEight.com, in the US 55.4% disapprove Trump and 37.8% approve... so I make that a net -17.6%, so no, she's no longer twice as unpopular as Trump!
(Edit: got my approve disapprove round the wrong way , now corrected, but the net result was right!)
I have to say i'm increasingly sick of "old people" and I'm 63 with thier sense of entitlement, rigid views and yearning for a past that is long gone. They claim they act in the interests of thier children and grand children but they don't really because they know best. Thier will be much grieving for the passing of Brucie but FGS it was bland shit thoughtless TV. Where are our young super heroes coming from? (rant over will go back in my cave)
Do you encounter these oldies, or hear about them second-hand, or hypothesize their existence? The over 80s I know are all busy on their ipads when they aren't watching Game of Thrones on their hdtvs.
I meet them every evening, but it was only a rant. The ones I know use their ipads to read the Daily Mail every day. It is only a small sub sample of well off pensioners but just occasionaly they get on my tits.
Hopefully none of them know about pb.com otherwise I'm in the shit!
Absolutely right, as I said, it's all just noise - not sure why Mike felt it warranted a thread header tbh?
(Although tbf, most of the posts are arguing about it rather than brexit, statues, terrorists or whether effin' SeanT will ever reappear, so maybe it's a great thread header!
I have to say i'm increasingly sick of "old people" and I'm 63 with thier sense of entitlement, rigid views and yearning for a past that is long gone. They claim they act in the interests of thier children and grand children but they don't really because they know best. Thier will be much grieving for the passing of Brucie but FGS it was bland shit thoughtless TV. Where are our young super heroes coming from? (rant over will go back in my cave)
Do you encounter these oldies, or hear about them second-hand, or hypothesize their existence? The over 80s I know are all busy on their ipads when they aren't watching Game of Thrones on their hdtvs.
I meet them every evening, but it was only a rant. The ones I know use their ipads to read the Daily Mail every day. It is only a small sub sample of well off pensioners but just occasionaly they get on my tits.
Hopefully none of them know about pb.com otherwise I'm in the shit!
You're safe - how will they know which one of them is you?!
I have to say i'm increasingly sick of "old people" and I'm 63 with thier sense of entitlement, rigid views and yearning for a past that is long gone. They claim they act in the interests of thier children and grand children but they don't really because they know best. Thier will be much grieving for the passing of Brucie but FGS it was bland shit thoughtless TV. Where are our young super heroes coming from? (rant over will go back in my cave)
Do you encounter these oldies, or hear about them second-hand, or hypothesize their existence? The over 80s I know are all busy on their ipads when they aren't watching Game of Thrones on their hdtvs.
I meet them every evening, but it was only a rant. The ones I know use their ipads to read the Daily Mail every day. It is only a small sub sample of well off pensioners but just occasionaly they get on my tits.
Hopefully none of them know about pb.com otherwise I'm in the shit!
You're safe - how will they know which one of them is you?!
I'm afraid it's obvious but have now got the venom out of my system so can relax.
F##king hell it is a good job these Islamic terrorists are f##king idiots...if they had rigged that lot properly, we wouldn't be talking about 13 killed.
Members of Congressional GOP are in the process of counting the heads with a view to ousting Trump. My understanding is that numbers not quite critical mass but, be clear, its being talked about.
It might be wise if they can get the numbers, the investigations into him will not only finish him but will do his party considerable blast damage.
Pence might sound an idea but he is the firing line on investigations too and is a person of interest with the Feds if not the NY state investigations.
I think I posted a while back about Trump and his love of the generals that now have key posts in his administration. Its his reflected glory idea. The military men represent something he admires and wishes he could be, but isn't and in a way he is slightly in awe of them.
He gives then a long leash which could well be to his detriment as they are really the guys making the purges of the idealogues. They may well play a role in his removal if the investigations don't get to him first.
Bear in mind, impeachment is just one route. There are others available.
Serious question for y'all though. RCS might be best-placed to answer it, but will take all-comers .
Bannon's central contention is that that USA is in danger of losing its mantle as the world's most important economy to China, and that decisions taken over the next few years could lock the USA in to that trajectory in a way that becomes impossible to escape from.
That part does not seem unreasonable. (Some people might go so far as to suggest that eventual cross-over is as good as locked in already.) Moreover, a decline in economic power will likely presage a decline in political and other clout. If you regard maintaining your country's primacy as vital, and particularly don't wish to see it usurped by a country with a repressive government and very different strategic interests, then the economic struggle is a good thing to focus on.
But three things confuse me. Firstly, he resorts to the language of "economic warfare". Now using military analogies in economics has a long history (one could reasonably talk of e.g. a "battle for growth") but the way he uses it suggests he sees economics, and trade particularly, as a zero-sum game. That suggests major conceptual misunderstandings. But am I just misreading him?
Secondly, he seems to believe that China is "winning" because China is "playing dirty" and so the US must be prepared to play dirty back. Is he misunderstanding the major drivers of Chinese growth? Yes it's true there is e.g. massive rip-off of intellectual property. But it's also much easier for a poor country to grow than for an already-developed one, for obvious reasons. My (limited) understanding is that Chinese TFP growth over the last 10 years or so has not been so dramatic, and like the Asian Tigers of yore, Chinese growth is currently being driven largely by increases in factor inputs. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I can't see that a huge % of this is about "playing dirty". If the USA "plays dirty" back, is he thinking in terms of boosting US growth, or trying to hinder Chinese growth - in which case, what could his ideally-led USA do that would seriously impact the factors underlying Chinese growth right now? In his military terminology, what "weapons" do they have in the arsenal? Encouraging a few largely-automated factory processes to relocate to the USA doesn't seem to me to cut it.
Thirdly, if he really does want the USA to remain Numero Uno Del Mondo economically and otherwise, why not go for the obvious route of increasing the US population? The US has both the space, and the migration demand, to continue growing when other developed (and even many developing) countries have stalling or even rapidly falling populations. US population growth presently is about 0.7% annually and slowing (if maintained, takes about 100 years for population to double, but the slowing means this wouldn't happen) but if you could double the rate up to 1.4% and keep it there, doubling time would be under 50 years.
If the world population stabilises in the middle of this century in a state that leaves 600-700 million Americans, they are not going to be sliding very far down the power lists. They would likely have better-looking demographics than China at that point. The USA is so attractive it could easily drain the brain-reserves of the rest of the world, to its own great benefit, yet currently its self-imposed limits are preventing it from doing so. US Big Business would welcome more migration. Yet Bannon's stance on immigration is hardline. If his central priority is economic warfare with China, why is he tying one hand behind his back?
If his central premise was "less low-skilled migration, uncontrolled migration, and migration from volatile parts of the world, but we are selectively turning the taps to full-blast for professional, educated, wealth-creating individuals - particularly from Europe and Asia who we believe will more easily be assimilated [and parenthetically, less likely to vote Democrat]" then I might recoil at the implicit racism or demographic gerrymandering, but those are nothing new to US politics, and I'd certainly see the logic and how it slotted into his grand plan for American supremacy over China. Instead it seems closer to "no Mexicans, no Muslims, no-one much else if we can help it". It's "Americans first", where "Americans" are the ones there already, not potential future Americans. That's no different to a lot of countries, and it suggests a mindset in which modern America is "mature" and no longer needs that historical growth... but the acceptance of that in parts of Europe and Japan has generally been coupled with the acceptance of relative demographic and economic decline and a withering away of relative power. Yet Bannon doesn't want to play the game of managed decline. He wants the USA to be the biggest guy at the Big Table, forever. He's not an idiot. How does he reconcile this apparent contradiction?
Not interested in Bannon-bashing answers (though if it pleases ye, then go right ahead), genuinely trying to understand the man and his philosophy. Reminds me a lot of Steve Hilton - possibly a complete crank, but one with brains, and a distinctive world-view that has come to actually bear influence the world around us, hence worth attempting to comprehend a little on that score alone.
Not a priority for right now besides Big Ben being in the news and it is Silly Season. However I'd expect Big Ben to bong us out. Big Ben's bongs are used for all major events with a time on it like New Year's Eve or the election ending and exit poll coming out. It would be only appropriate to consider our moment of leaving the EU to be a major event.
Thirdly, if he really does want the USA to remain Numero Uno Del Mondo economically and otherwise, why not go for the obvious route of increasing the US population? The US has both the space, and the migration demand, to continue growing when other developed (and even many developing) countries have stalling or even rapidly falling populations. US population growth presently is about 0.7% annually and slowing (if maintained, takes about 100 years for population to double, but the slowing means this wouldn't happen) but if you could double the rate up to 1.4% and keep it there, doubling time would be under 50 years.
If the world population stabilises in the middle of this century in a state that
If his central premise was "less low-skilled migration, uncontrolled migration, and migration from volatile parts of the world, but we are selectively turning the taps to full-blast for professional, educated, wealth-creating individuals - particularly from Europe and Asia who we believe will more easily be assimilated [and parenthetically, less likely to vote Democrat]" then I might recoil at the implicit racism or demographic gerrymandering, but those are nothing new to US politics, and I'd certainly see the logic and how it slotted into his grand plan for American supremacy over China. Instead it seems closer to "no Mexicans, no Muslims, no-one much else if we can help it". It's "Americans first", where "Americans" are the ones there already, not potential future Americans. That's no different to a lot of countries, and it suggests a mindset in which modern America is "mature" and no longer needs that historical growth... but the acceptance of that in parts of Europe and Japan has generally been coupled with the acceptance of relative demographic and economic decline and a withering away of relative power. Yet Bannon doesn't want to play the game of managed decline. He wants the USA to be the biggest guy at the Big Table, forever. He's not an idiot. How does he reconcile this apparent contradiction?
Not interested in Bannon-bashing answers (though if it pleases ye, then go right ahead), genuinely trying to understand the man and his philosophy. Reminds me a lot of Steve Hilton - possibly a complete crank, but one with brains, and a distinctive world-view that has come to actually bear influence the world around us, hence worth attempting to comprehend a little on that score alone.
His difficulty is that Europe no longer has a naturally increasing population that can emigrate to the USA. Probably, he thinks White Europeans should circle the wagons, and migrate to an economically successful place where they can remain the majority.
@MyBurningEars Excellent posts! It reminds me very much of the Brexit dilemma; what is the right balance between going for economic growth at all costs to maintain relative position vs other states and prioritising social, cultural and demographic stability and cohesion for the current population?
Not a priority for right now besides Big Ben being in the news and it is Silly Season. However I'd expect Big Ben to bong us out. Big Ben's bongs are used for all major events with a time on it like New Year's Eve or the election ending and exit poll coming out. It would be only appropriate to consider our moment of leaving the EU to be a major event.
His difficulty is that Europe no longer has a naturally increasing population that can emigrate to the USA. Probably, he thinks White Europeans should circle the wagons, and migrate to an economically successful place where they can remain the majority.
Nevertheless, there are a lot of Europeans who would move to the USA if it were made easier (just as there are many Europeans still moving to Australia and Canada, though they are falling as a % of migration to those countries).
I'm curious about the extent to which he is an ethno-nationalist. I'm not sure he is really a White Nationalist, more concerned with preserving a culture with strong (Judeo-)Christian and European influence. Particularly Anglo-Saxon, apparently, since Hispanic culture has a very strong Christian and European influence yet seems to be on the "not welcome here" list.
I am too distant an observer to have a strongly informed opinion on such matters, but it strikes me that Republicans are unnecessarily sceptical of the power of the US Melting Pot. Or perhaps too impatient to let it do its job - the Italian-Americans, for example, took a long time to be accepted at "proper Americans" but also took a long time to stop talking Italian at home. Republicans must know they can't preserve "culture" in aspic - it's always been in a state of change, and many believe it currently is being destroyed from the inside, at university campuses and media sets nationwide. To me that is, if anything, an argument for the infusion of new blood to replenish it. And is it such a disaster if, for example, curry and chop suey are added to the Great American Menu? But then I'm talking from a different perspective and different set of values to them.
Republicans talking about Culture Wars often fought on unnecessary territory where they seem to be setting themselves up for inevitable defeat always remind me of this scene in "Cross of Iron":
Unteroffizier Schnurrbart: Rolf, what are we doing here? Sgt. Steiner: We are spreading the German culture throughout a desperate world.
To add to what I said up-thread, I think it's very difficult for democracies to be run purely for GDP growth to maintain relative hierarchical position, because of the societal disruption involved and the way rapid growth undermines attempts at redistribution. Look at Brexit, and further back how the US slammed on the brakes for immigration in the early 1920s.
The interesting question is when the Chinese population reaches breaking point in terms of widening inequality and demands less guns and more butter. Regardless of the timing, it seems crazy to me for the USA to attempt to maintain hegemony, particularly in Asia. The USA can only do so through war and/or total transformation of its own society through massive immigration, which Americans will never vote for!
It's laughable how you Tories love bashing great British institutions like the NT, BBC, NHS etc. Why can't you be a bit more patriotic!
Erhhh you realize I am not a Tory...until 2017 I had never voted for them at a GE. It was only the prospect of Jahadi Jez that meant I had to tactically vote for Kim Jong May.
The story makes the NT appear to be total twats. Sacking some bloke who has done the same job at that property for donkeys years because he hasn't got his NVQ in lawn mowing.
So May is now only twice as unpopular as Corbyn? And less popular here than Trump is in the US? Strike up the band!
A twenty point improvement is not to be sniffed at
Yeah I bet Cameron's rating never improved by that wide a margin, so even TSE must surely now concede she is the better PM.
But it is correct that she is more unpopular with the UK - almost twice as unpopular - as Trump is with the US. Remarkable.
Not that remarkable. Partisans tend to stick with their own and the US is more two-party partisan than we are.
The UK is split into red and blue and yellow and orange and purple and green ...
What proportion of the UK identifies as Tory versus Americans identify as Republican?
Being a Republican in the US has nowhere near the (well deserved) social stigma that being a Tory has in the UK not it's not really comparable.
44% of the UK population are Tories, similar to the proportion of the US who are Republicans.
Er... how did you work that out?
The vote share in the election.
Right, so 42.3% on a 69% turnout.
The thing is, none of us really know whether the non-voters are Tories, Labour or what. I'm inclined to think that most non-voters are 'none of the above' (aka 'can't be arsed'). Which makes me think that, based on the last election, NOTA has most support (31%), the Tories only have 29% support and Labour just 28% (round numbers). Something both Labour and Tories should bear in mind when fulfilling their 'mandate'.
Suspect it's similar in the US in many ways although there the two main parties mop up much more than 80% of the votes.
Not surprised. Both Corbyn and May are pretty terrible.
Both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Romney's statements are fantastic. Loved Schwarzenegger's statement in particular, I thought it was very eloquent. I also see that James Murdoch isn't too happy with Trump's reaction to Charlottesville either. It'll be very interesting to see where this goes from here. I agreed with some Conservative commentators on Twitter that the Democrats need to focus more on Trump's Charlottesville statements than the Confederate statues issue (as much as I agree with many Democrats on that).
Re Rees-Mogg @Big_G_NorthWales I haven't read anything that indicates he's winning over significant numbers of Tory MPs, or indeed that those who weren't already right leaning/anti-Corbyn support him. For the most part it seems he generating ethnuaism mostly among those who already voted Conservative. Surely they need to err, convince some of those who didn't vote for them in June that they should switch their vote? Perhaps the next Tory leader is someone not even on the radar right now.
Understand the logic, but actually disagree that we need more Tory voters.
We need more of the left to vote Lib Dem :-)
Given the brief bits of information I've read on Labour's Brexit position in recent weeks, I'd say that it's unlikely the LDs are going to take many votes from Labour. It looks like they are veering towards less of a hard Brexit position, which means that even discontented Remainers are likely to remain with them. Besides, although many who voted Labour are Remainers, they voted for Corbyn for reasons that were more than just disliking TMay's position on Brexit. The LDs right now, are still positioning themselves as the anti-Brexit party. While I agree with much of what Cable says, the LDs are going to need to be more than that if they want to take votes from Labour. Which right now, I see little signs of them doing, or at least doing it successfully.
I think that true. I prefer a Corbyn Brexit to the Tory Brexit. It is less xenophobic, and more interested in ppreserving and enhancing workers rights and protections.
So May is now only twice as unpopular as Corbyn? And less popular here than Trump is in the US? Strike up the band!
A twenty point improvement is not to be sniffed at
Yeah I bet Cameron's rating never improved by that wide a margin, so even TSE must surely now concede she is the better PM.
But it is correct that she is more unpopular with the UK - almost twice as unpopular - as Trump is with the US. Remarkable.
Not that remarkable. Partisans tend to stick with their own and the US is more two-party partisan than we are.
The UK is split into red and blue and yellow and orange and purple and green ...
What proportion of the UK identifies as Tory versus Americans identify as Republican?
Being a Republican in the US has nowhere near the (well deserved) social stigma that being a Tory has in the UK not it's not really comparable.
44% of the UK population are Tories, similar to the proportion of the US who are Republicans.
Let me see now: circa 150k Tory party members, UK population 65.6 million; 150k/65.5m = oh... 0.23% Mmmm
Yup - thickest comment of the night.
Bollocks, the thickness is in conflating "Tory" with "member of conservative party", an error so gross that if someone made it in one of those bonkers citizenship tests that would be an automatic fail.
It's laughable how you Tories love bashing great British institutions like the NT, BBC, NHS etc. Why can't you be a bit more patriotic!
Erhhh you realize I am not a Tory...until 2017 I had never voted for them at a GE. It was only the prospect of Jahadi Jez that meant I had to tactically vote for Kim Jong May.
The story makes the NT appear to be total twats. Sacking some bloke who has done the same job at that property for donkeys years because he hasn't got his NVQ in lawn mowing.
I apologise for misrepresenting you Mr U, although you've fooled me with a few of your posts (and if you voted Tory last time you are counted in Sean_F's 44%, just saying).
As a relative newbie it'd be really helpful if everyone could just indicate on a scale 1 to 10 (leftwing to rightwing) where they fit on the political scale (Id be about 3.5 I reckon)
But back to the topic: the Torygraph, Mail, Sun etc. and many r/w Tories love nothing better than to bash institutiomn that we should be really proud of. Of course they cock things up from time to time - every big organisation does (especially private companies btw and no doubt the r/w press cock things up occasionally too!). But overall generally don't get the credit they deserve and I wonder how much is because they don't fit the tory free enterprise ideal. The BBC and NT in particular are envied in many arts of the world.
Once again - apologies for call ing you a Tory - a terrible slur, can't think of a worse one
To add to what I said up-thread, I think it's very difficult for democracies to be run purely for GDP growth to maintain relative hierarchical position, because of the societal disruption involved and the way rapid growth undermines attempts at redistribution. Look at Brexit, and further back how the US slammed on the brakes for immigration in the early 1920s.
To get back to the important issue of century old statues: The slamming closed of the immigration door to the USA in the Twenties, the revival of the KKK and the rise of economic and diplomatic isolationism were all related in time, and the raising of Confederate statues fits in the cultural meme.
Immigration was perceived as changing the WASP character of America, particularly racially via Catholic and Jewish immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe as well as foreign influences such as Communism and Anarchism. These were the roots of nostalgia for the Old South as much as the films "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone With the Wind" or Minstrel songs. The Confederate statues are part of quite a marked cultural shift.
So May is now only twice as unpopular as Corbyn? And less popular here than Trump is in the US? Strike up the band!
A twenty point improvement is not to be sniffed at
Yeah I bet Cameron's rating never improved by that wide a margin, so even TSE must surely now concede she is the better PM.
But it is correct that she is more unpopular with the UK - almost twice as unpopular - as Trump is with the US. Remarkable.
Not that remarkable. Partisans tend to stick with their own and the US is more two-party partisan than we are.
The UK is split into red and blue and yellow and orange and purple and green ...
What proportion of the UK identifies as Tory versus Americans identify as Republican?
Being a Republican in the US has nowhere near the (well deserved) social stigma that being a Tory has in the UK not it's not really comparable.
44% of the UK population are Tories, similar to the proportion of the US who are Republicans.
Let me see now: circa 150k Tory party members, UK population 65.6 million; 150k/65.5m = oh... 0.23% Mmmm
Yup - thickest comment of the night.
Bollocks, the thickness is in conflating "Tory" with "member of conservative party", an error so gross that if someone made it in one of those bonkers citizenship tests that would be an automatic fail.
It was a wind-up Ish mate... just while I was waiting for a reply from Sean. Thanks for biting tho!
It's laughable how you Tories love bashing great British institutions like the NT, BBC, NHS etc. Why can't you be a bit more patriotic!
Erhhh you realize I am not a Tory...until 2017 I had never voted for them at a GE. It was only the prospect of Jahadi Jez that meant I had to tactically vote for Kim Jong May.
The story makes the NT appear to be total twats. Sacking some bloke who has done the same job at that property for donkeys years because he hasn't got his NVQ in lawn mowing.
I apologise for misrepresenting you Mr U, although you've fooled me with a few of your posts (and if you voted Tory last time you are counted in Sean_F's 44%, just saying).
As a relative newbie it'd be really helpful if everyone could just indicate on a scale 1 to 10 (leftwing to rightwing) where they fit on the political scale (Id be about 3.5 I reckon)
But back to the topic: the Torygraph, Mail, Sun etc. and many r/w Tories love nothing better than to bash institutiomn that we should be really proud of. Of course they cock things up from time to time - every big organisation does (especially private companies btw and no doubt the r/w press cock things up occasionally too!). But overall generally don't get the credit they deserve and I wonder how much is because they don't fit the tory free enterprise ideal. The BBC and NT in particular are envied in many arts of the world.
Once again - apologies for call ing you a Tory - a terrible slur, can't think of a worse one
Anti-Corbyn != Tory....
You would be hard pressed to find many positive posts I have made about the current government.
Comments
Does Donald think he's still hosting 'The Apprentice'.
Catalonian police confirmed that it was the owner of the Ford Focus - and not the driver - who was found inside after it was abandoned.
The man had been stabbed to death in the passenger seat in a possible carjacking by the third suspect arrested in the wake of the attacks, it has been suggested.
No, he'll be leading Labour and the Tories better hope they have salvaged something credible from Brexit and have a more than half decent campaigner.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/898597411580465152
But it is correct that she is more unpopular with the UK - almost twice as unpopular - as Trump is with the US. Remarkable.
(Edit: got my approve disapprove round the wrong way
The UK is split into red and blue and yellow and orange and purple and green ...
What proportion of the UK identifies as Tory versus Americans identify as Republican?
IIRC Dave saw a 40% improvement in a month back in the Autumn of 2007.
And I think he saw a 20% swing in a month the Autumn of 2011, which was a correction following the hit he took after the phone hacking revelations involving Millie Dowler.
He avoided what virtually every one of us (and all the pundits) expected to be a Labour decimation and that keep him going until the next GE (which he will then enter in a markedly better position than GE2017!)
September 2007, Gordon Brown had a 40% lead over David Cameron in the satisfaction ratings.
October 2007, Brown had a 1% lead over Cameron in the satisfaction ratings. So a 39% shift in a month.
By November 2007 Cameron had a 29% lead over Brown, so that was a 30% swing in a month and a 69% shift in two months.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/political-monitor-satisfaction-ratings-1997-present
In the space of a few weeks this year Mrs May turned a 69% lead over Corbyn into a 3% deficit, so that's a 72% movement.
As I said, Mrs May's a pound shop Gordon Brown.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/
(Although tbf, most of the posts are arguing about it rather than brexit, statues, terrorists or whether effin' SeanT will ever reappear, so maybe it's a great thread header!
"Ladies, if we could s*** our own d***, you'd all be here on you own. Watching an empty stage."
https://twitter.com/riotwomennn/status/898373115708878849
https://twitter.com/libshipwreck/status/898214705403236355
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/898637705504018432
It may be bong-kers. But it's British.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4801834/Barcelona-terrorists-wanted-kill-big-trucks.html
That's the problem.
- until he's dictator anyway.
1. Trump cannot sack him.
2. The right wing of the Republicans will back him [ not the alt-right ].
Pence and his friends have to strike before 2020,because:
1. Trump could lose the election in 2020, and / or
2. Trump may not pick Pence as his running mate.
It is in Pence's interest that Congress moves against Trump in this term.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/18/gardener-let-go-national-trust-property-needed-qualifications/
Members of Congressional GOP are in the process of counting the heads with a view to ousting Trump. My understanding is that numbers not quite critical mass but, be clear, its being talked about.
It might be wise if they can get the numbers, the investigations into him will not only finish him but will do his party considerable blast damage.
Pence might sound an idea but he is the firing line on investigations too and is a person of interest with the Feds if not the NY state investigations.
I think I posted a while back about Trump and his love of the generals that now have key posts in his administration. Its his reflected glory idea. The military men represent something he admires and wishes he could be, but isn't and in a way he is slightly in awe of them.
He gives then a long leash which could well be to his detriment as they are really the guys making the purges of the idealogues. They may well play a role in his removal if the investigations don't get to him first.
Bear in mind, impeachment is just one route. There are others available.
Serious question for y'all though. RCS might be best-placed to answer it, but will take all-comers .
Bannon's central contention is that that USA is in danger of losing its mantle as the world's most important economy to China, and that decisions taken over the next few years could lock the USA in to that trajectory in a way that becomes impossible to escape from.
That part does not seem unreasonable. (Some people might go so far as to suggest that eventual cross-over is as good as locked in already.) Moreover, a decline in economic power will likely presage a decline in political and other clout. If you regard maintaining your country's primacy as vital, and particularly don't wish to see it usurped by a country with a repressive government and very different strategic interests, then the economic struggle is a good thing to focus on.
But three things confuse me. Firstly, he resorts to the language of "economic warfare". Now using military analogies in economics has a long history (one could reasonably talk of e.g. a "battle for growth") but the way he uses it suggests he sees economics, and trade particularly, as a zero-sum game. That suggests major conceptual misunderstandings. But am I just misreading him?
Secondly, he seems to believe that China is "winning" because China is "playing dirty" and so the US must be prepared to play dirty back. Is he misunderstanding the major drivers of Chinese growth? Yes it's true there is e.g. massive rip-off of intellectual property. But it's also much easier for a poor country to grow than for an already-developed one, for obvious reasons. My (limited) understanding is that Chinese TFP growth over the last 10 years or so has not been so dramatic, and like the Asian Tigers of yore, Chinese growth is currently being driven largely by increases in factor inputs. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I can't see that a huge % of this is about "playing dirty". If the USA "plays dirty" back, is he thinking in terms of boosting US growth, or trying to hinder Chinese growth - in which case, what could his ideally-led USA do that would seriously impact the factors underlying Chinese growth right now? In his military terminology, what "weapons" do they have in the arsenal? Encouraging a few largely-automated factory processes to relocate to the USA doesn't seem to me to cut it.
Thirdly, if he really does want the USA to remain Numero Uno Del Mondo economically and otherwise, why not go for the obvious route of increasing the US population? The US has both the space, and the migration demand, to continue growing when other developed (and even many developing) countries have stalling or even rapidly falling populations. US population growth presently is about 0.7% annually and slowing (if maintained, takes about 100 years for population to double, but the slowing means this wouldn't happen) but if you could double the rate up to 1.4% and keep it there, doubling time would be under 50 years.
If the world population stabilises in the middle of this century in a state that leaves 600-700 million Americans, they are not going to be sliding very far down the power lists. They would likely have better-looking demographics than China at that point. The USA is so attractive it could easily drain the brain-reserves of the rest of the world, to its own great benefit, yet currently its self-imposed limits are preventing it from doing so. US Big Business would welcome more migration. Yet Bannon's stance on immigration is hardline. If his central priority is economic warfare with China, why is he tying one hand behind his back?
If his central premise was "less low-skilled migration, uncontrolled migration, and migration from volatile parts of the world, but we are selectively turning the taps to full-blast for professional, educated, wealth-creating individuals - particularly from Europe and Asia who we believe will more easily be assimilated [and parenthetically, less likely to vote Democrat]" then I might recoil at the implicit racism or demographic gerrymandering, but those are nothing new to US politics, and I'd certainly see the logic and how it slotted into his grand plan for American supremacy over China. Instead it seems closer to "no Mexicans, no Muslims, no-one much else if we can help it". It's "Americans first", where "Americans" are the ones there already, not potential future Americans. That's no different to a lot of countries, and it suggests a mindset in which modern America is "mature" and no longer needs that historical growth... but the acceptance of that in parts of Europe and Japan has generally been coupled with the acceptance of relative demographic and economic decline and a withering away of relative power. Yet Bannon doesn't want to play the game of managed decline. He wants the USA to be the biggest guy at the Big Table, forever. He's not an idiot. How does he reconcile this apparent contradiction?
Not interested in Bannon-bashing answers (though if it pleases ye, then go right ahead), genuinely trying to understand the man and his philosophy. Reminds me a lot of Steve Hilton - possibly a complete crank, but one with brains, and a distinctive world-view that has come to actually bear influence the world around us, hence worth attempting to comprehend a little on that score alone.
Given the number of times Trump invoked Icahn's name during the campaign this will be more damaging than most of the other departures.
I'm curious about the extent to which he is an ethno-nationalist. I'm not sure he is really a White Nationalist, more concerned with preserving a culture with strong (Judeo-)Christian and European influence. Particularly Anglo-Saxon, apparently, since Hispanic culture has a very strong Christian and European influence yet seems to be on the "not welcome here" list.
I am too distant an observer to have a strongly informed opinion on such matters, but it strikes me that Republicans are unnecessarily sceptical of the power of the US Melting Pot. Or perhaps too impatient to let it do its job - the Italian-Americans, for example, took a long time to be accepted at "proper Americans" but also took a long time to stop talking Italian at home. Republicans must know they can't preserve "culture" in aspic - it's always been in a state of change, and many believe it currently is being destroyed from the inside, at university campuses and media sets nationwide. To me that is, if anything, an argument for the infusion of new blood to replenish it. And is it such a disaster if, for example, curry and chop suey are added to the Great American Menu? But then I'm talking from a different perspective and different set of values to them.
Republicans talking about Culture Wars often fought on unnecessary territory where they seem to be setting themselves up for inevitable defeat always remind me of this scene in "Cross of Iron":
Unteroffizier Schnurrbart: Rolf, what are we doing here?
Sgt. Steiner: We are spreading the German culture throughout a desperate world.
The interesting question is when the Chinese population reaches breaking point in terms of widening inequality and demands less guns and more butter. Regardless of the timing, it seems crazy to me for the USA to attempt to maintain hegemony, particularly in Asia. The USA can only do so through war and/or total transformation of its own society through massive immigration, which Americans will never vote for!
The story makes the NT appear to be total twats. Sacking some bloke who has done the same job at that property for donkeys years because he hasn't got his NVQ in lawn mowing.
Sounds like fun!
The thing is, none of us really know whether the non-voters are Tories, Labour or what. I'm inclined to think that most non-voters are 'none of the above' (aka 'can't be arsed'). Which makes me think that, based on the last election, NOTA has most support (31%), the Tories only have 29% support and Labour just 28% (round numbers). Something both Labour and Tories should bear in mind when fulfilling their 'mandate'.
Suspect it's similar in the US in many ways although there the two main parties mop up much more than 80% of the votes.
As a relative newbie it'd be really helpful if everyone could just indicate on a scale 1 to 10 (leftwing to rightwing) where they fit on the political scale (Id be about 3.5 I reckon)
But back to the topic: the Torygraph, Mail, Sun etc. and many r/w Tories love nothing better than to bash institutiomn that we should be really proud of. Of course they cock things up from time to time - every big organisation does (especially private companies btw and no doubt the r/w press cock things up occasionally too!). But overall generally don't get the credit they deserve and I wonder how much is because they don't fit the tory free enterprise ideal. The BBC and NT in particular are envied in many arts of the world.
Once again - apologies for call ing you a Tory - a terrible slur, can't think of a worse one
Immigration was perceived as changing the WASP character of America, particularly racially via Catholic and Jewish immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe as well as foreign influences such as Communism and Anarchism. These were the roots of nostalgia for the Old South as much as the films "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone With the Wind" or Minstrel songs. The Confederate statues are part of quite a marked cultural shift.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/aug/18/tunbridge-wells-residents-complain-about-sex-festival-in-the-woods
One thing puzzled me, though:
“Our outdoor dungeon is discreetly secluded, furnished with fetish play equipment and monitored by our friendly assistants. "
Of course I've led a sheltered life, but surely the whole point about a fetish play dungeon is that the assistants are far from friendly?
Puzzled from near Tunbridge Wells.
You would be hard pressed to find many positive posts I have made about the current government.