Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From Core TV – focus on PB, Brexit, the “Democrats”, the Tory
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From Core TV – focus on PB, Brexit, the “Democrats”, the Tory leadership and more
No David Herdson with his usual Saturday morning post this morning but instead this TV feature on PB and many of the issues we’ve been discussing on the site over the past few weeks.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Now all I need is 25 minutes to watch the video ...
Good to see I'm not the only insomniac.
"I ran for the county council in 1989, and my main opposition in the division where I was standing was an SDP candidate"
"Main" opposition? Is that an example of the numerical spinning of alt-centre fanaticism?
Bedfordshire County Council 1989
De Parys division
Smithson M. (LD) 1,060 (52.5%)
Groves S. Ms. (Con) 795 (39.4%)
Struthers J. Ms. (SDP) 164 (8.1%)
http://www.electionscentre.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bedfordshire-County.pdf
Always good to see OGH on the big screen.
Thanks for visting BetMoose. Unfortunately, your IP address is located within a jurisdiction that has threatened to shut us down unless we prevent you from using BetMoose" from that link
The reason i think this might happen, is that neither Theresa May or any of her ministers are denying that Brexit talks due in October will be delayed, as not enough progress had been made. One key issue is the financial settlement, which will be very difficult to gain agreement on. And if this is not agreed, then talks don't move on to trade deals. It will get to the stage where Brexit by March 2019 based on any deal will be unlikely and there is too much opposition in Parliament to a hard form of Brexit. That will trigger calls for an election or change in government.
Glorious twelfth. Although it’s a week late!
Not that I'm about to start betting in Bitcoins though, on a market that only seems to have taken three bets this month!
Be interesting to see how much of a viewership a current events channel can get. Hope it does well (and is neutral/balanced).
But does parliament's view on a 'no deal' scenario make any difference? As I understand it the implications of A50 kick in and the EU treaties simply lapse after March 2019.
Firstly the Government advised the Supreme court during the A.50 case that Parliament would be fully involved and would have a vote on any deal.
Secondly Government told Parliament that they would have a vote on Brexit.
Thirdly, if Government attempted to simply let Brexit happen without any deal and ignored Parliament, then i would expect a vote of no confidence. And there might also be a number of court applications made, which would put the A.50 period on hold.
https://twitter.com/AnneRiceAuthor/status/898343712723410944
Have just made my first ever tweets in response to this - although I've been on Twitter for years, I've always been silent and just followed key things I thought might be interesting (e.g. the DfE).
The simple point is that unfortunately however well meant this comment is, it is straightforwardly wrong (I can't answer for Clinton's comment she's 'never been' in such a church - not knowing how which churches she's been in). Liege has already been mentioned. However, almost all medieval churches in England at least had images of the Devil in them - these might be statues, or carvings. They were by the door, and reminded people as they left that they were heading back into the World, where temptation and evil lurked for them.
Many were destroyed in the Reformation of course by iconoclasts, and many more by the Victorians with their penchant for ripping things down and rebuilding in their own image (plain and boring on the outside, remarkable things going on underneath). However, there are survivors. Go to Dursley Church in Gloucestershire and you will see the head of Satan above and slightly to the left of the south door. It survived I think because it was too high up to hit with a hammer and Dursley, as the seat of the Archdeacon of Gloucester, was better protected than many others.
This cuts both ways, of course. It could show that we've always had contempt for the iconography/statuary of the past. Which is true, and therefore takes the sting out of the current debate. Or it could show that when you've destroyed such things, you forget what they were.
As an aside, while I was there we had this sort of thing going on in Bristol, over Sir Edward Colston (a slave trader) and his enormous statue. I thought the most sensible comment came from a descendant of some of his victims, who said that if the statue were torn down it would be almost hiding Bristol's past, rather than explaining it. He was firmly against removing the statue. Admittedly, since then things have moved on and Colston Hall is now going to be renamed under pressure from campaigners, and maybe one of the schools named after him will follow suit. But it still seems more sensible than either the 'hang on to them because they were decent people' or 'tear them down because their views were not ours' that America is polarising into at the moment.
As an aside, perhaps it would be more useful if campaigners instead focussed on demolishing the White House, which was built with slave labour. If Trump were inside it at the time, that would solve two problems at once!
2) They've already had one.
3) Legal action would not, so far as I can see, stop A50. It would need the consent of all the other states in the EU to do so, anyway. Otherwise, we could be kept in the EU indefinitely just by launching consecutive legal challenges, which is obviously not what was the intention.
The whole situation is ridiculous, and I imagine that A50 will be radically altered at the next change of EU Treaties so it reflects reality rather than the muddled and never particularly sharp mind of Giscard. Unfortunately, we are where we are.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that our best hope is for the EU to impose an unofficial customs union by saying that there is no requirement for border checks and therefore we maintain a porous border by default. However, I am also thinking that while the Irish would follow that recommendation, the French wouldn't.
EDIT - that was not a great advert for blockquote.
However, the fact is that they are there. The suggestion was that they are not. It depends, I suppose, on how you look at them and what they represent to you. Lucifer's statues could also be taken, in a secular context, to represent the clash between good and evil. Confederate statues seem to raise much stronger passions.
The confederacy statues symbolise different things to different people. Why they are falling now is because some of those defending them - the noisiest part, actually - are choosing to let them symbolise the same thing that those who oppose them see them as symbolising, meaning that battle needs to be refought in the present.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4804106/Fired-Bannon-says-Trump-presidency-fought-over.html
The key difference with those, to my mind at least, is that they were erected by outside people who were oppressing the local inhabitants as part of that oppression, and were removed as a sign that oppression was over. I can't quite see the same thing about people who died 150 years ago whose statues are being removed by their descendants as much as their victims. Arguably, for that to be true it should have been done in the 1960s (that is not to suggest that life has been sweetness and roses for African Americans since then, or that racism and discrimination was not and still is a fact of life for many of them - just a sign that that is when, in effect, it went from being legal to illegal).
Feel free to disagree, as it is quite a semantic point.
Interesting comment on some on both sides of the argument (in the US) agreeing what the statues represent, though.
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/poll-62-americans-favor-keeping-confederate-statues
There's a few quid at 32 available on Betfair for Damian Green as next PM, or 22 for next Con leader.
One comparison I might make that wasn't made in the piece would be the unpopularity of the SNP for banging on about a second referendum, with the unpopularity of the LDs for also banging on about a second referendum.
Firstly the Government advised the Supreme court during the A.50 case that Parliament would be fully involved and would have a vote on any deal.
Secondly Government told Parliament that they would have a vote on Brexit.
Thirdly, if Government attempted to simply let Brexit happen without any deal and ignored Parliament, then i would expect a vote of no confidence. And there might also be a number of court applications made, which would put the A.50 period on hold.
PETERC replies:
I think the crux of the matter is that the default position is not REMAIN; inaction in the face of no deal seems to lead to a crash-out Brexit.
To stay in the EU would surely require parliament to pass legislation to revoke A50 and for the EU27 to agree to this. The same would apply to extending the A50 notification period beyond two years.
This may happen but would represent a total volte face in policy. Would there really be a majority for this?
If there is a deal then parliament will be given a vote, we are told. But I expect the choice to be to leave with the deal or to leave with no deal. A last minute decision to remain in the EU is a very remote prospect imo.
As it happens, I swing back and forth on this subject. I'd be more comfortable with leaving them all up if there had not been such a concerted effort over many decades to airbrush some of the more difficult aspects of race relations in the south out of the history books. A few more statues to those on the other side of the divide would help to commemorate a different perspective on the past that needs to be heard more.
Perhaps a touch provocative but it would be funny to watch everyone tying themselves in knots over them.
The most important thing for us from the Article 50 talks is continuity, misnamed as transition or implementation. So that the basic things continue in the same way after we leave. Trade flows, planes fly, power stays switched on. While it seems obvious that these things will be agreed, they do have to be agreed. In fact this is so important that nothing else matters very much at this stage - payments, final deal etc. The "transition" is the last thing to be decided by Article 50.
It's unfortunate that those opposed to that view are being highjacked by right-wing extremists (KKK, those waving Swastikas) and have allowed the liberal media to describe everyone opposed to removing statues as "Nazis". There's a big freedom of speech rally in Boston today, both sets of morons are expected to turn up again to hijack the event for their own purposes. It will be interesting to see what happens. As @Alice_Aforethought suggested last week, maybe we should make sure both sides have a good supply of weapons, then stand back and sell tickets to watch Civil War II.
Or perhaps you are a different DD?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40985528
The problem is if the statues symbolise an ongoing issue. If I were African-American I think I'd feel this is all symbolism, and what about tackling the real problems of my community? But if they become a rallying point for Nazis then I'm afraid they do need to come down.
Raikkonnen is the key that unlocks the driver market, if he stays at Ferrari for 2018 then not much happens elsewhere. The rumour is that Vettel has it in his contract that he gets a veto of team mate, so don't expect Hamilton or Ricciardo in the red cars any time soon.
It also appears that F1 people are slowly returning from holiday, some have been doing some reading...
https://twitter.com/MBrundleF1/status/897801462578860032
This is a really good doc, it's got all the changes from the 2016 version highlighted! Well worth a read for every F1 fan.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/confederate-monuments-civil-war-history-trump
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story-of-all-those-confederate-statues/
Yes, these monuments were put up to honor Confederate leaders and soldiers. But the timing of the monument building makes it pretty clear what the real motivation was: to physically symbolize white terror against blacks. They were mostly built during times when Southern whites were engaged in vicious campaigns of subjugation against blacks, and during those campaigns the message sent by a statue of Robert E. Lee in front of a courthouse was loud and clear.
Ferrari also like a number one driver approach so I doubt they'd go for two top dogs anyway.
Those technical directives do sound tremendously exciting
*trademark - j. Corbyn 2017
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/18/john-mcdonnell-labour-interview-power-tories-incompetent
Finland opposed the Iraq invasion and iirc has had nothing to do with Syria, Iran etc etc.
CNN had a good conspiracy theory going yesterday... Barcelona was caused by Charlottesville.
Historical account of his motives https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/64500682.pdf
It seems to have been his starting point that Charlottesville simply needed more statues. One can't rule out that this was a cover for racism, but there is nothing to suggest that.
While it's fair to say there has been debate over Lee's individual character, that has been in response to his defenders, and not the motivation for the statue removal.
It's also fair to point out that Charlottesville isn't tearing down the statue - it is removing it for sale. And to underline my point about symbolism, the mayor of the city has changed his mind in favour of removal for precisely that reason:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/charlottesville-mayors-remarks-regarding-the-robert-e-lee-statue/537366/
http://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/861-robert-e-lee-to-david-mcconaughy-1869-august-5
https://patch.com/tennessee/green-hills/oak-hill-mayor-asks-governor-block-infamous-nathan-bedford-forrest-statue
Fox doesn't want any Wallonias getting in his way.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/brexit-britain-trump-america-new-‘special-relationship’-21911
Trump and May appear to have started off well in a long-term partnership, given that they are both struggling to deal with domestic problems and shaky international reputations. Their suspicions of modern globalization, in particular towards free trade and immigration, will cement their personal bond.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/18/enough-blaming-west-terror-will-continue-muslims-reject-need/
'The statue was built by the late Jack Kershaw, a lawyer, who among other things, defended Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassin James Earl Ray'
It is just as likely this cluster is only halfway through, not over. Spain & Finland are likely to have had some kind of cell control. Russia unclear. That control extends to a number of UK & EU based cells. Only a handful that went through the hands of the Libyan branch of IS have turned up in attacks or been put in jail. Then there is the individuals that went through the Syrian based training schools to co-ordinate and lead attacks.
For anyone still left with some doubts and somehow excusing of these guys or trying to 'understand' their motivation, its been picked up via big ears that planting explosives on Christmas trees might be worth trying later this year. Thats what you are dealing with.
No more understanding of motivation is needed, its understood, its now how to combat it.
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/50487800.jpg
'Kershaw justified the memorial by saying, "Somebody needs to say a good word for slavery"'
Statues and symbols are just that, symbols. All the archive footage you see of liberated towns and cities in WW2 in Europe starts with swastikas and other symbols of German rule being destroyed followed by the collaborators being identified and dealt with variously.
As Britain has never endured foreign occupation in recent times, it may seem strange to us but then neither has the US. In WW1, shops with German names were attacked in many towns and cities across Britain - the name was forcibly removed and even our Royal Family had to de-Germanise their identity.
Internal civil conflicts are of course so much more intense - we manage to have statues of both Charles I and Cromwell but our civil war was different to the American experience and two hundred years earlier. I recall reading during the French Revolution the first thing the peasants did on seizing the houses of the aristocrats who basically owned them was to burn all the written records because, in their eyes, it freed them from their servitude.
Symbols, whether the power of the written word, religious in nature or a name above a shop, matter in times of crisis and catharsis. For many ordinary people, toppling a statue of the dictator is a personal statement of their desire to want rid and a way of exercising their new-found freedom in the absence of fear.
In modern times, you have draft cards, Poll Tax bills and even underwear - whatever the symbol of your actual or imagined oppression.
John Malcolm Patterson was the AG of Alabama I think who used the death penalty against an African-American chap who stole some money from a white woman's unattended purse.
Went onto become Governor of Alabama, with the support of the KKK.
Interestingly he recanted his views and backed Barack Obama in 2008.