Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.
Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.
I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
Social mobility is actually higher in the UK than the US, albeit not much, although both lag Australia and the Nordic countries. The UK also has a higher average net worth than the US once you include The value of people's homes even though the US has a higher average per capita income
I think the difficulty is that social mobility varies tremendously by geography, so very poor in Appalachia, reasonably good in coastal California. I suspect the same also goes for the UK, albeit our geography is more compact. (Snip)
Is the biggest factor in social mobility is physical mobility? If you are born in a sh*thole, the ability to move out to a better area with more opportunities. An advantage that would most be taken advantage of by the driven.
Yes, I think so, and one of the reasons that London house prices are so toxic to the economic prospects. Talented people cannot move there, and it is much harder in most of the provinces to reach critical economic mass for new creative industries. Manchester or Bristol possibly, but not every provincial city can support a design and software culture.
I also note on my travels that internationally this is true. Middle class lifestyles in Africa or Asia increasingly resemble western Norms, while the mass of poor people in these places live very different lives indeed.
The series of travelogues on the Indian/Pakistan border showing at 2100 on Monday (after Nadiya's campaign to spread diabetes!) are quite revealing this way.
But London being the significant driver, as your post suggests, is also utterly toxic.
They did in 2015 too yet the Tories won a majority, it was the dementia tax not twitter which lost May her majority
Probably both. Social media helped turn out student first time voters. Dementia tax scared the living daylights out of middle and old age voters with property in the family.
No it was the opposition to tuition fees which turned out the young who Ed Miliband won anyway. It was the middle aged voters lost through the dementia tax which was key
But surely Ed didn't win the young in the numbers of actual turn-out-to-votes that Corbyn did?
With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?
Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.
Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.
I think the mood music of "we're staying because we don't want it to turn out like Iraq" will be well-received. Or of course like Afghan in 2003-onwards. Thing is, the resources required to ensure that it doesn't would dwarf both the Iraq and Afghan commitments at the height of those conflicts.
So he is in the strange position of not wanting to cut and run for admirable reasons, but of not having a hope in hell of achieving that aim because forget Washington insiders, the US public would not stand for hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground to create a space for civic society to emerge. And nor of course would the British public which is why our commitment will be limited to advisers.
And the big question which i think Trump mentioned, is what do you do about Pakistan ?
Good luck with that one. And to be fair to Pakistan, it is not the only country providing Taliban and other groups with constant resupply of recruits, equipment, finance etc.
I can't see that Pakistan authorities were not aware that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan.
With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?
Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.
Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.
Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
I supported actions in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time. It is only in recent years that i have questioned whether such actions make any sense in the long run. If it just provides a recruitment opportunity for terrorist groups, then it can't make any sense. If you have a problem in a particular country, then they need to sort it out within the region possibly with outside training or financial support.
If you look at ISIS recruitment for example, they have had people join them from all over the world. I just wonder whether ISIS would have ever existed had it not been for Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Iraq almost certainly gave it a stimulus which it would not have got from Afghanistan alone. I’m no foreign policy wonk, but it seems to me that from time immemorial what we now know as Afghanistan has been regarded with caution by it’s neighbours.
Of course now they’ve achieved Test cricket status things may improve!
With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?
Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.
Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.
Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
I supported actions in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time. It is only in recent years that i have questioned whether such actions make any sense in the long run. If it just provides a recruitment opportunity for terrorist groups, then it can't make any sense. If you have a problem in a particular country, then they need to sort it out within the region possibly with outside training or financial support.
If you look at ISIS recruitment for example, they have had people join them from all over the world. I just wonder whether ISIS would have ever existed had it not been for Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
If you want to understand where ISIS originated (no one place, of course, but Egypt would be as good a place to start as any) you should try reading Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower.
Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
This is nonsense and you know it.
The 9/11 attacks were on an unprecedented size, scale and severity and there had to be a response and naturally the British public (and let's not forget British people died in New York that day too) were supportive of the attempt to hunt down and eliminate Bin Laden and AQ.
The "clueless pacifist left" (of which I'm one by your measure) were more doubtful about intervention in Iraq and unlike your hapless Party leader at the time, didn't believe the propaganda and didn't want to join Bush's foolish adventure. I think that view was vindicated by what has happened subsequently.
What is the "answer" to radical Islam ? Well, you'd better believe if there was an easy one we'd be doing it by now. I suppose if the radicals are coming in from outside, there is something you can do - if the radicals are your own people and are among you already, that becomes much more difficult.
No it is not nonsense as 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan. The clue to beating radical Islam is both stopping the bases it comes from and toughening up border control. I never made an argument about Iraq
With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?
Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.
Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.
Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
I supported actions in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time. It is only in recent years that i have questioned whether such actions make any sense in the long run. If it just provides a recruitment opportunity for terrorist groups, then it can't make any sense. If you have a problem in a particular country, then they need to sort it out within the region possibly with outside training or financial support.
If you look at ISIS recruitment for example, they have had people join them from all over the world. I just wonder whether ISIS would have ever existed had it not been for Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
ISIS just took over where Al Qaeda left off and were as much from Syria where we did not intervene as Iraq where we did
It's moved down quite sharply in the last couple of days. Trump's popularity figure is now down to 37.1%, not much above his all time low of 36.6%. These are historically very low numbers. Anything below 40% is dangerous. I should think if he gets below 35% he's losing the base and his own Party will want to see him gone before he can do much more damage.
The betting markets have responded accordingly and started to shorten once more the odds of him not making the full term. The only odds to lengthen are those on him going this year, but that would be due to elapse of time rather than his position becoming stronger.
It takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict a President, we are still a long way from that, especially if the Democrats fail to take the Senate next year even if they take the House
A conviction would be only one of a number of ways in which he might go. He could just walk, for a start. But if there's a will, there is sure to be a way and 35% is the level at which I would think the will becomes almost irresistible.
Possible but his base will support him regardless and they represent about 35%
Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
This is nonsense and you know it.
The 9/11 attacks were on an unprecedented size, scale and severity and there had to be a response and naturally the British public (and let's not forget British people died in New York that day too) were supportive of the attempt to hunt down and eliminate Bin Laden and AQ.
The "clueless pacifist left" (of which I'm one by your measure) were more doubtful about intervention in Iraq and unlike your hapless Party leader at the time, didn't believe the propaganda and didn't want to join Bush's foolish adventure. I think that view was vindicated by what has happened subsequently.
What is the "answer" to radical Islam ? Well, you'd better believe if there was an easy one we'd be doing it by now. I suppose if the radicals are coming in from outside, there is something you can do - if the radicals are your own people and are among you already, that becomes much more difficult.
No it is not nonsense as 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan. The clue to beating radical Islam is both stopping the bases it comes from and toughening up border control. I never made an argument about Iraq
I refer to my earlier post; surely 9/11 was Saudi led and originated.
With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?
Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.
Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.
Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
I supported actions in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time. It is only in recent years that i have questioned whether such actions make any sense in the long run. If it just provides a recruitment opportunity for terrorist groups, then it can't make any sense. If you have a problem in a particular country, then they need to sort it out within the region possibly with outside training or financial support.
If you look at ISIS recruitment for example, they have had people join them from all over the world. I just wonder whether ISIS would have ever existed had it not been for Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Al'qaeda predated both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ISIS is the latest incarnation of a long existing problem and it is simplistic in the extreme to suggest that if we hadn't had those wars we woild have no problems today.
Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
This is nonsense and you know it.
The 9/11 attacks were on an unprecedented size, scale and severity and there had to be a response and naturally the British public (and let's not forget British people died in New York that day too) were supportive of the attempt to hunt down and eliminate Bin Laden and AQ.
The "clueless pacifist left" (of which I'm one by your measure) were more doubtful about intervention in Iraq and unlike your hapless Party leader at the time, didn't believe the propaganda and didn't want to join Bush's foolish adventure. I think that view was vindicated by what has happened subsequently.
What is the "answer" to radical Islam ? Well, you'd better believe if there was an easy one we'd be doing it by now. I suppose if the radicals are coming in from outside, there is something you can do - if the radicals are your own people and are among you already, that becomes much more difficult.
No it is not nonsense as 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan. The clue to beating radical Islam is both stopping the bases it comes from and toughening up border control. I never made an argument about Iraq
I refer to my earlier post; surely 9/11 was Saudi led and originated.
Bin Laden could only form his training camps and direct operations from Afghanistan not Saudi even if some terrorists came from Saudi
Radio silence for over half a day - so either he's en-route home, Twitter have shut him down or Theresa May has...(provide your own conspiracy here...)
With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?
Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.
Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.
Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
I supported actions in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time. It is only in recent years that i have questioned whether such actions make any sense in the long run. If it just provides a recruitment opportunity for terrorist groups, then it can't make any sense. If you have a problem in a particular country, then they need to sort it out within the region possibly with outside training or financial support.
If you look at ISIS recruitment for example, they have had people join them from all over the world. I just wonder whether ISIS would have ever existed had it not been for Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Al'qaeda predated both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ISIS is the latest incarnation of a long existing problem and it is simplistic in the extreme to suggest that if we hadn't had those wars we woild have no problems today.
Agreed. I don’t anyone would pretend that Saddam Hussein was a devout Moslem. One of the tragedies of the Iraq War is that Iraq appears to be no longer a secular state.
With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?
Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.
Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.
Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
I supported actions in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time. It is only in recent years that i have questioned whether such actions make any sense in the long run. If it just provides a recruitment opportunity for terrorist groups, then it can't make any sense. If you have a problem in a particular country, then they need to sort it out within the region possibly with outside training or financial support.
If you look at ISIS recruitment for example, they have had people join them from all over the world. I just wonder whether ISIS would have ever existed had it not been for Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
ISIS just took over where Al Qaeda left off and were as much from Syria where we did not intervene as Iraq where we did
I have a feeling that hardline Islamists who were worried by the Arab spring and apparent move to a more westernised way of living, were behind ISIS and other groups. There has always been suspicion that terrorist groups are supported from Saudi Arabian sources.
No it is not nonsense as 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan. The clue to beating radical Islam is both stopping the bases it comes from and toughening up border control. I never made an argument about Iraq
You tried to make a cheap political point about "the left" opposing the initial intervention in Afghanistan but my recollection was there was very little opposition to the move to hunt down Bin Laden and AQ.
I think there's a debate as to whether that was the right move done in the right way and as I recall the response was hardly immediate. Indeed, the fact of Saudi involvement which must have been known at the time, was widely glossed over.
As to your "solutions" to radical Islam, more thought needed. The answer though should be something most Conservatives support and that's capitalism. People who are busy making money have less inclination to make trouble.
Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.
Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.
I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
Social mobility is actually higher in the UK than the US, albeit not much, although both lag Australia and the Nordic countries. The UK also has a higher average net worth than the US once you include The value of people's homes even though the US has a higher average per capita income
I think the difficulty is that social mobility varies tremendously by geography, so very poor in Appalachia, reasonably good in coastal California. I suspect the same also goes for the UK, albeit our geography is more compact. (Snip)
Is the biggest factor in social mobility is physical mobility? If you are born in a sh*thole, the ability to move out to a better area with more opportunities. An advantage that would most be taken advantage of by the driven.
Didn’t Norman Tebbit say something about that once?
It certainly applies in spades to millions of Eastern Europeans who have taken the opportunity to move thousands of miles for better paid work and opportunities.
They did not have massive welfare systems at home to sustain them and discourage mobility. The North of England does have that. Mobility is also about the push factor of needing to leave to go somewhere a lot better. Idleness is one of the evils that the Beveridge Report wrote about and the welfare state actually encouraged.
Mayweather to win by TKO, KO or disqualification is 5/6 with bet365.
This will look like a bullfight, Macgregor charging in wildly, Mayweather moving around before finishing him off. I think Macgregor will lose it completely and try a kick or wrestling move, 5/6 is great value.
I'm afraid I'm not going to dignify that publicity stunt by placing a wager on it... but if I were to, that seems like a good one.
With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?
Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.
Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.
I think the mood music of "we're staying because we don't want it to turn out like Iraq" will be well-received. Or of course like Afghan in 2003-onwards. Thing is, the resources required to ensure that it doesn't would dwarf both the Iraq and Afghan commitments at the height of those conflicts.
So he is in the strange position of not wanting to cut and run for admirable reasons, but of not having a hope in hell of achieving that aim because forget Washington insiders, the US public would not stand for hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground to create a space for civic society to emerge. And nor of course would the British public which is why our commitment will be limited to advisers.
And the big question which i think Trump mentioned, is what do you do about Pakistan ?
Good luck with that one. And to be fair to Pakistan, it is not the only country providing Taliban and other groups with constant resupply of recruits, equipment, finance etc.
I can't see that Pakistan authorities were not aware that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan.
Pakistan, or rather the ISI, is the Schrodingers cat of Afghan. Simultaneously helping, and also hindering efforts to inhibit AQ and other groups. Nothing happens without their say so and the US has long been aware (as tbf was Karzai).
Radio silence for over half a day - so either he's en-route home, Twitter have shut him down or Theresa May has...(provide your own conspiracy here...)
With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?
Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.
Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.
Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
I supported actions in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time. It is only in recent years that i have questioned whether such actions make any sense in the long run. If it just provides a recruitment opportunity for terrorist groups, then it can't make any sense. If you have a problem in a particular country, then they need to sort it out within the region possibly with outside training or financial support.
If you look at ISIS recruitment for example, they have had people join them from all over the world. I just wonder whether ISIS would have ever existed had it not been for Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
I think one of the problems is the 'affluent' west compared with the economies in the muslim world. Rather than trying to improve the local economies, the disaffected young men try to tear down what they see as the symbols of success/depravity.
I've read your posts on the US with interest, and I agree with your diagnosis of the gulf opening up in America. It's many years since I travelled through the midwest, but even there it was noticeable that the worst slums were not in the cities, but in the small towns. In this country, with its wholly different scale and much better transport links, we would normally expect that to be the other way around (which is of course often wrong, think of Whitehaven, but is the expectation).
However, I am intrigued that you say 'even' Trump can see that. Surely the whole point of the election was that 'only' Trump could see that? Not that he had any solutions of course, barring building walls that wouldn't be paid for, but he correctly identified, as did Sanders, that for roughly 50% of the country the economy was more screwed than one of Messalina's bodyguards. Hilary Clinton, for example, pitched her whole campaign on the basis of improving life for the 53% who already vote Democrat, and hinted she would actively harm some of the poorer supporters she had still in work by continue to hammer coal mining. Probably didn't help calling the other 47% of the country 'deplorable' but I don't think that on its own wouldn't have cost her the election. By giving the impression she was a toffee-nosed out-of-touch East Coast Liberal who didn't give a stuff about the inland areas or anyone who couldn't afford Obamacare - rightly or wrongly - she threw away places like Wisconsin that had voted Democrat for decades.
If you want a really rather good article on this, have a look here:
It's not as good as that wonderful David Wong piece on cracked, and it works on a false premise. However, in saying that one-half of Americans cannot afford a new car, because the cheapest model on the market is twice as expensive as a cheap European car due to well-meaning regulation, it is rather striking. It also points out that means the poor people can only drive duff cars - which are of course bad for the environment, safety etc that the regulations were meant to help. The ironic metaphor - try and make the economy better and you screw the poorest people you are trying to help - should make sobering reading. For cars in the US, read a university education in the UK.
I have to go out. But I hope you find it interesting.
Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.
In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.
Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
The gap between "those left behind" and those in good employment is much bigger. There is an article in the guardian today of a woman who works two jobs (in fast food outlets), rarely gets to see her kids awake and still has no money to cover the basics.
In the past many of the white working class still had the belief work hard and life will be better for me and the family in 10 years time. It is this group that Trump's slogan is aimed at, but it would not be so snappy if it were more truthful "Make America tolerable for the white working class again"
Rates of poverty in the US are no worse - probably better - than in the UK (though official measures are slippery things to compare directly). Perhaps the biggest difference is in the provision of education and healthcare for those at the bottom.
I think something like 1.5m Americans don't have running water....
I grew up in a house that was not connected to mains sewerage: indeed I remember coming back down from university one summer to find that a septic tank was being installed to replace the more basic arrangements that we had had. My point here is where do these 1.5m live? If they are isolated farmers and "running water" means the mains supply then that seems about right to me. If it means downtown Detroit then there is a major problem.
As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
Apparently, you also don't escape it by having two and half wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Actually, make that two and two halves. I forgot "Odyssey Dawn", which au moins had a cool name and the pleasing dramatic coda of Khaddafi getting buggered in that ditch.
I agree that Hillary failed to address the issues, and this is why she lost. She was not unique in this though. All of our politicians do the same. Several claim to feel the pain, but none have a serious solution.
Initially I backed Donald Trump to survive but I later formed the view that he was just too erratic to make it value to put money on the judgement or impulses of one man, so I closed the bet out for a marginal profit during one of his quieter periods.
I would still prefer to back his survival than take the other side of the bet but I'm not playing this one again. You don't have to bet.
Note that this isn’t a ‘Next President’ market, but on the winner of the 2020 election. Things may happen in the meantime that means next POTUS is Pence, for example.
As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
Apparently, you also don't escape it by having two and half wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
If by this you mean that UK foreign policy is to blame for Islamofascist terrorism in the UK, what explains its occurrence in Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, China, Denmark, India, Indonesia, the Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, the Philippines, and the UAE?
I am struggling to think of instances of, for example, Philippine aggression against Muslim countries. The common factor seems simply to be that Muslims live in or are able to enter these countries.
I grew up in a house that was not connected to mains sewerage: indeed I remember coming back down from university one summer to find that a septic tank was being installed to replace the more basic arrangements that we had had. My point here is where do these 1.5m live? If they are isolated farmers and "running water" means the mains supply then that seems about right to me. If it means downtown Detroit then there is a major problem.
Not being connected to sewers is one thing - but running out of clean water every month is crazy in the USA. I'm sure most of these are in rural areas - but it can't be right that people drink dirty water.
With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?
Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.
Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.
Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
If you look at ISIS recruitment for example, they have had people join them from all over the world. I just wonder whether ISIS would have ever existed had it not been for Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
If you want to understand where ISIS originated (no one place, of course, but Egypt would be as good a place to start as any) you should try reading Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower.
Reading the blurb, it mentions Sayyid Qutb. I recall Martin Amis pointing out what a loon Qutb was:
Qutb joins a club - where an epiphany awaits him. 'The dance is inflamed by the notes of the gramophone,' he wrote; 'the dance-hall becomes a whirl of heels and thighs, arms enfold hips, lips and breasts meet, and the air is full of lust.' You'd think that the father of Islamism had exposed himself to an early version of Studio 54 or even Plato's Retreat. But no: the club he joined was run by the church, and what he is describing, here, is a chapel hop in Greeley, Colorado. And Greeley, Colorado, in 1949, was dry. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/10/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety
Governments won't get a handle on terrorism until they start from the premise that if you're a particular type of young man, violence seems fun, and the better the justification for the violence, the more fun it seems. A lot of effort has gone into understanding and seeking to combat the justification for the violence. The problem will be most effectively addressed on the fun side of the equation.
I think the shine is starting to come of Ruth Davidson - her reinstatement of my 2 suspended local councillors is going to bring her criticism from all sides
Not only is it difficult to alter religious views, it's especially hard with Islam because there's no equivalent to the Pope who can issue an authoritative statement saying "Running over children isn't actually a pious act." It seems, not that I'm expert, far more fragmented. And that's coupled with the largely fundamentalist nature of it too, which also makes the leap from faith to fanatic smaller than, say, it would be for a Quaker.
What odds have people seen on Elizabath Warren as next PotUS?
11-1 with Ladcorals, which is comically low.
Is that ‘Next POTUS’ or ‘2010 election winner’ ?
If it’s the latter then there’s an arb on BF 11.5 to lay
Well that was what I was thinking, rather. Next PotUS and 2020 election winner could turn out to mean the same thing and I was wondering how best to construct the bet that they are.
Governments won't get a handle on terrorism until they start from the premise that if you're a particular type of young man, violence seems fun, and the better the justification for the violence, the more fun it seems. A lot of effort has gone into understanding and seeking to combat the justification for the violence. The problem will be most effectively addressed on the fun side of the equation.
It'll last about a generation, I think. 20, 25 more years of this. IRA same thing.
Not surprised, comes shortly after the Perez announcement at Force India.
Well that gums up next year’s driver market. Probably only a couple of moves for 2018 then, with more happening in 2019. I guess Alonso is now the key for ‘18.
But the IRA had a political objective, not a religious one.
I'd be wary of drawing too many comparisons.
Sure. But that's how long it takes young men to become middle-aged men and to lose interest for the most part in recreational violence. Football hooliganism is another example. That lasted about 25 years too.
For ugly, bigoted, badly dressed, charmless, socially inept young men whose religion forbids sex, blowing yourself up is the best way to get a girlfriend.
Of course it doesn't wholly forbid sex. You can get married then have temporary wives, so you can screw around on the side legitimately while married. But first you have to get married, and for that, the money has to work. If you're a 22-year-old loser from Luton, you don't have any money either.
This week's New Scientist has focussed on radicalisation, with particular reference to Islamic terrorism. The general conclusion seems to be that current counter-terrorist strategy is not only counter-productive but also risks damaging our own democracies. We are looking at it the wrong way round: religious extremism is symptomatic of societies that are under extreme stress rather than, as we tend to see it, a cause of terrorism. The basic reasons why young men and woman are prepared to fight for are varied and include such factors as desire for revenge, desire for status and financial gain; religion simply provides a unifying identity for them.
This week's New Scientist has focussed on radicalisation, with particular reference to Islamic terrorism. The general conclusion seems to be that current counter-terrorist strategy is not only counter-productive but also risks damaging our own democracies. We are looking at it the wrong way round: religious extremism is symptom of societies that are under extreme stress rather than, as we tend to see it, a cause of terrorism. The basic reasons why young men and woman are prepared to fight for are varied and include such factors as desire for revenge, desire for status and financial gain; religion simply provides a unifying identity for them.
I haven't read what it says but I am sceptical of rationalist attempts to explain away a death cult.
It is painful to stop believing in the purity, and the sanity, of the underdog. It is painful to start believing in a cult of death, and in an enemy that wants its war to last for ever.
Governments won't get a handle on terrorism until they start from the premise that if you're a particular type of young man, violence seems fun, and the better the justification for the violence, the more fun it seems. A lot of effort has gone into understanding and seeking to combat the justification for the violence. The problem will be most effectively addressed on the fun side of the equation.
I don't know, does anyone find turning themselves into a suicide bomber fun?
Off topic I see that bastion of liberal metropolitan elite snowflakes, Guido, has introduced a comments policy.
'Don't be a bore, stay on topic, if you want to impersonate a 1970s cab driver sod off to Breitbart or Mail Online.'
I was unaware that anyone actually read comments on Guido. Why in heaven's name would anyone bother? It would be like wading waistdeep through shit in search of the toy inside a Kinder Surprise.
Mr. Eagles, I think that's trying to create a false comparison.
That might have been a very much second tier aspiration, but the IRA's goal was for Northern Ireland to join the republic. That was the political cause that lay behind their terrorist/criminal acts.
But even were it so, that's a negotiable political matter. What's the area of negotiation we could have with ISIS, or their ilk? No to genocide, yes to crucifying children? No to archaeological desecration, yes to industrial scale rape?
Everything they stand for is unacceptable and the only result they want is the conversion, enslavement or death of everyone who doesn't subscribe to a particular and brutal form of Islam.
It's possible to negotiate about borders or political settlements. It's not possible to negotiate with the Master Faith, as they see themselves. They're insane, vicious supremacists.
Governments won't get a handle on terrorism until they start from the premise that if you're a particular type of young man, violence seems fun, and the better the justification for the violence, the more fun it seems. A lot of effort has gone into understanding and seeking to combat the justification for the violence. The problem will be most effectively addressed on the fun side of the equation.
I don't know, does anyone find turning themselves into a suicide bomber fun?
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Off topic I see that bastion of liberal metropolitan elite snowflakes, Guido, has introduced a comments policy.
'Don't be a bore, stay on topic, if you want to impersonate a 1970s cab driver sod off to Breitbart or Mail Online.'
I was unaware that anyone actually read comments on Guido. Why in heaven's name would anyone bother? It would be like wading waistdeep through shit in search of the toy inside a Kinder Surprise.
For comedy value in their shocking knowledge of history.
I remember after the Borough Market attack, some of the more Islamophobic posters were ranting into a fury about how it was unprecedented to have terrorist attacks 5 days before a general election.
Blissfully unaware the Guildford pub bombings took place five days before the October '74 election.
Mr. Eagles, I think that's trying to create a false comparison.
That might have been a very much second tier aspiration, but the IRA's goal was for Northern Ireland to join the republic. That was the political cause that lay behind their terrorist/criminal acts.
But even were it so, that's a negotiable political matter. What's the area of negotiation we could have with ISIS, or their ilk? No to genocide, yes to crucifying children? No to archaeological desecration, yes to industrial scale rape?
Everything they stand for is unacceptable and the only result they want is the conversion, enslavement or death of everyone who doesn't subscribe to a particular and brutal form of Islam.
It's possible to negotiate about borders or political settlements. It's not possible to negotiate with the Master Faith, as they see themselves. They're insane, vicious supremacists.
But you said the IRA had no religious objective.
That's demonstrably mince by you, it might not have been their primary objective, but religion did factor into one of their secondary objectives.
Without the political objective there'd be no terrorism campaign. The IRA/Northern Ireland terrorism was about politics, not religion. It's an utterly flawed comparison, like trying to compare the Scottish invasion of Ireland in the early 14th century with the First Crusade.
Mr. Eagles, I think that's trying to create a false comparison.
That might have been a very much second tier aspiration, but the IRA's goal was for Northern Ireland to join the republic. That was the political cause that lay behind their terrorist/criminal acts.
But even were it so, that's a negotiable political matter. What's the area of negotiation we could have with ISIS, or their ilk? No to genocide, yes to crucifying children? No to archaeological desecration, yes to industrial scale rape?
Everything they stand for is unacceptable and the only result they want is the conversion, enslavement or death of everyone who doesn't subscribe to a particular and brutal form of Islam.
It's possible to negotiate about borders or political settlements. It's not possible to negotiate with the Master Faith, as they see themselves. They're insane, vicious supremacists.
When people are desperate, they put their faith in extremists. It's no surprise that religious/nationalist fervour seems to correlate with social inequity.
Without the political objective there'd be no terrorism campaign. The IRA/Northern Ireland terrorism was about politics, not religion. It's an utterly flawed comparison, like trying to compare the Scottish invasion of Ireland in the early 14th century with the First Crusade.
Northern Ireland and Ireland is all about religion, ever since Pope Adrian issued his Papal Bull to Henry II.
Mr. Enjineeya, blaming social inequality for religious zealots running over children is a logical stretch which cannot bear the burden of scrutiny or reason.
Mr. Eagles, happy to hear you explain to the class the religious aspect of the Scottish invasion of Ireland in the early 14th century.
No it is not nonsense as 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan. The clue to beating radical Islam is both stopping the bases it comes from and toughening up border control. I never made an argument about Iraq
You tried to make a cheap political point about "the left" opposing the initial intervention in Afghanistan but my recollection was there was very little opposition to the move to hunt down Bin Laden and AQ.
I think there's a debate as to whether that was the right move done in the right way and as I recall the response was hardly immediate. Indeed, the fact of Saudi involvement which must have been known at the time, was widely glossed over.
As to your "solutions" to radical Islam, more thought needed. The answer though should be something most Conservatives support and that's capitalism. People who are busy making money have less inclination to make trouble.
No Corbyn and many of his left-wing colleagues opposed the intervention in Afghanistan and the killing of Bin Laden. So your recollection is not entirely correct.
Bin Laden came from one of the richest countries in the world, many ISIS supporters are rich and highly educated, capitalism alone will not solve the problem
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
Mr. Enjineeya, blaming social inequality for religious zealots running over children is a logical stretch which cannot bear the burden of scrutiny or reason.
Mr. Eagles, happy to hear you explain to the class the religious aspect of the Scottish invasion of Ireland in the early 14th century.
Well the religious aspect started in the 12th century, so you're already out by 200 years.
No it is not nonsense as 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan. The clue to beating radical Islam is both stopping the bases it comes from and toughening up border control. I never made an argument about Iraq
You tried to make a cheap political point about "the left" opposing the initial intervention in Afghanistan but my recollection was there was very little opposition to the move to hunt down Bin Laden and AQ.
I think there's a debate as to whether that was the right move done in the right way and as I recall the response was hardly immediate. Indeed, the fact of Saudi involvement which must have been known at the time, was widely glossed over.
As to your "solutions" to radical Islam, more thought needed. The answer though should be something most Conservatives support and that's capitalism. People who are busy making money have less inclination to make trouble.
No Corbyn and many of his left-wing colleagues opposed the intervention in Afghanistan and the killing of Bin Laden. So your recollection is not entirely correct.
Bin Laden came from one of the richest countries in the world, many ISIS supporters are rich and highly educated, capitalism alone will not solve the problem
Corbyn's thoughts on Afghanistan.
“Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months.
“After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.
“This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.”
In terms of his HoC comments, there's a few questions about our view of the Northern Alliance and then asking about bombs, cluster bombs (x3) & napalm.
He's remarkably quiet on the topic of opposing the invasion in the House of Commons.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Mr. Enjineeya, blaming social inequality for religious zealots running over children is a logical stretch which cannot bear the burden of scrutiny or reason.
I did no such thing. Social inequality does, however, create the condition for religious extremism to flourish. When they are actually asked, the primary motivation for would-be suicide attackers is typically revenge for perceived injustices against groups with which they identify, such as the bombing of their cities.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
Mayweather @ 1.29 makes me consider mortgaging the house.
No it is not nonsense as 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan. The clue to beating radical Islam is both stopping the bases it comes from and toughening up border control. I never made an argument about Iraq
You tried to make a cheap political point about "the left" opposing the initial intervention in Afghanistan but my recollection was there was very little opposition to the move to hunt down Bin Laden and AQ.
I think there's a debate as to whether that was the right move done in the right way and as I recall the response was hardly immediate. Indeed, the fact of Saudi involvement which must have been known at the time, was widely glossed over.
As to your "solutions" to radical Islam, more thought needed. The answer though should be something most Conservatives support and that's capitalism. People who are busy making money have less inclination to make trouble.
No Corbyn and many of his left-wing colleagues opposed the intervention in Afghanistan and the killing of Bin Laden. So your recollection is not entirely correct.
Bin Laden came from one of the richest countries in the world, many ISIS supporters are rich and highly educated, capitalism alone will not solve the problem
Corbyn's thoughts on Afghanistan.
“Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months.
“After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.
“This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.”
In terms of his HoC comments, there's a few questions about our view of the Northern Alliance and then asking about bombs, cluster bombs (x3) & napalm.
He's remarkably quiet on the topic of opposing the invasion in the House of Commons.
Corbyn voted against the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan in 2001 in the Commons which is pretty loud to me
Mr. Enjineeya, blaming social inequality for religious zealots running over children is a logical stretch which cannot bear the burden of scrutiny or reason.
I did no such thing. Social inequality does, however, create the condition for religious extremism to flourish. When they are actually asked, the primary motivation for would-be suicide attackers is typically revenge for perceived injustices against groups with which they identify, such as the bombing of their cities.
Budget surplus for the first time since 2002 due to unexpectedly high income tax receipts. Could be a sign of capital flight if people are paying themselves to get money out of the country.
Mr. Enjineeya, that's the excuse they may sometimes cite, but why attack Western countries (and many non-Western) with wildly varying political and military approaches? What's Finland ever done to the Middle East?
The common factor is Islam, particularly new recruits who are full of zeal and empty of knowledge, and a desire to atone for past sins (by committing an exciting array of new ones...). Similar social/economic conditions exist for plenty of other groups but they tend not to have such an extremist fringe. A fundamentalist religious outlook coupled with lack of central authority to definitively denounce lunatic acts is, unfortunately, the perfect cocktail for terrorism.
Mr. M, it was bloody flukey. But I'll take a 250/1 fluke. (Nearly got 200/1 this year. If Ocon hadn't ****ed up and hit Perez, the latter would've likely finished top 2 in Azerbaijan. One was not amused).
Budget surplus for the first time since 2002 due to unexpectedly high income tax receipts. Could be a sign of capital flight if people are paying themselves to get money out of the country.
Or, more likely, that people are earning more because business is booming.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
Budget surplus for the first time since 2002 due to unexpectedly high income tax receipts. Could be a sign of capital flight if people are paying themselves to get money out of the country.
Another day and William stands firm but lonely - shouting down Britain with every post.
Budget surplus for the first time since 2002 due to unexpectedly high income tax receipts. Could be a sign of capital flight if people are paying themselves to get money out of the country.
Or, more likely, that people are earning more because business is booming.
Because of Brexit.
Nah, it's all down to Osborne's magnificent stewardship of the economy.
Mrs May lost the election the moment she fired him.
Budget surplus for the first time since 2002 due to unexpectedly high income tax receipts. Could be a sign of capital flight if people are paying themselves to get money out of the country.
Bravo! Have you considered a career as a political spinner?
Mr. Enjineeya, blaming social inequality for religious zealots running over children is a logical stretch which cannot bear the burden of scrutiny or reason.
I did no such thing. Social inequality does, however, create the condition for religious extremism to flourish. When they are actually asked, the primary motivation for would-be suicide attackers is typically revenge for perceived injustices against groups with which they identify, such as the bombing of their cities.
Luton isn't a city. Although it should be bombed.
I don't think Sean fear would agree. He lives there and it is nothing like as dire as people suggest.
No it is not nonsense as 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan. The clue to beating radical Islam is both stopping the bases it comes from and toughening up border control. I never made an argument about Iraq
You tried to make a cheap political point about "the left" opposing the initial intervention in Afghanistan but my recollection was there was very little opposition to the move to hunt down Bin Laden and AQ.
I think there's a debate as to whether that was the right move done in the right way and as I recall the response was hardly immediate. Indeed, the fact of Saudi involvement which must have been known at the time, was widely glossed over.
As to your "solutions" to radical Islam, more thought needed. The answer though should be something most Conservatives support and that's capitalism. People who are busy making money have less inclination to make trouble.
No Corbyn and many of his left-wing colleagues opposed the intervention in Afghanistan and the killing of Bin Laden. So your recollection is not entirely correct.
Bin Laden came from one of the richest countries in the world, many ISIS supporters are rich and highly educated, capitalism alone will not solve the problem
Corbyn's thoughts on Afghanistan.
“Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months.
“After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.
“This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.”
In terms of his HoC comments, there's a few questions about our view of the Northern Alliance and then asking about bombs, cluster bombs (x3) & napalm.
He's remarkably quiet on the topic of opposing the invasion in the House of Commons.
Corbyn voted against the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan in 2001 in the Commons which is pretty loud to me
How? There wasn't a vote on troop deployment in Afghanistan in 2001.
Upthread someone mentioned that a punter had put £100k on the Mayweather fight. I thought that was an astonishing amount of money - until I found out that ringside seats are selling for £63k.
You obviously missed the conversation of a couple of days ago where we were talking about Tony Bloom who every weekend has upto £1 million per match of football, and wagers £100s millions every year.
Was a guest of Tony Bloom in the directors box at Brighton 18 months ago wen Burnley were heading for promotion. We had a great conversation about betting and he's a lovely guy. He's done wonders with Brighton and I really hope they stay in the EPL
That is what I hear, unless you mention Matthew Benham....
I still can't see sufficient number of GOP senators voting to convict to meet the two-thirds requirement.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
Trump won't lose the primaries. Kasich might win New Hampshire but he won't beat Trump in Iowa and South Carolina and Florida etc. Most likely 2020 will be Trump v Warren in my view
Comments
Good luck with that one. And to be fair to Pakistan, it is not the only country providing Taliban and other groups with constant resupply of recruits, equipment, finance etc.
I can't see that Pakistan authorities were not aware that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan.
Of course now they’ve achieved Test cricket status things may improve!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaedas-Road/dp/0141029358
I recommend it strongly.
20:02
Transfer From Sportsbook, Bet Receipt O/1250780/0xx ?
£36 for me, have reinvested it into Mayweather.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/21/paul-ryan-trump-charlottesville-townhall-241879
I think there's a debate as to whether that was the right move done in the right way and as I recall the response was hardly immediate. Indeed, the fact of Saudi involvement which must have been known at the time, was widely glossed over.
As to your "solutions" to radical Islam, more thought needed. The answer though should be something most Conservatives support and that's capitalism. People who are busy making money have less inclination to make trouble.
I've read your posts on the US with interest, and I agree with your diagnosis of the gulf opening up in America. It's many years since I travelled through the midwest, but even there it was noticeable that the worst slums were not in the cities, but in the small towns. In this country, with its wholly different scale and much better transport links, we would normally expect that to be the other way around (which is of course often wrong, think of Whitehaven, but is the expectation).
However, I am intrigued that you say 'even' Trump can see that. Surely the whole point of the election was that 'only' Trump could see that? Not that he had any solutions of course, barring building walls that wouldn't be paid for, but he correctly identified, as did Sanders, that for roughly 50% of the country the economy was more screwed than one of Messalina's bodyguards. Hilary Clinton, for example, pitched her whole campaign on the basis of improving life for the 53% who already vote Democrat, and hinted she would actively harm some of the poorer supporters she had still in work by continue to hammer coal mining. Probably didn't help calling the other 47% of the country 'deplorable' but I don't think that on its own wouldn't have cost her the election. By giving the impression she was a toffee-nosed out-of-touch East Coast Liberal who didn't give a stuff about the inland areas or anyone who couldn't afford Obamacare - rightly or wrongly - she threw away places like Wisconsin that had voted Democrat for decades.
If you want a really rather good article on this, have a look here:
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/trump-dynasty-luttwak/
It's not as good as that wonderful David Wong piece on cracked, and it works on a false premise. However, in saying that one-half of Americans cannot afford a new car, because the cheapest model on the market is twice as expensive as a cheap European car due to well-meaning regulation, it is rather striking. It also points out that means the poor people can only drive duff cars - which are of course bad for the environment, safety etc that the regulations were meant to help. The ironic metaphor - try and make the economy better and you screw the poorest people you are trying to help - should make sobering reading. For cars in the US, read a university education in the UK.
I have to go out. But I hope you find it interesting.
My point here is where do these 1.5m live? If they are isolated farmers and "running water" means the mains supply then that seems about right to me. If it means downtown Detroit then there is a major problem.
Trump saw and exploited the divide, but it is not a new observation. This book from a decade ago covered the issues well:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1503394345434
I agree that Hillary failed to address the issues, and this is why she lost. She was not unique in this though. All of our politicians do the same. Several claim to feel the pain, but none have a serious solution.
I would still prefer to back his survival than take the other side of the bet but I'm not playing this one again. You don't have to bet.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28009878/market?marketId=1.128151441
Warren is 10.5 (19/10 in old money), second favourite behind Trump.
Note that this isn’t a ‘Next President’ market, but on the winner of the 2020 election. Things may happen in the meantime that means next POTUS is Pence, for example.
If it’s the latter then there’s an arb on BF 11.5 to lay
I am struggling to think of instances of, for example, Philippine aggression against Muslim countries. The common factor seems simply to be that Muslims live in or are able to enter these countries.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8011310
Qutb joins a club - where an epiphany awaits him. 'The dance is inflamed by the notes of the gramophone,' he wrote; 'the dance-hall becomes a whirl of heels and thighs, arms enfold hips, lips and breasts meet, and the air is full of lust.' You'd think that the father of Islamism had exposed himself to an early version of Studio 54 or even Plato's Retreat. But no: the club he joined was run by the church, and what he is describing, here, is a chapel hop in Greeley, Colorado. And Greeley, Colorado, in 1949, was dry.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/10/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/ruth-davidsons-failure-offensive-tweet-11029455
Not only is it difficult to alter religious views, it's especially hard with Islam because there's no equivalent to the Pope who can issue an authoritative statement saying "Running over children isn't actually a pious act." It seems, not that I'm expert, far more fragmented. And that's coupled with the largely fundamentalist nature of it too, which also makes the leap from faith to fanatic smaller than, say, it would be for a Quaker.
But the IRA had a political objective, not a religious one.
I'd be wary of drawing too many comparisons.
Not surprised, comes shortly after the Perez announcement at Force India.
I think he might get LBJ'd in the primaries, if so, will he run as an Independent?
'Don't be a bore, stay on topic, if you want to impersonate a 1970s cab driver sod off to Breitbart or Mail Online.'
Rinse and repeat.
Alonso might leave if McLaren stick with Honda. I'm all for patience, but it's beyond a joke.
For ugly, bigoted, badly dressed, charmless, socially inept young men whose religion forbids sex, blowing yourself up is the best way to get a girlfriend.
Of course it doesn't wholly forbid sex. You can get married then have temporary wives, so you can screw around on the side legitimately while married. But first you have to get married, and for that, the money has to work. If you're a 22-year-old loser from Luton, you don't have any money either.
https://twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/899899078586376192
It is painful to stop believing in the purity, and the sanity, of the underdog. It is painful to start believing in a cult of death, and in an enemy that wants its war to last for ever.
That might have been a very much second tier aspiration, but the IRA's goal was for Northern Ireland to join the republic. That was the political cause that lay behind their terrorist/criminal acts.
But even were it so, that's a negotiable political matter. What's the area of negotiation we could have with ISIS, or their ilk? No to genocide, yes to crucifying children? No to archaeological desecration, yes to industrial scale rape?
Everything they stand for is unacceptable and the only result they want is the conversion, enslavement or death of everyone who doesn't subscribe to a particular and brutal form of Islam.
It's possible to negotiate about borders or political settlements. It's not possible to negotiate with the Master Faith, as they see themselves. They're insane, vicious supremacists.
I remember after the Borough Market attack, some of the more Islamophobic posters were ranting into a fury about how it was unprecedented to have terrorist attacks 5 days before a general election.
Blissfully unaware the Guildford pub bombings took place five days before the October '74 election.
Bad history always amuses me.
That's demonstrably mince by you, it might not have been their primary objective, but religion did factor into one of their secondary objectives.
Big difference. One is an opportunity, the other is padding the bookies Christmas bonus.
Without the political objective there'd be no terrorism campaign. The IRA/Northern Ireland terrorism was about politics, not religion. It's an utterly flawed comparison, like trying to compare the Scottish invasion of Ireland in the early 14th century with the First Crusade.
Mr. Eagles, happy to hear you explain to the class the religious aspect of the Scottish invasion of Ireland in the early 14th century.
Bin Laden came from one of the richest countries in the world, many ISIS supporters are rich and highly educated, capitalism alone will not solve the problem
I will be raging.
“Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months.
“After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.
“This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.”
In terms of his HoC comments, there's a few questions about our view of the Northern Alliance and then asking about bombs, cluster bombs (x3) & napalm.
He's remarkably quiet on the topic of opposing the invasion in the House of Commons.
Like my tip on Button
Mr. Eagles, flunked like calling a 2007 or 2017 election.
Mind you, I'm astounded footballers get so addicted to gambling they end up running huge debts.
Although it should be bombed.
Budget surplus for the first time since 2002 due to unexpectedly high income tax receipts. Could be a sign of capital flight if people are paying themselves to get money out of the country.
The common factor is Islam, particularly new recruits who are full of zeal and empty of knowledge, and a desire to atone for past sins (by committing an exciting array of new ones...). Similar social/economic conditions exist for plenty of other groups but they tend not to have such an extremist fringe. A fundamentalist religious outlook coupled with lack of central authority to definitively denounce lunatic acts is, unfortunately, the perfect cocktail for terrorism.
Mr. M, it was bloody flukey. But I'll take a 250/1 fluke. (Nearly got 200/1 this year. If Ocon hadn't ****ed up and hit Perez, the latter would've likely finished top 2 in Azerbaijan. One was not amused).
Because of Brexit.
Mrs May lost the election the moment she fired him.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/22/trump-phoenix-arizona-jeff-flake-241878?lo=ap_d1
Read this today in the Labourgraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/comedians/ken-cheng-wins-2017-daves-joke-fringe-full-list-shortlisted/
Pound coin gag wins funniest joke award - the top 10 from Edinburgh Festival Fringe
Among the also-rans is this gem from Frankie Boyle:
"Trump’s nothing like Hitler. There’s no way he could write a book."
Sigh:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Donald-Trump/e/B001H6O8M2/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_4?qid=1503402587&sr=8-4
Ivanka and Zuckerberg.