Dent-Coad's remarks could be construed as straight up racist. I think she's going to have to consider her position very shortly, and/or be suspended as per "Anne Marie Morris".
Is the blog itself for people to decide for themselves. I don't think it looks as bad as Guido makes out.
Quite why she decided to write that blog though I have no idea.
"When the Evening Standard reported that the Hammersmith candidate was taking riding lessons so he could go fox-hunting in the shires (which was surely a prank) many found it entirely believable."
She thinks it was surely a prank that a black guy would want to go hunting?
And you say "I don't think it looks as bad as Guido makes out."
There is a banned word for you that, sadly, I am not allowed to use on here.
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Nick Palmer comment on that thread also looks pretty good (abridged)
"As we're seeing in other countries, people don't always vote on a predictable left-right scale, and sometimes they vote for a style instead. I think he'll find it difficult to win a majority, but he has a style USP that his opponents generally lack which will make him do better than expected."
Corbyn's USP is that he is the anti-establishment candidate. And a large number of voters want to give the establishment a severe kick in the hind quarters.
Neither May nor any of her putative successors - except possibly JRM - could credibly present themselves as anti-establishment figures.
Lol - the son of a peer and editor of The Times, educated at Eton, millionaire from working in the City - is "anti-establishment" !?! I think you need a dictionary.
Well the prep school educated and Shropshire manor house raised Corbyn is hardly anti establishment by back round either just by ideology like Mogg.
Davis, council house raised and state educated and son of a single mother, is more non establishment by background than both, if slightly more moderate by ideology
I'm not sure it is about being a member of the elite or not, it is about appearing like you are not a cookie cut member of the political class.
Trump was establishment: rich, well connected, dad was a major property developer, friends with Clintons and bankers etc etc. But he managed to appear as if he just walked out of a redneck bar somewhere in the swamps of Louisiana.
Which applies equally to Sanders, Corbyn and Rees Mogg but not May or Hillary
Exactly.
I reckon if the MPs decide to put JRM as one of the two names going to members then he is leader.
"The 35-year-old Bailey wears many hats. He is a local, born and bred on the deprived estates of north Kensington."
Just the sort of background that gives Labour the heeby-jeebies. Perhaps they get bent out of shape at the fear of being a Tory might somehow become less toxic, less shaming, less a cause for social death...
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Nick Palmer comment on that thread also looks pretty good (abridged)
"As we're seeing in other countries, people don't always vote on a predictable left-right scale, and sometimes they vote for a style instead. I think he'll find it difficult to win a majority, but he has a style USP that his opponents generally lack which will make him do better than expected."
Corbyn's USP is that he is the anti-establishment candidate. And a large number of voters want to give the establishment a severe kick in the hind quarters.
Neither May nor any of her putative successors - except possibly JRM - could credibly present themselves as anti-establishment figures.
Lol - the son of a peer and editor of The Times, educated at Eton, millionaire from working in the City - is "anti-establishment" !?! I think you need a dictionary.
Well the prep school educated and Shropshire manor house raised Corbyn is hardly anti establishment by back round either just by ideology like Mogg.
Davis, council house raised and state educated and son of a single mother, is more non establishment by background than both, if slightly more moderate by ideology
I'm not sure it is about being a member of the elite or not, it is about appearing like you are not a cookie cut member of the political class.
Trump was establishment: rich, well connected, dad was a major property developer, friends with Clintons and bankers etc etc. But he managed to appear as if he just walked out of a redneck bar somewhere in the swamps of Louisiana.
Which applies equally to Sanders, Corbyn and Rees Mogg but not May or Hillary
Exactly.
I reckon if the MPs decide to put JRM as one of the two names going to members then he is leader.
It may be the next general election, or at least the general election after next, is Rees Mogg v Corbyn and the next US presidential election is Trump v Sanders and not an establishment candidate to be seen
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Nick Palmer comment on that thread also looks pretty good (abridged)
"As we're seeing in other countries, people don't always vote on a predictable left-right scale, and sometimes they vote for a style instead. I think he'll find it difficult to win a majority, but he has a style USP that his opponents generally lack which will make him do better than expected."
Corbyn's USP is that he is the anti-establishment candidate. And a large number of voters want to give the establishment a severe kick in the hind quarters.
Neither May nor any of her putative successors - except possibly JRM - could credibly present themselves as anti-establishment figures.
Lol - the son of a peer and editor of The Times, educated at Eton, millionaire from working in the City - is "anti-establishment" !?! I think you need a dictionary.
Well the prep school educated and Shropshire manor house raised Corbyn is hardly anti establishment by back round either just by ideology like Mogg.
Davis, council house raised and state educated and son of a single mother, is more non establishment by background than both, if slightly more moderate by ideology
I'm not sure it is about being a member of the elite or not, it is about appearing like you are not a cookie cut member of the political class.
Trump was establishment: rich, well connected, dad was a major property developer, friends with Clintons and bankers etc etc. But he managed to appear as if he just walked out of a redneck bar somewhere in the swamps of Louisiana.
Which applies equally to Sanders, Corbyn and Rees Mogg but not May or Hillary
Exactly.
I reckon if the MPs decide to put JRM as one of the two names going to members then he is leader.
Depends who the other name is, to be fair. It's possible to conceive of worse.
Not prohibited, actionable under certain conditions.
Isn't one of the requirements that it is temporary? I suspect we could get away with subsidies to car manufacturers for a short period (say 6 months to a year), but we certainly couldn't on a long term basis.
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Nick Palmer comment on that thread also looks pretty good (abridged)
"As we're seeing in other countries, people don't always vote on a predictable left-right scale, and sometimes they vote for a style instead. I think he'll find it difficult to win a majority, but he has a style USP that his opponents generally lack which will make him do better than expected."
Corbyn's USP is that he is the anti-establishment candidate. And a large number of voters want to give the establishment a severe kick in the hind quarters.
Neither May nor any of her putative successors - except possibly JRM - could credibly present themselves as anti-establishment figures.
Lol - the son of a peer and editor of The Times, educated at Eton, millionaire from working in the City - is "anti-establishment" !?! I think you need a dictionary.
Well the prep school educated and Shropshire manor house raised Corbyn is hardly anti establishment by back round either just by ideology like Mogg.
Davis, council house raised and state educated and son of a single mother, is more non establishment by background than both, if slightly more moderate by ideology
I'm not sure it is about being a member of the elite or not, it is about appearing like you are not a cookie cut member of the political class.
Trump was establishment: rich, well connected, dad was a major property developer, friends with Clintons and bankers etc etc. But he managed to appear as if he just walked out of a redneck bar somewhere in the swamps of Louisiana.
Which applies equally to Sanders, Corbyn and Rees Mogg but not May or Hillary
Exactly.
I reckon if the MPs decide to put JRM as one of the two names going to members then he is leader.
Depends who the other name is, to be fair. It's possible to conceive of worse.
What a load of whiny bullshit that article is, no sympathy for that "teacher".
Which is it, was he "silenced for his religious beliefs" or was it an "accident"? It can't be both. If it was an accident, his religious beliefs don't enter into it - if it was deliberate because of his beliefs, it was not an accident.
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Nick Palmer comment on that thread also looks pretty good (abridged)
"As we're seeing in other countries, people don't always vote on a predictable left-right scale, and sometimes they vote for a style instead. I think he'll find it difficult to win a majority, but he has a style USP that his opponents generally lack which will make him do better than expected."
Corbyn's USP is that he is the anti-establishment candidate. And a large number of voters want to give the establishment a severe kick in the hind quarters.
Neither May nor any of her putative successors - except possibly JRM - could credibly present themselves as anti-establishment figures.
Lol - the son of a peer and editor of The Times, educated at Eton, millionaire from working in the City - is "anti-establishment" !?! I think you need a dictionary.
Well the prep school educated and Shropshire manor house raised Corbyn is hardly anti establishment by back round either just by ideology like Mogg.
Davis, council house raised and state educated and son of a single mother, is more non establishment by background than both, if slightly more moderate by ideology
I'm not sure it is about being a member of the elite or not, it is about appearing like you are not a cookie cut member of the political class.
Trump was establishment: rich, well connected, dad was a major property developer, friends with Clintons and bankers etc etc. But he managed to appear as if he just walked out of a redneck bar somewhere in the swamps of Louisiana.
Which applies equally to Sanders, Corbyn and Rees Mogg but not May or Hillary
Exactly.
I reckon if the MPs decide to put JRM as one of the two names going to members then he is leader.
Depends who the other name is, to be fair. It's possible to conceive of worse.
What a load of whiny bullshit that article is, no sympathy for that "teacher".
Which is it, was he "silenced for his religious beliefs" or was it an "accident"? It can't be both. If it was an accident, his religious beliefs don't enter into it - if it was deliberate because of his beliefs, it was not an accident.
He said he said 'well done girls' by mistake to an otherwise all girls class then apologised straight away to adhere to school policy.
Speaking as a supporter of the Labour Party for 40 years, the tragedy of the Labour Party is that it still doesnt realise what an enormous liability Corbyn is as Leader of the Opposition, and what an even bigger liability he would be in the unlikely event of him ever becoming PM.
Corbyn decided to get on his moral high horse over Iran this weekend.
Dent-Coad's remarks could be construed as straight up racist. I think she's going to have to consider her position very shortly, and/or be suspended as per "Anne Marie Morris".
Is the blog itself for people to decide for themselves. I don't think it looks as bad as Guido makes out.
Quite why she decided to write that blog though I have no idea.
"When the Evening Standard reported that the Hammersmith candidate was taking riding lessons so he could go fox-hunting in the shires (which was surely a prank) many found it entirely believable."
She thinks it was surely a prank that a black guy would want to go hunting?
And you say "I don't think it looks as bad as Guido makes out."
There is a banned word for you that, sadly, I am not allowed to use on here.
What a load of whiny bullshit that article is, no sympathy for that "teacher".
Which is it, was he "silenced for his religious beliefs" or was it an "accident"? It can't be both. If it was an accident, his religious beliefs don't enter into it - if it was deliberate because of his beliefs, it was not an accident.
He said he said 'well done girls' by mistake to an otherwise all girls class then apologised straight away to adhere to school policy.
So he claims and if he left it at that it might have been believable. But the fact that he emphasises so much his religious beliefs contradicts that and how his religious faith is being silenced so I don't believe the whiny snowflake.
He should stop whining about his faith, keep that to himself where it belongs and get on with his job. If he's too much of a snowflake to keep his faith to himself he should do something else.
That shirt he's wearing, that screams someone wanting to come out of the closet.
Says the man in the ruby slippers.....
Nah, I'm not religious, he is, that fashion sense coupled with a religious fervour means someone so deep in the closet he's having adventures in Narnia.
What a load of whiny bullshit that article is, no sympathy for that "teacher".
Which is it, was he "silenced for his religious beliefs" or was it an "accident"? It can't be both. If it was an accident, his religious beliefs don't enter into it - if it was deliberate because of his beliefs, it was not an accident.
He said he said 'well done girls' by mistake to an otherwise all girls class then apologised straight away to adhere to school policy.
So he claims and if he left it at that it might have been believable. But the fact that he emphasises so much his religious beliefs contradicts that and how his religious faith is being silenced so I don't believe the whiny snowflake.
He should stop whining about his faith, keep that to himself where it belongs and get on with his job. If he's too much of a snowflake to keep his faith to himself he should do something else.
Even at a school like that there are bound to be a small number of Christians so while he should, as he seems to have accepted, addressed trans pupils by their self identifying gender he should also be allowed to hold a bible class for Christians too. It seems his doing the latter was at least a motivation for his dismissal
What a load of whiny bullshit that article is, no sympathy for that "teacher".
Which is it, was he "silenced for his religious beliefs" or was it an "accident"? It can't be both. If it was an accident, his religious beliefs don't enter into it - if it was deliberate because of his beliefs, it was not an accident.
Thanks for reading the article so I didn't have to. I knew there would be a glaring contradiction somewhere - because there always is with those kind of headlines.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
Corbyn will be 73, The Tories will have a new leader, none of the mistakes of the 2017 Tory campaign will be repeated, and the Tories will massively attack Corbyn's economic plans.
The only way that Labour can win a general election is to get rid of Corbyn. Corbyn not only keeps the current Tory poll rating at 40% when the Tories are messing up big, but he will also keep them in power after 2022.
Oh! Jeremy Corbyn.
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn lost the 2017 election with roughly the same number of seats that Gordon Brown lost the 2010 election. If Corbyn had not been leader, Labour would have won all those marginals that Corbyn failed to win and would be in power right now. Corbyn is a failed Labour leader. And lets not forget that the reason why remain lost the EU referendum and we are going through Brexit right now is because of Corbyn's dire performance in that referendum campaign.
That shirt he's wearing, that screams someone wanting to come out of the closet.
Says the man in the ruby slippers.....
Nah, I'm not religious, he is, that fashion sense coupled with a religious fervour means someone so deep in the closet he's having adventures in Narnia.
On a somewhat related dress point, this guy got caned by the media for his "sexist" shirt.
Turns out - the source being the head of the Rosetta Project (who comes from Dartmouth and gave us a great speech about that Project) - that the offending shirt was actually bought for him by his wife, so he'd have something smart to wear if he was on the telly.....
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Nick Palmer comment on that thread also looks pretty good (abridged)
"As we're seeing in other countries, people don't always vote on a predictable left-right scale, and sometimes they vote for a style instead. I think he'll find it difficult to win a majority, but he has a style USP that his opponents generally lack which will make him do better than expected."
Corbyn's USP is that he is the anti-establishment candidate. And a large number of voters want to give the establishment a severe kick in the hind quarters.
Neither May nor any of her putative successors - except possibly JRM - could credibly present themselves as anti-establishment figures.
Lol - the son of a peer and editor of The Times, educated at Eton, millionaire from working in the City - is "anti-establishment" !?! I think you need a dictionary.
Well the prep school educated and Shropshire manor house raised Corbyn is hardly anti establishment by back round either just by ideology like Mogg.
Davis, council house raised and state educated and son of a single mother, is more non establishment by background than both, if slightly more moderate by ideology
I'm not sure it is about being a member of the elite or not, it is about appearing like you are not a cookie cut member of the political class.
Trump was establishment: rich, well connected, dad was a major property developer, friends with Clintons and bankers etc etc. But he managed to appear as if he just walked out of a redneck bar somewhere in the swamps of Louisiana.
Which applies equally to Sanders, Corbyn and Rees Mogg but not May or Hillary
Exactly.
I reckon if the MPs decide to put JRM as one of the two names going to members then he is leader.
I agree. The Tory membership consists of a small number of ageing mostly male dinosaurs who have a passionate hatred of the EU and think nothing good has happened since the 1950s.
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Nick Palmer comment on that thread also looks pretty good (abridged)
"As we're seeing in other countries, people don't always vote on a predictable left-right scale, and sometimes they vote for a style instead. I think he'll find it difficult to win a majority, but he has a style USP that his opponents generally lack which will make him do better than expected."
Corbyn's USP is that he is the anti-establishment candidate. And a large number of voters want to give the establishment a severe kick in the hind quarters.
Neither May nor any of her putative successors - except possibly JRM - could credibly present themselves as anti-establishment figures.
Lol - the son of a peer and editor of The Times, educated at Eton, millionaire from working in the City - is "anti-establishment" !?! I think you need a dictionary.
Well the prep school educated and Shropshire manor house raised Corbyn is hardly anti establishment by back round either just by ideology like Mogg.
Davis, council house raised and state educated and son of a single mother, is more non establishment by background than both, if slightly more moderate by ideology
I'm not sure it is about being a member of the elite or not, it is about appearing like you are not a cookie cut Louisiana.
Which applies equally to Sanders, Corbyn and Rees Mogg but not May or Hillary
Exactly.
I reckon if the MPs decide to put JRM as one of the two names going to members then he is leader.
I agree. The Tory membership consists of a small number of ageing mostly male dinosaurs who have a passionate hatred of the EU and think nothing good has happened since the 1950s.
Even most Tory voters ie 40% of the electorate want Rees Mogg to succeed May according to the latest yougov.
' “If there are places where the role of the court will make it better or easier for us to have the right relationship in the future I would be open to that.”
Makes sense to me. '
I've read it several times and still not quite sure what he's saying. Is it ...
(a) If they find in our favour, we will accept it. (b) if they find against us, we will accept it, and do what they want so as to gain goodwill.
How is that different to saying we will accept the decisions of a foreign court?
Mr G, Best wishes. Hopefully, you'll soon be back doing backward somersaults.
A bit like Labour when it comes to the EU.
This is the one area I find most difficult to understand about our EU negotiations.
In pretty much every treaty that we enter into, we accept binding dispute resolution. So, our membership of NATO leads us to accept rulings of the NATO court. Our membership of the International Telecoms Union binds us to accept the rulings of their dispute resolution mechanisms.
There is nothing unusual in us signing up to a foreign body for dispute resolution.
The question is one of scope. We are used, in the UK, the ECJ having the ability to have a major impact on domestic law. It needn't be like that. Theoretically, we could enter into a treaty with the EU that made us members of the European Medicines Agency, and meant that we accepted rulings of the ECJ in respect to medicines manufacture. The ECJ could rule on other stuff as they liked, but the treaties (and more importantly UK law) would simply not recognise them as having any impact on the UK.
I get the feeling the "no ECJ" rule was lazily tossed out, and now it can't be walked back.
I agree that some form of dispute resolution mechanism is going to be required and it is fallacy for people to suggest that the UK be the sole person with influence over the body. However, is it not justifiable to object to the ECJ on the grounds of its composition? When it comes to arbitration between the UK and the EU can we have confidence in a body where more than 90% of the judges are appointed by the opposing side?
This is less of an issue obviously when it relates to issues like the European Medicines Agency where we might seek to participate as an equal member. But squaring the circle is nigh on impossible for areas where it is strictly a bilateral arrangement between the EU and UK and the EU - our deal will be with the union not with its member states.
The headline claims the misgendering incident was accidental, but the body of the piece points toward deeply held beliefs.
Whist the two are not necessarily contradictory, the teacher needs to decide whether his defence is that the misgendering was a slip of the tongue or if he feels his honestly held, deeply religious beliefs make him feel he has been discriminated against.
"The aggressive way in which transgender ideology is being imposed is undermining my freedom of belief and conscience" is a statement which indicates he did NOT 'accidentally' misgender the pupil and it was in fact deliberate. This makes a mockery of a deeply misleading headline, and is a good part of the reason I always head to the Mail online with Adblocker activated.
I agree. The Tory membership consists of a small number of ageing mostly male dinosaurs who have a passionate hatred of the EU and think nothing good has happened since the 1950s.
I agree. The Tory membership consists of a small number of ageing mostly male dinosaurs who have a passionate hatred of the EU and think nothing good has happened since the 1950s.
It doesn't actually, except possibly the 'ageing' bit. However, that is true of other parties as well.
What a load of whiny bullshit that article is, no sympathy for that "teacher".
Which is it, was he "silenced for his religious beliefs" or was it an "accident"? It can't be both. If it was an accident, his religious beliefs don't enter into it - if it was deliberate because of his beliefs, it was not an accident.
He said he said 'well done girls' by mistake to an otherwise all girls class then apologised straight away to adhere to school policy.
So he claims and if he left it at that it might have been believable. But the fact that he emphasises so much his religious beliefs contradicts that and how his religious faith is being silenced so I don't believe the whiny snowflake.
He should stop whining about his faith, keep that to himself where it belongs and get on with his job. If he's too much of a snowflake to keep his faith to himself he should do something else.
Even at a school like that there are bound to be a small number of Christians so while he should, as he seems to have accepted, addressed trans pupils by their self identifying gender he should also be allowed to hold a bible class for Christians too. It seems his doing the latter was at least a motivation for his dismissal
It doesn't matter if they're Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Jedi, atheists, believers in invisible pink unicorns, flying teacups, UFOs or astrology. Your faith is personal and what matters is not his personal faith, what matters is the child in his care.
If you want to practice your faith then that's between you, your faith and your Church. It has nothing to do with unrelated children you are responsible for. If you're too much of a snowflake to put children ahead of your faith then maybe you shouldn't be teaching.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
.
Wrong ! If the Tories were to lose 7 by elections support from the DUP would no longer be sufficient to prop them up..
I guess chances of 15 tory MP's being recalled over sexual harassment or similar is an even slimmer chance. But would labour wait to see if 7 seats were lost or go for no confidence vote before by-elections?
What a load of whiny bullshit that article is, no sympathy for that "teacher".
Which is it, was he "silenced for his religious beliefs" or was it an "accident"? It can't be both. If it was an accident, his religious beliefs don't enter into it - if it was deliberate because of his beliefs, it was not an accident.
He said he said 'well done girls' by mistake to an otherwise all girls class then apologised straight away to adhere to school policy.
So he claims and if he left it at that it might have been believable. But the fact that he emphasises so much his religious beliefs contradicts that and how his religious faith is being silenced so I don't believe the whiny snowflake.
He should stop whining about his faith, keep that to himself where it belongs and get on with his job. If he's too much of a snowflake to keep his faith to himself he should do something else.
Even at a school like that there are bound to be a small number of Christians so while he should, as he seems to have accepted, addressed trans pupils by their self identifying gender he should also be allowed to hold a bible class for Christians too. It seems his doing the latter was at least a motivation for his dismissal
It doesn't matter if they're Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Jedi, atheists, believers in invisible pink unicorns, flying teacups, UFOs or astrology. Your faith is personal and what matters is not his personal faith, what matters is the child in his care.
If you want to practice your faith then that's between you, your faith and your Church. It has nothing to do with unrelated children you are responsible for. If you're too much of a snowflake to put children ahead of your faith then maybe you shouldn't be teaching.
In what sense was he not? There is no evidence he was not a good teacher, it seems a mistake was made and that was an excuse for suspension based on his conducting bible classes etc the school did not approve of. At most it should have been a first warning offence not a suspension and he should have been allowed to conduct his bible study class on a voluntary basis for pupils who want to attend.
What a load of whiny bullshit that article is, no sympathy for that "teacher".
Which is it, was he "silenced for his religious beliefs" or was it an "accident"? It can't be both. If it was an accident, his religious beliefs don't enter into it - if it was deliberate because of his beliefs, it was not an accident.
Thanks for reading the article so I didn't have to. I knew there would be a glaring contradiction somewhere - because there always is with those kind of headlines.
Indeed though the clue was in the headline already.
The very fact that the headline included the word Christian was already indicative that it was no accident. If it was an accident then why even mention his faith?
The snowflake teacher just wants to have his cake and eat it too. Very easy to label that you did wrong as an accident but when you keep insisting it was right then that makes a total mockery of your claims. Try putting children first for a second and stop whining about what word you're asked to use.
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Nick Palmer comment on that thread also looks pretty good (abridged)
"As we're seeing in other countries, people don't always vote on a predictable left-right scale, and sometimes they vote for a style instead. I think he'll find it difficult to win a majority, but he has a style USP that his opponents generally lack which will make him do better than expected."
Corbyn's USP is that he is the anti-establishment candidate. And a large number of voters want to give the establishment a severe kick in the hind quarters.
Neither May nor any of her putative successors - except possibly JRM - could credibly present themselves as anti-establishment figures.
Lol - the son of a peer and editor of The Times, educated at Eton, millionaire from working in the City - is "anti-establishment" !?! I think you need a dictionary.
Well the prep school educated and Shropshire manor house raised Corbyn is hardly anti establishment by back round either just by ideology like Mogg.
Davis, council house raised and state educated and son of a single mother, is more non establishment by background than both, if slightly more moderate by ideology
I'm not sure it is about being a member of the elite or not, it is about appearing like you are not a cookie cut member of the political class.
Trump was establishment: rich, well connected, dad was a major property developer, friends with Clintons and bankers etc etc. But he managed to appear as if he just walked out of a redneck bar somewhere in the swamps of Louisiana.
Which applies equally to Sanders, Corbyn and Rees Mogg but not May or Hillary
Exactly.
I reckon if the MPs decide to put JRM as one of the two names going to members then he is leader.
I agree. The Tory membership consists of a small number of ageing mostly male dinosaurs who have a passionate hatred of the EU and think nothing good has happened since the 1950s.
I agree. The Tory membership consists of a small number of ageing mostly male dinosaurs who have a passionate hatred of the EU and think nothing good has happened since the 1950s.
It doesn't actually, except possibly the 'ageing' bit. However, that is true of other parties as well.
So who can offer us statistics on total number of Tory members, average age and male/female breakdown?
My recollection of the answers - which may not be accurate - is that total Tory membership is in the region of 100,000, average age is well over 60 and more than 2/3 male but I'm willing to stand corrected on any of that.
By comparison Labour membership is 500,000 +, average age about 50 and also majority male - 55-60% I think.
Dent-Coad's remarks could be construed as straight up racist. I think she's going to have to consider her position very shortly, and/or be suspended as per "Anne Marie Morris".
Is the blog itself for people to decide for themselves. I don't think it looks as bad as Guido makes out.
Quite why she decided to write that blog though I have no idea.
"When the Evening Standard reported that the Hammersmith candidate was taking riding lessons so he could go fox-hunting in the shires (which was surely a prank) many found it entirely believable."
She thinks it was surely a prank that a black guy would want to go hunting?
And you say "I don't think it looks as bad as Guido makes out."
There is a banned word for you that, sadly, I am not allowed to use on here.
Maybe I'm stupid - but isn't she trying to say he is really posh and that people from Hammersmith tend not to go fox hunting?
I agree. The Tory membership consists of a small number of ageing mostly male dinosaurs who have a passionate hatred of the EU and think nothing good has happened since the 1950s.
It doesn't actually, except possibly the 'ageing' bit. However, that is true of other parties as well.
So who can offer us statistics on total number of Tory members, average age and male/female breakdown?
My recollection of the answers - which may not be accurate - is that total Tory membership is in the region of 100,000, average age is well over 60 and more than 2/3 male but I'm willing to stand corrected on any of that.
By comparison Labour membership is 500,000 +, average age about 50 and also majority male - 55-60% I think.
I agree. The Tory membership consists of a small number of ageing mostly male dinosaurs who have a passionate hatred of the EU and think nothing good has happened since the 1950s.
It doesn't actually, except possibly the 'ageing' bit. However, that is true of other parties as well.
So who can offer us statistics on total number of Tory members, average age and male/female breakdown?
My recollection of the answers - which may not be accurate - is that total Tory membership is in the region of 100,000, average age is well over 60 and more than 2/3 male but I'm willing to stand corrected on any of that.
By comparison Labour membership is 500,000 +, average age about 50 and also majority male - 55-60% I think.
My recollection is that it has always been the case for two reasons.
1: As people get older they become more conservative (small c) and so more likely to be Conservative (capital C).
2: As people enter retirement then party politics becomes a social thing to get involved with instead of working.
George Orwell would have thought he'd had a good morning's writing if he'd come up with that one.
Is actually a crime in parts of Canada....
Source please. My understanding is that criminal law is a federal matter in Canada so it’s not possible for something to be “a crime in parts of Canada”.
The headline claims the misgendering incident was accidental, but the body of the piece points toward deeply held beliefs.
Whist the two are not necessarily contradictory, the teacher needs to decide whether his defence is that the misgendering was a slip of the tongue or if he feels his honestly held, deeply religious beliefs make him feel he has been discriminated against.
"The aggressive way in which transgender ideology is being imposed is undermining my freedom of belief and conscience" is a statement which indicates he did NOT 'accidentally' misgender the pupil and it was in fact deliberate. This makes a mockery of a deeply misleading headline, and is a good part of the reason I always head to the Mail online with Adblocker activated.
It is the Mail - a rag which, in my opinion, has descended into a propaganda sheet for espousing the beliefs of the hard right and their supporters.
I would never count it as a newspaper because it seems to me to publish far more gossip than news.
I agree. The Tory membership consists of a small number of ageing mostly male dinosaurs who have a passionate hatred of the EU and think nothing good has happened since the 1950s.
It doesn't actually, except possibly the 'ageing' bit. However, that is true of other parties as well.
So who can offer us statistics on total number of Tory members, average age and male/female breakdown?
My recollection of the answers - which may not be accurate - is that total Tory membership is in the region of 100,000, average age is well over 60 and more than 2/3 male but I'm willing to stand corrected on any of that.
By comparison Labour membership is 500,000 +, average age about 50 and also majority male - 55-60% I think.
Dent-Coad's remarks could be construed as straight up racist. I think she's going to have to consider her position very shortly, and/or be suspended as per "Anne Marie Morris".
Is the blog itself for people to decide for themselves. I don't think it looks as bad as Guido makes out.
Quite why she decided to write that blog though I have no idea.
"When the Evening Standard reported that the Hammersmith candidate was taking riding lessons so he could go fox-hunting in the shires (which was surely a prank) many found it entirely believable."
She thinks it was surely a prank that a black guy would want to go hunting?
And you say "I don't think it looks as bad as Guido makes out."
There is a banned word for you that, sadly, I am not allowed to use on here.
Maybe I'm stupid - but isn't she trying to say he is really posh and that people from Hammersmith tend not to go fox hunting?
Well first of all, the average price for a flat in Hammersmith was £750k last year (houses twice that and over) so not sure why the poor burghers are not able to get themselves out on a horse.
But my reading of it is that she thinks it absurd that he in particular (ie a black guy) should think of going hunting. "The Hammersmith candidate" being just another way of identifiying him.
Your interpretation I think is being overly generous to her, especially as she has form.
But if that was your interpretation then I apologise for having thoughts about calling you the word that I didn't call you.
Edit: and for the avoidance of doubt, there are indeed many Hammersmith residents who go hunting.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
Corbyn will be 73, The Tories will have a new leader, none of the mistakes of the 2017 Tory campaign will be repeated, and the Tories will massively attack Corbyn's economic plans.
The only way that Labour can win a general election is to get rid of Corbyn. Corbyn not only keeps the current Tory poll rating at 40% when the Tories are messing up big, but he will also keep them in power after 2022.
Oh! Jeremy Corbyn.
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn lost the 2017 election with roughly the same number of seats that Gordon Brown lost the 2010 election. If Corbyn had not been leader, Labour would have won all those marginals that Corbyn failed to win and would be in power right now. Corbyn is a failed Labour leader. And lets not forget that the reason why remain lost the EU referendum and we are going through Brexit right now is because of Corbyn's dire performance in that referendum campaign.
If Corbyn had not been Labour leader, May wouldn't have called the general election this year and we would have had a Tory majority government until 2020.
And the virtually all of the alternatives to Corbyn are far keener on the EU than he, and it was the likes of Thurrock, Nuneaton, Mansfield and Cannock Chase (all heavily Leave-voting constituencies) that kept the Tories in power. Corbyn did quite well in marginals that were either Remain or moderately Leave, particularly in the South of England.
George Orwell would have thought he'd had a good morning's writing if he'd come up with that one.
Is actually a crime in parts of Canada....
Source please. My understanding is that criminal law is a federal matter in Canada so it’s not possible for something to be “a crime in parts of Canada”.
Yes and no. I was referring to the well documented case of Jordon Peterson and his battle over refusing to use gender neutral pronouns.
Although an update to a recent law is federal, the responsible for policing it is province basis and his argument is that the Ontario Human Rights Commission particular interpretation of an updated law makes his stance potential illegal, where as in other provinces they have interpreted it differently.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
Corbyn will be 73, The Tories will have a new leader, none of the mistakes of the 2017 Tory campaign will be repeated, and the Tories will massively attack Corbyn's economic plans.
The only way that Labour can win a general election is to get rid of Corbyn. Corbyn not only keeps the current Tory poll rating at 40% when the Tories are messing up big, but he will also keep them in power after 2022.
Oh! Jeremy Corbyn.
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn lost the 2017 election with roughly the same number of seats that Gordon Brown lost the 2010 election. If Corbyn had not been leader, Labour would have won all those marginals that Corbyn failed to win and would be in power right now. Corbyn is a failed Labour leader. And lets not forget that the reason why remain lost the EU referendum and we are going through Brexit right now is because of Corbyn's dire performance in that referendum campaign.
If Corbyn had not been Labour leader, May wouldn't have called the general election this year and we would have had a Tory majority government until 2020.
And the virtually all of the alternatives to Corbyn are far keener on the EU than he, and it was the likes of Thurrock, Nuneaton, Mansfield and Cannock Chase (all heavily Leave-voting constituencies) that kept the Tories in power. Corbyn did quite well in marginals that were either Remain or moderately Leave, particularly in the South of England.
And I would add that the main aim of Labour in June was political survival in much the same way it was in 1935. In that year, Attlee led the party to a significantly worse defeat but he did enough to ensure its continuation.
>>the Conservatives are loath to do anything that could prompt a second general election. >This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called.
A new leader would be under intense pressure because their Brexit vision has no general public mandate. Maybe they could tough this out, but maybe they couldn't. In the latter case, the above 'completely bogus' falls apart, doesn't it?
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
.
Wrong ! If the Tories were to lose 7 by elections support from the DUP would no longer be sufficient to prop them up..
I guess chances of 15 tory MP's being recalled over sexual harassment or similar is an even slimmer chance. But would labour wait to see if 7 seats were lost or go for no confidence vote before by-elections?
But the no confidence vote would fail as long as the DUP support the Govt . After 7 by election losses that ceases to be true.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
Corbyn will be 73, The Tories will have a new leader, none of the mistakes of the 2017 Tory campaign will be repeated, and the Tories will massively attack Corbyn's economic plans.
The only way that Labour can win a general election is to get rid of Corbyn. Corbyn not only keeps the current Tory poll rating at 40% when the Tories are messing up big, but he will also keep them in power after 2022.
Oh! Jeremy Corbyn.
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn lost the 2017 election with roughly the same number of seats that Gordon Brown lost the 2010 election. If Corbyn had not been leader, Labour would have won all those marginals that Corbyn failed to win and would be in power right now. Corbyn is a failed Labour leader. And lets not forget that the reason why remain lost the EU referendum and we are going through Brexit right now is because of Corbyn's dire performance in that referendum campaign.
Labour did much better in England in 2017 compared with 2010. The collapse in Scotland predated Corbyn and was partly reversed.
The more pertinent question is one John Redwood posed a year ago, which is how the UK Exchequer might otherwise choose to spend the £13bn of tariffs it would collect on WTO-sanctioned tariffs on EU goods imported into the UK. That compares to the £5bn our manufacturers would have to pay out to the EU in tariffs. (Civitas figures cited by Redwood).
I am sure that, given the will, the UK government could find plenty of scope for support for extra investment to support export orientated UK manufacturing by comparison to the absence of such support that we see at present (to the extent that the UK has gained a reputation as the least inclined of EU countries in terms of its willingness to test state aid rules to the limit). It doesn't have to be so blatant as to actually pay tariffs imposed by the EU, but something of a nature that will leave UK manufacturers quite content one way or another. So let's set aside £5bn for that. That then leaves a balance of £8bn out of the £13m tariff windfall. Add to that the £11bn or so of net UK payments we make annually to the EU and we're up to a £19bn total.
Or about £380m per week, as a totally uncommitted windfall available to the UK Exchequer. And with an EU so determined to push the UK down the path of a hard Brexit that it ends up without a penny in a divorce settlement.
On thread there has been a fair amount of speculation about the DUP's position. Has anyone noted that the DUP's confidence and supply agreement is with the Conservative party, not Theresa May? If so, the replacement of leader shouldn't make any difference to it.
I'd worry about the hypothetical case after by-election losses if there were any sign of them. For now, that's strictly theoretical.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
.
Wrong ! If the Tories were to lose 7 by elections support from the DUP would no longer be sufficient to prop them up..
I guess chances of 15 tory MP's being recalled over sexual harassment or similar is an even slimmer chance. But would labour wait to see if 7 seats were lost or go for no confidence vote before by-elections?
But the no confidence vote would fail as long as the DUP support the Govt . After 7 by election losses that ceases to be true.
And how many by election losses have there been in the more than 5 months since the general election?
If there were one by election loss every six months it would take 42 months -3 and a half years before the government lost a vote of confidence.
And how many Tory by election losses have there been in the last 20 years -more or less than 7?
And how do you think the SNP would vote in a vote of confidence given that the SNP fears a wipeout in Scotland?
There wont be a general election until 2022, and then it will be 73 year old hard line Marxist Corbyn versus a much better organised Tory party fighting and going for the jugular for its very survival.
And all those older Tories who did not vote in 2017, beleiving that Corbyn was no threat will turn out in droves in 2022.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
.
Wrong ! If the Tories were to lose 7 by elections support from the DUP would no longer be sufficient to prop them up..
I guess chances of 15 tory MP's being recalled over sexual harassment or similar is an even slimmer chance. But would labour wait to see if 7 seats were lost or go for no confidence vote before by-elections?
But the no confidence vote would fail as long as the DUP support the Govt . After 7 by election losses that ceases to be true.
The 15 have to be in prison to be recalled, so I am assuming they cannot vote. I went for 15 not 14 in case con gained Sylvia Hermon. 317-15+10+1=313, 262+35+12+4+1=314
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
Corbyn will be 73, The Tories will have a new leader, none of the mistakes of the 2017 Tory campaign will be repeated, and the Tories will massively attack Corbyn's economic plans.
The only way that Labour can win a general election is to get rid of Corbyn. Corbyn not only keeps the current Tory poll rating at 40% when the Tories are messing up big, but he will also keep them in power after 2022.
Oh! Jeremy Corbyn.
I wrote this in August 2016, and it seems apt now.
Those expecting Jeremy Corbyn to comport himself at the next general election with all the dignity, competence, and elan of a man who has just accidentally inserted his penis and scrotum into a hornets’ nest might be surprised at just how well Corbyn does at the next general election, in the past year nobody has become rich by underestimating Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn lost the 2017 election with roughly the same number of seats that Gordon Brown lost the 2010 election. If Corbyn had not been leader, Labour would have won all those marginals that Corbyn failed to win and would be in power right now. Corbyn is a failed Labour leader. And lets not forget that the reason why remain lost the EU referendum and we are going through Brexit right now is because of Corbyn's dire performance in that referendum campaign.
If Corbyn had not been Labour leader, May wouldn't have called the general election this year and we would have had a Tory majority government until 2020.
And the virtually all of the alternatives to Corbyn are far keener on the EU than he, and it was the likes of Thurrock, Nuneaton, Mansfield and Cannock Chase (all heavily Leave-voting constituencies) that kept the Tories in power. Corbyn did quite well in marginals that were either Remain or moderately Leave, particularly in the South of England.
And I would add that the main aim of Labour in June was political survival in much the same way it was in 1935. In that year, Attlee led the party to a significantly worse defeat but he did enough to ensure its continuation.
In 1935, Attlee led Labour to a considerable recovery from its position in 1931. But if there had been no World War Two, and an election in 1940, Attlee would almost certainly have lost it.
Corbynistas need to learn the central lesson of politics: its all about winning, not celebrating the extent of your defeat.
F1: hmm. I got £25 credited to my account but it's in the form of a Sportsbook bonus. I can't withdraw it or use it on the Exchange. And it expires in 2 days. But the Abu Dhabi markets aren't up yet.
Have enquired about extended the expiry date to 27 November to cover the last race.
Edited extra bit: sounds like something similar (bonus still limited but I choose when it starts) might be possible.
Although I'm still displeased about the voiding, getting something is better than nothing.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
.
Wrong ! If the Tories were to lose 7 by elections support from the DUP would no longer be sufficient to prop them up..
I guess chances of 15 tory MP's being recalled over sexual harassment or similar is an even slimmer chance. But would labour wait to see if 7 seats were lost or go for no confidence vote before by-elections?
But the no confidence vote would fail as long as the DUP support the Govt . After 7 by election losses that ceases to be true.
And how many by election losses have there been in the more than 5 months since the general election?
If there were one by election loss every six months it would take 42 months -3 and a half years before the government lost a vote of confidence.
And how many Tory by election losses have there been in the last 20 years -more or less than 7?
And how do you think the SNP would vote in a vote of confidence given that the SNP fears a wipeout in Scotland?
There wont be a general election until 2022, and then it will be 73 year old hard line Marxist Corbyn versus a much better organised Tory party fighting and going for the jugular for its very survival.
And all those older Tories who did not vote in 2017, beleiving that Corbyn was no threat will turn out in droves in 2022.
There were no by elections in the first year of the 1992 Parliament. The SNP would effectively have no choice - they could not be seen to be helping the Tories remain in office.
I am sure that, given the will, the UK government could find plenty of scope for support for extra investment to support export orientated UK manufacturing by comparison to the absence of such support that we see at present (to the extent that the UK has gained a reputation as the least inclined of EU countries in terms of its willingness to test state aid rules to the limit). It doesn't have to be so blatant as to actually pay tariffs imposed by the EU, but something of a nature that will leave UK manufacturers quite content one way or another. So let's set aside £5bn for that. That then leaves a balance of £8bn out of the £13m tariff windfall. Add to that the £11bn or so of net UK payments we make annually to the EU and we're up to a £19bn total.
Or about £380m per week, as a totally uncommitted windfall available to the UK Exchequer. And with an EU so determined to push the UK down the path of a hard Brexit that it ends up without a penny in a divorce settlement.
Well, yes, sort-of. But those tariffs will be ultimately paid by British consumers. If the idea is to tax consumers more, we didn't need to leave the EU to do so: we could have simply bumped up VAT.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
.
Wrong ! If the Tories were to lose 7 by elections support from the DUP would no longer be sufficient to prop them up..
I guess chances of 15 tory MP's being recalled over sexual harassment or similar is an even slimmer chance. But would labour wait to see if 7 seats were lost or go for no confidence vote before by-elections?
But the no confidence vote would fail as long as the DUP support the Govt . After 7 by election losses that ceases to be true.
And how many by election losses have there been in the more than 5 months since the general election?
If there were one by election loss every six months it would take 42 months -3 and a half years before the government lost a vote of confidence.
And how many Tory by election losses have there been in the last 20 years -more or less than 7?
And how do you think the SNP would vote in a vote of confidence given that the SNP fears a wipeout in Scotland?
There wont be a general election until 2022, and then it will be 73 year old hard line Marxist Corbyn versus a much better organised Tory party fighting and going for the jugular for its very survival.
And all those older Tories who did not vote in 2017, beleiving that Corbyn was no threat will turn out in droves in 2022.
This article of faith amongst some that the SNP would support the Conservatives in a vote of confidence is truly the most bonkers PB memes of recent times.
>>the Conservatives are loath to do anything that could prompt a second general election. >This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called.
A new leader would be under intense pressure because their Brexit vision has no general public mandate. Maybe they could tough this out, but maybe they couldn't. In the latter case, the above 'completely bogus' falls apart, doesn't it?
A new leader
a) gets a polling honeymoon. In which case Labour scuppers the GE.
b) gets no polling honeymoon. In which case the new PM scuppers the GE.
2017 is going to hang around PM's like a millstone for decades. They are going to have to be 30% ahead before they take a chance again...
I am sure that, given the will, the UK government could find plenty of scope for support for extra investment to support export orientated UK manufacturing by comparison to the absence of such support that we see at present (to the extent that the UK has gained a reputation as the least inclined of EU countries in terms of its willingness to test state aid rules to the limit). It doesn't have to be so blatant as to actually pay tariffs imposed by the EU, but something of a nature that will leave UK manufacturers quite content one way or another. So let's set aside £5bn for that. That then leaves a balance of £8bn out of the £13m tariff windfall. Add to that the £11bn or so of net UK payments we make annually to the EU and we're up to a £19bn total.
Or about £380m per week, as a totally uncommitted windfall available to the UK Exchequer. And with an EU so determined to push the UK down the path of a hard Brexit that it ends up without a penny in a divorce settlement.
Well, yes, sort-of. But those tariffs will be ultimately paid by British consumers. If the idea is to tax consumers more, we didn't need to leave the EU to do so: we could have simply bumped up VAT.
When of course the main reason we voted Leave was to be able to zero-rate VAT on home energy supplies.
I am sure that, given the will, the UK government could find plenty of scope for support for extra investment to support export orientated UK manufacturing by comparison to the absence of such support that we see at present (to the extent that the UK has gained a reputation as the least inclined of EU countries in terms of its willingness to test state aid rules to the limit). It doesn't have to be so blatant as to actually pay tariffs imposed by the EU, but something of a nature that will leave UK manufacturers quite content one way or another. So let's set aside £5bn for that. That then leaves a balance of £8bn out of the £13m tariff windfall. Add to that the £11bn or so of net UK payments we make annually to the EU and we're up to a £19bn total.
Or about £380m per week, as a totally uncommitted windfall available to the UK Exchequer. And with an EU so determined to push the UK down the path of a hard Brexit that it ends up without a penny in a divorce settlement.
Well, yes, sort-of. But those tariffs will be ultimately paid by British consumers. If the idea is to tax consumers more, we didn't need to leave the EU to do so: we could have simply bumped up VAT.
When of course the main reason we voted Leave was to be able to zero-rate VAT on home energy supplies.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
.
Wrong ! If the Tories were to lose 7 by elections support from the DUP would no longer be sufficient to prop them up..
I guess chances of 15 tory MP's being recalled over sexual harassment or similar is an even slimmer chance. But would labour wait to see if 7 seats were lost or go for no confidence vote before by-elections?
But the no confidence vote would fail as long as the DUP support the Govt . After 7 by election losses that ceases to be true.
And how many by election losses have there been in the more than 5 months since the general election?
If there were one by election loss every six months it would take 42 months -3 and a half years before the government lost a vote of confidence.
And how many Tory by election losses have there been in the last 20 years -more or less than 7?
And how do you think the SNP would vote in a vote of confidence given that the SNP fears a wipeout in Scotland?
There wont be a general election until 2022, and then it will be 73 year old hard line Marxist Corbyn versus a much better organised Tory party fighting and going for the jugular for its very survival.
And all those older Tories who did not vote in 2017, beleiving that Corbyn was no threat will turn out in droves in 2022.
This article of faith amongst some that the SNP would support the Conservatives in a vote of confidence is truly the most bonkers PB memes of recent times.
Where would the SNP abstaining on a motion of no confidence sit on the scale of supporting Conservatives/supporting Labour/being irrelevent to Scotland?
How many by Tory by election defeats have there been this century?Less than half than the 7 required for the Tories to lose a vote of confidence. How many by elections have there been in the 5 months since the election? Zero. A Tory by election defeat every six months would al;low the Tories to carry on for 42 months.
How likely is the SNP to want to defeat the Tories in a vote of confidence given the likelihood of more seats in a general election?
No. This Tory government will continue until 2022.
Then it will be a 73 year old Corbyn, his unhinged supporters singing that fascist sounding song, a Tory party with a new leader, an attractive manifesto, not making the mistakes of 2017, Brexit a fait accompli, and -crucially -the expectation that Corbyn will win which in itself will lead to those who want to stop him, especially older voters who stayed at home in 2017 -turning out in droves.
The irony? The more Corbynistas talk up Corbyn as a PM in waiting, the less likely he will ever be PM.
And I say this as a non Blairite Labour supporter.
10pm on election night 2022 will see many Corbynista tears.
Man who shared image of Muslim ‘ignoring Westminster victims’ was a Russian bot
An image of a Muslim woman on Westminster Bridge apparently ignoring terror attack victims was promoted by a Russian bot account, Twitter revealed.
The account @SouthLoneStar shared the image, saying, ‘Muslim woman pays no mind to the terror attack, casually walks by a dying man while checking phone#PrayForLondon #Westminster #BanIslam.’
The account described itself as, ‘Proud TEXAN and AMERICAN patriot.’
The Tweet was included in news reports around the world – but Twitter revealed that the account was actually run from Russia, and has closed it down, according to Wired.
The woman in the image made clear afterwards she was horrified by Khalid Masood’s attack – but the image was seized on by racists and the hard right.
The so-called ‘Texas Lone Star’ account also – mysteriously – posted content about Brexit, saying, ‘I hope UK after #BrexitVote will start to clean their land from muslim invasion!’
On thread there has been a fair amount of speculation about the DUP's position. Has anyone noted that the DUP's confidence and supply agreement is with the Conservative party, not Theresa May? If so, the replacement of leader shouldn't make any difference to it.
I'd worry about the hypothetical case after by-election losses if there were any sign of them. For now, that's strictly theoretical.
Quite so re: C&S. As is entirely ordinary, I believe?
Actuarially, the churn in MPs caused by three elections in 7 years must make by-elections less likely than in any normal cycle, too.
Errm. it is hard not to be completely sympathetic with the husband who has so far come across as measured and careful but how exactly did the FO create this mess?
Was it the FO who decided to go to Iran having previously worked for the BBC when numerous people who have done so have been harassed; was it a UK court that sentenced this poor woman to 5 years for, well, who knows what, in April; is there any evidence, despite the wild speculation, that her sentence has been increased and if it is will that be because of the FO or because Iran is under the control of irrational mediaeval tossers?
Is it our fault that Iran does not recognise dual citizenship and that, so far as they are concerned, she remains an Iranian and therefore subject to the same treatment as all the other citizens of that benighted country? Surely she was aware of that before she went?
The blame for this unhappy situation is pretty clear and it is not with the UK government.
On thread there has been a fair amount of speculation about the DUP's position. Has anyone noted that the DUP's confidence and supply agreement is with the Conservative party, not Theresa May? If so, the replacement of leader shouldn't make any difference to it.
I'd worry about the hypothetical case after by-election losses if there were any sign of them. For now, that's strictly theoretical.
Quite so re: C&S. As is entirely ordinary, I believe?
Actuarially, the churn in MPs caused by three elections in 7 years must make by-elections less likely than in any normal cycle, too.
I haven't seen anyone make that last point before but it must be right.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
.
Wrong ! If the Tories were to lose 7 by elections support from the DUP would no longer be sufficient to prop them up..
I guess chances of 15 tory MP's being recalled over sexual harassment or similar is an even slimmer chance. But would labour wait to see if 7 seats were lost or go for no confidence vote before by-elections?
But the no confidence vote would fail as long as the DUP support the Govt . After 7 by election losses that ceases to be true.
And how many by election losses have there been in the more than 5 months since the general election?
If there were one by election loss every six months it would take 42 months -3 and a half years before the government lost a vote of confidence.
And how many Tory by election losses have there been in the last 20 years -more or less than 7?
And how do you think the SNP would vote in a vote of confidence given that the SNP fears a wipeout in Scotland?
There wont be a general election until 2022, and then it will be 73 year old hard line Marxist Corbyn versus a much better organised Tory party fighting and going for the jugular for its very survival.
And all those older Tories who did not vote in 2017, beleiving that Corbyn was no threat will turn out in droves in 2022.
This article of faith amongst some that the SNP would support the Conservatives in a vote of confidence is truly the most bonkers PB memes of recent times.
+1
If there is a vote of confidence all the opposition parties apart from the DUP will unanimously vote against the government.
Can I refer doubters to the vote of confidence which brought down the Callaghan government in 1979. Both SNP and the then Liberals supported it even though the ensuing election was very bad for both of them.
The more pertinent question is one John Redwood posed a year ago, which is how the UK Exchequer might otherwise choose to spend the £13bn of tariffs it would collect on WTO-sanctioned tariffs on EU goods imported into the UK. That compares to the £5bn our manufacturers would have to pay out to the EU in tariffs. (Civitas figures cited by Redwood).
I am sure that, given the will, the UK government could find plenty of scope for support for extra investment to support export orientated UK manufacturing by comparison to the absence of such support that we see at present (to the extent that the UK has gained a reputation as the least inclined of EU countries in terms of its willingness to test state aid rules to the limit). It doesn't have to be so blatant as to actually pay tariffs imposed by the EU, but something of a nature that will leave UK manufacturers quite content one way or another. So let's set aside £5bn for that. That then leaves a balance of £8bn out of the £13m tariff windfall. Add to that the £11bn or so of net UK payments we make annually to the EU and we're up to a £19bn total.
Or about £380m per week, as a totally uncommitted windfall available to the UK Exchequer. And with an EU so determined to push the UK down the path of a hard Brexit that it ends up without a penny in a divorce settlement.
The UK government in that case would use subsidies to mitigate extra charges on business that it itself imposes through new import duties. It could for example apply new import duties and reduce corporation tax to the same amount. Some businesses would be better off and others worse off by that change depending on how much each of company's inputs are imported. It doesn't however help with new duties applied by other countries on our exports, which is the biggest issue. Once you start targeting subsidies on particular businesses, industries or localities, you make those subsidies specific and actionable. Counterparties can apply countervailing tariffs and then it's up to us to prove the countervailing action is invalid.
You can find ways to subsidise favoured businesses but it isn't a practical alternative to tariff reduction.
In 1935, Attlee led Labour to a considerable recovery from its position in 1931. But if there had been no World War Two, and an election in 1940, Attlee would almost certainly have lost it.
Corbynistas need to learn the central lesson of politics: its all about winning, not celebrating the extent of your defeat.
I don't think it's a Corbynista thing at all. I recall the Tories in 2005 being quite satisfied to have reduced the Labour majority to about 60 seats. Similarly Kinnock-led Labour in 1987 seemed quite content to have secured second place ahead of the Alliance (who I believe started the campaign in a strong polling position).
Errm. it is hard not to be completely sympathetic with the husband who has so far come across as measured and careful but how exactly did the FO create this mess?
Was it the FO who decided to go to Iran having previously worked for the BBC when numerous people who have done so have been harassed; was it a UK court that sentenced this poor woman to 5 years for, well, who knows what, in April; is there any evidence, despite the wild speculation, that her sentence has been increased and if it is will that be because of the FO or because Iran is under the control of irrational mediaeval tossers?
Is it our fault that Iran does not recognise dual citizenship and that, so far as they are concerned, she remains an Iranian and therefore subject to the same treatment as all the other citizens of that benighted country? Surely she was aware of that before she went?
The blame for this unhappy situation is pretty clear and it is not with the UK government.
No but thanks to Boris's bungling the UK government is now firmly on the hook.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
.
Wrong ! If the Tories were to lose 7 by elections support from the DUP would no longer be sufficient to prop them up..
I guess chances of 15 tory MP's being recalled over sexual harassment or similar is an even slimmer chance. But would labour wait to see if 7 seats were lost or go for no confidence vote before by-elections?
But the no confidence vote would fail as long as the DUP support the Govt . After 7 by election losses that ceases to be true.
And how many by election losses have there been in the more than 5 months since the general election?
If there were one by election loss every six months it would take 42 months -3 and a half years before the government lost a vote of confidence.
And how many Tory by election losses have there been in the last 20 years -more or less than 7?
And how do you think the SNP would vote in a vote of confidence given that the SNP fears a wipeout in Scotland?
There wont be a general election until 2022, and then it will be 73 year old hard line Marxist Corbyn versus a much better organised Tory party fighting and going for the jugular for its very survival.
And all those older Tories who did not vote in 2017, beleiving that Corbyn was no threat will turn out in droves in 2022.
This article of faith amongst some that the SNP would support the Conservatives in a vote of confidence is truly the most bonkers PB memes of recent times.
Closely followed by by a semi religious belief in sublimated Irish desperation to rejoin the Union.
>>the Conservatives are loath to do anything that could prompt a second general election. >This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called.
A new leader would be under intense pressure because their Brexit vision has no general public mandate. Maybe they could tough this out, but maybe they couldn't. In the latter case, the above 'completely bogus' falls apart, doesn't it?
A new leader
a) gets a polling honeymoon. In which case Labour scuppers the GE.
b) gets no polling honeymoon. In which case the new PM scuppers the GE.
2017 is going to hang around PM's like a millstone for decades. They are going to have to be 30% ahead before they take a chance again...
Or just not run a terrible campaign.
It's worth remembering that TMay had a commanding lead in the polls when the election was called and, indeed, the locals during the long campaign pointed to a strong win for the Tories.
TMay effectively missed an open goal. She took an imperious, afraid-of-the-public approach to campaigning (against a skilled stump speech opponent). She approved a manifesto with her inner circle that was effectively political suicide to her core vote (dementia tax to homeowners), miscommunicated it badly, u-turned, and of course - utterly screwed up the digital / social media element of the campaign. I remember people on here saying that the 'IRA' Facebook attack ad was a slam dunk, despite the fact I pointed out several times that all the views were paid for and therefore of little to no value, while people were sharing Labour and Momentum videos amongst their friends, getting higher view counts but more importantly generating a 'my friend recommends this' effect. The Corbyn campaign had buzz. The Tory campaign had buzz off.
The Tories are damn lucky they were facing the Marmite Corbyn. A less divisive opponent would have stormed it for Labour.
I am sure that, given the will, the UK government could find plenty of scope for support for extra investment to support export orientated UK manufacturing by comparison to the absence of such support that we see at present (to the extent that the UK has gained a reputation as the least inclined of EU countries in terms of its willingness to test state aid rules to the limit). It doesn't have to be so blatant as to actually pay tariffs imposed by the EU, but something of a nature that will leave UK manufacturers quite content one way or another. So let's set aside £5bn for that. That then leaves a balance of £8bn out of the £13m tariff windfall. Add to that the £11bn or so of net UK payments we make annually to the EU and we're up to a £19bn total.
Or about £380m per week, as a totally uncommitted windfall available to the UK Exchequer. And with an EU so determined to push the UK down the path of a hard Brexit that it ends up without a penny in a divorce settlement.
Well, yes, sort-of. But those tariffs will be ultimately paid by British consumers. If the idea is to tax consumers more, we didn't need to leave the EU to so: we could have simply bumped up VAT.
Only by those British consumers who choose to continue to buy the likes of (for example) Renaults and VWs rather than home produced Nissans (which should become significantly more price competitive in the meantime.)
UK consumers are clearly price sensitive such that the weekly tariff windfall to the Exchequer would fall. Of course it's down to the UK government what it does with what does eventually come its way. Giving it back to consumers of NHS services would be my priority.
F1: made some tiny (50p) long odds bets. With boost, on Ladbrokes, backed each way (third the odds for top 2) for the win: Sainz 1301 Perez 1301 Alonso 1751
In Azerbaijan, Perez would've won or come second but for the stupid Force India civil war (I was especially peeved as I'd backed him at 201). Sainz drove very well at Monaco to get 6th and Singapore to get 4th, and he's in a better car now.
Alonso's car looked competitive at Interlagos on pace, and it's got a good chassis. If he finishes (and with a large slice of luck) he could be best of the midfield.
Obviously these all require good fortune as the top six are in a league of their own. However, reliability has been a little wonky for Ferrari and Red Bull of late, and crashes are always possible. The tightness of the top six and their little league means the odds on those behind them are excessively long, in my view. I wouldn't advise betting more than a tiny sum, but these odds are too long.
Errm. it is hard not to be completely sympathetic with the husband who has so far come across as measured and careful but how exactly did the FO create this mess?
Was it the FO who decided to go to Iran having previously worked for the BBC when numerous people who have done so have been harassed; was it a UK court that sentenced this poor woman to 5 years for, well, who knows what, in April; is there any evidence, despite the wild speculation, that her sentence has been increased and if it is will that be because of the FO or because Iran is under the control of irrational mediaeval tossers?
Is it our fault that Iran does not recognise dual citizenship and that, so far as they are concerned, she remains an Iranian and therefore subject to the same treatment as all the other citizens of that benighted country? Surely she was aware of that before she went?
The blame for this unhappy situation is pretty clear and it is not with the UK government.
No but thanks to Boris's bungling the UK government is now firmly on the hook.
Only in the minds of those for whom Britain and British politicians are always to blame for everything including other peoples' idiocy. I would suggest that any rational mind would blame (a) Iran and (b) a woman who took absurd risks with a young child in tow, even if she didn't do anything that any normal person would think was in any way criminal.
In 1935, Attlee led Labour to a considerable recovery from its position in 1931. But if there had been no World War Two, and an election in 1940, Attlee would almost certainly have lost it.
Corbynistas need to learn the central lesson of politics: its all about winning, not celebrating the extent of your defeat.
I don't think it's a Corbynista thing at all. I recall the Tories in 2005 being quite satisfied to have reduced the Labour majority to about 60 seats. Similarly Kinnock-led Labour in 1987 seemed quite content to have secured second place ahead of the Alliance (who I believe started the campaign in a strong polling position).
On the contrary I remember Labour being devastated by the Tory landslide 1987, and even more so in 1992, when the Tories achieved a mere majority of 20. Kinnock resigned in 1992 having reduced the Tory majority from 102 to 20 .
The difference is that Corbynistas are celebrating the rise in the Labour vote (largely by increasing their vote in seats it already holds) and ignoring the fact that it failed in 2017 to win many marginal seats. On 40% of the vote it won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown won in 2010 on 29% of the vote.
Given the likelihood of many Tories who stayed at home in 2017 to turn out in 2022 to stop the widely expected Corbyn win, Corbynistas by describing Corbyn as the next PM are helping to prevent that outcome.
On thread there has been a fair amount of speculation about the DUP's position. Has anyone noted that the DUP's confidence and supply agreement is with the Conservative party, not Theresa May? If so, the replacement of leader shouldn't make any difference to it.
I'd worry about the hypothetical case after by-election losses if there were any sign of them. For now, that's strictly theoretical.
Quite so re: C&S. As is entirely ordinary, I believe?
Actuarially, the churn in MPs caused by three elections in 7 years must make by-elections less likely than in any normal cycle, too.
I haven't seen anyone make that last point before but it must be right.
Not particularly unusual though . We had three election in less than 6 years - Oct 1964 - June 1970 followed by a further three elections in barely 5 years - Feb 1974 - May 1979. The same happened in the early 1950s with 3 elections from Feb 1950 to May 1955.
>>the Conservatives are loath to do anything that could prompt a second general election. >This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called.
A new leader would be under intense pressure because their Brexit vision has no general public mandate. Maybe they could tough this out, but maybe they couldn't. In the latter case, the above 'completely bogus' falls apart, doesn't it?
A new leader
a) gets a polling honeymoon. In which case Labour scuppers the GE.
b) gets no polling honeymoon. In which case the new PM scuppers the GE.
2017 is going to hang around PM's like a millstone for decades. They are going to have to be 30% ahead before they take a chance again...
Or just not run a terrible campaign.
It's worth remembering that TMay had a commanding lead in the polls when the election was called and, indeed, the locals during the long campaign pointed to a strong win for the Tories.
TMay effectively missed an open goal. She took an imperious, afraid-of-the-public approach to campaigning (against a skilled stump speech opponent). She approved a manifesto with her inner circle that was effectively political suicide to her core vote (dementia tax to homeowners), miscommunicated it badly, u-turned, and of course - utterly screwed up the digital / social media element of the campaign. I remember people on here saying that the 'IRA' Facebook attack ad was a slam dunk, despite the fact I pointed out several times that all the views were paid for and therefore of little to no value, while people were sharing Labour and Momentum videos amongst their friends, getting higher view counts but more importantly generating a 'my friend recommends this' effect. The Corbyn campaign had buzz. The Tory campaign had buzz off.
The Tories are damn lucky they were facing the Marmite Corbyn. A less divisive opponent would have stormed it for Labour.
Andy Burnham would be prime minister right now if it had not been for Corbyn and his army of the unhinged.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
.
Wrong ! If the Tories were to lose 7 by elections support from the DUP would no longer be sufficient to prop them up..
I guess chances of 15 tory MP's being recalled over sexual harassment or similar is an even slimmer chance. But would labour wait to see if 7 seats were lost or go for no confidence vote before by-elections?
But the no confidence vote would fail as long as the DUP support the Govt . After 7 by election losses that ceases to be true.
And how many by election losses have there been in the more than 5 months since the general election?
If there were one by election loss every six months it would take 42 months -3 and a half years before the government lost a vote of confidence.
And how many Tory by election losses have there been in the last 20 years -more or less than 7?
And how do you think the SNP would vote in a vote of confidence given that the SNP fears a wipeout in Scotland?
There wont be a general election until 2022, and then it will be 73 year old hard line Marxist Corbyn versus a much better organised Tory party fighting and going for the jugular for its very survival.
And all those older Tories who did not vote in 2017, beleiving that Corbyn was no threat will turn out in droves in 2022.
This article of faith amongst some that the SNP would support the Conservatives in a vote of confidence is truly the most bonkers PB memes of recent times.
Closely followed by by a semi religious belief in sublimated Irish desperation to rejoin the Union.
That's the really weird one. You'd have thought the last 100 years of Irish history would have given a hint as to how popular that idea might be in the Republic of Ireland.
>>the Conservatives are loath to do anything that could prompt a second general election. >This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called.
A new leader would be under intense pressure because their Brexit vision has no general public mandate. Maybe they could tough this out, but maybe they couldn't. In the latter case, the above 'completely bogus' falls apart, doesn't it?
A new leader
a) gets a polling honeymoon. In which case Labour scuppers the GE.
b) gets no polling honeymoon. In which case the new PM scuppers the GE.
2017 is going to hang around PM's like a millstone for decades. They are going to have to be 30% ahead before they take a chance again...
Or just not run a terrible campaign.
It's worth remembering that TMay had a commanding lead in the polls when the election was called and, indeed, the locals during the long campaign pointed to a strong win for the Tories.
TMay effectively missed an open goal. She took an imperious, afraid-of-the-public approach to campaigning (against a skilled stump speech opponent). She approved a manifesto with her inner circle that was effectively political suicide to her core vote (dementia tax to homeowners), miscommunicated it badly, u-turned, and of course - utterly screwed up the digital / social media element of the campaign. I remember people on here saying that the 'IRA' Facebook attack ad was a slam dunk, despite the fact I pointed out several times that all the views were paid for and therefore of little to no value, while people were sharing Labour and Momentum videos amongst their friends, getting higher view counts but more importantly generating a 'my friend recommends this' effect. The Corbyn campaign had buzz. The Tory campaign had buzz off.
The Tories are damn lucky they were facing the Marmite Corbyn. A less divisive opponent would have stormed it for Labour.
A less divisive opponent would have severely tempered the desire to call an early GE though.
Yes, the Tories nationally ran a shocker. A better run campaign could easily have saved 15 seats and won 10 more, against any opponent. The balance of seats ignored vs. crazy target seats won't be repeated. Labour are benchmarked at an improbably high watermark next time out. They have a lot of seats to defend on tiny majorities.
Where each party decides to defend and attack next time will be fascinating.
Mr. F, I was surprised Morley and Outwood didn't return to the reds. Whilst the majority for the blues is still marginal, it rose from 500 or so to 2,000.
The UK government in that case would use subsidies to mitigate extra charges on business that it itself imposes through new import duties. It could for example apply new import duties and reduce corporation tax to the same amount. Some businesses would be better off and others worse off by that change depending on how much each of company's inputs are imported. It doesn't however help with new duties applied by other countries on our exports, which is the biggest issue. Once you start targeting subsidies on particular businesses, industries or localities, you make those subsidies specific and actionable. Counterparties can apply countervailing tariffs and then it's up to us to prove the countervailing action is invalid.
You can find ways to subsidise favoured businesses but it isn't a practical alternative to tariff reduction.
Something just struck me. The EU would get an estimated £5 billion in import duties on UK inbound goods in the case of Hard Brexit. That money goes straight to EU coffers. So they can cover half their Brexit financial hole just there.
There wont be a general election until 2022. For the Tories to lose a vote of confidence, they would have to lose 7 by elections, and the DUP would have to vote against the government.
.
Wrong ! If the Tories were to lose 7 by elections support from the DUP would no longer be sufficient to prop them up..
I guess chances of 15 tory MP's being recalled over sexual harassment or similar is an even slimmer chance. But would labour wait to see if 7 seats were lost or go for no confidence vote before by-elections?
But the no confidence vote would fail as long as the DUP support the Govt . After 7 by election losses that ceases to be true.
And how many by election losses have there been in the more than 5 months since the general election?
If there were one by election loss every six months it would take 42 months -3 and a half years before the government lost a vote of confidence.
And how many Tory by election losses have there been in the last 20 years -more or less than 7?
And how do you think the SNP would vote in a vote of confidence given that the SNP fears a wipeout in Scotland?
There wont be a general election until 2022, and then it will be 73 year old hard line Marxist Corbyn versus a much better organised Tory party fighting and going for the jugular for its very survival.
And all those older Tories who did not vote in 2017, beleiving that Corbyn was no threat will turn out in droves in 2022.
This article of faith amongst some that the SNP would support the Conservatives in a vote of confidence is truly the most bonkers PB memes of recent times.
Closely followed by by a semi religious belief in sublimated Irish desperation to rejoin the Union.
That's the really weird one. You'd have thought the last 100 years of Irish history would have given a hint as to how popular that idea might be in the Republic of Ireland.
I don't think anyone actually believes that one as they type it but they really do think the SNP will back the Cons.
Comments
She thinks it was surely a prank that a black guy would want to go hunting?
And you say "I don't think it looks as bad as Guido makes out."
There is a banned word for you that, sadly, I am not allowed to use on here.
I reckon if the MPs decide to put JRM as one of the two names going to members then he is leader.
George Orwell would have thought he'd had a good morning's writing if he'd come up with that one.
Teacher suspended for 'accidentally' calling a trans girl a boy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5077183/Christian-teacher-suspended-calling-trans-boy-girl.html
I'm a victim i'm a victim i'm a victim
Which is it, was he "silenced for his religious beliefs" or was it an "accident"? It can't be both. If it was an accident, his religious beliefs don't enter into it - if it was deliberate because of his beliefs, it was not an accident.
Oh for Fox's sake, time to legalise Fox hunting with hounds etc
Corbyn decided to get on his moral high horse over Iran this weekend.
Ooops!
https://order-order.com/2017/11/12/corbyns-record-iran/
He really is quite unfit for any public office.
that works rather well here.
He should stop whining about his faith, keep that to himself where it belongs and get on with his job. If he's too much of a snowflake to keep his faith to himself he should do something else.
And lets not forget that the reason why remain lost the EU referendum and we are going through Brexit right now is because of Corbyn's dire performance in that referendum campaign.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt
Turns out - the source being the head of the Rosetta Project (who comes from Dartmouth and gave us a great speech about that Project) - that the offending shirt was actually bought for him by his wife, so he'd have something smart to wear if he was on the telly.....
This is less of an issue obviously when it relates to issues like the European Medicines Agency where we might seek to participate as an equal member. But squaring the circle is nigh on impossible for areas where it is strictly a bilateral arrangement between the EU and UK and the EU - our deal will be with the union not with its member states.
Whist the two are not necessarily contradictory, the teacher needs to decide whether his defence is that the misgendering was a slip of the tongue or if he feels his honestly held, deeply religious beliefs make him feel he has been discriminated against.
"The aggressive way in which transgender ideology is being imposed is undermining my freedom of belief and conscience" is a statement which indicates he did NOT 'accidentally' misgender the pupil and it was in fact deliberate.
This makes a mockery of a deeply misleading headline, and is a good part of the reason I always head to the Mail online with Adblocker activated.
We won the World Cup in 1966.
If you want to practice your faith then that's between you, your faith and your Church. It has nothing to do with unrelated children you are responsible for. If you're too much of a snowflake to put children ahead of your faith then maybe you shouldn't be teaching.
The very fact that the headline included the word Christian was already indicative that it was no accident. If it was an accident then why even mention his faith?
The snowflake teacher just wants to have his cake and eat it too. Very easy to label that you did wrong as an accident but when you keep insisting it was right then that makes a total mockery of your claims. Try putting children first for a second and stop whining about what word you're asked to use.
My recollection of the answers - which may not be accurate - is that total Tory membership is in the region of 100,000, average age is well over 60 and more than 2/3 male but I'm willing to stand corrected on any of that.
By comparison Labour membership is 500,000 +, average age about 50 and also majority male - 55-60% I think.
1: As people get older they become more conservative (small c) and so more likely to be Conservative (capital C).
2: As people enter retirement then party politics becomes a social thing to get involved with instead of working.
I would never count it as a newspaper because it seems to me to publish far more gossip than news.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/10/the-average-age-of-conservative-party-members-is-57-four-years-older-than-labour-ones.html
But my reading of it is that she thinks it absurd that he in particular (ie a black guy) should think of going hunting. "The Hammersmith candidate" being just another way of identifiying him.
Your interpretation I think is being overly generous to her, especially as she has form.
But if that was your interpretation then I apologise for having thoughts about calling you the word that I didn't call you.
Edit: and for the avoidance of doubt, there are indeed many Hammersmith residents who go hunting.
And the virtually all of the alternatives to Corbyn are far keener on the EU than he, and it was the likes of Thurrock, Nuneaton, Mansfield and Cannock Chase (all heavily Leave-voting constituencies) that kept the Tories in power. Corbyn did quite well in marginals that were either Remain or moderately Leave, particularly in the South of England.
Although an update to a recent law is federal, the responsible for policing it is province basis and his argument is that the Ontario Human Rights Commission particular interpretation of an updated law makes his stance potential illegal, where as in other provinces they have interpreted it differently.
>This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called.
A new leader would be under intense pressure because their Brexit vision has no general public mandate. Maybe they could tough this out, but maybe they couldn't. In the latter case, the above 'completely bogus' falls apart, doesn't it?
F1: Hamilton unhappy with three engine limit next year, coupled with the halo increasing weight to further decrease the 'sprinting' aspect.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41964197
Hard to disagree with him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/13/boys-tiaras-church-of-england-report-homophobia
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/10/25/how-would-we-spend-all-the-tariff-money-if-the-eu-wants-to-damage-their-trade-with-us/
I am sure that, given the will, the UK government could find plenty of scope for support for extra investment to support export orientated UK manufacturing by comparison to the absence of such
support that we see at present (to the extent that the UK has gained a reputation as the least inclined of EU countries in terms of its willingness to test state aid rules to the limit). It doesn't have to be so blatant as to actually pay tariffs imposed by the EU, but something of a nature that will leave UK manufacturers quite content one way or another. So let's set aside £5bn for that. That then leaves a balance of £8bn out of the £13m tariff windfall. Add to that the £11bn or so of net UK payments we make annually to the EU and we're up to a £19bn total.
Or about £380m per week, as a totally uncommitted windfall available to the UK Exchequer. And with an EU so determined to push the UK down the path of a hard Brexit that it ends up without a penny in a divorce settlement.
I'd worry about the hypothetical case after by-election losses if there were any sign of them. For now, that's strictly theoretical.
If there were one by election loss every six months it would take 42 months -3 and a half years before the government lost a vote of confidence.
And how many Tory by election losses have there been in the last 20 years -more or less than 7?
And how do you think the SNP would vote in a vote of confidence given that the SNP fears a wipeout in Scotland?
There wont be a general election until 2022, and then it will be 73 year old hard line Marxist Corbyn versus a much better organised Tory party fighting and going for the jugular for its very survival.
And all those older Tories who did not vote in 2017, beleiving that Corbyn was no threat will turn out in droves in 2022.
Corbynistas need to learn the central lesson of politics: its all about winning, not celebrating the extent of your defeat.
Have enquired about extended the expiry date to 27 November to cover the last race.
Edited extra bit: sounds like something similar (bonus still limited but I choose when it starts) might be possible.
Although I'm still displeased about the voiding, getting something is better than nothing.
The SNP would effectively have no choice - they could not be seen to be helping the Tories remain in office.
a) gets a polling honeymoon. In which case Labour scuppers the GE.
b) gets no polling honeymoon. In which case the new PM scuppers the GE.
2017 is going to hang around PM's like a millstone for decades. They are going to have to be 30% ahead before they take a chance again...
Wasn't it?
How likely is the SNP to want to defeat the Tories in a vote of confidence given the likelihood of more seats in a general election?
No. This Tory government will continue until 2022.
Then it will be a 73 year old Corbyn, his unhinged supporters singing that fascist sounding song, a Tory party with a new leader, an attractive manifesto, not making the mistakes of 2017, Brexit a fait accompli, and -crucially -the expectation that Corbyn will win which in itself will lead to those who want to stop him, especially older voters who stayed at home in 2017 -turning out in droves.
The irony? The more Corbynistas talk up Corbyn as a PM in waiting, the less likely he will ever be PM.
And I say this as a non Blairite Labour supporter.
10pm on election night 2022 will see many Corbynista tears.
An image of a Muslim woman on Westminster Bridge apparently ignoring terror attack victims was promoted by a Russian bot account, Twitter revealed.
The account @SouthLoneStar shared the image, saying, ‘Muslim woman pays no mind to the terror attack, casually walks by a dying man while checking phone#PrayForLondon #Westminster #BanIslam.’
The account described itself as, ‘Proud TEXAN and AMERICAN patriot.’
The Tweet was included in news reports around the world – but Twitter revealed that the account was actually run from Russia, and has closed it down, according to Wired.
The woman in the image made clear afterwards she was horrified by Khalid Masood’s attack – but the image was seized on by racists and the hard right.
The so-called ‘Texas Lone Star’ account also – mysteriously – posted content about Brexit, saying, ‘I hope UK after #BrexitVote will start to clean their land from muslim invasion!’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/13/man-who-shared-image-of-muslim-ignoring-westminster-victims-was-a-russian-bot-7074488/
Actuarially, the churn in MPs caused by three elections in 7 years must make by-elections less likely than in any normal cycle, too.
Was it the FO who decided to go to Iran having previously worked for the BBC when numerous people who have done so have been harassed; was it a UK court that sentenced this poor woman to 5 years for, well, who knows what, in April; is there any evidence, despite the wild speculation, that her sentence has been increased and if it is will that be because of the FO or because Iran is under the control of irrational mediaeval tossers?
Is it our fault that Iran does not recognise dual citizenship and that, so far as they are concerned, she remains an Iranian and therefore subject to the same treatment as all the other citizens of that benighted country? Surely she was aware of that before she went?
The blame for this unhappy situation is pretty clear and it is not with the UK government.
If there is a vote of confidence all the opposition parties apart from the DUP will unanimously vote against the government.
Can I refer doubters to the vote of confidence which brought down the Callaghan government in 1979. Both SNP and the then Liberals supported it even though the ensuing election was very bad for both of them.
You can find ways to subsidise favoured businesses but it isn't a practical alternative to tariff reduction.
It's worth remembering that TMay had a commanding lead in the polls when the election was called and, indeed, the locals during the long campaign pointed to a strong win for the Tories.
TMay effectively missed an open goal. She took an imperious, afraid-of-the-public approach to campaigning (against a skilled stump speech opponent). She approved a manifesto with her inner circle that was effectively political suicide to her core vote (dementia tax to homeowners), miscommunicated it badly, u-turned, and of course - utterly screwed up the digital / social media element of the campaign. I remember people on here saying that the 'IRA' Facebook attack ad was a slam dunk, despite the fact I pointed out several times that all the views were paid for and therefore of little to no value, while people were sharing Labour and Momentum videos amongst their friends, getting higher view counts but more importantly generating a 'my friend recommends this' effect. The Corbyn campaign had buzz. The Tory campaign had buzz off.
The Tories are damn lucky they were facing the Marmite Corbyn. A less divisive opponent would have stormed it for Labour.
UK consumers are clearly price sensitive such that the weekly tariff windfall to the Exchequer would fall. Of course it's down to the UK government what it does with what does eventually come its way. Giving it back to consumers of NHS services would be my priority.
Sainz 1301
Perez 1301
Alonso 1751
In Azerbaijan, Perez would've won or come second but for the stupid Force India civil war (I was especially peeved as I'd backed him at 201). Sainz drove very well at Monaco to get 6th and Singapore to get 4th, and he's in a better car now.
Alonso's car looked competitive at Interlagos on pace, and it's got a good chassis. If he finishes (and with a large slice of luck) he could be best of the midfield.
Obviously these all require good fortune as the top six are in a league of their own. However, reliability has been a little wonky for Ferrari and Red Bull of late, and crashes are always possible. The tightness of the top six and their little league means the odds on those behind them are excessively long, in my view. I wouldn't advise betting more than a tiny sum, but these odds are too long.
The difference is that Corbynistas are celebrating the rise in the Labour vote (largely by increasing their vote in seats it already holds) and ignoring the fact that it failed in 2017 to win many marginal seats. On 40% of the vote it won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown won in 2010 on 29% of the vote.
Given the likelihood of many Tories who stayed at home in 2017 to turn out in 2022 to stop the widely expected Corbyn win, Corbynistas by describing Corbyn as the next PM are helping to prevent that outcome.
NEW THREAD
Yes, the Tories nationally ran a shocker. A better run campaign could easily have saved 15 seats and won 10 more, against any opponent. The balance of seats ignored vs. crazy target seats won't be repeated. Labour are benchmarked at an improbably high watermark next time out. They have a lot of seats to defend on tiny majorities.
Where each party decides to defend and attack next time will be fascinating.