Having just checked the list, I'm surprised that no US president ever made a full state visit to the UK before George W Bush. I had assumed that were Trump to win a second term, a state visit (if not received in the first term), would be almost automatic. On reflection, it wouldn't be - not least because domestic UK politics might make it difficult, either before or after a 2022 general election.
It turns out that if you make it clear you hate foreigners and you don't want them, the ones with the most agency will choose to go elsewhere. Who knew?
Unspoofable.
Net migration this year is over 200,000 people.
And you're doubling down on this inane nonsense about hating foreigners.
In the 12-month period, 572,000 people arrived in the UK.
A flake of snow has fallen in that there London. The rest of the day is cancelled.
That is all.
I saw a woman recording it from her phone from on office block. What a fantastic Saturday evening entertainment it will be to show that to her friends.
I saw a woman recording it from her phone from on office block. What a fantastic Saturday evening entertainment it will be to show that to her friends.
Mr. Eagles, vielleicht. I don't think it'll make much change either way. People who love Communism will still be in Corbyn's corner. People who are worried about Communism will still back the Conservatives as The Alternative. There won't be much change.
The row ongoing, however, provides continuous PR for Britain First.
Morris...I think you live in the 1950's. The concept of communism is something that means nothing to people aged under 50, a bit like life without the internet. There is no traction in attacking Corbyn as a Trotskyist except for people like you who applaud like a clapping sea lion.
A flake of snow has fallen in that there London. The rest of the day is cancelled.
That is all.
I saw a woman recording it from her phone from on office block. What a fantastic Saturday evening entertainment it will be to show that to her friends.
It turns out that if you make it clear you hate foreigners and you don't want them, the ones with the most agency will choose to go elsewhere. Who knew?
So the 572,000 who chose to come here in the last 12 months lacked agency did they? How did they end up here then?
Mr. Eagles, vielleicht. I don't think it'll make much change either way. People who love Communism will still be in Corbyn's corner. People who are worried about Communism will still back the Conservatives as The Alternative. There won't be much change.
The row ongoing, however, provides continuous PR for Britain First.
Morris...I think you live in the 1950's. The concept of communism is something that means nothing to people aged under 50, a bit like life without the internet. There is no traction in attacking Corbyn as a Trotskyist except for people like you who applaud like a clapping sea lion.
Talk to my younger grandson occasionally about politics; he has a completely different world perception to that which I had when I was 15 or so.
Mr. Eagles, vielleicht. I don't think it'll make much change either way. People who love Communism will still be in Corbyn's corner. People who are worried about Communism will still back the Conservatives as The Alternative. There won't be much change.
The row ongoing, however, provides continuous PR for Britain First.
Morris...I think you live in the 1950's. The concept of communism is something that means nothing to people aged under 50, a bit like life without the internet. There is no traction in attacking Corbyn as a Trotskyist except for people like you who applaud like a clapping sea lion.
I think that's right. I've chatted unapologetically about my communist past for the last 20 years, including in communications to constituents. Almost nobody ever seemed bothered - it was seen as a minor eccentricity, like being a former Jehovah's Witness. Left-wingers weren't particularly impressed, right-wingers weren't especially terrified.
The Tory focus on this sort of thing is one of the contributing factors to the age differences manifest in polling. The elderly do indeed tend to have a view on these things, younger people wonder what they're on about.
But on Morris's point, I think Theresa will indeed get a modest bump in "Good PM" ratings - progress on the EU, reproving Trump and visiting Iraq combine to show a PM doing her job competently this week, by contrast to most previous weeks.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Yeah, that looked a bit long to me when I was trying to work it through. The thing is, which of the other options would you lengthen? Perhaps 2021-5 should be more like 5/1, as per my earlier post about it not being automatic that a two-term president gets a visit, which would bring None in to 5/4.
Btw, will u be there for the two day meeting? I'm there both days.....weather permitting.
Not on current plans
Shame. I'll just have to raise a glass to you. Should plans change, we generally start in the Big Bucks champagne bar and work our way downmarket as funds deplete.....usually by about the second race.
Mr. Eagles, vielleicht. I don't think it'll make much change either way. People who love Communism will still be in Corbyn's corner. People who are worried about Communism will still back the Conservatives as The Alternative. There won't be much change.
The row ongoing, however, provides continuous PR for Britain First.
Morris...I think you live in the 1950's. The concept of communism is something that means nothing to people aged under 50, a bit like life without the internet. There is no traction in attacking Corbyn as a Trotskyist except for people like you who applaud like a clapping sea lion.
I think that's right. I've chatted unapologetically about my communist past for the last 20 years, including in communications to constituents. Almost nobody ever seemed bothered - it was seen as a minor eccentricity, like being a former Jehovah's Witness. Left-wingers weren't particularly impressed, right-wingers weren't especially terrified.
The Tory focus on this sort of thing is one of the contributing factors to the age differences manifest in polling. The elderly do indeed tend to have a view on these things, younger people wonder what they're on about.
But on Morris's point, I think Theresa will indeed get a modest bump in "Good PM" ratings - progress on the EU, reproving Trump and visiting Iraq combine to show a PM doing her job competently this week, by contrast to most previous weeks.
You are right Nick; people being Communists or ex-Communists is all part of what makes Britain Britain (together with the Royal Family who everyone in the UK adores and values, btw).
Thing is, we don't want either the Royal Family or Communists running the country.
I've just cast my ballot in the NEC election for 3 extra CLP representatives. Momentum have fielded a slate of 3 candidates. Eddie Izzard is also standing.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Stalin's Russian and Mao's China and Castro's Cuba may have been fractionally better than Hitler's Germany but life in Fascist Italy or Spain was certainly better than in Communist Russia, China or Cuba.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
No I wouldn't. The road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'.
Anyone can see that communism requires individual freedoms to be supressed. The flaw is inherent in it's conception.
Mr. Punter, cocaine isn't a problem. Liquid ecstasy is. Kids have even taken to injecting it directly into their mouths. E by gum is a serious problem here.
Mr. Divvie, the stated aims of Communism and historical behaviour of Communist regimes are different animals. Not unlike a man who tells his wife he loves her, then beats the shit out of her and blames her for provoking him. Those who support Communism attack their opponents as if they hate love, whereas those who oppose it point to the battered housewife.
In the real world, theory is merely a tool for practicality. Those willing to tolerate, let alone endorse and promote, real life tyranny for the sake of ideology are either naive beyond reason or malevolent beyond redemption.
If a theory can't survive contact with the human race, it's not much use in a world of men.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Naziism's aims were idealistic too, to those who advocated them.
There is a legitimate philosophical argument to be had about the relative theoretical merit of the two but it's angels dancing on pinhead stuff: the reality of applied communism has been demonstrated enough times to be able to base meaningful comparisons only on what's been delivered.
In any case, even as a philosophical concept, communism gets far too much of a free pass. It is fundamentally incompatible with any meaningful degree of freedom and liberty because of the need for state planning.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
In any case, even as a philosophical concept, communism gets far too much of a free pass. It is fundamentally incompatible with any meaningful degree of freedom and liberty because of the need for state planning.
Indeed. The structures needed (ie the state) to create and maintain Communism mean that in practice the end results are nearly the same as fascism.
Mr. Punter, cocaine isn't a problem. Liquid ecstasy is. Kids have even taken to injecting it directly into their mouths. E by gum is a serious problem here.
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
Increasingly Hunt looking a good prospect for next PM or at least next Con leader.
No chance of Hunt beating Boris, Mogg or Davis with the membership if those are his opponents in the final 2.
Only way Hunt may get it if is MPs pick Rudd and Hunt to go to the membership, hence Hunt now trying to present himself as a 'born again Leaver' in contrast to Remainer Rudd.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
Even Churchill preferred Communism to full on Nazism, though he loathed both.
Mr. Punter, cocaine isn't a problem. Liquid ecstasy is. Kids have even taken to injecting it directly into their mouths. E by gum is a serious problem here.
Mr. Divvie, the stated aims of Communism and historical behaviour of Communist regimes are different animals. Not unlike a man who tells his wife he loves her, then beats the shit out of her and blames her for provoking him. Those who support Communism attack their opponents as if they hate love, whereas those who oppose it point to the battered housewife.
In the real world, theory is merely a tool for practicality. Those willing to tolerate, let alone endorse and promote, real life tyranny for the sake of ideology are either naive beyond reason or malevolent beyond redemption.
If a theory can't survive contact with the human race, it's not much use in a world of men.
Bloody commies, thank goodness politicians of other stripes stay absolutely true to their stated aims & and are staunchly resistant to theory.
Here are some of the disgustingly evil aims of the original Communist Manifesto, rejected by all right thinking folk ever since.
progressive income tax abolition of child labour free public education nationalisation of the means of transport and communication centralisation of credit via a national bank
In short it will: cancel the ongoing boundary review stick with 650 seats, not 600 protect 18 seats for Northern Ireland is protected and its quota defined separately move the variance up from 5% to 7.5% commit to a boundary review every ten years with the next review to report in autumn 2020 use the electorate at the 2017 General Election
I wonder if the Government will put up token resistance but allow this to go through? I can't see any way they have the numbers for the current review with all other parties against and individual Tories under pressure with locally controversial boundaries.
So it's either stick with what we have or go with this. They might think that for slimming Labour down in Wales alone it's worth it, and there will be a number of small towns with enough rural hinterland that needs to be added to tip them into the blue column. It would also enshrine the formal quota which the Tories have been pushing for 8 years without implementing anything.
I think it would still create problems where there are stupidly large wards which unfairly create ripple effects elsewhere , albeit with 7.5% you'd have a little more choice. I'd want to see an amendment permitting ward splits where it the effects of not doing so would affect multiple other authorities - Sheffield and Birmingham are the worst 2 examples.
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
As a Remainer she won't be it will be a Leaver next time
Yeah being a Remainer stopped Theresa May becoming leader.
You really don't know the Tory party, we'll choose who we think is best placed to win a general election (and stop Corbyn becoming PM)
May was indeed the most popular choice with the public to succeed Cameron in polls last June.
In the July Survation Boris and Davis polled better than Rudd and Hammond v Corbyn.
Davis and JRM also did best with the October Luntz focus group of Tory swing voters.
Of course the Tory membership do not always pick the most 'electable' candidate anyway, in 2001 they picked IDS over Clarke after all.
A focus group of a 6 people? LOL
You might as well ask the tramps outside Piccadilly Basin.
It was rather more than 6 people as was the Survation poll and I am sure you were not complaining when the 2005 Luntz focus group picked Cameron as its choice to succeed Howard.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
In the 20th century Communism was responsible for far more deaths than fascism was.
Besides which, I criticised Miliband (and May) based on a history written in the 4th century.
Sorry Morris.....my post was particularly illiterate too.
I think it is pretty inevitable that Corbyn will be the next PM, probably leading some kind of progressive coalition which will rather restrict his ambition. The problem with your line of throwback attack is that in government, a moderated and thoughtful Corbyn who doesn't eat babies, abolish the monarchy, nationalise mansions, and shoot bankers will seem rather good.
Besides which, I criticised Miliband (and May) based on a history written in the 4th century.
Sorry Morris.....my post was particularly illiterate too.
I think it is pretty inevitable that Corbyn will be the next PM, probably leading some kind of progressive coalition which will rather restrict his ambition. The problem with your line of throwback attack is that in government, a moderated and thoughtful Corbyn who doesn't eat babies, abolish the monarchy, nationalise mansions, and shoot bankers will seem rather good.
Though a Corbyn minority government propped up by the SNP and LDs does at least give the Tories a stranglehold over the opposition.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
Even Churchill preferred Communism to full on Nazism, though he loathed both.
And yet strangely he managed to arse crawl Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin at various times in his career.
In short it will: cancel the ongoing boundary review stick with 650 seats, not 600 protect 18 seats for Northern Ireland is protected and its quota defined separately move the variance up from 5% to 7.5% commit to a boundary review every ten years with the next review to report in autumn 2020 use the electorate at the 2017 General Election
I wonder if the Government will put up token resistance but allow this to go through? I can't see any way they have the numbers for the current review with all other parties against and individual Tories under pressure with locally controversial boundaries.
So it's either stick with what we have or go with this. They might think that for slimming Labour down in Wales alone it's worth it, and there will be a number of small towns with enough rural hinterland that needs to be added to tip them into the blue column. It would also enshrine the formal quota which the Tories have been pushing for 8 years without implementing anything.
I think it would still create problems where there are stupidly large wards which unfairly create ripple effects elsewhere , albeit with 7.5% you'd have a little more choice. I'd want to see an amendment permitting ward splits where it the effects of not doing so would affect multiple other authorities - Sheffield and Birmingham are the worst 2 examples.
In short it will: cancel the ongoing boundary review stick with 650 seats, not 600 protect 18 seats for Northern Ireland is protected and its quota defined separately move the variance up from 5% to 7.5% commit to a boundary review every ten years with the next review to report in autumn 2020 use the electorate at the 2017 General Election
I wonder if the Government will put up token resistance but allow this to go through? I can't see any way they have the numbers for the current review with all other parties against and individual Tories under pressure with locally controversial boundaries.
So it's either stick with what we have or go with this. They might think that for slimming Labour down in Wales alone it's worth it, and there will be a number of small towns with enough rural hinterland that needs to be added to tip them into the blue column. It would also enshrine the formal quota which the Tories have been pushing for 8 years without implementing anything.
I think it would still create problems where there are stupidly large wards which unfairly create ripple effects elsewhere , albeit with 7.5% you'd have a little more choice. I'd want to see an amendment permitting ward splits where it the effects of not doing so would affect multiple other authorities - Sheffield and Birmingham are the worst 2 examples.
Reckon it'll go through?
Even when generally agreed on, it's very rare for Private Members' Bills to go through. We may well see that kind of outcome, but I'd predict it will come from a government-backed measure.
Mr. Punter, cocaine isn't a problem. Liquid ecstasy is. Kids have even taken to injecting it directly into their mouths. E by gum is a serious problem here.
Mr. Divvie, the stated aims of Communism and historical behaviour of Communist regimes are different animals. Not unlike a man who tells his wife he loves her, then beats the shit out of her and blames her for provoking him. Those who support Communism attack their opponents as if they hate love, whereas those who oppose it point to the battered housewife.
In the real world, theory is merely a tool for practicality. Those willing to tolerate, let alone endorse and promote, real life tyranny for the sake of ideology are either naive beyond reason or malevolent beyond redemption.
If a theory can't survive contact with the human race, it's not much use in a world of men.
Bloody commies, thank goodness politicians of other stripes stay absolutely true to their stated aims & and are staunchly resistant to theory.
Here are some of the disgustingly evil aims of the original Communist Manifesto, rejected by all right thinking folk ever since.
progressive income tax abolition of child labour free public education nationalisation of the means of transport and communication centralisation of credit via a national bank
Yeah and the Nazi's built the auto-bahns and made the trains run on time. they probably had a cracking healthcare service too.
If you attack fasism for the sins of the Nazis (which is quite right to do so), then attack Communsim for the sins of Mao's China and the Khmer Rogue. Not cherry pick the 'nice' bits.
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
As a Remainer she won't be it will be a Leaver next time
Yeah being a Remainer stopped Theresa May becoming leader.
You really don't know the Tory party, we'll choose who we think is best placed to win a general election (and stop Corbyn becoming PM)
May was indeed the most popular choice with the public to succeed Cameron in polls last June.
In the July Survation Boris and Davis polled better than Rudd and Hammond v Corbyn.
Davis and JRM also did best with the October Luntz focus group of Tory swing voters.
Of course the Tory membership do not always pick the most 'electable' candidate anyway, in 2001 they picked IDS over Clarke after all.
A focus group of a 6 people? LOL
You might as well ask the tramps outside Piccadilly Basin.
It was rather more than 6 people as was the Survation poll and I am sure you were not complaining when the 2005 Luntz focus group picked Cameron as its choice to succeed Howard.
So how big was the focus group, and I'll tell you the MOE on it.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
Even Churchill preferred Communism to full on Nazism, though he loathed both.
Did he?
He preferred allying temporarily with the "enemy of our enemy" that we were already at war with. That was smart military thinking. I don't see anything either before or after the war to indicate what you are saying.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
Even Churchill preferred Communism to full on Nazism, though he loathed both.
And yet strangely he managed to arse crawl Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin at various times in his career.
He led the European resistance to Hitler and Mussolini in WW2 and was one of the first to warn of Stalin's 'iron curtain' after WW2
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
I think you and others make too much of that, honestly. Corbyn's accepted that it was a mistake to call them friends - he was being civil on a single occasion, but has always said he disagreed with much of their platforms. As for the hammer and sickle, I don't think anyone is responsible for everyone else who turns up to support a demo.
It's a fair point to say he's been consistently sympathetic to past developing country groups critical of western interests at the time, but that's true to a greater or lesser extent of most older people left of centre, and like Mrs T being polite about Pol Pot it should be seen in the global context at the time. Again, it's become a bit irrelevant as the cold war recedes.
The relative virtues of communism and fascism have been debated too often to bother with IMO - it's a matter for historians. China would be interesting as relatively successful, but whatever China is these days, it's not obviously communist. Beyond that there aren't any countries that can really be called fascist or communist - merely a variety of tinpot autocrats nominally of left and right with a few similar features.
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
As a Remainer she won't be it will be a Leaver next time
Yeah being a Remainer stopped Theresa May becoming leader.
You really don't know the Tory party, we'll choose who we think is best placed to win a general election (and stop Corbyn becoming PM)
May was indeed the most popular choice with the public to succeed Cameron in polls last June.
In the July Survation Boris and Davis polled better than Rudd and Hammond v Corbyn.
Davis and JRM also did best with the October Luntz focus group of Tory swing voters.
Of course the Tory membership do not always pick the most 'electable' candidate anyway, in 2001 they picked IDS over Clarke after all.
A focus group of a 6 people? LOL
You might as well ask the tramps outside Piccadilly Basin.
It was rather more than 6 people as was the Survation poll and I am sure you were not complaining when the 2005 Luntz focus group picked Cameron as its choice to succeed Howard.
So how big was the focus group, and I'll tell you the MOE on it.
Besides which, I criticised Miliband (and May) based on a history written in the 4th century.
Sorry Morris.....my post was particularly illiterate too.
I think it is pretty inevitable that Corbyn will be the next PM, probably leading some kind of progressive coalition which will rather restrict his ambition. The problem with your line of throwback attack is that in government, a moderated and thoughtful Corbyn who doesn't eat babies, abolish the monarchy, nationalise mansions, and shoot bankers will seem rather good.
Well, let's let him shoot some bankers if he really wants to.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
Even Churchill preferred Communism to full on Nazism, though he loathed both.
Did he?
He preferred allying temporarily with the "enemy of our enemy" that we were already at war with. That was smart military thinking. I don't see anything either before or after the war to indicate what you are saying.
I never said he liked Communism and as soon as Nazism was beaten he strongly opposed Stalin
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
Even Churchill preferred Communism to full on Nazism, though he loathed both.
And yet strangely he managed to arse crawl Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin at various times in his career.
He led the European resistance to Hitler and Mussolini in WW2 and was one of the first to warn of Stalin's 'iron curtain' after WW2
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
Increasingly Hunt looking a good prospect for next PM or at least next Con leader.
No chance of Hunt beating Boris, Mogg or Davis with the membership if those are his opponents in the final 2.
Only way Hunt may get it if is MPs pick Rudd and Hunt to go to the membership, hence Hunt now trying to present himself as a 'born again Leaver' in contrast to Remainer Rudd.
I disagree. I think there'd be a good chance he'd beat either Boris or JRM. (Though I'm doubtful Rees-Mogg would run and even more doubtful that he'd get very far if he did).
For all the caricature of Tory members as extreme Thatcherite ideologues, you have to remember that they backed Cameron over Davis (by about 2:1), and, according to polls, were backing May over Leadsom. True, they picked IDS over Clarke in 2001 but the Euro really was a red line there. As long as a candidate signs up to delivering a meaningful Brexit, they'll get a hearing.
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
As a Remainer she won't be it will be a Leaver next time
Yeah being a Remainer stopped Theresa May becoming leader.
You really don't know the Tory party, we'll choose who we think is best placed to win a general election (and stop Corbyn becoming PM)
May was indeed the most popular choice with the public to succeed Cameron in polls last June.
In the July Survation Boris and Davis polled better than Rudd and Hammond v Corbyn.
Davis and JRM also did best with the October Luntz focus group of Tory swing voters.
Of course the Tory membership do not always pick the most 'electable' candidate anyway, in 2001 they picked IDS over Clarke after all.
A focus group of a 6 people? LOL
You might as well ask the tramps outside Piccadilly Basin.
It was rather more than 6 people as was the Survation poll and I am sure you were not complaining when the 2005 Luntz focus group picked Cameron as its choice to succeed Howard.
So how big was the focus group, and I'll tell you the MOE on it.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
In the 20th century Communism was responsible for far more deaths than fascism was.
How is it demonstrably "better"?
I guess you are of the "right".
Post war there were some communists who did good things. Tony Benn's 1974 Energy Policy for instance. The Gramsci marxists who effectively ran most of Italy's local government and contributed to Italy's stunning economic miracle. The French communists who propped up Mitterand Govts. Most of Europe lived quite amicably with communists within a pluralistic electoral system.
Do you really think fascists and Nazi's of of the same ilk? Really? I would suggest your right wing blinkery completely precludes your brain from assessing anything from the left with any semblance of rationality.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
In the 20th century Communism was responsible for far more deaths than fascism was.
How is it demonstrably "better"?
Household stairs were responsible for more deaths than Islamic Terrorists in the UK this year. Islamic Terrorists are demonstrably better than stairs.
In short it will: cancel the ongoing boundary review stick with 650 seats, not 600 protect 18 seats for Northern Ireland is protected and its quota defined separately move the variance up from 5% to 7.5% commit to a boundary review every ten years with the next review to report in autumn 2020 use the electorate at the 2017 General Election
I wonder if the Government will put up token resistance but allow this to go through? I can't see any way they have the numbers for the current review with all other parties against and individual Tories under pressure with locally controversial boundaries.
So it's either stick with what we have or go with this. They might think that for slimming Labour down in Wales alone it's worth it, and there will be a number of small towns with enough rural hinterland that needs to be added to tip them into the blue column. It would also enshrine the formal quota which the Tories have been pushing for 8 years without implementing anything.
I think it would still create problems where there are stupidly large wards which unfairly create ripple effects elsewhere , albeit with 7.5% you'd have a little more choice. I'd want to see an amendment permitting ward splits where it the effects of not doing so would affect multiple other authorities - Sheffield and Birmingham are the worst 2 examples.
Reckon it'll go through?
Hopefully it will. It is sensible. Except for the NI bit. It does not qualify for 18 seats so should not have them. I apply the same logic to the Hebrides and IOW. We have Skype, Facetime and e-mail these days.
In short it will: cancel the ongoing boundary review stick with 650 seats, not 600 protect 18 seats for Northern Ireland is protected and its quota defined separately move the variance up from 5% to 7.5% commit to a boundary review every ten years with the next review to report in autumn 2020 use the electorate at the 2017 General Election
I wonder if the Government will put up token resistance but allow this to go through? I can't see any way they have the numbers for the current review with all other parties against and individual Tories under pressure with locally controversial boundaries.
So it's either stick with what we have or go with this. They might think that for slimming Labour down in Wales alone it's worth it, and there will be a number of small towns with enough rural hinterland that needs to be added to tip them into the blue column. It would also enshrine the formal quota which the Tories have been pushing for 8 years without implementing anything.
I think it would still create problems where there are stupidly large wards which unfairly create ripple effects elsewhere , albeit with 7.5% you'd have a little more choice. I'd want to see an amendment permitting ward splits where it the effects of not doing so would affect multiple other authorities - Sheffield and Birmingham are the worst 2 examples.
Reckon it'll go through?
Even when generally agreed on, it's very rare for Private Members' Bills to go through. We may well see that kind of outcome, but I'd predict it will come from a government-backed measure.
Governments sometimes "adopt" Private Members' Bills, giving them the parliamentary time required to pass into law. This is a very curious Bill in that it seems like a very sensible & fair compromise and therefore I'm not entirely clear as to why a Labour MP would be introducing it, given that it seems to be taken as read that the existing review will fail (advantaging Labour).
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
In the 20th century Communism was responsible for far more deaths than fascism was.
How is it demonstrably "better"?
I guess you are of the right. Post war there were some communists who did good things. Tony Benn's 1974 Energy Policy for instance. The Gramsci marxists who effectively ran most of Italy's local government and contributed to Italy's stunning economic miracle. The French communists who propped up Mitterand Govts. Most of Europe lived quite amicably with communists within a pluralistic electoral system.
Do you really think fascists and Nazi's of of the same ilk? Really? I would suggest your right wing blinkery completely precludes your brain from assessing anything from the left with any semblance of rationality.
None of those Communists were in power, or your mentioning individuals, which I'm sure were on the whole pretty ok guys.
We're talking about when Communism is the preveiling power structure, which whenever it has taken power, enacts repression and acts of violence to carry out it's aims.
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
As a Remainer she won't be it will be a Leaver next time
Yeah being a Remainer stopped Theresa May becoming leader.
You really don't know the Tory party, we'll choose who we think is best placed to win a general election (and stop Corbyn becoming PM)
May was indeed the most popular choice with the public to succeed Cameron in polls last June.
In the July Survation Boris and Davis polled better than Rudd and Hammond v Corbyn.
Davis and JRM also did best with the October Luntz focus group of Tory swing voters.
Of course the Tory membership do not always pick the most 'electable' candidate anyway, in 2001 they picked IDS over Clarke after all.
A focus group of a 6 people? LOL
You might as well ask the tramps outside Piccadilly Basin.
It was rather more than 6 people as was the Survation poll and I am sure you were not complaining when the 2005 Luntz focus group picked Cameron as its choice to succeed Howard.
So how big was the focus group, and I'll tell you the MOE on it.
About 20 to 30, same as it was in 2005
Margin of error on that is nearly 18%
So still about the same as the 2005 Luntz focus group which correctly predicted future general election winner Cameron should be next Tory leader then.
Following on from my heads-up, yesterday, Leeds Council Leader Judith Blake has been reselected to stand in next year's elections. Hard luck, Momentum.
I have to admit, I like the government's line on the Trump state visit. Not formally revoking the invitation (which would cause an unnecessary tantrum), but just telling him we'll be "washing our hair" whenever specific dates are mentioned
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
In the 20th century Communism was responsible for far more deaths than fascism was.
How is it demonstrably "better"?
I guess you are of the "right".
Post war there were some communists who did good things. Tony Benn's 1974 Energy Policy for instance. The Gramsci marxists who effectively ran most of Italy's local government and contributed to Italy's stunning economic miracle. The French communists who propped up Mitterand Govts. Most of Europe lived quite amicably with communists within a pluralistic electoral system.
Do you really think fascists and Nazi's of of the same ilk? Really? I would suggest your right wing blinkery completely precludes your brain from assessing anything from the left with any semblance of rationality.
Fascists and Nazis are not of the same ilk as each other.
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
Increasingly Hunt looking a good prospect for next PM or at least next Con leader.
No chance of Hunt beating Boris, Mogg or Davis with the membership if those are his opponents in the final 2.
Only way Hunt may get it if is MPs pick Rudd and Hunt to go to the membership, hence Hunt now trying to present himself as a 'born again Leaver' in contrast to Remainer Rudd.
I disagree. I think there'd be a good chance he'd beat either Boris or JRM. (Though I'm doubtful Rees-Mogg would run and even more doubtful that he'd get very far if he did).
For all the caricature of Tory members as extreme Thatcherite ideologues, you have to remember that they backed Cameron over Davis (by about 2:1), and, according to polls, were backing May over Leadsom. True, they picked IDS over Clarke in 2001 but the Euro really was a red line there. As long as a candidate signs up to delivering a meaningful Brexit, they'll get a hearing.
No chance Hunt beats Boris or Mogg, current top 3 in both Yougov and ConservativeHome Tory members polls are Boris, Mogg then Davis in that order. With a transition likely until 2021 and a new leader likely to be picked by then Tory members will want a confirmed Leaver to ensure Brexit.
Plus there is no polling evidence to suggest Hunt or Rudd have any appeal with the public, as there was for Cameron by autumn 2005 and May by late June 2016.
Mr. Divvie, bit odd, I did specifically say there was a vast yawning chasm between the theory and practice of Communism.
Mr. Palmer, it's just a coincidence that a load of people with hammer and sickle banners and Stalin posters keep attending marches that Corbyn attends?
Rightyho. I'm sure you, and others, would take that view if May went on a march and some other people turned up with Nazi banners and she kept on marching with them.
Mr. Palmer, it's historically abhorrent that Communism is not held in the same regard as Nazism.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Wouldn't you say that there's a qualitative difference between an ideology whose stated aims were abhorrent in themselves, and one whose aims (however corrupted and abhorrent the process of enacting them may have been) were idealistic?
Naziism's aims were idealistic too, to those who advocated them.
An ideal of a racially pure society v. an ideal of a classless society?
So still about the same as the 2005 Luntz focus group which correctly predicted future general election winner Cameron should be next Tory leader then.
You're making all the same mistakes that led you to ramping Boris as the next nailed on Tory leader.
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
Increasingly Hunt looking a good prospect for next PM or at least next Con leader.
No chance of Hunt beating Boris, Mogg or Davis with the membership if those are his opponents in the final 2.
Only way Hunt may get it if is MPs pick Rudd and Hunt to go to the membership, hence Hunt now trying to present himself as a 'born again Leaver' in contrast to Remainer Rudd.
I disagree. I think there'd be a good chance he'd beat either Boris or JRM. (Though I'm doubtful Rees-Mogg would run and even more doubtful that he'd get very far if he did).
For all the caricature of Tory members as extreme Thatcherite ideologues, you have to remember that they backed Cameron over Davis (by about 2:1), and, according to polls, were backing May over Leadsom. True, they picked IDS over Clarke in 2001 but the Euro really was a red line there. As long as a candidate signs up to delivering a meaningful Brexit, they'll get a hearing.
No chance Hunt beats Boris or Mogg, current top 3 in both Yougov and ConservativeHome Tory members polls are Boris, Mogg then Davis in that order. With a transition likely until 2021 and a new leader likely to be picked by then Tory members will want a confirmed Leaver to ensure Brexit.
Plus there is no polling evidence to suggest Hunt or Rudd have any appeal with the public, as there was for Cameron by autumn 2005 and May by late June 2016.
You say no chance,
I'd like to stake £100 on Hunt being Boris or JRM in the final two at 500/1, as no chance is generously equivalent to 0.5% chance.
I have to admit, I like the government's line on the Trump state visit. Not formally revoking the invitation (which would cause an unnecessary tantrum), but just telling him we'll be "washing our hair" whenever specific dates are mentioned
He won't come anyway given he must know the likely scale of the protests. I'm surprised the French weren't more demonstrative, but then they were probably exhausted, and also inclined to give Macron the space for some realpolitik.
So still about the same as the 2005 Luntz focus group which correctly predicted future general election winner Cameron should be next Tory leader then.
You're making all the same mistakes that led you to ramping Boris as the next nailed on Tory leader.
Boris still leads current Tory members polls so certainly cannot be ruled out
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
Increasingly Hunt looking a good prospect for next PM or at least next Con leader.
No chance of Hunt beating Boris, Mogg or Davis with the membership if those are his opponents in the final 2.
Only way Hunt may get it if is MPs pick Rudd and Hunt to go to the membership, hence Hunt now trying to present himself as a 'born again Leaver' in contrast to Remainer Rudd.
I disagree. I think there'd be a good chance he'd beat either Boris or JRM. (Though I'm doubtful Rees-Mogg would run and even more doubtful that he'd get very far if he did).
For all the caricature of Tory members as extreme Thatcherite ideologues, you have to remember that they backed Cameron over Davis (by about 2:1), and, according to polls, were backing May over Leadsom. True, they picked IDS over Clarke in 2001 but the Euro really was a red line there. As long as a candidate signs up to delivering a meaningful Brexit, they'll get a hearing.
No chance Hunt beats Boris or Mogg, current top 3 in both Yougov and ConservativeHome Tory members polls are Boris, Mogg then Davis in that order. With a transition likely until 2021 and a new leader likely to be picked by then Tory members will want a confirmed Leaver to ensure Brexit.
Plus there is no polling evidence to suggest Hunt or Rudd have any appeal with the public, as there was for Cameron by autumn 2005 and May by late June 2016.
You say no chance,
I'd like to stake £100 on Hunt being Boris or JRM in the final two at 500/1, as no chance is generously equivalent to 0.5% chance.
Deal?
For £10 at 50/1 agreed I almost never bet more than that on anything
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
Increasingly Hunt looking a good prospect for next PM or at least next Con leader.
No chance of Hunt beating Boris, Mogg or Davis with the membership if those are his opponents in the final 2.
Only way Hunt may get it if is MPs pick Rudd and Hunt to go to the membership, hence Hunt now trying to present himself as a 'born again Leaver' in contrast to Remainer Rudd.
I disagree. I think there'd be a good chance he'd beat either Boris or JRM. (Though I'm doubtful Rees-Mogg would run and even more doubtful that he'd get very far if he did).
For all the caricature of Tory members as extreme Thatcherite ideologues, you have to remember that they backed Cameron over Davis (by about 2:1), and, according to polls, were backing May over Leadsom. True, they picked IDS over Clarke in 2001 but the Euro really was a red line there. As long as a candidate signs up to delivering a meaningful Brexit, they'll get a hearing.
No chance Hunt beats Boris or Mogg, current top 3 in both Yougov and ConservativeHome Tory members polls are Boris, Mogg then Davis in that order. With a transition likely until 2021 and a new leader likely to be picked by then Tory members will want a confirmed Leaver to ensure Brexit.
Plus there is no polling evidence to suggest Hunt or Rudd have any appeal with the public, as there was for Cameron by autumn 2005 and May by late June 2016.
You say no chance,
I'd like to stake £100 on Hunt being Boris or JRM in the final two at 500/1, as no chance is generously equivalent to 0.5% chance.
Deal?
For £10 agreed I almost never bet more than that on anything
So if Hunt beats either JRM or Boris in the final two, you'll pay me £500 if he doesn't, I'll pay you £10.
If it wasn't for her majority, Amber Rudd should be favourite for next PM/Tory leader.
In fact she might be PM already.
Increasingly Hunt looking a good prospect for next PM or at least next Con leader.
No chance of Hunt beating Boris, Mogg or Davis with the membership if those are his opponents in the final 2.
Only way Hunt may get it if is MPs pick Rudd and Hunt to go to the membership, hence Hunt now trying to present himself as a 'born again Leaver' in contrast to Remainer Rudd.
I disagree. I think there'd be a good chance he'd beat either Boris or JRM. (Though I'm doubtful Rees-Mogg would run and even more doubtful that he'd get very far if he did).
For all the caricature of Tory members as extreme Thatcherite ideologues, you have to remember that they backed Cameron over Davis (by about 2:1), and, according to polls, were backing May over Leadsom. True, they picked IDS over Clarke in 2001 but the Euro really was a red line there. As long as a candidate signs up to delivering a meaningful Brexit, they'll get a hearing.
No chance Hunt beats Boris or Mogg, current top 3 in both Yougov and ConservativeHome Tory members polls are Boris, Mogg then Davis in that order. With a transition likely until 2021 and a new leader likely to be picked by then Tory members will want a confirmed Leaver to ensure Brexit.
Plus there is no polling evidence to suggest Hunt or Rudd have any appeal with the public, as there was for Cameron by autumn 2005 and May by late June 2016.
You say no chance,
I'd like to stake £100 on Hunt being Boris or JRM in the final two at 500/1, as no chance is generously equivalent to 0.5% chance.
Deal?
For £10 agreed I almost never bet more than that on anything
Erm, you are putting up £5000 there, @HYUFD. If I were you I would withdraw at this point; I'm sure @TSE won't mind.
Comments
'How about never? Never is good for me.'
Now let me just have a quick look at your account. Ah, I see you are a successful punter, Mr Price. Well, I think I can let you have 5 pence.
Remind you of anything? ;-)
A flake of snow has fallen in that there London. The rest of the day is cancelled.
That is all.
Mr. Eagles, fair enough, and I agree she may see a small uptick.
Btw, will u be there for the two day meeting? I'm there both days.....weather permitting.
Besides which, I criticised Miliband (and May) based on a history written in the 4th century.
The Tory focus on this sort of thing is one of the contributing factors to the age differences manifest in polling. The elderly do indeed tend to have a view on these things, younger people wonder what they're on about.
But on Morris's point, I think Theresa will indeed get a modest bump in "Good PM" ratings - progress on the EU, reproving Trump and visiting Iraq combine to show a PM doing her job competently this week, by contrast to most previous weeks.
I agree that it isn't, but it's rancid to see Corbyn, happy to march under the hammer and sickle and call Hamas/Hizbollah his friends, condemn Trump for retweeting a group less extreme than those Corbyn has called friends.
Thing is, we don't want either the Royal Family or Communists running the country.
I voted for three of the others.
I guess we can expect a Momentum clean sweep.
Voting closes on 12 Jan.
Anyone can see that communism requires individual freedoms to be supressed. The flaw is inherent in it's conception.
Mr. Divvie, the stated aims of Communism and historical behaviour of Communist regimes are different animals. Not unlike a man who tells his wife he loves her, then beats the shit out of her and blames her for provoking him. Those who support Communism attack their opponents as if they hate love, whereas those who oppose it point to the battered housewife.
In the real world, theory is merely a tool for practicality. Those willing to tolerate, let alone endorse and promote, real life tyranny for the sake of ideology are either naive beyond reason or malevolent beyond redemption.
If a theory can't survive contact with the human race, it's not much use in a world of men.
You really don't know the Tory party, we'll choose who we think is best placed to win a general election (and stop Corbyn becoming PM)
There is a legitimate philosophical argument to be had about the relative theoretical merit of the two but it's angels dancing on pinhead stuff: the reality of applied communism has been demonstrated enough times to be able to base meaningful comparisons only on what's been delivered.
In any case, even as a philosophical concept, communism gets far too much of a free pass. It is fundamentally incompatible with any meaningful degree of freedom and liberty because of the need for state planning.
Increasingly Hunt looking a good prospect for next PM or at least next Con leader.
Only way Hunt may get it if is MPs pick Rudd and Hunt to go to the membership, hence Hunt now trying to present himself as a 'born again Leaver' in contrast to Remainer Rudd.
"The Tánaiste is appointed by the President of Ireland on the advice of the Taoiseach."
Very good post....kind of reminds me of the 2016 Potus election where many people (particularly those on the right) said that both candidates were equally terrible. No they were not. Trump was and is fucking vile. Not quite the same with HRC.
The problem with this plague on both your houses argument is that it gives traction to the greater of the two evils. Communism and Nazism are not the same, and only people of a right persuasion will argue that this is the case.
In the July Survation Boris and Davis polled better than Rudd and Hammond v Corbyn.
Davis and JRM also did best with the October Luntz focus group of Tory swing voters.
Of course the Tory membership do not always pick the most 'electable' candidate anyway, in 2001 they picked IDS over Clarke after all.
Weirdly, Irishmen spending fake Scottish bank notes (in Morley, anyway) is not a joke.
You might as well ask the tramps outside Piccadilly Basin.
Here are some of the disgustingly evil aims of the original Communist Manifesto, rejected by all right thinking folk ever since.
progressive income tax
abolition of child labour
free public education
nationalisation of the means of transport and communication
centralisation of credit via a national bank
O/T there's a big moment for the parliamentary boundaries coming up and no-one seems to have noticed.
Afzal Khan, new Manchester Gorton MP has a private members bill second reading scheduled for Friday. It's just been published at http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8164
In short it will:
cancel the ongoing boundary review
stick with 650 seats, not 600
protect 18 seats for Northern Ireland is protected and its quota defined separately
move the variance up from 5% to 7.5%
commit to a boundary review every ten years with the next review to report in autumn 2020
use the electorate at the 2017 General Election
I wonder if the Government will put up token resistance but allow this to go through?
I can't see any way they have the numbers for the current review with all other parties against and individual Tories under pressure with locally controversial boundaries.
So it's either stick with what we have or go with this. They might think that for slimming Labour down in Wales alone it's worth it, and there will be a number of small towns with enough rural hinterland that needs to be added to tip them into the blue column. It would also enshrine the formal quota which the Tories have been pushing for 8 years without implementing anything.
I think it would still create problems where there are stupidly large wards which unfairly create ripple effects elsewhere , albeit with 7.5% you'd have a little more choice. I'd want to see an amendment permitting ward splits where it the effects of not doing so would affect multiple other authorities - Sheffield and Birmingham are the worst 2 examples.
Reckon it'll go through?
How is it demonstrably "better"?
I think it is pretty inevitable that Corbyn will be the next PM, probably leading some kind of progressive coalition which will rather restrict his ambition. The problem with your line of throwback attack is that in government, a moderated and thoughtful Corbyn who doesn't eat babies, abolish the monarchy, nationalise mansions, and shoot bankers will seem rather good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42181073
May I add my happiness at OKC's news.
If you attack fasism for the sins of the Nazis (which is quite right to do so), then attack Communsim for the sins of Mao's China and the Khmer Rogue. Not cherry pick the 'nice' bits.
He preferred allying temporarily with the "enemy of our enemy" that we were already at war with. That was smart military thinking. I don't see anything either before or after the war to indicate what you are saying.
It's a fair point to say he's been consistently sympathetic to past developing country groups critical of western interests at the time, but that's true to a greater or lesser extent of most older people left of centre, and like Mrs T being polite about Pol Pot it should be seen in the global context at the time. Again, it's become a bit irrelevant as the cold war recedes.
The relative virtues of communism and fascism have been debated too often to bother with IMO - it's a matter for historians. China would be interesting as relatively successful, but whatever China is these days, it's not obviously communist. Beyond that there aren't any countries that can really be called fascist or communist - merely a variety of tinpot autocrats nominally of left and right with a few similar features.
For all the caricature of Tory members as extreme Thatcherite ideologues, you have to remember that they backed Cameron over Davis (by about 2:1), and, according to polls, were backing May over Leadsom. True, they picked IDS over Clarke in 2001 but the Euro really was a red line there. As long as a candidate signs up to delivering a meaningful Brexit, they'll get a hearing.
Post war there were some communists who did good things. Tony Benn's 1974 Energy Policy for instance. The Gramsci marxists who effectively ran most of Italy's local government and contributed to Italy's stunning economic miracle. The French communists who propped up Mitterand Govts. Most of Europe lived quite amicably with communists within a pluralistic electoral system.
Do you really think fascists and Nazi's of of the same ilk? Really? I would suggest your right wing blinkery completely precludes your brain from assessing anything from the left with any semblance of rationality.
Except for the NI bit. It does not qualify for 18 seats so should not have them.
I apply the same logic to the Hebrides and IOW. We have Skype, Facetime and e-mail these days.
We're talking about when Communism is the preveiling power structure, which whenever it has taken power, enacts repression and acts of violence to carry out it's aims.
The Queensferry Crossing will not be closed. But vehicles will not able able to cross it...
Plus there is no polling evidence to suggest Hunt or Rudd have any appeal with the public, as there was for Cameron by autumn 2005 and May by late June 2016.
Mr. Palmer, it's just a coincidence that a load of people with hammer and sickle banners and Stalin posters keep attending marches that Corbyn attends?
Rightyho. I'm sure you, and others, would take that view if May went on a march and some other people turned up with Nazi banners and she kept on marching with them.
'Some very fine people on both sides'
I'd like to stake £100 on Hunt being Boris or JRM in the final two at 500/1, as no chance is generously equivalent to 0.5% chance.
Deal?
It would be entirely symbolic on Khan's part.
Though any Home Secretary that overruled Khan on this would see The Wrath of Khan.
Deal.