I suspect his Polish heritage influences how he reacts to all things Russian
What about things German?
Daniel Kawczyinski's Polish heritage doesn't seem to stop him lapping up Russian propaganda - he loves blaming Ukraine for having itself invaded for example - mind you he's not alone in that as it's a popular myth on the left too.
While the right blame the EU for negotiating the kind of trade deal they want for the UK.
FRom previous thread, here are the homelessness figures. These are the comprehensive figures that have been collected more or less in the same way for decades, the reporting of by local councils. It includes the entire data. Roger claimed it was much more than it was before the crisis. Despite significant population growth we can see it's substantially lower.
FRom previous thread, here are the homelessness figures. These are the comprehensive figures that have been collected more or less in the same way for decades, the reporting of by local councils. It includes the entire data. Roger claimed it was much more than it was before the crisis. Despite significant population growth we can see it's substantially lower.
Yet again the definition of homelessness is deceiving.
The people in your graph are statutorily housed, some in permanent accommodation and some in B&Bs.
What Roger is talking about, and people do this all the time, is rough sleeping which is more than 30x less prevalent, but has grown.
No the defintion is not deceiving. It has not changed. Rough sleeping is a subset of homelessness. Homelesseness is defined by those who have presented themselves as homeless, and have been accepted or refused. The defintion stands and as you can see it actually is not too bad at all.
FRom previous thread, here are the homelessness figures. These are the comprehensive figures that have been collected more or less in the same way for decades, the reporting of by local councils. It includes the entire data. Roger claimed it was much more than it was before the crisis. Despite significant population growth we can see it's substantially lower.
Yet again the definition of homelessness is deceiving.
The people in your graph are statutorily housed, some in permanent accommodation and some in B&Bs.
What Roger is talking about, and people do this all the time, is rough sleeping which is more than 30x less prevalent, but has grown.
No the defintion is not deceiving. It has not changed. Rough sleeping is a subset of homelessness. Homelesseness is defined by those who have presented themselves as homeless, and have been accepted or refused. The defintion stands and as you can see it actually is not too bad at all.
The definition is deceiving because when one person says homelessness they mean one thing and when someone else says homelessness they mean another.
Adblockers and various other plug-ins make my Facebook experience free from a lot of interference. What these things can't stop is people who share nonsense that they choose to spread without bothering to check whether there is any truth behind it at all.
That sort of 'fake news' spreading doesn't require data-mining. It relies on credulous individuals sharing stuff without thinking or checking.
The 'hat-gate' nonsense had a social media reach in excess of 2 million - even though it was clearly rebutted. The truth never came close to a similar reach.
FRom previous thread, here are the homelessness figures. These are the comprehensive figures that have been collected more or less in the same way for decades, the reporting of by local councils. It includes the entire data. Roger claimed it was much more than it was before the crisis. Despite significant population growth we can see it's substantially lower.
Yet again the definition of homelessness is deceiving.
The people in your graph are statutorily housed, some in permanent accommodation and some in B&Bs.
What Roger is talking about, and people do this all the time, is rough sleeping which is more than 30x less prevalent, but has grown.
No the defintion is not deceiving. It has not changed. Rough sleeping is a subset of homelessness. Homelesseness is defined by those who have presented themselves as homeless, and have been accepted or refused. The defintion stands and as you can see it actually is not too bad at all.
The definition is deceiving because when one person says homelessness they mean one thing and when someone else says homelessness they mean another.
Well, the definition used consistently by the various housing acts over fifty years will be the definition we will use.
During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.
Labour £16.5k
Tories £1.2 million.
So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
Nah.
It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.
Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.
The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on
1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial
2) The long term economic plan
The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.
Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
No there wouldn't as without a Tory majority the LDs, Labour and the SNP would have blocked an EU referendum and Cameron would not probably have put it to a parliamentary vote anyway as he did not get the majority he needed to implement his manifesto commitment for an EU referendum
Incorrect. Clegg knew a referendum was a Tory promise Cameron had to keep and was prepared to trade on it, as he repeatedly refused to rule it out during the election campaign.
Of course, that works both ways. Cameron didn’t think he’d have to honour his British Bill of Rights v. HRA replacement either.
Adblockers and various other plug-ins make my Facebook experience free from a lot of interference. What these things can't stop is people who share nonsense that they choose to spread without bothering to check whether there is any truth behind it at all.
That sort of 'fake news' spreading doesn't require data-mining. It relies on credulous individuals sharing stuff without thinking or checking.
The 'hat-gate' nonsense had a social media reach in excess of 2 million - even though it was clearly rebutted. The truth never came close to a similar reach.
That sort of thing does more damage IMHO.
I can understand that - no doubt things will change after this scandal
During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.
Labour £16.5k
Tories £1.2 million.
So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
Nah.
It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.
Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.
The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on
1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial
2) The long term economic plan
The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.
Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
No there wouldn't as without a Tory majority the LDs, Labour and the SNP would have blocked an EU referendum and Cameron would not probably have put it to a parliamentary vote anyway as he did not get the majority he needed to implement his manifesto commitment for an EU referendum
Incorrect. Clegg knew a referendum was a Tory promise Cameron had to keep and was prepared to trade on it, as he repeatedly refused to rule it out during the election campaign.
Of course, that works both ways. Cameron didn’t think he’d have to honour his British Bill of Rights v. HRA replacement either.
Yup, Clegg was also going to insist he should be involved in the renegotiation given his past roles in Bruxelles.
I suspect his Polish heritage influences how he reacts to all things Russian
What about things German?
Daniel Kawczyinski's Polish heritage doesn't seem to stop him lapping up Russian propaganda - he loves blaming Ukraine for having itself invaded for example - mind you he's not alone in that as it's a popular myth on the left too.
Daniel Kawczynski is thick as pig poop, he's the modern Lord Halifax.
I'd rather vote for Mark Reckless than Daniel Kawczynski.
Frankly, I’m losing track of all the Tory MPs you wouldn’t vote for.
It must be getting on for half the parliamentary party by now.
During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.
Labour £16.5k
Tories £1.2 million.
So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
Nah.
It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.
Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.
The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on
1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial
2) The long term economic plan
The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.
Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
No there wouldn't as without a Tory majority the LDs, Labour and the SNP would have blocked an EU referendum and Cameron would not probably have put it to a parliamentary vote anyway as he did not get the majority he needed to implement his manifesto commitment for an EU referendum
Incorrect. Clegg knew a referendum was a Tory promise Cameron had to keep and was prepared to trade on it, as he repeatedly refused to rule it out during the election campaign.
Of course, that works both ways. Cameron didn’t think he’d have to honour his British Bill of Rights v. HRA replacement either.
Yup, Clegg was also going to insist he should be involved in the renegotiation given his past roles in Bruxelles.
Let’s see how long it takes HYUFD to admit he’s wrong on this one.
Adblockers and various other plug-ins make my Facebook experience free from a lot of interference. What these things can't stop is people who share nonsense that they choose to spread without bothering to check whether there is any truth behind it at all.
That sort of 'fake news' spreading doesn't require data-mining. It relies on credulous individuals sharing stuff without thinking or checking.
The 'hat-gate' nonsense had a social media reach in excess of 2 million - even though it was clearly rebutted. The truth never came close to a similar reach.
That sort of thing does more damage IMHO.
I can understand that - no doubt things will change after this scandal
You'll never stop idiots believing the most ridiculous things, things that some sane people often believe too, at least initially. The shame is universal suffrage.
FRom previous thread, here are the homelessness figures. These are the comprehensive figures that have been collected more or less in the same way for decades, the reporting of by local councils. It includes the entire data. Roger claimed it was much more than it was before the crisis. Despite significant population growth we can see it's substantially lower.
Yet again the definition of homelessness is deceiving.
The people in your graph are statutorily housed, some in permanent accommodation and some in B&Bs.
What Roger is talking about, and people do this all the time, is rough sleeping which is more than 30x less prevalent, but has grown.
No the defintion is not deceiving. It has not changed. Rough sleeping is a subset of homelessness. Homelesseness is defined by those who have presented themselves as homeless, and have been accepted or refused. The defintion stands and as you can see it actually is not too bad at all.
The definition is deceiving because when one person says homelessness they mean one thing and when someone else says homelessness they mean another.
Well, the definition used consistently by the various housing acts over fifty years will be the definition we will use.
I don't understand your point.
Just read Roger as having said we have a rough sleeper problem, then you can reply to his actual point instead of reading him as having a problem we don't have.
TMay and Corbz have both said "homeless" when they mean "rough sleepers"
I suspect his Polish heritage influences how he reacts to all things Russian
What about things German?
Daniel Kawczyinski's Polish heritage doesn't seem to stop him lapping up Russian propaganda - he loves blaming Ukraine for having itself invaded for example - mind you he's not alone in that as it's a popular myth on the left too.
Daniel Kawczynski is thick as pig poop, he's the modern Lord Halifax.
I'd rather vote for Mark Reckless than Daniel Kawczynski.
Frankly, I’m losing track of all the Tory MPs you wouldn’t vote for.
It must be getting on for half the parliamentary party by now.
As he (or she) points out, Facebook should release the information on exactly who these 50m people are. I deleted my account in 2010 - but for all I know I could be one myself.
I suspect his Polish heritage influences how he reacts to all things Russian
What about things German?
Daniel Kawczyinski's Polish heritage doesn't seem to stop him lapping up Russian propaganda - he loves blaming Ukraine for having itself invaded for example - mind you he's not alone in that as it's a popular myth on the left too.
Daniel Kawczynski is thick as pig poop, he's the modern Lord Halifax.
I'd rather vote for Mark Reckless than Daniel Kawczynski.
Frankly, I’m losing track of all the Tory MPs you wouldn’t vote for.
It must be getting on for half the parliamentary party by now.
London is happy enough for the territorial extent of the transition deal to cover Gibraltar as it will the rest of the UK.
Of course the EU is happy with that per se, but the EU have previously said that that was not possible unless the Spanish and London had agreed, separately, a long term arrangement for Gibraltar i.e. one which keeps Gibraltar in the EU and/or cedes sovereignty to Spain.
Let’s see how long it takes HYUFD to admit he’s wrong on this one.
I wrote this thread back in July 2016 a few days after having lunch for someone who worked for Cameron. They were in the inspiration for the thread.
So imagine the EU referendum had taken place under another Con/Lib Dem coalition.
With Nick Clegg’s greater experience of European Union affairs, Cameron might have obtained a much better renegotiation deal than he achieved. One of Cameron’s great misjudgements in the EU referendum was to spin the he deal obtained as a great deal instead of the reality of it being a middling to tepid deal at best.
If the referendum had happened under another Tory/Lib Dem coalition I get the feeling the Lib Dems would have insisted the franchise for the referendum was much more broader. You could have seen them insisting European Union citizens resident in the United Kingdom and sixteen & seventeen year olds having the vote, I think the former alone would have been more than enough to overturn Leave’s 1.3 million majority.
The Lib Dems might have also stopped some Tory errors such as tax credit changes, academisation of every state school, and the junior doctors’ contracts that caused David Cameron’s government so much trouble since May 2015. Whilst in coalition, much to the chagrin of the their coalition partners, the Tories appropriated as their own some of the Liberal Democrat policies such as the substantial increase in the personal allowance as a Tory policy.
Had Cameron and his government not taken so many unpopular positions since May 2015, far fewer people would have taken the opportunity to use the referendum to give Cameron and his government a kicking.
Instead people wouldn’t be speaking about David Cameron as a latter day Lord North nor would David Cameron’s final ratings with Ipsos Mori sunk to an all time low for him.
During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.
Labour £16.5k
Tories £1.2 million.
So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
Nah.
It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.
Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.
The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on
1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial
2) The long term economic plan
The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.
Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
No there wouldn't as without a Tory majority the LDs, Labour and the SNP would have blocked an EU referendum and Cameron would not probably have put it to a parliamentary vote anyway as he did not get the majority he needed to implement his manifesto commitment for an EU referendum
Incorrect. Clegg knew a referendum was a Tory promise Cameron had to keep and was prepared to trade on it, as he repeatedly refused to rule it out during the election campaign.
Of course, that works both ways. Cameron didn’t think he’d have to honour his British Bill of Rights v. HRA replacement either.
No, Clegg made quite clear an EU referendum was a Tory manifesto commitment in 2015 not a LD manifesto commitment
During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.
Labour £16.5k
Tories £1.2 million.
So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
Nah.
It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.
Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.
The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on
1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial
2) The long term economic plan
The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.
Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
No there wouldn't as without a Tory majority the LDs, Labour and the SNP would have blocked an EU referendum and Cameron would not probably have put it to a parliamentary vote anyway as he did not get the majority he needed to implement his manifesto commitment for an EU referendum
Incorrect. Clegg knew a referendum was a Tory promise Cameron had to keep and was prepared to trade on it, as he repeatedly refused to rule it out during the election campaign.
Of course, that works both ways. Cameron didn’t think he’d have to honour his British Bill of Rights v. HRA replacement either.
Yup, Clegg was also going to insist he should be involved in the renegotiation given his past roles in Bruxelles.
The renegotiation that wasn't of course and a key reason for the Leave vote
London is happy enough for the territorial extent of the transition deal to cover Gibraltar as it will the rest of the UK.
Of course the EU is happy with that per se, but the EU have previously said that that was not possible unless the Spanish and London had agreed, separately, a long term arrangement for Gibraltar i.e. one which keeps Gibraltar in the EU and/or cedes sovereignty to Spain.
What do the Gibraltarians want?
One of the reasons the Brexit vote is still being contended (and why calls for a second referendum have some legitimacy) is because several nations or territories did not actually vote for it.
Granted, we are not a federal nation. But post-devolution etc, nor are we as unitary as we used to be.
Let’s see how long it takes HYUFD to admit he’s wrong on this one.
I wrote this thread back in July 2016 a few days after having lunch for someone who worked for Cameron. They were in the inspiration for the thread.
So imagine the EU referendum had taken place under another Con/Lib Dem coalition.
With Nick Clegg’s greater experience of European Union affairs, Cameron might have obtained a much better renegotiation deal than he achieved. One of Cameron’s great misjudgements in the EU referendum was to spin the he deal obtained as a great deal instead of the reality of it being a middling to tepid deal at best.
If the referendum had happened under another Tory/Lib Dem coalition I get the feeling the Lib Dems would have insisted the franchise for the referendum was much more broader. You could have seen them insisting European Union citizens resident in the United Kingdom and sixteen & seventeen year olds having the vote, I think the former alone would have been more than enough to overturn Leave’s 1.3 million majority.
The Lib Dems might have also stopped some Tory errors such as tax credit changes, academisation of every state school, and the junior doctors’ contracts that caused David Cameron’s government so much trouble since May 2015. Whilst in coalition, much to the chagrin of the their coalition partners, the Tories appropriated as their own some of the Liberal Democrat policies such as the substantial increase in the personal allowance as a Tory policy.
Had Cameron and his government not taken so many unpopular positions since May 2015, far fewer people would have taken the opportunity to use the referendum to give Cameron and his government a kicking.
Instead people wouldn’t be speaking about David Cameron as a latter day Lord North nor would David Cameron’s final ratings with Ipsos Mori sunk to an all time low for him.
It was free movement that lost it for Cameron and his complete failure to get any concessions on it from the EU to reflect Blair's failure to impose transition controls in 2004.
Had he relied on EU citizens voters to get Remain to 51% I expect Tory backbenchers would have toppled him anyway had he tried to stay
I suspect his Polish heritage influences how he reacts to all things Russian
What about things German?
Daniel Kawczyinski's Polish heritage doesn't seem to stop him lapping up Russian propaganda - he loves blaming Ukraine for having itself invaded for example - mind you he's not alone in that as it's a popular myth on the left too.
Daniel Kawczynski is thick as pig poop, he's the modern Lord Halifax.
I'd rather vote for Mark Reckless than Daniel Kawczynski.
Daniel Kawczynski is now saying the UK should get reparations from Germany.
FWIW, I’m not sure I particularly like Cambridge Analytica or its CEO but I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shady data mining.
More pertinently, I think that CA are selling snake oil to gullible people.
Skilful politicians have always targeted niche groups of voters, as well as putting out messages for general consumption. It's called campaigning.
During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.
Labour £16.5k
Tories £1.2 million.
So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
Nah.
It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.
Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.
The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on
1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial
2) The long term economic plan
The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.
Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
No there wouldn't as without a Tory majority the LDs, Labour and the SNP would have blocked an EU referendum and Cameron would not probably have put it to a parliamentary vote anyway as he did not get the majority he needed to implement his manifesto commitment for an EU referendum
Incorrect. Clegg knew a referendum was a Tory promise Cameron had to keep and was prepared to trade on it, as he repeatedly refused to rule it out during the election campaign.
Of course, that works both ways. Cameron didn’t think he’d have to honour his British Bill of Rights v. HRA replacement either.
No, Clegg made quite clear an EU referendum was a Tory manifesto commitment in 2015 not a LD manifesto commitment
So he might have done publicly, but he also didn’t rule one out and was privately preparing to support Cameron on that basis.
London is happy enough for the territorial extent of the transition deal to cover Gibraltar as it will the rest of the UK.
Of course the EU is happy with that per se, but the EU have previously said that that was not possible unless the Spanish and London had agreed, separately, a long term arrangement for Gibraltar i.e. one which keeps Gibraltar in the EU and/or cedes sovereignty to Spain.
I think the Spanish are being impatient, I think they think it is possible the transition is extended.
FWIW, I’m not sure I particularly like Cambridge Analytica or its CEO but I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shady data mining.
More pertinently, I think that CA are selling snake oil to gullible people.
Skilful politicians have always targeted niche groups of voters, as well as putting out messages for general consumption. It's called campaigning.
Read one of the threads on this. Get educated. This is not your mama’s campaigning.
During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.
Labour £16.5k
Tories £1.2 million.
So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
Nah.
It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.
Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.
The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on
1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial
2) The long term economic plan
The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
A pivotal part of it was also the EU referendum promise which enabled the Tories to pick up LD votes in the Southwest without losing large numbers of voters to UKIP. However while that enabled the Tory majority it also signed Cameron and Osborne's death warrant ironically.
Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
No there wouldn't as without a Tory majority the LDs, Labour and the SNP would have blocked an EU referendum and Cameron would not probably have put it to a parliamentary vote anyway as he did not get the majority he needed to implement his manifesto commitment for an EU referendum
Incorrect. Clegg knew a referendum was a Tory promise Cameron had to keep and was prepared to trade on it, as he repeatedly refused to rule it out during the election campaign.
Of course, that works both ways. Cameron didn’t think he’d have to honour his British Bill of Rights v. HRA replacement either.
No, Clegg made quite clear an EU referendum was a Tory manifesto commitment in 2015 not a LD manifesto commitment
So he might have done publicly, but he also didn’t rule one out and was privately preparing to support Cameron on that basis.
That is an assumption not a publicly stated commitment from Clegg, there was no LD manifesto commitment for an EU referendum in 2015 unlike the Tories manifesto commitment for an EU referendum
London is happy enough for the territorial extent of the transition deal to cover Gibraltar as it will the rest of the UK.
Of course the EU is happy with that per se, but the EU have previously said that that was not possible unless the Spanish and London had agreed, separately, a long term arrangement for Gibraltar i.e. one which keeps Gibraltar in the EU and/or cedes sovereignty to Spain.
What do the Gibraltarians want?
One of the reasons the Brexit vote is still being contended (and why calls for a second referendum have some legitimacy) is because several nations or territories did not actually vote for it.
Granted, we are not a federal nation. But post-devolution etc, nor are we as unitary as we used to be.
Gibraltar wants to be in the EU and part of the UK.
Gibraltar voted 96% Remain on 84% turnout (EU); and 98.97% on an 87.9% turnout back in 2002 to reject any sort of spanish sovereignty (Effectively to remain a British overseas territory).
I expect on a forced choice British&Outside EU / Sharedsovereignty&inside EU, British & outside EU would probably win.
London is happy enough for the territorial extent of the transition deal to cover Gibraltar as it will the rest of the UK.
Of course the EU is happy with that per se, but the EU have previously said that that was not possible unless the Spanish and London had agreed, separately, a long term arrangement for Gibraltar i.e. one which keeps Gibraltar in the EU and/or cedes sovereignty to Spain.
What do the Gibraltarians want?
One of the reasons the Brexit vote is still being contended (and why calls for a second referendum have some legitimacy) is because several nations or territories did not actually vote for it.
Granted, we are not a federal nation. But post-devolution etc, nor are we as unitary as we used to be.
Gibraltar wants to be in the EU and part of the UK.
Gibraltar voted 96% Remain on 84% turnout (EU); and 98.97% on an 87.9% turnout back in 2002 to reject any sort of spanish sovereignty (Effectively to remain a British overseas territory).
I expect on a forced choice British&Outside EU / Sharedsovereignty&inside EU, British & outside EU would probably win.
The Spanish wanted to force the choice as part of the transition deal, they have failed, but they will get another shot.
The position is delicate. Gibraltar would like to be in the CU, in the SM. The Spanish would like that too, if Spanish sovereignty were off the table. London won't care nearly as much about erecting a wall not in the Irish sea but the Gulf of Cadiz. I suspect that is where we will end up
Mr. Eagles, Clegg had form on reneging on referendum pledges. His party promised to back one on Lisbon, then had had a three line whip for an abstention, calling for an in/out vote instead.
Mr. Pulpstar, it would be interesting if we won (not that I expect that). Will the players shake Putin's hand? [Another PBer raised this question a few days ago].
It shouldn't be a matter of a boycott. It should be FIFA taking the World Cup away from Russia. That is the sort of thing that would hurt Putin. A chance to strut himself in front of a global audience taken away from him.
It should have happened with the Winter Olympics in Sochi. And I doubt it will happen for this summer. But it should.
One of the reasons the Brexit vote is still being contended (and why calls for a second referendum have some legitimacy) is because several nations or territories did not actually vote for it.
Granted, we are not a federal nation. But post-devolution etc, nor are we as unitary as we used to be.
Gibraltar wants to be in the EU and part of the UK.
Gibraltar voted 96% Remain on 84% turnout (EU); and 98.97% on an 87.9% turnout back in 2002 to reject any sort of spanish sovereignty (Effectively to remain a British overseas territory).
I expect on a forced choice British&Outside EU / Sharedsovereignty&inside EU, British & outside EU would probably win.
The Spanish wanted to force the choice as part of the transition deal, they have failed, but they will get another shot.
The position is delicate. Gibraltar would like to be in the CU, in the SM. The Spanish would like that too, if Spanish sovereignty were off the table. London won't care nearly as much about erecting a wall not in the Irish sea but the Gulf of Cadiz. I suspect that is where we will end up
Gibraltar isn't in the customs union though it is in the single market. "Although it is part of the EU, Gibraltar is outside the customs union and VAT area and is exempted from the Common Agricultural Policy; it does not form part of the Schengen Area. As a separate jurisdiction to the UK, Gibraltar's government and parliament are responsible for the transposition of EU law into local law. "
The last sentence is interesting. Although the UK is responsible for Gibraltar's external relations, I assume Gibraltar could take a different approach to the UK for the internal implementation and preserve the special status on taxation that underpins its economy.
One of the reasons the Brexit vote is still being contended (and why calls for a second referendum have some legitimacy) is because several nations or territories did not actually vote for it.
Granted, we are not a federal nation. But post-devolution etc, nor are we as unitary as we used to be.
Gibraltar wants to be in the EU and part of the UK.
Gibraltar voted 96% Remain on 84% turnout (EU); and 98.97% on an 87.9% turnout back in 2002 to reject any sort of spanish sovereignty (Effectively to remain a British overseas territory).
I expect on a forced choice British&Outside EU / Sharedsovereignty&inside EU, British & outside EU would probably win.
The Spanish wanted to force the choice as part of the transition deal, they have failed, but they will get another shot.
The position is delicate. Gibraltar would like to be in the CU, in the SM. The Spanish would like that too, if Spanish sovereignty were off the table. London won't care nearly as much about erecting a wall not in the Irish sea but the Gulf of Cadiz. I suspect that is where we will end up
Gibraltar isn't in the customs union though it is in the single market. "Although it is part of the EU, Gibraltar is outside the customs union and VAT area and is exempted from the Common Agricultural Policy; it does not form part of the Schengen Area. As a separate jurisdiction to the UK, Gibraltar's government and parliament are responsible for the transposition of EU law into local law. "
The last sentence is interesting. Although the UK is responsible for Gibraltar's external relations, I assume Gibraltar could take a different approach to the UK for the internal implementation and preserve the special status on taxation that underpins its economy.
I stand corrected. But it does underline the fact that the Spanish don't have much room to manoeuvre here
We’re due a series of Discovering English Churches. Got to be 35 years since the last?
Channel 5 occasionally shows a good series early in the morning with Paul Binski (from a rather good university) called "Divine Designs". A repeat from a decade or so ago, I think.
The "Cambridge Analytica stuff" revolves about the trust that people can have in social media companies like Facebook looking after their personal data. Long story short, they should have no trust at all. Facebook hardly pretends to look after your data properly, or potentially even legally. Yet their business model is based entirely on the ownership and use of that data.
The political dimension is that Cambridge Analytica links the Trump campaign in a vague but sinister way to the Russia that runs black ops and poisons its opponents on others' sovereign territory. The Putin regime used Facebook as part of its efforts to get Trump elected. Cambridge Analytica, who used stolen Facebook data in another part of the Trump campaign, is linked to Russia. There isn't AFAIK a direct link between the two Russia/Facebook/Trump Campaign nexus.
Mr. Pulpstar, it would be interesting if we won (not that I expect that). Will the players shake Putin's hand? [Another PBer raised this question a few days ago].
So he might have done publicly, but he also didn’t rule one out and was privately preparing to support Cameron on that basis.
Clegg saw the referendum as the potential for finally settling the Europe question for a generation.
Lest we forget he was in favour of a referendum back in 2008.
What a leaflet for the ages that is.... Petards and hoisted?
Would the Lib Dem have refused to honour the result of their own referendum had it been for Brexit in 2010?
I thought this was Clegg’s thinking on this:
1) A referendum on Lisbon will crash and burn, probably badly. 2) The electorate won’t dare actually go the whole hog and vote out. 3) Therefore upping the bet is low risk and can then be claimed ( following inevitable victory) to have “settled” the question for a generation. Onwards to closer union, or at the least knocked back sceptics for years.
Or something like that.
Quite funny really, when broadly he got what he campaigned for. Just not the result.
We’re due a series of Discovering English Churches. Got to be 35 years since the last?
Channel 5 occasionally shows a good series early in the morning with Paul Binski (from a rather good university) called "Divine Designs". A repeat from a decade or so ago, I think.
Ok.
I am not religious, but quirky little programmes such as the late Mr Sinden’s back in the 80’s are often gems.
The political dimension is that Cambridge Analytica links the Trump campaign in a vague but sinister way to the Russia that runs black ops and poisons its opponents on others' sovereign territory. The Putin regime used Facebook as part of its efforts to get Trump elected. Cambridge Analytica, who used stolen Facebook data in another part of the Trump campaign, is linked to Russia. There isn't AFAIK a direct link between the two Russia/Facebook/Trump Campaign nexus.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
Yes. Kadyrov's treatment is another matter.
I have seen gay people hit with metal bars at Moscow Pride while the police ignored it. Russian TV channels have offered one way flights out the country for gay Russians. Homophobic violence expands far beyond Chechnya.
So he might have done publicly, but he also didn’t rule one out and was privately preparing to support Cameron on that basis.
Clegg saw the referendum as the potential for finally settling the Europe question for a generation.
Lest we forget he was in favour of a referendum back in 2008.
What a leaflet for the ages that is.... Petards and hoisted?
Would the Lib Dem have refused to honour the result of their own referendum had it been for Brexit in 2010?
I thought this was Clegg’s thinking on this:
1) A referendum on Lisbon will crash and burn, probably badly. 2) The electorate won’t dare actually go the whole hog and vote out. 3) Therefore upping the bet is low risk and can then be claimed ( following inevitable victory) to have “settled” the question for a generation. Onwards to closer union, or at the least knocked back sceptics for years.
Or something like that.
Quite funny really, when broadly he got what he campaigned for. Just not the result.
I think he was using to get votes and was planning to drop it in any coalition negotiations.
FWIW, I’m not sure I particularly like Cambridge Analytica or its CEO but I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shady data mining.
More pertinently, I think that CA are selling snake oil to gullible people.
Skilful politicians have always targeted niche groups of voters, as well as putting out messages for general consumption. It's called campaigning.
They haven't stolen people's data based on their friends' consent.
Mr. Pulpstar, it would be interesting if we won (not that I expect that). Will the players shake Putin's hand? [Another PBer raised this question a few days ago].
There's a great story (I think in the excellent 'Atomic', by Jim Baggott). In the early days of the Second World War, one of the first German pilots to be shot down is taken for interrogation. No-one present has ever done an interrogation before.
He is at a table facing three British intelligence officers. Before the interrogation, he stands and does a Nazi salute. One of the British officers stands and does the same ...
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
Yes. Kadyrov's treatment is another matter.
I have seen gay people hit with metal bars at Moscow Pride while the police ignored it. Russian TV channels have offered one way flights out the country for gay Russians. Homophobic violence expands far beyond Chechnya.
And after Russia, gay football fans have the joys of Qatar in 2022. FIFA made some very bad decisions - though some officials were very well rewarded for their 'influence'
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
Sadly, the one making them is our absolute fucktard of a Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Pulpstar, it would be interesting if we won (not that I expect that). Will the players shake Putin's hand? [Another PBer raised this question a few days ago].
There's a great story (I think in the excellent 'Atomic', by Jim Baggott). In the early days of the Second World War, one of the first German pilots to be shot down is taken for interrogation. No-one present has ever done an interrogation before.
He is at a table facing three British intelligence officers. Before the interrogation, he stands and does a Nazi salute. One of the British officers stands and does the same ...
Returning a salute is a simple sign of respect. Returning it with their own salute - perhaps not such a good idea. Though perhaps it wasn't as toxic as it has now become.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
In fairness to the comparison 1936 Nazi treatment of Jews is very different to their later treatment of Jews. Obviously still very bad but I guess that is the point Elliot is making.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
Being Jewish wasn't punishable by imprisonment or death in Germany 1936. My point was that regimes have a tendency to show a flavour of their true colours and can rapidly get worse. Then everyone points out all the signs were there. Russia does seem to have entered a new stage in its aggression.
Anyway, the obvious Nazi comparison is invading and annexing a part of your neighbour based on ethnic revanchist claims. The parallels between Crimea and the Sudetenland certainly hold.
Mr. Pulpstar, it would be interesting if we won (not that I expect that). Will the players shake Putin's hand? [Another PBer raised this question a few days ago].
There's a great story (I think in the excellent 'Atomic', by Jim Baggott). In the early days of the Second World War, one of the first German pilots to be shot down is taken for interrogation. No-one present has ever done an interrogation before.
He is at a table facing three British intelligence officers. Before the interrogation, he stands and does a Nazi salute. One of the British officers stands and does the same ...
Returning a salute is a simple sign of respect. Returning it with their own salute - perhaps not such a good idea. Though perhaps it wasn't as toxic as it has now become.
Whilst not quite the same thing I do imagine in some respects, say two people meeting each other, it was thought of like a handshake. Obviously it means something else to people now.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
In fairness to the comparison 1936 Nazi treatment of Jews is very different to their later treatment of Jews. Obviously still very bad but I guess that is the point Elliot is making.
The Nuremberg Laws date from before the 1936 Olympics
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
During the 2015 general election campaign here's how much the Tories and Labour spent on Facebook ads.
Labour £16.5k
Tories £1.2 million.
So even the Tory majority that gave us the referendum was dodgy.
Nah.
It was down to the awesome of Dave and George.
Jim Messina/Facebook played an inconsequential role.
The Tory general election strategy for years was based based on
1) Dave's leadership/Ed M never looking Prime Ministerial
2) The long term economic plan
The third campaign line came at the very last moment (Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back like he did with his brother so he'll go into coalition with the SNP)
A pivotal part of it was also
Had there been another hung parliament with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding a few more of their West Country seats in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would likely still be PM and Osborne would still be Chancellor
Wrong. There still would have been an EU referendum but purdah would have been different and EU citizens probably would have been granted suffrage, so probably a narrow win for Remain.
No there wouldn't as without a Tory majority the LDs, Labour and the SNP would have blocked an EU referendum and Cameron would not probably have put it to a parliamentary vote anyway as he did not get the majority he needed to implement his manifesto commitment for an EU referendum
Incorrect. Clegg knew a referendum was a Tory promise Cameron had to keep and was prepared to trade on it, as he repeatedly refused to rule it out during the election campaign.
Of course, that works both ways. Cameron didn’t think he’d have to honour his British Bill of Rights v. HRA replacement either.
No, Clegg made quite clear an EU referendum was a Tory manifesto commitment in 2015 not a LD manifesto commitment
So he might have done publicly, but he also didn’t rule one out and was privately preparing to support Cameron on that basis.
That is an assumption not a publicly stated commitment from Clegg, there was no LD manifesto commitment for an EU referendum in 2015 unlike the Tories manifesto commitment for an EU referendum
Your statement was that with a few extra LD seats there would have been no EU referendum. It’s nonsense.
Mr. Pulpstar, it would be interesting if we won (not that I expect that). Will the players shake Putin's hand? [Another PBer raised this question a few days ago].
There's a great story (I think in the excellent 'Atomic', by Jim Baggott). In the early days of the Second World War, one of the first German pilots to be shot down is taken for interrogation. No-one present has ever done an interrogation before.
He is at a table facing three British intelligence officers. Before the interrogation, he stands and does a Nazi salute. One of the British officers stands and does the same ...
Good manners, or at least the desire to politely reciprocate, trumps a lot of things.
The Roy 'Winkle' Brown programme had him reminiscing about interrogating Goering at Nuremberg. At the end of it Goering stood and stuck out his hand to shake Brown's. He felt in all conscience he couldn't take Goering's hand but eventually said “Hals und Beinbruch!”, the German fighter pilot greeting of “Break your neck and legs”. Perhaps not the most sensitive thing to say to a chap facing the noose, but I'm sure Goering would have taken it as intended.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
It is almost never, never, never appropriate to draw Hitler / Nazi analogies.
In this instance, it makes the government look hysterical. In turn, the hyperbole plays into those who seek to diminish Russia’s culpability.
London is happy enough for the territorial extent of the transition deal to cover Gibraltar as it will the rest of the UK.
Of course the EU is happy with that per se, but the EU have previously said that that was not possible unless the Spanish and London had agreed, separately, a long term arrangement for Gibraltar i.e. one which keeps Gibraltar in the EU and/or cedes sovereignty to Spain.
What do the Gibraltarians want?
One of the reasons the Brexit vote is still being contended (and why calls for a second referendum have some legitimacy) is because several nations or territories did not actually vote for it.
Granted, we are not a federal nation. But post-devolution etc, nor are we as unitary as we used to be.
Gibraltar wants to be in the EU and part of the UK.
Gibraltar voted 96% Remain on 84% turnout (EU); and 98.97% on an 87.9% turnout back in 2002 to reject any sort of spanish sovereignty (Effectively to remain a British overseas territory).
I expect on a forced choice British&Outside EU / Sharedsovereignty&inside EU, British & outside EU would probably win.
Indeed so. Gibraltar is already outside the customs union and has put up with restrictions on “free” movement from Spain for decades.
No doubt there would be a painful adjustment but I don’t see it having any greater problems than other U.K. overseas territories and would probably simply become another tax haven.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
It is almost never, never, never appropriate to draw Hitler / Nazi analogies.
In this instance, it makes the government look hysterical. In turn, the hyperbole plays into those who seek to diminish Russia’s culpability.
21 million Russians died because of the Nazis/Hitler.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
In fairness to the comparison 1936 Nazi treatment of Jews is very different to their later treatment of Jews. Obviously still very bad but I guess that is the point Elliot is making.
The Nuremberg Laws date from before the 1936 Olympics
The comparison is still OTT but it is massively different from a standard Nazi comparison, there probably wouldn't be all that many Nazi comparisons if 1936 was as bad as it got..
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
In fairness to the comparison 1936 Nazi treatment of Jews is very different to their later treatment of Jews. Obviously still very bad but I guess that is the point Elliot is making.
The Nuremberg Laws date from before the 1936 Olympics
The comparison is still OTT but it is massively different from a standard Nazi comparison, there probably wouldn't be all that many Nazi comparisons if 1936 was as bad as it got..
The Nuremberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) were antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany. They were introduced on 15 September 1935 by the Reichstag at a special meeting convened at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). The two laws were the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, which forbade marriages and extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans and the employment of German females under 45 in Jewish households; and the Reich Citizenship Law, which declared that only those of German or related blood were eligible to be Reich citizens; the remainder were classed as state subjects, without citizenship rights. A supplementary decree outlining the definition of who was Jewish was passed on 14 November, and the Reich Citizenship Law officially came into force on that date. The laws were expanded on 26 November 1935 to include Romani people and Black people. This supplementary decree defined Gypsies as "enemies of the race-based state", the same category as Jews.
Mr. Pulpstar, it would be interesting if we won (not that I expect that). Will the players shake Putin's hand? [Another PBer raised this question a few days ago].
There's a great story (I think in the excellent 'Atomic', by Jim Baggott). In the early days of the Second World War, one of the first German pilots to be shot down is taken for interrogation. No-one present has ever done an interrogation before.
He is at a table facing three British intelligence officers. Before the interrogation, he stands and does a Nazi salute. One of the British officers stands and does the same ...
Good manners, or at least the desire to politely reciprocate, trumps a lot of things.
The Roy 'Winkle' Brown programme had him reminiscing about interrogating Goering at Nuremberg. At the end of it Goering stood and stuck out his hand to shake Brown's. He felt in all conscience he couldn't take Goering's hand but eventually said “Hals und Beinbruch!”, the German fighter pilot greeting of “Break your neck and legs”. Perhaps not the most sensitive thing to say to a chap facing the noose, but I'm sure Goering would have taken it as intended.
FWIW, I’m not sure I particularly like Cambridge Analytica or its CEO but I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shady data mining.
More pertinently, I think that CA are selling snake oil to gullible people.
Skilful politicians have always targeted niche groups of voters, as well as putting out messages for general consumption. It's called campaigning.
Read one of the threads on this. Get educated. This is not your mama’s campaigning.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
Most of these 77 nations are majority non-white.
Agreed. But of course in many cases their laws making homosexuality illegal were actually introduced by the British - they have just never repealed them. The Queen is head of state of several nations - Jamaica being one - where being gay is punishable by prison potentially for life. Yet parliament stresses about Bermuda where they are allowed civil partnerships - much the same as the UK pre 2013.
My point being not to say Russia is a wonderful haven for LGBT rights but merely to highlight our willingness to endlessly condemn Russia in this area while seemingly ignoring the rights of gay men (many don't have laws against lesbians) in those other 77 nations including some where our own monarch is head of state.
Mr. Pulpstar, it would be interesting if we won (not that I expect that). Will the players shake Putin's hand? [Another PBer raised this question a few days ago].
There's a great story (I think in the excellent 'Atomic', by Jim Baggott). In the early days of the Second World War, one of the first German pilots to be shot down is taken for interrogation. No-one present has ever done an interrogation before.
He is at a table facing three British intelligence officers. Before the interrogation, he stands and does a Nazi salute. One of the British officers stands and does the same ...
Good manners, or at least the desire to politely reciprocate, trumps a lot of things.
The Roy 'Winkle' Brown programme had him reminiscing about interrogating Goering at Nuremberg. At the end of it Goering stood and stuck out his hand to shake Brown's. He felt in all conscience he couldn't take Goering's hand but eventually said “Hals und Beinbruch!”, the German fighter pilot greeting of “Break your neck and legs”. Perhaps not the most sensitive thing to say to a chap facing the noose, but I'm sure Goering would have taken it as intended.
That's the impression I got from the book. All the interrogators were German speakers and had spent time in the country. It was politeness to do the salute. In the same manner, Germans had probably done toasts to 'God save the King'.
One thing I hadn't been aware of was the role of a small house in Godmanchester (near Cambridge). When scientists were held there, one said: "We need to be careful what we say." He got a reply, caught on transcript: "Oh, the English aren't as cute as that; they're not the Gestapo. They won't be recording us..."
Mr. Pulpstar, it would be interesting if we won (not that I expect that). Will the players shake Putin's hand? [Another PBer raised this question a few days ago].
There's a great story (I think in the excellent 'Atomic', by Jim Baggott). In the early days of the Second World War, one of the first German pilots to be shot down is taken for interrogation. No-one present has ever done an interrogation before.
He is at a table facing three British intelligence officers. Before the interrogation, he stands and does a Nazi salute. One of the British officers stands and does the same ...
Good manners, or at least the desire to politely reciprocate, trumps a lot of things.
The Roy 'Winkle' Brown programme had him reminiscing about interrogating Goering at Nuremberg. At the end of it Goering stood and stuck out his hand to shake Brown's. He felt in all conscience he couldn't take Goering's hand but eventually said “Hals und Beinbruch!”, the German fighter pilot greeting of “Break your neck and legs”. Perhaps not the most sensitive thing to say to a chap facing the noose, but I'm sure Goering would have taken it as intended.
Is that not just an equivalent of "break a leg"?
Maybe, but break your neck adds a mordant quality. My point was more about salutes, formal and informal.
FWIW, I’m not sure I particularly like Cambridge Analytica or its CEO but I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shady data mining.
More pertinently, I think that CA are selling snake oil to gullible people.
Skilful politicians have always targeted niche groups of voters, as well as putting out messages for general consumption. It's called campaigning.
Read one of the threads on this. Get educated. This is not your mama’s campaigning.
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
Most of these 77 nations are majority non-white.
Agreed. But of course in many cases their laws making homosexuality illegal were actually introduced by the British - they have just never repealed them. The Queen is head of state of several nations - Jamaica being one - where being gay is punishable by prison potentially for life. Yet parliament stresses about Bermuda where they are allowed civil partnerships - much the same as the UK pre 2013.
My point being not to say Russia is a wonderful haven for LGBT rights but merely to highlight our willingness to endlessly condemn Russia in this area while seemingly ignoring the rights of gay men (many don't have laws against lesbians) in those other 77 nations including some where our own monarch is head of state.
There is a difference between not repealing existing legislation and pursuing a legislative agenda that actively seeks to diminish the LGBT communities. And there is no denying that Russia has taken steps in that direction very recently.
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
These dirty trick adverts are nothing new in us politics. I guess the difference is they are better targete
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
It is almost never, never, never appropriate to draw Hitler / Nazi analogies.
In this instance, it makes the government look hysterical. In turn, the hyperbole plays into those who seek to diminish Russia’s culpability.
21 million Russians died because of the Nazis/Hitler.
Something we sadly forget which is why this comparison will play very badly with Russians whether pro or anti Putin.
America may have provided the equipment and money - but the Russians did the heavy lifting in tears of deaths in World War II. Without Russia/the USSR we may well have ended up under Nazi rule ourselves as they diverted German resources for a long time before the US joined the fight proper.
Doesn't absolve Stalin of his wicked crimes but we owe the Russian people.
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
It is almost never, never, never appropriate to draw Hitler / Nazi analogies.
In this instance, it makes the government look hysterical. In turn, the hyperbole plays into those who seek to diminish Russia’s culpability.
21 million Russians died because of the Nazis/Hitler.
Something we sadly forget which is why this comparison will play very badly with Russians whether pro or anti Putin.
America may have provided the equipment and money - but the Russians did the heavy lifting in tears of deaths in World War II. Without Russia/the USSR we may well have ended up under Nazi rule ourselves as they diverted German resources for a long time before the US joined the fight proper.
Doesn't absolve Stalin of his wicked crimes but we owe the Russian people.
Indeed. The Russians won the peace with the blood of an entire generation. We should never forget.
I would say that the Cambridge Analytica had been happening since the dawn of Social Media. To think that we weren't targeted by ads would be a bit naive, and politics and elections are nothing more, but selling a product. Or, if I was more correct, selling the perception of the product.
Honestly, I don't think it will change much, really. Maybe a law here or there about "data protection" will be passed and eventually everybody will just get on with their lives.
It is true that it definitely was unethical, but, agree with it or not, it worked. For better of worse.
P. S., I am a new blogger and I blog about Politics, Economics and Society. I would greatly appreciate if you checked out my blog: http://www.kyleknox.co.uk
Boris comparing Putin with Hitler in regard to this year's world cup and 1936 Olympic games.Is that the FO position ?
Is Putin's treatment of gay people now any better than Germany's treatment of Jewish people in 1936?
There are 70 nations where being gay is punishable by imprisonment and a further 7 where you are legally subject to the death penalty. Russia is not one of them.
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
The point being made was that Putin will use the World Cup to strut around in front of a global audience and promote himself as a result. Which is what Hitler did with Berlin 1936. It is not about drawing an equivalence between their policies but rather their desire to court the media and promote their personality cult.
It is almost never, never, never appropriate to draw Hitler / Nazi analogies.
In this instance, it makes the government look hysterical. In turn, the hyperbole plays into those who seek to diminish Russia’s culpability.
21 million Russians died because of the Nazis/Hitler.
Something we sadly forget which is why this comparison will play very badly with Russians whether pro or anti Putin.
America may have provided the equipment and money - but the Russians did the heavy lifting in tears of deaths in World War II. Without Russia/the USSR we may well have ended up under Nazi rule ourselves as they diverted German resources for a long time before the US joined the fight proper.
Doesn't absolve Stalin of his wicked crimes but we owe the Russian people.
It is impossible to be certain of how many people died as a result of Stalin and his policies.
The estimates vary between 12 and 60 million - including those executed and those who died as a result of the famines and other crimes created by the regime.
To my mind, the biggest "scandal" about the Cambridge Analytica / Trump affair was the use of fake adverts for the other campaign.
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
Yes. It’s about a million miles from “Are you thinking what I’m thinking?” and other political communication scandals of yore.
Comments
The people in your graph are statutorily housed, some in permanent accommodation and some in B&Bs.
What Roger is talking about, and people do this all the time, is rough sleeping which is more than 30x less prevalent, but has grown.
That sort of 'fake news' spreading doesn't require data-mining. It relies on credulous individuals sharing stuff without thinking or checking.
The 'hat-gate' nonsense had a social media reach in excess of 2 million - even though it was clearly rebutted. The truth never came close to a similar reach.
That sort of thing does more damage IMHO.
https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-holds-back-brexit-transition-deal-over-gibraltar-bilateral-agreement/
Of course, that works both ways. Cameron didn’t think he’d have to honour his British Bill of Rights v. HRA replacement either.
https://twitter.com/d1gi/status/976109055642042368?s=21
It must be getting on for half the parliamentary party by now.
Just read Roger as having said we have a rough sleeper problem, then you can reply to his actual point instead of reading him as having a problem we don't have.
TMay and Corbz have both said "homeless" when they mean "rough sleepers"
As he (or she) points out, Facebook should release the information on exactly who these 50m people are. I deleted my account in 2010 - but for all I know I could be one myself.
So could anyone on here.
London is happy enough for the territorial extent of the transition deal to cover Gibraltar as it will the rest of the UK.
Of course the EU is happy with that per se, but the EU have previously said that that was not possible unless the Spanish and London had agreed, separately, a long term arrangement for Gibraltar i.e. one which keeps Gibraltar in the EU and/or cedes sovereignty to Spain.
So imagine the EU referendum had taken place under another Con/Lib Dem coalition.
With Nick Clegg’s greater experience of European Union affairs, Cameron might have obtained a much better renegotiation deal than he achieved. One of Cameron’s great misjudgements in the EU referendum was to spin the he deal obtained as a great deal instead of the reality of it being a middling to tepid deal at best.
If the referendum had happened under another Tory/Lib Dem coalition I get the feeling the Lib Dems would have insisted the franchise for the referendum was much more broader. You could have seen them insisting European Union citizens resident in the United Kingdom and sixteen & seventeen year olds having the vote, I think the former alone would have been more than enough to overturn Leave’s 1.3 million majority.
The Lib Dems might have also stopped some Tory errors such as tax credit changes, academisation of every state school, and the junior doctors’ contracts that caused David Cameron’s government so much trouble since May 2015. Whilst in coalition, much to the chagrin of the their coalition partners, the Tories appropriated as their own some of the Liberal Democrat policies such as the substantial increase in the personal allowance as a Tory policy.
Had Cameron and his government not taken so many unpopular positions since May 2015, far fewer people would have taken the opportunity to use the referendum to give Cameron and his government a kicking.
Instead people wouldn’t be speaking about David Cameron as a latter day Lord North nor would David Cameron’s final ratings with Ipsos Mori sunk to an all time low for him.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/07/24/wiping-out-the-lib-dems-might-have-been-camerons-greatest-strategic-mistake-as-pm/
One of the reasons the Brexit vote is still being contended (and why calls for a second referendum have some legitimacy) is because several nations or territories did not actually vote for it.
Granted, we are not a federal nation.
But post-devolution etc, nor are we as unitary as we used to be.
Had he relied on EU citizens voters to get Remain to 51% I expect Tory backbenchers would have toppled him anyway had he tried to stay
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/935072/britain-germany-billions-world-war-2-compensation
“We always seem to be on our knees with the Germans. Britain has never received a penny of compensation from Germany.
“And yet Germany demands and expects Britain to fulfil its obligations to the European Union.”
Skilful politicians have always targeted niche groups of voters, as well as putting out messages for general consumption. It's called campaigning.
This is not your mama’s campaigning.
I don't think the Fed's actions necessarily increase the chance of a UK rate rise
Gibraltar voted 96% Remain on 84% turnout (EU); and 98.97% on an 87.9% turnout back in 2002 to reject any sort of spanish sovereignty (Effectively to remain a British overseas territory).
I expect on a forced choice
British&Outside EU / Sharedsovereignty&inside EU, British & outside EU would probably win.
Lest we forget he was in favour of a referendum back in 2008.
The Spanish wanted to force the choice as part of the transition deal, they have failed, but they will get another shot.
The position is delicate. Gibraltar would like to be in the CU, in the SM. The Spanish would like that too, if Spanish sovereignty were off the table. London won't care nearly as much about erecting a wall not in the Irish sea but the Gulf of Cadiz. I suspect that is where we will end up
So why not boycott these ?
Anyway, I must be off.
It should have happened with the Winter Olympics in Sochi. And I doubt it will happen for this summer. But it should.
"Although it is part of the EU, Gibraltar is outside the customs union and VAT area and is exempted from the Common Agricultural Policy; it does not form part of the Schengen Area.
As a separate jurisdiction to the UK, Gibraltar's government and parliament are responsible for the transposition of EU law into local law. "
The last sentence is interesting. Although the UK is responsible for Gibraltar's external relations, I assume Gibraltar could take a different approach to the UK for the internal implementation and preserve the special status on taxation that underpins its economy.
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/
The political dimension is that Cambridge Analytica links the Trump campaign in a vague but sinister way to the Russia that runs black ops and poisons its opponents on others' sovereign territory. The Putin regime used Facebook as part of its efforts to get Trump elected. Cambridge Analytica, who used stolen Facebook data in another part of the Trump campaign, is linked to Russia. There isn't AFAIK a direct link between the two Russia/Facebook/Trump Campaign nexus.
https://twitter.com/thehistoryguy/status/622306405224198145
1) A referendum on Lisbon will crash and burn, probably badly.
2) The electorate won’t dare actually go the whole hog and vote out.
3) Therefore upping the bet is low risk and can then be claimed ( following inevitable victory) to have “settled” the question for a generation. Onwards to closer union, or at the least knocked back sceptics for years.
Or something like that.
Quite funny really, when broadly he got what he campaigned for. Just not the result.
I am not religious, but quirky little programmes such as the late Mr Sinden’s back in the 80’s are often gems.
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/976423243312779264
He is at a table facing three British intelligence officers. Before the interrogation, he stands and does a Nazi salute. One of the British officers stands and does the same ...
No it is not the most enlightened nation in this area - but I think some perspective is needed. These Nazi Germany comparisons really are silly hyperbole.
Anyway, the obvious Nazi comparison is invading and annexing a part of your neighbour based on ethnic revanchist claims. The parallels between Crimea and the Sudetenland certainly hold.
Oh, look, a squirrel!
The Roy 'Winkle' Brown programme had him reminiscing about interrogating Goering at Nuremberg. At the end of it Goering stood and stuck out his hand to shake Brown's. He felt in all conscience he couldn't take Goering's hand but eventually said “Hals und Beinbruch!”, the German fighter pilot greeting of “Break your neck and legs”. Perhaps not the most sensitive thing to say to a chap facing the noose, but I'm sure Goering would have taken it as intended.
In this instance, it makes the government look hysterical. In turn, the hyperbole plays into those who seek to diminish Russia’s culpability.
No doubt there would be a painful adjustment but I don’t see it having any greater problems than other U.K. overseas territories and would probably simply become another tax haven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
My point being not to say Russia is a wonderful haven for LGBT rights but merely to highlight our willingness to endlessly condemn Russia in this area while seemingly ignoring the rights of gay men (many don't have laws against lesbians) in those other 77 nations including some where our own monarch is head of state.
One thing I hadn't been aware of was the role of a small house in Godmanchester (near Cambridge). When scientists were held there, one said: "We need to be careful what we say." He got a reply, caught on transcript: "Oh, the English aren't as cute as that; they're not the Gestapo. They won't be recording us..."
So, if you were a white person in a swing state who'd shared or liked an anti-Islam post, then you'd get what looked like an advert from the Hillary campaign with a "Muslims for Clinton" logo. It would have all the logo and trappings of a genuine Clinton advert, except it's purpose would be to get you to vote for Trump.
The whole super PAC systems just screams dodgy.
America may have provided the equipment and money - but the Russians did the heavy lifting in tears of deaths in World War II. Without Russia/the USSR we may well have ended up under Nazi rule ourselves as they diverted German resources for a long time before the US joined the fight proper.
Doesn't absolve Stalin of his wicked crimes but we owe the Russian people.
Honestly, I don't think it will change much, really. Maybe a law here or there about "data protection" will be passed and eventually everybody will just get on with their lives.
It is true that it definitely was unethical, but, agree with it or not, it worked. For better of worse.
P. S., I am a new blogger and I blog about Politics, Economics and Society. I would greatly appreciate if you checked out my blog: http://www.kyleknox.co.uk
The estimates vary between 12 and 60 million - including those executed and those who died as a result of the famines and other crimes created by the regime.