I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worse
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.
I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worse
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.
Joachim Pfeiffer – a key ally of Chancellor Merkel – painted a dire picture of the outcome.
Mr Pfeiffer said Ireland would “have a border like we have a border with Ukraine, or Belarus” as there would no longer be treaties in place with the UK that would ensure the rules and standards of the EU would be respected.
Mr Pfeiffer said it will be Ireland’s responsibility to erect and manage the Border on the EU side, and the UK’s task to manage the territory of Northern Ireland.
Border in the bay of biscay? No. But while I've doubt most Irish anger will be reserved for us for provoking this situation, much like our own torturous desperations over Brexit ultimately whoevers fault it was is secondary to dealing with it, and Ireland looks like taking the biggest hit of any EU country. The EU woukd be wise to make sure the rest support Ireland a great deal.
It's good cop bad cop.
If, say, Germany pushes for a border then the UK has no option but to agree to anything that means there won't be a border. It is exquisitely clever.
We, or at least the sensible PBers have noted how the EU, Ireland, and the UK all don't want a border so it was crazy and illogical that anyone was suggesting it.
Now someone is suggesting it. It is a bluff we can't call.
Err. What?
If you know someone has a duff hand, you call it.
We cannot. Because we simply cannot take the chance that they actually mean it.
At the end of the day what does Germany know or care about the last 500 years of Irish history? Fuck all. Just like most PB Leavers on here.
We know they have a duff hand, and that they've been overbetting like mad on flop, turn and river. Therefore we call it.
If they mean it, how it is implemented is secondary because it would be so appallingly unpopular on both sides of the border. It might be enough to tip Ireland into leaving, too.
You are describing it in terms which are not relevant to the situation.
To say it's "appallingly unpopular" is not even wrong.
I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worse
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.
Possibly a functioning government, and failing that, at least the proper national debate about what the fuck Brexit means that we should have had during the referendum campaign.
I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worse
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.
Possibly a functioning government, and failing that, at least the proper national debate about what the fuck Brexit means that we should have had during the referendum campaign.
Yet the two party's positions on Brexit are very similar. We'd just end up exactly where we were.
It seems notable to me the late night politicos still haven't come to grips with Trump winning. Granted, it was tight in some key states and so he could lose with nt much change, but gasping boggled eyed at every distasteful thing he does, and his utterly crude and obnoxious mannerisms, seems like it should be over now. They, and by extention much of their audience, doesn't seem like it is in the planning stage to beat him, they're still in the mourning phase for having lost.
Yet the two party's positions on Brexit are very similar. We'd just end up exactly where we were.
I don't think so, we never made it beyond BREXIT MEANS BREXIT last year.
This kind of bullshit would never work again. May and Corbyn would be forced to spell out at least in some kind of detail what Brexit means Brexit means.
I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worse
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.
The argument is that there is no point in an extension if no deal can be reached with this government, if they've had years to reach a deal and failed.
However if there was a GE then it means that they can stop the clock in order to try and negotiate with the next government.
We know they have a duff hand, and that they've been overbetting like mad on flop, turn and river. Therefore we call it.
If they mean it, how it is implemented is secondary because it would be so appallingly unpopular on both sides of the border. It might be enough to tip Ireland into leaving, too.
You are describing it in terms which are not relevant to the situation.
To say it's "appallingly unpopular" is not even wrong.
Not even wrong?
Is that a bizarre way of saying that Mortimer is right?
I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worse
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.
The argument is that there is no point in an extension if no deal can be reached with this government, if they've had years to reach a deal and failed.
However if there was a GE then it means that they can stop the clock in order to try and negotiate with the next government.
But a ge has no guarantee it woukd not return the same government (though in those circumstances it woukd seem unlikely), so as pretexts go it it is flimsy and transparent.
I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worse
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.
The argument is that there is no point in an extension if no deal can be reached with this government, if they've had years to reach a deal and failed.
However if there was a GE then it means that they can stop the clock in order to try and negotiate with the next government.
But a ge has no guarantee it woukd not return the same government (though in those circumstances it woukd seem unlikely), so as pretexts go it it is flimsy and transparent.
There's no guarantee but there's at least a chance it will change whereas nothing changes by having an extension alone with the same government.
I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worse
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.
The argument is that there is no point in an extension if no deal can be reached with this government, if they've had years to reach a deal and failed.
However if there was a GE then it means that they can stop the clock in order to try and negotiate with the next government.
But a ge has no guarantee it woukd not return the same government (though in those circumstances it woukd seem unlikely), so as pretexts go it it is flimsy and transparent.
And judging by Labour's current policy, the demands in the negotiations will be the same.
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I'm happy to stick to that wank, generally. However I know plenty of the country already supports the death penalty outside war zones like Syria, and even fewer will care a great deal given the people involved.
Yet the two party's positions on Brexit are very similar. We'd just end up exactly where we were.
I don't think so, we never made it beyond BREXIT MEANS BREXIT last year.
This kind of bullshit would never work again. May and Corbyn would be forced to spell out at least in some kind of detail what Brexit means Brexit means.
It seems notable to me the late night politicos still haven't come to grips with Trump winning. Granted, it was tight in some key states and so he could lose with nt much change, but gasping boggled eyed at every distasteful thing he does, and his utterly crude and obnoxious mannerisms, seems like it should be over now. They, and by extention much of their audience, doesn't seem like it is in the planning stage to beat him, they're still in the mourning phase for having lost.
Are the Democrats being wiser about things?
I suspect they’re betting the farm on the Mueller investigation, as the Tories, Michael Howard in particular, did with the Hutton Inquiry all those years ago
We know they have a duff hand, and that they've been overbetting like mad on flop, turn and river. Therefore we call it.
If they mean it, how it is implemented is secondary because it would be so appallingly unpopular on both sides of the border. It might be enough to tip Ireland into leaving, too.
You are describing it in terms which are not relevant to the situation.
To say it's "appallingly unpopular" is not even wrong.
Not even wrong?
Is that a bizarre way of saying that Mortimer is right?
It's a paraphrase of Pauli's epithet on badly written Physics papers.
80% is clearly too high, but that it was majority support, for not just use on terrorists I assume, until less than 3 years ago, still rather makes the point that although I don't support it, this is unlikely to be a story which outrages a great many.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
I think you'd find support for the death penalty for ISIS members who gloatingly burned people alive, dissolved them in acid, threw them off cliffs, etc etc, all live on camera - like these guys did - would be considerably higher than 48%.
Especially when it wouldn't be us doing the hanging. They got caught by Americans, they are facing American justice. Which includes the death penalty. I care not a jot if they die, thereby.
Yes, I think that's probably all correct. But I also agree with Blunkett (I know, it surprised me too) who made the reasonable point on WATO yesterday that if they are British citizens we can't set a precedent of the Home Secretary of the day deciding who is and isn't protected from the death penalty - this was a subject of a lot of debate in 2003 when the US-UK extradition arrangements changed - and if they aren't British citizens any more, we don't have any business expressing an opinion in the first place. All of which suggests it's evidence of Javid on manoeuvres, and a bit of a dangerous subject to play games with.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
I think you'd find support for the death penalty for ISIS members who gloatingly burned people alive, dissolved them in acid, threw them off cliffs, etc etc, all live on camera - like these guys did - would be considerably higher than 48%.
Especially when it wouldn't be us doing the hanging. They got caught by Americans, they are facing American justice. Which includes the death penalty. I care not a jot if they die, thereby.
Yes, I think that's probably all correct. But I also agree with Blunkett (I know, it surprised me too) who made the reasonable point on WATO yesterday that if they are British citizens we can't set a precedent of the Home Secretary of the day deciding who is and isn't protected from the death penalty - this was a subject of a lot of debate in 2003 when the US-UK extradition arrangements changed - and if they aren't British citizens any more, we don't have any business expressing an opinion in the first place. All of which suggests it's evidence of Javid on manoeuvres, and a bit of a dangerous subject to play games with.
They're not British citizens though.
We do have business expressing an opinion because they murdered Brits so could have faced justice here.
I think you'd find support for the death penalty for ISIS members who gloatingly burned people alive, dissolved them in acid, threw them off cliffs, etc etc, all live on camera - like these guys did - would be considerably higher than 48%.
Especially when it wouldn't be us doing the hanging. They got caught by Americans, they are facing American justice. Which includes the death penalty. I care not a jot if they die, thereby.
Yes, I think that's probably all correct. But I also agree with Blunkett (I know, it surprised me too) who made the reasonable point on WATO yesterday that if they are British citizens we can't set a precedent of the Home Secretary of the day deciding who is and isn't protected from the death penalty - this was a subject of a lot of debate in 2003 when the US-UK extradition arrangements changed - and if they aren't British citizens any more, we don't have any business expressing an opinion in the first place. All of which suggests it's evidence of Javid on manoeuvres, and a bit of a dangerous subject to play games with.
I think the issue is that the British have evidence which will be used to secure the death penalty, so whether or not they provide this evidence will likely decide whether or not they live. They aren't in a position to stay out of it on this one.
I think you'd find support for the death penalty for ISIS members who gloatingly burned people alive, dissolved them in acid, threw them off cliffs, etc etc, all live on camera - like these guys did - would be considerably higher than 48%.
Especially when it wouldn't be us doing the hanging. They got caught by Americans, they are facing American justice. Which includes the death penalty. I care not a jot if they die, thereby.
Yes, I think that's probably all correct. But I also agree with Blunkett (I know, it surprised me too) who made the reasonable point on WATO yesterday that if they are British citizens we can't set a precedent of the Home Secretary of the day deciding who is and isn't protected from the death penalty - this was a subject of a lot of debate in 2003 when the US-UK extradition arrangements changed - and if they aren't British citizens any more, we don't have any business expressing an opinion in the first place. All of which suggests it's evidence of Javid on manoeuvres, and a bit of a dangerous subject to play games with.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
Well said
Do you think Corbyn is populist? I do... Populism by definition is offering things to the voters to appeal without the hard graft of thinking how you can deliver what you promise...Brexit and Corbyn are perfect examples
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
Well said
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
Well said
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?
I would imagine 'illiberal elite' would do, though I think you're doing Johnson a disservice. He's just self-serving.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
Well said
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
Well said
Do you think Corbyn is populist? I do... Populism by definition is offering things to the voters to appeal without the hard graft of thinking how you can deliver what you promise...Brexit and Corbyn are perfect examples
There are clouds gathering. Gas prices here in the US and A are rocketing, the stock markets are becoming more volatile, and the impact of the trade wars will be biting just ahead of the midterms.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
Well said
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?
I would imagine 'illiberal elite' would do, though I think you're doing Johnson a disservice. He's just self-serving.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
Well said
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?
Just 'the elite'. Liberal elite I woukd think enables inclusion of those not traditionally 'establishment' but who are noteworthy and influential eg celebs and media figures.
But I'm sure a Corbynite website would turn up a reference to elite factions which dont include their own political and media supporters, so maybe there's another term.
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
Indeed. Not much sympathy here. Isn't the real story though that the Home Secretary clearly feels able to make populist...and possibly popular policy on the hoof? Has this been through Cabinet? Who will be next to launch out on their own? Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
Mate...I wish you'd stopping using the phrase liberal elite.....it's stupid, crass and is spiralling our politics into the gutter.......and maybe you personally are better than just banding around inane phrases exploited by the likes of Farage....
God's damn it - I was just in the finishing of a 75 hour game, and my pc has crapped out and won't start (I'm guessing processor overheating). More infuriating than any Brexit flip flop.
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
So, it wasn't like the Shawshank Redemption then? Where the common refrain is: 'what am I in for? Me? I'm innocent!"
God's damn it - I was just in the finishing of a 75 hour game, and my pc has crapped out and won't start (I'm guessing processor overheating). More infuriating than any Brexit flip flop.
My Mac blew up today. Totally went zap and appeared to be fried.
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
No evidence these jihadis are whining - the sobs are coming from handwringing bedwetters like Yvette and sympathisers like Diane Abbott.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
Mate...I wish you'd stopping using the phrase liberal elite.....it's stupid, crass and is spiralling our politics into the gutter.......and maybe you personally are better than just banding around inane phrases exploited by the likes of Farage....
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
Well said
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?
The cynical, reactionary, exploitative, destructive elite............or possibly better the populist, elite..people who pretend that they understand the concerns of the poor to further their own ends. The elite devoid of conscience, the elite without moral compass, the narcissistic elite..the elite that think just about themselves, the lying elite who do not care they lie, the elite who abuse the concept liberal elite, the nativist elite, the elite that just talk bollox...
there are plenty of different descriptions to describe the Trumps, Farage, Johnson's, Le Pen's, Farages of the world....but they are elite, that is for sure...
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
No evidence these jihadis are whining - the sobs are coming from handwringing bedwetters like Yvette and sympathisers like Diane Abbott.
Not to get all overly serious on common jargon, albeit insulting jargon, but I've never been clear on where bedwetting as an insult got started in that context. I assume it's to imply childishness not any relation to adult incontinence, but it's always struck me as an odd one.
There are clouds gathering. Gas prices here in the US and A are rocketing, the stock markets are becoming more volatile, and the impact of the trade wars will be biting just ahead of the midterms.
Tarriffs are just another form of tax, so the taxes on imported Chinese, Canadian, EU and British goods gets paid by Average Joe in America. It could be quite expensive for many of them, even before the knock on economic effects.
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.
All this on the day The Times publishes an op ed in praise of “strong man” leaders like Erdogan and Duterte.
That Overton window keeps sliding right.
I thought Corbyn was pulling it left?
It's a very wide window.
Corbyn is pulling it left with a segment of voters. Metropolitan, university towns, millennials, renters, public sector managerial etc etc. Whether it is enough to win power is another thing.
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
Indeed. Not much sympathy here. Isn't the real story though that the Home Secretary clearly feels able to make populist...and possibly popular policy on the hoof? Has this been through Cabinet? Who will be next to launch out on their own? Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.
I think that is baked in now.
Anyway having watched the Moray Open today here in Lossiemouth with the most beautiful of days, a bone dry links golf course with traditional clubhouse adjoining the lovely west beach towards Covesea lighthouse and fabulous views over the Firth towards Caithness, we have indeed been blessed.
And all day the Typhoons from the RAF Lossiemouth have been landing and taking off patrolling our skys.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
No evidence these jihadis are whining - the sobs are coming from handwringing bedwetters like Yvette and sympathisers like Diane Abbott.
I think the Jihadi's would love it to make some proper martyr's.......
I think you'd find support for the death penalty for ISIS members who gloatingly burned people alive, dissolved them in acid, threw them off cliffs, etc etc, all live on camera - like these guys did - would be considerably higher than 48%.
Especially when it wouldn't be us doing the hanging. They got caught by Americans, they are facing American justice. Which includes the death penalty. I care not a jot if they die, thereby.
But they might suffer more by being put in solitary confinement for 30 years. As members of a death cult, death is glory etc etc...
God's damn it - I was just in the finishing of a 75 hour game, and my pc has crapped out and won't start (I'm guessing processor overheating). More infuriating than any Brexit flip flop.
My Mac blew up today. Totally went zap and appeared to be fried.
The heat also???
Seems odd after so much hear the last few months, but hopefully a cheap fix - I've spent more on that pc than every car I've ever owned put together.
(4 cars that is - for some reason I don't like spending much on those! )
The US economy is thriving and Trump happens to be president.
Actually, that's not quite being fair. He's sponsored big tax cuts, which are inevitably inflationary and growth-inducing. They've also buggered up the US government deficit - which will be around $800-850bn this fiscal year: an immense amount at this time in the economic cycle and - as far as I can see - the worst in the entire OECD as a % of GDP.
Of course, that won't stop him being re-elected - it's all tomorrow's money. Not unless something hits the fan before November 2020 anyway,
May's punting the ISIS case into the legal long grass.
By the time extradition hearings, appeals and supreme court rulings are made, May will be far off into the sunset on the good ship Maybot.
What does the extradition of two non-British nationals from one country which isn't Britain, to another country that isn't Britain have to do with HMG anyway?
Edit - just seen the comment downthread about British intelligence. Fair enough, we do have an interest.
Best to pass the intelligence on. It's what we'd do if they were still at large in Syria, with death a likely result and no judicial process in that case.
It seems notable to me the late night politicos still haven't come to grips with Trump winning. Granted, it was tight in some key states and so he could lose with nt much change, but gasping boggled eyed at every distasteful thing he does, and his utterly crude and obnoxious mannerisms, seems like it should be over now. They, and by extention much of their audience, doesn't seem like it is in the planning stage to beat him, they're still in the mourning phase for having lost.
Are the Democrats being wiser about things?
The anti-Trump handbag-clutchers remind of the most insane Remainers. They still don't get it.
Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
Add that to a so far successful boost to the American economy, thanks to tax cuts, and he could win again. If he doesn't go down in a sea of scandal first.
On the economy: 'Beware exuberant consensus' - Irwin Stelzer ( Sunday Times).
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
Indeed. Not much sympathy here. Isn't the real story though that the Home Secretary clearly feels able to make populist...and possibly popular policy on the hoof? Has this been through Cabinet? Who will be next to launch out on their own? Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.
Apparently the loophole has been in the policy for years, so he's not making new policy as such.
I find it very hard to believe that we have evidence that the Americans don’t on these scum. I find it even harder to believe that such evidence as we do have was not shared with the US long before they were captured and I can’t really see why they would need our permission to use it now.
In short the more we learn the more this sounds like some entirely artificial moral dilemma game that has been contrived for the benefit of the chattering classes. We should stay out and watch the bastards fry. They are not our problem and absolutely no loss.
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
No evidence these jihadis are whining - the sobs are coming from handwringing bedwetters like Yvette and sympathisers like Diane Abbott.
I think the Jihadi's would love it to make some proper martyr's.......
That's why the Israelis have the punishment I describe below. A fate worse than death.
I agree with you....solitary confinement is a worse outcome, and there is no moral equivalence bullshit going on about state murder...
I find it very hard to believe that we have evidence that the Americans don’t on these scum. I find it even harder to believe that such evidence as we do have was not shared with the US long before they were captured and I can’t really see why they would need our permission to use it now.
In short the more we learn the more this sounds like some entirely artificial moral dilemma game that has been contrived for the benefit of the chattering classes. We should stay out and watch the bastards fry. They are not our problem and absolutely no loss.
They probably have it, but need permission to use it in court? At least that would by my naive guess.
I find it very hard to believe that we have evidence that the Americans don’t on these scum. I find it even harder to believe that such evidence as we do have was not shared with the US long before they were captured and I can’t really see why they would need our permission to use it now.
In short the more we learn the more this sounds like some entirely artificial moral dilemma game that has been contrived for the benefit of the chattering classes. We should stay out and watch the bastards fry. They are not our problem and absolutely no loss.
I think we can all agree they are no loss...it is just how best do we lose them without losing the battle....
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was i Now they will face the legal consequences.
So, it wasn't like the Shawshank Redemption then? Where the common refrain is: 'what am I in for? Me? I'm innocent!"
If you ever tried to protest your innocence (as a con, rather than a remandee, like me) you'd be met with the riposte, "Mate, everyone in here is innocent, now shut up and do your bird"
Incidentally, if we really can't bring ourselves to execute these Islamofascist scum, we could offer them the Israeli alternative for hardcore terrorists: permanent solitary confinement, in an underground cell without windows, for the rest of your natural life, with no human contact or interaction - and deprived of the means of suicide (and force-fed if you try to starve yourself to death).
That is clearly worse than execution, I think.
Let them choose.
OK, and relatedly, I'm now going to watch the Israeli drama Fauda, which has rave reviews on Netflix.
As I say they would choose death. It's a suicide cult.
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
Indeed. Not much sympathy here. Isn't the real story though that the Home Secretary clearly feels able to make populist...and possibly popular policy on the hoof? Has this been through Cabinet? Who will be next to launch out on their own? Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.
Apparently the loophole has been in the policy for years, so he's not making new policy as such.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One problem is that people who use populist as an insult do often seem to use it to mean popular. If not majority popular then the most popular option available. And they can dismiss the popular by claiming it is merely populist, even if it is not. The EU excelled at that, and it's why they never seemed sincere when talking of change, as they only say it when there's trouble, then it's back to moaning about populists.
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
Indeed. Not much sympathy here. Isn't the real story though that the Home Secretary clearly feels able to make populist...and possibly popular policy on the hoof? Has this been through Cabinet? Who will be next to launch out on their own? Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.
Apparently the loophole has been in the policy for years, so he's not making new policy as such.
Setting a precedent then.
Perhaps so. But as far as government decision-making goes, that's a different thing and not something to be much bothered about.
Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
I honestly don't get this.
If I look at Reddit and the other cesspools of the internet (not including this hallowed ground in that category, of course) it's full of Americans saying that Sweden and the Low Countries - but particularly Sweden, for some reason - have been made a living hell by Muslim immigration. And increasingly that argument is picked up over here.
I grew up near Leicester. Leicester is 50% non-white. 19% Muslim.
It is absolutely fine. It is, in fact, a lovely city.
You do not switch on the radio and hear stories of Muslim riots or Muslim stabbings or sharia law in Leicester or whatever other masturbatory fantasies Paul Joseph Watson might conjure up. Leicester is just fine. And if you want a vision of integration, go to Foxton Locks at a weekend - what could be more English than a black-and-white-painted flight of canal locks, two real ale pubs and a country walk? - and do a demographic survey.
So why say that "Muslim immigration into liberal democracies" is by its nature "severely problematic"? It clearly doesn't have to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.
I find it very hard to believe that we have evidence that the Americans don’t on these scum. I find it even harder to believe that such evidence as we do have was not shared with the US long before they were captured and I can’t really see why they would need our permission to use it now.
In short the more we learn the more this sounds like some entirely artificial moral dilemma game that has been contrived for the benefit of the chattering classes. We should stay out and watch the bastards fry. They are not our problem and absolutely no loss.
I think we can all agree they are no loss...it is just how best do we lose them without losing the battle....
Yes, as was demonstrated by the waves of violence after the NI Hunger Strikes.
Islamism is in retreat, across most of the world outside the Sahel. Keeping these guys in solitary and leaking that they are providing very useful intelligence may well be a better move.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
The people, or the mob? And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
If populism means things like everyone on Question Time talking at the same time, instead of taking it in turns to speak like they used to do, I'm against it.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
No, sorry, but populism is the idea that the everyone, or the vast majority, has one settled view/position, that such a position is always against a mythical elite who are stitching up the world for themselves and that one person or party is the only vehicle or voice for this vast majority. Its key element is to deny plurality of views and debate - a fundamental part of democracy.The logic conclusion is that we don't need to vote or have a free press etc etc.
It is profoundly undemocratic.
It is the denial of an alternative that is key. See Trump and his endless moaning about fake news.
Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
I honestly don't get this.
If I look at Reddit and the other cesspools of the internet (not including this hallowed ground in that category, of course) it's full of Americans saying that Sweden and the Low Countries - but particularly Sweden, for some reason - have been made a living hell by Muslim immigration. And increasingly that argument is picked up over here.
I grew up near Leicester. Leicester is 50% non-white. 19% Muslim.
It is absolutely fine. It is, in fact, a lovely city.
You do not switch on the radio and hear stories of Muslim riots or Muslim stabbings or sharia law in Leicester or whatever other masturbatory fantasies Paul Joseph Watson might conjure up. Leicester is just fine. And if you want a vision of integration, go to Foxton Locks at a weekend - what could be more English than a black-and-white-painted flight of canal locks, two real ale pubs and a country walk? - and do a demographic survey.
So why say that "Muslim immigration into liberal democracies" is by its nature "severely problematic"? It clearly doesn't have to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.
English-speaking countries have arguably been the most successful at integrating minorities, probably because it's possible for them to set up businesses without too much bureaucracy or interference. In Sweden there's huge unemployment because they can't get work visas. Similar situation in France.
Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
I honestly don't get this.
If I look at Reddit and the other cesspools of the internet (not including this hallowed ground in that category, of course) it's full of Americans saying that Sweden and the Low Countries - but particularly Sweden, for some reason - have been made a living hell by Muslim immigration. And increasingly that argument is picked up over here.
I grew up near Leicester. Leicester is 50% non-white. 19% Muslim.
It is absolutely fine. It is, in fact, a lovely city.
You do not switch on the radio and hear stories of Muslim riots or Muslim stabbings or sharia law in Leicester or whatever other masturbatory fantasies Paul Joseph Watson might conjure up. Leicester is just fine. And if you want a vision of integration, go to Foxton Locks at a weekend - what could be more English than a black-and-white-painted flight of canal locks, two real ale pubs and a country walk? - and do a demographic survey.
So why say that "Muslim immigration into liberal democracies" is by its nature "severely problematic"? It clearly doesn't have to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
I honestly don't get this.
If I look at Reddit and the other cesspools of the internet (not including this hallowed ground in that category, of course) it's full of Americans saying that Sweden and the Low Countries - but particularly Sweden, for some reason - have been made a living hell by Muslim immigration. And increasingly that argument is picked up over here.
I grew up near Leicester. Leicester is 50% non-white. 19% Muslim.
It is absolutely fine. It is, in fact, a lovely city.
You do not switch on the radio and hear stories of Muslim riots or Muslim stabbings or sharia law in Leicester or whatever other masturbatory fantasies Paul Joseph Watson might conjure up. Leicester is just fine. And if you want a vision of integration, go to Foxton Locks at a weekend - what could be more English than a black-and-white-painted flight of canal locks, two real ale pubs and a country walk? - and do a demographic survey.
So why say that "Muslim immigration into liberal democracies" is by its nature "severely problematic"? It clearly doesn't have to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.
Tell that to the 1500 white girls, victims of Muslim racist pedophile gangrape in Rotherham, you blinkered fool. And then move on to the estimated 100,000-200,000 other victims. And then move on...
Oh what's the point, with people like you.
What happened in Rotherham is not the fault of innocent Muslims in Leicester. What happened in Rotherham is the fault of guilty paedophiles in Rotherham. What happened in Rotherham is the fault of those authorities who ignored the evidence of what was happening.
Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
I honestly don't get this.
If I look at Reddit and the other cesspools of the internet (not including this hallowed ground in that category, of course) it's full of Americans saying that Sweden and the Low Countries - but particularly Sweden, for some reason - have been made a living hell by Muslim immigration. And increasingly that argument is picked up over here.
I grew up near Leicester. Leicester is 50% non-white. 19% Muslim.
It is absolutely fine. It is, in fact, a lovely city.
You do not switch on the radio and hear stories of Muslim riots or Muslim stabbings or sharia law in Leicester or whatever other masturbatory fantasies Paul Joseph Watson might conjure up. Leicester is just fine. And if you want a vision of integration, go to Foxton Locks at a weekend - what could be more English than a black-and-white-painted flight of canal locks, two real ale pubs and a country walk? - and do a demographic survey.
So why say that "Muslim immigration into liberal democracies" is by its nature "severely problematic"? It clearly doesn't have to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.
I think that one needs to be more nuanced. Leicesters Muslims are majority Gujerati, and also much more middle class, than Muslims in Bradford or Birmingham. They also have often had origins in East Africa, where they had generations of living as a minority in another culture. Some others are more recent arrivals including the Somalis, but these have been influenced by the prevailing Leicester Muslim norms.
Muslim communities are as diverse, or more so, than Christian communities. They are also ultimately individuals, and branding them as an amorphous threatening mass is missing out on the opportunity to deviate more from orthodoxies.
I quite recommend this book on Generation M to give a more balanced view of young Muslims today, and how their ideas are changing our society. It reflects the experience of the Muslims that I work with rather better than some of the stereotypes that we see. It makes sense of the teenagers that I saw the other day on the Humberstone Rd, in miniskirts and yogapants, but also headscarves, playing on their phones and giggling with the teenage boys.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
No, sorry, but populism is the idea that the everyone, or the vast majority, has one settled view/position, that such a position is always against a mythical elite who are stitching up the world for themselves and that one person or party is the only vehicle or voice for this vast majority. Its key element is to deny plurality of views and debate - a fundamental part of democracy.The logic conclusion is that we don't need to vote or have a free press etc etc.
It is profoundly undemocratic.
It is the denial of an alternative that is key. See Trump and his endless moaning about fake news.
Indeed. That is the traditional definition. However, language always changes with use. Thus, the Labour manifesto was more popular than the Tory one. To those for whom that was an assault on common sense, Corbyn becomes a Populist. (Which means proposes popular policies, such as tuition fees, which I don't like). When Trump proposes tariffs (he is far from the first), and people agree, it is also derided as populist. The term has become so ubiquitous as to have become meaningless. Both Left and Right have abused the term beyond its old meaning and any usefulness. The new definition should be "position which commands widespread support which I can't get my head around."
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
No, sorry, but populism is the idea that the everyone, or the vast majority, has one settled view/position, that such a position is always against a mythical elite who are stitching up the world for themselves and that one person or party is the only vehicle or voice for this vast majority. Its key element is to deny plurality of views and debate - a fundamental part of democracy.The logic conclusion is that we don't need to vote or have a free press etc etc.
It is profoundly undemocratic.
It is the denial of an alternative that is key. See Trump and his endless moaning about fake news.
Indeed. That is the traditional definition. However, language always changes with use. Thus, the Labour manifesto was more popular than the Tory one. To those for whom that was an assault on common sense, Corbyn becomes a Populist. (Which means proposes popular policies, such as tuition fees, which I don't like). When Trump proposes tariffs (he is far from the first), and people agree, it is also derided as populist. The term has become so ubiquitous as to have become meaningless. Both Left and Right have abused the term beyond its old meaning and any usefulness. The new definition should be "position which commands widespread support which I can't get my head around."
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
No, sorry, but populism is the idea that the everyone, or the vast majority, has one settled view/position, that such a position is always against a mythical elite who are stitching up the world for themselves and that one person or party is the only vehicle or voice for this vast majority. Its key element is to deny plurality of views and debate - a fundamental part of democracy.The logic conclusion is that we don't need to vote or have a free press etc etc.
It is profoundly undemocratic.
It is the denial of an alternative that is key. See Trump and his endless moaning about fake news.
Indeed. That is the traditional definition. However, language always changes with use. Thus, the Labour manifesto was more popular than the Tory one. To those for whom that was an assault on common sense, Corbyn becomes a Populist. (Which means proposes popular policies, such as tuition fees, which I don't like). When Trump proposes tariffs (he is far from the first), and people agree, it is also derided as populist. The term has become so ubiquitous as to have become meaningless. Both Left and Right have abused the term beyond its old meaning and any usefulness. The new definition should be "position which commands widespread support which I can't get my head around."
Sure, it is a term that is abused, but that does not make it a useless adjective.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
Mate...I wish you'd stopping using the phrase liberal elite.....it's stupid, crass and is spiralling our politics into the gutter.......and maybe you personally are better than just banding around inane phrases exploited by the likes of Farage....
"Liberal bigots"?
A well used phrase for us fellow alumni of us.politics.misc
Comments
By the time extradition hearings, appeals and supreme court rulings are made, May will be far off into the sunset on the good ship Maybot.
In polarised polities it is commonplace for voters to hold their noses when they vote for their poles....
To say it's "appallingly unpopular" is not even wrong.
Are the Democrats being wiser about things?
This kind of bullshit would never work again. May and Corbyn would be forced to spell out at least in some kind of detail what Brexit means Brexit means.
However if there was a GE then it means that they can stop the clock in order to try and negotiate with the next government.
Is that a bizarre way of saying that Mortimer is right?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
That Overton window keeps sliding right.
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
That said I understand him to very popular at home? Which generally gets left out of the stories on his latest, er, controversies, on the bbc.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
We do have business expressing an opinion because they murdered Brits so could have faced justice here.
Populism by definition is offering things to the voters to appeal without the hard graft of thinking how you can deliver what you promise...Brexit and Corbyn are perfect examples
But I'm sure a Corbynite website would turn up a reference to elite factions which dont include their own political and media supporters, so maybe there's another term.
Has this been through Cabinet?
Who will be next to launch out on their own?
Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.
The heat also???
there are plenty of different descriptions to describe the Trumps, Farage, Johnson's, Le Pen's, Farages of the world....but they are elite, that is for sure...
Anyway having watched the Moray Open today here in Lossiemouth with the most beautiful of days, a bone dry links golf course with traditional clubhouse adjoining the lovely west beach towards Covesea lighthouse and fabulous views over the Firth towards Caithness, we have indeed been blessed.
And all day the Typhoons from the RAF Lossiemouth have been landing and taking off patrolling our skys.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
(4 cars that is - for some reason I don't like spending much on those! )
Actually, that's not quite being fair. He's sponsored big tax cuts, which are inevitably inflationary and growth-inducing. They've also buggered up the US government deficit - which will be around $800-850bn this fiscal year: an immense amount at this time in the economic cycle and - as far as I can see - the worst in the entire OECD as a % of GDP.
Of course, that won't stop him being re-elected - it's all tomorrow's money. Not unless something hits the fan before November 2020 anyway,
Edit - just seen the comment downthread about British intelligence. Fair enough, we do have an interest.
Best to pass the intelligence on. It's what we'd do if they were still at large in Syria, with death a likely result and no judicial process in that case.
In short the more we learn the more this sounds like some entirely artificial moral dilemma game that has been contrived for the benefit of the chattering classes. We should stay out and watch the bastards fry. They are not our problem and absolutely no loss.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
If I look at Reddit and the other cesspools of the internet (not including this hallowed ground in that category, of course) it's full of Americans saying that Sweden and the Low Countries - but particularly Sweden, for some reason - have been made a living hell by Muslim immigration. And increasingly that argument is picked up over here.
I grew up near Leicester. Leicester is 50% non-white. 19% Muslim.
It is absolutely fine. It is, in fact, a lovely city.
You do not switch on the radio and hear stories of Muslim riots or Muslim stabbings or sharia law in Leicester or whatever other masturbatory fantasies Paul Joseph Watson might conjure up. Leicester is just fine. And if you want a vision of integration, go to Foxton Locks at a weekend - what could be more English than a black-and-white-painted flight of canal locks, two real ale pubs and a country walk? - and do a demographic survey.
So why say that "Muslim immigration into liberal democracies" is by its nature "severely problematic"? It clearly doesn't have to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.
Islamism is in retreat, across most of the world outside the Sahel. Keeping these guys in solitary and leaking that they are providing very useful intelligence may well be a better move.
It is profoundly undemocratic.
It is the denial of an alternative that is key. See Trump and his endless moaning about fake news.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
Then he mentioned he might be an atheist, and his ratings dropped like a stone:
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/2155197/ratings-plummeting-how-long-can-philippine-president-duterte-last
What happened in Rotherham is the fault of guilty paedophiles in Rotherham.
What happened in Rotherham is the fault of those authorities who ignored the evidence of what was happening.
Blame the real culprits.
Muslim communities are as diverse, or more so, than Christian communities. They are also ultimately individuals, and branding them as an amorphous threatening mass is missing out on the opportunity to deviate more from orthodoxies.
I quite recommend this book on Generation M to give a more balanced view of young Muslims today, and how their ideas are changing our society. It reflects the experience of the Muslims that I work with rather better than some of the stereotypes that we see. It makes sense of the teenagers that I saw the other day on the Humberstone Rd, in miniskirts and yogapants, but also headscarves, playing on their phones and giggling with the teenage boys.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/03/meet-generation-m-the-young-affluent-muslims-changing-the-world
However, language always changes with use.
Thus, the Labour manifesto was more popular than the Tory one. To those for whom that was an assault on common sense, Corbyn becomes a Populist. (Which means proposes popular policies, such as tuition fees, which I don't like).
When Trump proposes tariffs (he is far from the first), and people agree, it is also derided as populist.
The term has become so ubiquitous as to have become meaningless.
Both Left and Right have abused the term beyond its old meaning and any usefulness.
The new definition should be "position which commands widespread support which I can't get my head around."