How does this help May? "I gave away 40bn of your money that we didn't owe and in return I got half a dozen pages of non-binding non-specific waffle. Please vote for me".
Just makes it more and more likely that Tories will vote down her deal, if it ever gets that far.
They don't have the votes to do it. If it comes down to it, any deal will trump no deal in the HoC.
Labour have a big decision to make if there’s a Conservative split over the deal.
Do they push to defeat the government even if it leads to no-deal, or will they go with the weasely copout of the whipped abstention?
I think Labour will go for the kill, even if that results in the hardest of Brexits. Destroying the Tories trumps everything else. That's why there's been little objection from any wing of the party to booting out Field and Hoey - it wasn't their euroscepticism that was at issue, but the fact they saved a Tory PM from destruction.
The labour leadership will. Their end game will be a GE, hard brexit or not, and we know their socialist paradise is built on being outside EU rules. But there's plenty of moderates still, and will they really go their, knowing it's that or no-deal?
I think Labour will go for the kill, even if that results in the hardest of Brexits. Destroying the Tories trumps everything else. That's why there's been little objection from any wing of the party to booting out Field and Hoey - it wasn't their euroscepticism that was at issue, but the fact they saved a Tory PM from destruction.
Anyone who thinks Corbyn is going to take pity on May really hasn't been paying attention.
Of course, May could do a deal with the Umunnites over the backs of both Mogg and Corbyn, but I don't think she has the parliamentary skill to pull a coup like that off.
Identical twin brothers to marry identical twin sisters after going on their first date together and now plan to live in the same two-bedroom apartment after the wedding
Then when the contest comes and JRM announces he has no intention of standing and urges his supporters to support Boris its hard to see how he can be stopped...
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
So it's not all bad news then?
The Chequers compromise is looking right up there with the backstop arrangement as another May disaster. To lose so many ministers and so much support in the party and Parliament without getting a clear understanding in advance that it was a runner would be completely bewildering, if it was not for her consistent track record.
Are you kidding? The December agreement boxed in the Brexiteers because it forced them to spend months proposing infeasible technical solutions for the Irish border, and Chequers boxes them in further by pushing them towards No Deal.
Then when the contest comes and JRM announces he has no intention of standing and urges his supporters to support Boris its hard to see how he can be stopped...
Then when the contest comes and JRM announces he has no intention of standing and urges his supporters to support Boris its hard to see how he can be stopped...
Quite. I just don't understand how people think that Tory MPs, about 40% of whom voted Leave, are going to manufacture the outcome of a leadership election to put two Remainers to the party vote.
US healthcare is completely bonkers, yet also seemingly unrefromable.
It makes complaints about the NHS 'producer interests' look utterly tame.
The AMA limits the number of doctors places at universities and encourages a debt structure for students that intrinsically ties them into supporting the place limiting system. Existing hospitals have effective veto power over the building of new, competing, hospitals. The law has rigged so that Medicaid/care cannot negotiate bulk discounts from drug companies forcing them to purchase at vastly higher costs.
It worked so well in Zimbabwe. I think certain European nations have a duty to offer white and Asians in South Africa some kind of asylum process if they are about to have their land and businesses confiscated by the corrupt ANC.
@Stodge makes a good point above. 2 answers to this:-
1. The first is by Deborah Lipstadt (sued by David Irving - he lost) which is that you should never ever given any sort of a platform to a Holocaust denier because while people are allowed their opinions, you cannot invent your own facts. By giving them a platform you are giving them a tiny bit of credibility, as if the fact of the Holocaust is something that is up for debate.
2. The second is that it is fine to debate with people whose opinions you find abhorrent provided you make it clear that you do find them abhorrent etc. In Corbyn's case, there is not evidence that he has ever criticised or challenged terrorists or anti-semites or the Iranians etc. He shares a platform with them not to debate them not to put forward an alternative and better point of view but because he agrees with them.
Take that film the other day of him being interviewed by Press TV & automatically assuming that Israel was the cause of the troubles between Egypt & the Palestinians. He also agreed with the interviewer that it was inconceivable that Muslims would attack other Muslims during Ramadan when even a cursory knowledge of Islamic affairs would tell you that this is is untrue. There have been numerous examples of Muslims attacking each other in their holy places, on their holy days etc. He said what his audience wanted to hear.
He says - & his defenders on here have said - that he speaks to both sides. Again, a flat out lie. He spoke to the IRA. If he has ever spoken to the UVF or other Protestant terrorists, we have yet to hear about this. Has he ever spoken to Israelis or settlers? Rather than do so, he actively campaigned to stop the Israeli Foreign Minister coming to this country. Not much interest in speaking to both sides or having a debate there.
He is not trying to act as an honest broker. He is a partisan. He is not interested in a debate. He is not interested in free speech - he marched with the imams who were protesting against the Danish cartoons. He does not challenge or express his disapproval at the time or to these people with these views he does not agree with because the reality is not the mealy mouthed years after the event "apology" but because he does not disapprove of what they say & think.
We do need to talk to terrorists sometimes to try to resolve difficult situations. But we can do so while still making it clear our detestation of what they say & do & requiring them to change as the price for their acceptance into civilised society. Corbyn does none of these things.
US healthcare is completely bonkers, yet also seemingly unrefromable.
It makes complaints about the NHS 'producer interests' look utterly tame.
The AMA limits the number of doctors places at universities and encourages a debt structure for students that intrinsically ties them into supporting the place limiting system. Existing hospitals have effective veto power over the building of new, competing, hospitals. The law has rigged so that Medicaid/care cannot negotiate bulk discounts from drug companies forcing them to purchase at vastly higher costs.
Not to mention the litigation culture that leads to specialist doctors paying half a million dollars a year for individual professional indemnity insurance, or the ubiquitous television advertising for prescription drugs.
The lack of negotiation by Medicare and Medicaid is perhaps the most bonkers of all the problems, although the rest of the world should be happy that the drug companies can fund most of their R&D from US sales.
It worked so well in Zimbabwe. I think certain European nations have a duty to offer white and Asians in South Africa some kind of asylum process if they are about to have their land and businesses confiscated by the corrupt ANC.
On the plus side if we did that, we probably get the next generation of top class rugby and cricket kids...
Mr. D, saw that on the news. Astounding the police gave chase but lost them, although it was only mentioned briefly so perhaps more details would furnish an explanation.
Mr. Max, my understanding is Australia has offered sanctuary to white farmers.
It worked so well in Zimbabwe. I think certain European nations have a duty to offer white and Asians in South Africa some kind of asylum process if they are about to have their land and businesses confiscated by the corrupt ANC.
Was that offered to Zimbabwe's landowners ?
Immigrants from Uganda (Another group fleeing an oppressive and racist African regime) were an undoubted success, so I think your proposal makes sense. These people won't be Corbyn supporters either
It worked so well in Zimbabwe. I think certain European nations have a duty to offer white and Asians in South Africa some kind of asylum process if they are about to have their land and businesses confiscated by the corrupt ANC.
Was that offered to Zimbabwe's landowners ?
Immigrants from Uganda (Another group fleeing an oppressive and racist African regime) were an undoubted success, so I think your proposal makes sense. These people won't be Corbyn supporters either
Most of them fled via some kind of ancestry based scheme. I don't know whether Asians in SA would qualify.
Just learnt today that in many American stats, opening a new hospital, a specialist clinic or even just a purchase of a large medical item (say an MRI) has to go through a state approval process that effectively gives existing hospitals in the state a veto over the opening or purchase. Truly jaw dropping.
England opt to bat first. I hope that's not going to be a mistake - and it also suggests that Root is putting some confidence in Rashid (and his own) spin...
England opt to bat first. I hope that's not going to be a mistake - and it also suggests that Root is putting some confidence in Rashid (and his own) spin...
Ed Smith should be playing himself given the amount of spin we've seen from him in recent days...
Then when the contest comes and JRM announces he has no intention of standing and urges his supporters to support Boris its hard to see how he can be stopped...
Quite. I just don't understand how people think that Tory MPs, about 40% of whom voted Leave, are going to manufacture the outcome of a leadership election to put two Remainers to the party vote.
Tory MPs have never deserved their soubriquet, the most sophisticated electorate in the world. Invariably they elect the wrong leader -- by which I do not mean with hindsight but they elect the leader they did not intend, going right back to Mrs Thatcher whose election depended on Airey Neave keeping secret that she was in with a real chance.
The 40 per cent of Leave-voting backbenchers, who by the way do not feel strongly enough about it to write 48 letters to the 1922, will not vote as a block and are probably not capable of doing so.
Hunt, Javid or Hammond. Assuming Theresa May does stand down: she might easily go for another walk and decide to stay on.
Mr. Mark, another crunch point will be when the ANC can't sleepwalk to election victories. Will peaceful transition of government occur?
But that's for the future. For now, it looks like the government is quite content to throw property rights away, if it secures them an electoral advantage.
Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty, right? So the primary question seems to be around the excessiveness of the sentence not that Robinson was guilty of contempt of court.
I have to say 10 months did seem hugely excessive given the typical sentence is 7 days.
Then when the contest comes and JRM announces he has no intention of standing and urges his supporters to support Boris its hard to see how he can be stopped...
Quite. I just don't understand how people think that Tory MPs, about 40% of whom voted Leave, are going to manufacture the outcome of a leadership election to put two Remainers to the party vote.
Tory MPs have never deserved their soubriquet, the most sophisticated electorate in the world. Invariably they elect the wrong leader -- by which I do not mean with hindsight but they elect the leader they did not intend, going right back to Mrs Thatcher whose election depended on Airey Neave keeping secret that she was in with a real chance.
The 40 per cent of Leave-voting backbenchers, who by the way do not feel strongly enough about it to write 48 letters to the 1922, will not vote as a block and are probably not capable of doing so.
Hunt, Javid or Hammond. Assuming Theresa May does stand down: she might easily go for another walk and decide to stay on.
An important point to note is that MPs are not obliged to reveal who they actually voted for.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Indyref: Labour campaigned alongside Tories. GE2015: Labour wiped out in Scotland.
Do you think that Remain would have won if the Top Tories had kept out of the way?
Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty, right? So the primary question seems to be around the excessiveness of the sentence not that Robinson was guilty of contempt of court.
I have to say 10 months did seem hugely excessive given the typical sentence is 7 days.
No, the conviction was quashed. Summary of the judgment here:
Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty, right? So the primary question seems to be around the excessiveness of the sentence not that Robinson was guilty of contempt of court.
I have to say 10 months did seem hugely excessive given the typical sentence is 7 days.
No, the conviction was quashed. Summary of the judgment here:
(BTW The World at War was filmed in colour. It's the archival footage they use that was black and white. Great War on the other hand is black and white throughout.)
BTW, given you're such a smart alec know-all, here's my response.
I watched it on a black and white television !!!
The series consisted almost entirely of archive footage with a commentary, so the point is rather academic to the viewer anyway.
I think Labour will go for the kill, even if that results in the hardest of Brexits. Destroying the Tories trumps everything else. That's why there's been little objection from any wing of the party to booting out Field and Hoey - it wasn't their euroscepticism that was at issue, but the fact they saved a Tory PM from destruction.
Anyone who thinks Corbyn is going to take pity on May really hasn't been paying attention.
Of course, May could do a deal with the Umunnites over the backs of both Mogg and Corbyn, but I don't think she has the parliamentary skill to pull a coup like that off.
Were she so minded and so capable, she has the boundary review to trade with. A big sacrifice, but a big prize also, for both sides.
Meet Dave Oldfield, Labour councillor in North Lincolnshire. Cllr Oldfield thinks the Labour anti-Semitism scandal “must be a MI5 Tory government plot to cause havoc in our party” because he has “never come across it anywhere”. Last night he shared a post saying he will no longer be reading anything about anti-Semitism because it is a “politically motivated attack by the political establishment”.
Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty, right? So the primary question seems to be around the excessiveness of the sentence not that Robinson was guilty of contempt of court.
I have to say 10 months did seem hugely excessive given the typical sentence is 7 days.
No, the conviction was quashed. Summary of the judgment here:
Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty, right? So the primary question seems to be around the excessiveness of the sentence not that Robinson was guilty of contempt of court.
I have to say 10 months did seem hugely excessive given the typical sentence is 7 days.
No, the conviction was quashed. Summary of the judgment here:
(BTW The World at War was filmed in colour. It's the archival footage they use that was black and white. Great War on the other hand is black and white throughout.)
BTW, given you're such a smart alec know-all, here's my response.
I watched it on a black and white television !!!
The series consisted almost entirely of archive footage with a commentary, so the point is rather academic to the viewer anyway.
The majority of it was archival footage (not all black and white) but there were very substantial sections in colour, including interviews with key figures and of course the opening and closing shots of Oradour-sur-Glane. By no stretch of the imagination was it 'almost entirely of archive footage with a commentary.' Indeed, I wouldn't have said it was more heavily B+W than say, The Nazis: A Warning from History.
Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty, right? So the primary question seems to be around the excessiveness of the sentence not that Robinson was guilty of contempt of court.
I have to say 10 months did seem hugely excessive given the typical sentence is 7 days.
No, the conviction was quashed. Summary of the judgment here:
He pleaded guilty and then appealed the conviction?
I've only skimmed the summary (the full judgment is also up but I've not looked at it) but it seems the judge should have adjourned before proceeding with the committal and so he didn't have full particulars of the charge put to him and would have had insufficient time to take advice or give instructions to counsel. So any guilty plea would be unreliable.
US healthcare is completely bonkers, yet also seemingly unrefromable.
It makes complaints about the NHS 'producer interests' look utterly tame.
The AMA limits the number of doctors places at universities and encourages a debt structure for students that intrinsically ties them into supporting the place limiting system. Existing hospitals have effective veto power over the building of new, competing, hospitals. The law has rigged so that Medicaid/care cannot negotiate bulk discounts from drug companies forcing them to purchase at vastly higher costs.
Not to mention the litigation culture that leads to specialist doctors paying half a million dollars a year for individual professional indemnity insurance, or the ubiquitous television advertising for prescription drugs.
The lack of negotiation by Medicare and Medicaid is perhaps the most bonkers of all the problems, although the rest of the world should be happy that the drug companies can fund most of their R&D from US sales.
Interestingly some states have enacted tort reform to protect Doctors from excessive litigation and so reduce their malpractice insurance fees but it had no measurable effect on Health Insurance costs.
Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty, right? So the primary question seems to be around the excessiveness of the sentence not that Robinson was guilty of contempt of court.
I have to say 10 months did seem hugely excessive given the typical sentence is 7 days.
No, the conviction was quashed. Summary of the judgment here:
Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty, right? So the primary question seems to be around the excessiveness of the sentence not that Robinson was guilty of contempt of court.
I have to say 10 months did seem hugely excessive given the typical sentence is 7 days.
No, the conviction was quashed. Summary of the judgment here:
I think Labour will go for the kill, even if that results in the hardest of Brexits. Destroying the Tories trumps everything else. That's why there's been little objection from any wing of the party to booting out Field and Hoey - it wasn't their euroscepticism that was at issue, but the fact they saved a Tory PM from destruction.
Anyone who thinks Corbyn is going to take pity on May really hasn't been paying attention.
Of course, May could do a deal with the Umunnites over the backs of both Mogg and Corbyn, but I don't think she has the parliamentary skill to pull a coup like that off.
And the Umunnites would not be interested. They think the collapse of the government would be swiftly followed by the collapse of Brexit and so they would be as keen as Corbyn to see the Tories gone. And their analysis is probably a sound one - if the Tories fall apart and a cliff edge Brexit looms the conditions for a second referendum reversing the result of the first would be optimal.
What pisses me off is that local bodies like this are publishing this now instead of before the referendum It's easy to accuse leave voters of ignorance but that would stand up better if they had been better informed.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Indyref: Labour campaigned alongside Tories. GE2015: Labour wiped out in Scotland.
Do you think that Remain would have won if the Top Tories had kept out of the way?
I think Remain could have won if the top Tories had learned the lesson of Indyref which is that purely negative, scaremongering campaigns do not work.
Directly to your point, yes, but I think there were other problems too.
I was surprised that David Cameron did not follow Harold Wilson and keep aloof. He could then have placed his thumb on the scale without endangering his own job or turning it into a plebiscite on the posh boys: a Conservative MP in Shipman's book complained about having his constituency described as a dump by the Prime Minister.
Paxo was right. Cameron was our worst prime minister since Lord North.
There are all going to be negative because it is a risk assessment. i.e what can go wrong so lets plan to handle it if it happens. I am sure the councils have another document about what would be beneficial to the council. It should be reported as "Councils getting prepared for Brexit."
What pisses me off is that local bodies like this are publishing this now instead of before the referendum It's easy to accuse leave voters of ignorance but that would stand up better if they had been better informed.
Local Authorities aren't 'publishing them' - SKY extracted them with FOI requests and lots of people who don't understand 'contingency planning' are jumping up & down making themselves look foolish.
What pisses me off is that local bodies like this are publishing this now instead of before the referendum It's easy to accuse leave voters of ignorance but that would stand up better if they had been better informed.
Local Authorities aren't 'publishing them' - SKY extracted them with FOI requests and lots of people who don't understand 'contingency planning' are jumping up & down making themselves look foolish.
Easiest deal ever Sunlit uplands Falling over themselves to give us a favourable deal They need us more than we need them Global Britain
@Stodge makes a good point above. 2 answers to this:-
1. The first is by Deborah Lipstadt (sued by David Irving - he lost) which is that you should never ever given any sort of a platform to a Holocaust denier because while people are allowed their opinions, you cannot invent your own facts. By giving them a platform you are giving them a tiny bit of credibility, as if the fact of the Holocaust is something that is up for debate.
2. The second is that it is fine to debate with people whose opinions you find abhorrent provided you make it clear that you do find them abhorrent etc. In Corbyn's case, there is not evidence that he has ever criticised or challenged terrorists or anti-semites or the Iranians etc. He shares a platform with them not to debate them not to put forward an alternative and better point of view but because he agrees with them.
We do need to talk to terrorists sometimes to try to resolve difficult situations. But we can do so while still making it clear our detestation of what they say & do & requiring them to change as the price for their acceptance into civilised society. Corbyn does none of these things.
The alternative to engage is not to engage. It's all very well criticising Corbyn which you can and he's done nothing to discourage that criticism - he is one-sided but the arguments and the challenges aren't.
On Point One those who deny the Holocaust simply need to be challenged repeatedly and publicly. What possible evidence can these people provide that places like Auschwitz, Belsen and Dachau didn't exist and they weren't the scenes of monstrous inhumanity?
As for Point Two, yes, but taking the Middle East as an example, I accept the Palestinians have a grievance which needs to be addressed and understood. I also accept the right of their representatives to argue their case and if that means criticism of Israel so be it. As we all should as democrats, I completely reject the use of violence to promote a political goal but understand the attraction of such an avenue when all other avenues have seemingly been exhausted.
Yet part of the reason for polarisation of views is the absence of the wide-ranging debate. Getting the extremes in one room and arguing between the two would be interesting and possibly enlightening and certainly more enlightening than the stage-managed echo chambers we see. Oddly enough, Party Conferences are surprisingly adept at getting volunteers to walk into a lion's den of opposition.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Indyref: Labour campaigned alongside Tories. GE2015: Labour wiped out in Scotland.
Do you think that Remain would have won if the Top Tories had kept out of the way?
I think Remain could have won if the top Tories had learned the lesson of Indyref which is that purely negative, scaremongering campaigns do not work.
Directly to your point, yes, but I think there were other problems too.
I was surprised that David Cameron did not follow Harold Wilson and keep aloof. He could then have placed his thumb on the scale without endangering his own job or turning it into a plebiscite on the posh boys: a Conservative MP in Shipman's book complained about having his constituency described as a dump by the Prime Minister.
Paxo was right. Cameron was our worst prime minister since Lord North.
When you don’t have a positive vision to sell then scaremongering works better than the alternatives - hence 2010, 2015, the Goldsmith London campaign all built around “...but the other options are REALLY bad.”
There are positive things to say about the EU but when it’s one of the things you’ve blamed, directly or by proxy, in previous campaigns for all the ills of the country it’s difficult to turn the tanker round and start saying them convincingly.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Indyref: Labour campaigned alongside Tories. GE2015: Labour wiped out in Scotland.
Do you think that Remain would have won if the Top Tories had kept out of the way?
I think Remain could have won if the top Tories had learned the lesson of Indyref which is that purely negative, scaremongering campaigns do not work.
Directly to your point, yes, but I think there were other problems too.
I was surprised that David Cameron did not follow Harold Wilson and keep aloof. He could then have placed his thumb on the scale without endangering his own job or turning it into a plebiscite on the posh boys: a Conservative MP in Shipman's book complained about having his constituency described as a dump by the Prime Minister.
Paxo was right. Cameron was our worst prime minister since Lord North.
But Theresa May seems determined to run Cameron close for that accolade.
What pisses me off is that local bodies like this are publishing this now instead of before the referendum It's easy to accuse leave voters of ignorance but that would stand up better if they had been better informed.
Local Authorities aren't 'publishing them' - SKY extracted them with FOI requests and lots of people who don't understand 'contingency planning' are jumping up & down making themselves look foolish.
It’s really not a good look. Obviously if there was no such planning, Faisal and friends would be screaming that we were woefully ill-prepared.
I fear the whole summer is going to be full of this crap, people are completely losing their minds.
Comments
Of course, May could do a deal with the Umunnites over the backs of both Mogg and Corbyn, but I don't think she has the parliamentary skill to pull a coup like that off.
Identical twin brothers to marry identical twin sisters after going on their first date together and now plan to live in the same two-bedroom apartment after the wedding
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6012267/Two-love-Identical-twin-brothers-wed-identical-sisters.html
https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/1024424408260071424
The AMA limits the number of doctors places at universities and encourages a debt structure for students that intrinsically ties them into supporting the place limiting system. Existing hospitals have effective veto power over the building of new, competing, hospitals. The law has rigged so that Medicaid/care cannot negotiate bulk discounts from drug companies forcing them to purchase at vastly higher costs.
https://slate.com/business/2018/07/single-payer-health-care-could-save-americans-usd2-trillion-conservative-think-tanker-accidentally-argues.html?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45028732
1. The first is by Deborah Lipstadt (sued by David Irving - he lost) which is that you should never ever given any sort of a platform to a Holocaust denier because while people are allowed their opinions, you cannot invent your own facts. By giving them a platform you are giving them a tiny bit of credibility, as if the fact of the Holocaust is something that is up for debate.
2. The second is that it is fine to debate with people whose opinions you find abhorrent provided you make it clear that you do find them abhorrent etc. In Corbyn's case, there is not evidence that he has ever criticised or challenged terrorists or anti-semites or the Iranians etc. He shares a platform with them not to debate them not to put forward an alternative and better point of view but because he agrees with them.
Take that film the other day of him being interviewed by Press TV & automatically assuming that Israel was the cause of the troubles between Egypt & the Palestinians. He also agreed with the interviewer that it was inconceivable that Muslims would attack other Muslims during Ramadan when even a cursory knowledge of Islamic affairs would tell you that this is is untrue. There have been numerous examples of Muslims attacking each other in their holy places, on their holy days etc. He said what his audience wanted to hear.
He says - & his defenders on here have said - that he speaks to both sides. Again, a flat out lie. He spoke to the IRA. If he has ever spoken to the UVF or other Protestant terrorists, we have yet to hear about this. Has he ever spoken to Israelis or settlers? Rather than do so, he actively campaigned to stop the Israeli Foreign Minister coming to this country. Not much interest in speaking to both sides or having a debate there.
He is not trying to act as an honest broker. He is a partisan. He is not interested in a debate. He is not interested in free speech - he marched with the imams who were protesting against the Danish cartoons. He does not challenge or express his disapproval at the time or to these people with these views he does not agree with because the reality is not the mealy mouthed years after the event "apology" but because he does not disapprove of what they say & think.
We do need to talk to terrorists sometimes to try to resolve difficult situations. But we can do so while still making it clear our detestation of what they say & do & requiring them to change as the price for their acceptance into civilised society. Corbyn does none of these things.
The lack of negotiation by Medicare and Medicaid is perhaps the most bonkers of all the problems, although the rest of the world should be happy that the drug companies can fund most of their R&D from US sales.
Here is the story of a young lady who spent a day in surgery for a small brain tumour. The bill, $233,000. Luckily she had good insurance, a lot of young people don’t.
https://twitter.com/SimoneGiertz/status/1019256087059390466
Mr. Max, my understanding is Australia has offered sanctuary to white farmers.
Immigrants from Uganda (Another group fleeing an oppressive and racist African regime) were an undoubted success, so I think your proposal makes sense.
These people won't be Corbyn supporters either
Edit: Thats vanished from Sky news feed. Strange
I hope that's not going to be a mistake - and it also suggests that Root is putting some confidence in Rashid (and his own) spin...
https://twitter.com/zachjourno/status/1024581233513246720
The 40 per cent of Leave-voting backbenchers, who by the way do not feel strongly enough about it to write 48 letters to the 1922, will not vote as a block and are probably not capable of doing so.
Hunt, Javid or Hammond. Assuming Theresa May does stand down: she might easily go for another walk and decide to stay on.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-tommy-robinson-appeal-hearing-13013722
But that's for the future. For now, it looks like the government is quite content to throw property rights away, if it secures them an electoral advantage.
I have to say 10 months did seem hugely excessive given the typical sentence is 7 days.
Right, Dobell tells me a presentation was being made to Colin Graves for England's 1000th Test...but he has dropped the trophy...it's broken in two...
I fucking love culture wars.
*sigh*
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/yaxley-lennon-judgment-summary.pdf
Meet Dave Oldfield, Labour councillor in North Lincolnshire. Cllr Oldfield thinks the Labour anti-Semitism scandal “must be a MI5 Tory government plot to cause havoc in our party” because he has “never come across it anywhere”. Last night he shared a post saying he will no longer be reading anything about anti-Semitism because it is a “politically motivated attack by the political establishment”.
https://order-order.com/2018/08/01/labour-councillor-anti-semitism-is-a-mi5-tory-plot/
They're pretty cutting about the judge at Leeds, aren't they?
given the opportunity to admit or deny the contempt. "
It has a certain symmetry.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1024569644588453888
Directly to your point, yes, but I think there were other problems too.
I was surprised that David Cameron did not follow Harold Wilson and keep aloof. He could then have placed his thumb on the scale without endangering his own job or turning it into a plebiscite on the posh boys: a Conservative MP in Shipman's book complained about having his constituency described as a dump by the Prime Minister.
Paxo was right. Cameron was our worst prime minister since Lord North.
WTAF.
I am sure the councils have another document about what would be beneficial to the council.
It should be reported as "Councils getting prepared for Brexit."
Choose your tin foil hat..
Sunlit uplands
Falling over themselves to give us a favourable deal
They need us more than we need them
Global Britain
On Point One those who deny the Holocaust simply need to be challenged repeatedly and publicly. What possible evidence can these people provide that places like Auschwitz, Belsen and Dachau didn't exist and they weren't the scenes of monstrous inhumanity?
As for Point Two, yes, but taking the Middle East as an example, I accept the Palestinians have a grievance which needs to be addressed and understood. I also accept the right of their representatives to argue their case and if that means criticism of Israel so be it. As we all should as democrats, I completely reject the use of violence to promote a political goal but understand the attraction of such an avenue when all other avenues have seemingly been exhausted.
Yet part of the reason for polarisation of views is the absence of the wide-ranging debate. Getting the extremes in one room and arguing between the two would be interesting and possibly enlightening and certainly more enlightening than the stage-managed echo chambers we see. Oddly enough, Party Conferences are surprisingly adept at getting volunteers to walk into a lion's den of opposition.
There are positive things to say about the EU but when it’s one of the things you’ve blamed, directly or by proxy, in previous campaigns for all the ills of the country it’s difficult to turn the tanker round and start saying them convincingly.
https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1024593199610949632
I fear the whole summer is going to be full of this crap, people are completely losing their minds.
https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1024552809763667968
I'm sure that's something with which you would be totally relaxed.
Photoshopped.