So you think a democratic polity that doesn’t discriminate between nationals and non-nationals, and has no restrictions on the entrance of the latter, is sustainable?
Good for you. Real world example in your own time. NB sustainable.
Oh get over yourself.
Of course we distinguish between nationals and non-nationals. We had decided to limit the restrictions on the entrance of some non-nationals (though there were still plenty of restrictions) and when given a chance to choose whether we liked this, we decided (because, you know, we're sovereign and all that) to impose still more restrictions.
So non-national EU migrants can't claim welfare? They can't claim tax credits etc? They get charged to use the NHS? They're treated the same as non-European non-nationals?
I'd have no problem with abolishing the cap on migration globally so long as those who arrive pay for the NHS usage and can't claim any welfare at all. They can come here, pay taxes and support themselves. After years of being law abiding residents they can claim citizenship at which point they would stop paying for the NHS etc
What are you banging on about double degree boy?
We have rules for non-EU immigrants and different rules for EU immigrants and the rules for EU immigrants was tightened up considerably as the link I provided explained.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
Ys.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
No it wasn't, not on any view. The NHS bus was 10 times as effective as any other argument, and while it was wazzockry of the purest kind it was not anti-foreigner wazzockry.
Indeed. People should just get over these imaginary concerns and become well educated and wealthy like me, then everything would be just peachy. Hail Juncker!
LOL textbook projection - so in your world: uneducated and poor = not liking foreigners.
It is sad that Nick Palmer has become an apologist for a violent, thuggish cult that has taken over a party that used to stand for a strand of opinion that was, while sometimes misguided, honourable and decent. The Tory party, through their throwing away of their trump card of economic competence by supporting Brexit, are allowing these economic imbeciles to inch toward power .
Nick Palmer has always come across to me as a reasonable person. Admittedly he is tribal and paints whatever the current position of the Labour Party is in as good a light as possible, but there are many on this site who do the same for their ?
Plenty on both sides are pretty critical of their own side as posts from PB will illustrate.
What I find difficult to take with Nick's post is that it is, as has been pointed out on here already, turning a blind eye to some of the less attractive, not to say repugnant tendencies of the modern left. All well and good if they turned up to conference, put a stand up in a side corridor and hoped for a few visitors. But these people are running the Party.
Jeremy Corbyn is probably not an anti-semite. Possibly. But it is unarguable that he has presided over a Labour Party within which anti-semites feel emboldened. It is plausible deniability.
We all laughed at his supposed faux pas when asked about the cemetery, but it was more acute than we realised. Jeremy Corbyn's position on anti-semitism is the very definition of being involved but not present.
I've referred to Corbyn as a 'passive anti-Semite', and I've see little evidence to change my view. He allows views that are anti-Semitic to be aired and promoted without challenge, even if he does not pronounce those views himself, yet would argue strongly against the airing or promotion of other forms of racism.
He's also deaf to it: when his own MPs gave their experiences of the anti-Semitism they're experiencing in parliament, and he didn't bother to stay to listen.
Repeat after me: Corbyn is anti zionism many more of the Jewish Faith are not Zionists, there are many people who are not Jewish who are Zionists. Zionism is a quasi religious political system created around 1860 or so, with a heavy dash of 1920's then fashionable fad of eugenics, the purity of the Jewish people and Ersatz Israel. That Zionism has been successfully conflated with the Jewish faith, with any critics being immediately condemned as anti semitic is one of the advertising success stories of the past 70 odd years
It is sad that Nick Palmer has become an apologist for a violent, thuggish cult that has taken over a party that used to stand for a strand of opinion that was, while sometimes misguided, honourable and decent. The Tory party, through their throwing away of their trump card of economic competence by supporting Brexit, are allowing these economic imbeciles to inch toward power .
Nick Palmer has always come across to me as a reasonable person. Admittedly he is tribal and paints whatever the current position of the Labour Party is in as good a light as possible, but there are many on this site who do the same for their ?
Plenty on both sides are pretty critical of their own side as posts from PB will illustrate.
What I find difficult to take with Nick's post is that it is, as has been pointed out on here already, turning a blind eye to some of the less attractive, not to say repugnant tendencies of the modern left. All well and good if they turned up to conference, put a stand up in a side corridor and hoped for a few visitors. But these people are running the Party.
Jeremy Corbyn is probably not an anti-semite. Possibly. But it is unarguable that he has presided over a Labour Party within which anti-semites feel emboldened. It is plausible deniability.
We all laughed at his supposed faux pas when asked about the cemetery, but it was more acute than we realised. Jeremy Corbyn's position on anti-semitism is the very definition of being involved but not present.
I've referred to Corbyn as a 'passive anti-Semite', and I've see little evidence to change my view. He allows views that are anti-Semitic to be aired and promoted without challenge, even if he does not pronounce those views himself, yet would argue strongly against the airing or promotion of other forms of racism.
He's also deaf to it: when his own MPs gave their experiences of the anti-Semitism they're experiencing in parliament, and he didn't bother to stay to listen.
That Zionism has been successfully conflated with the Jewish faith, with any critics being immediately condemned as anti semitic is one of the advertising success stories of the past 70 odd years
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
Ys.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
Indeed. People should just get over these imaginary concerns and become well educated and wealthy like me, then everything would be just peachy. Hail Juncker!
LOL textbook projection - so in your world: uneducated and poor = not liking foreigners.
Oh dear. You're the one who asserted, this very day, 'Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts', and given that it was the DEs who had the largest Leave/Remain split by some margin (per Ashcroft's post-ref polling), then I think I'm on reasonably solid ground.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
Ys.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
Indeed. People should just get over these imaginary concerns and become well educated and wealthy like me, then everything would be just peachy. Hail Juncker!
LOL textbook projection - so in your world: uneducated and poor = not liking foreigners.
Oh dear. You're the one who asserted, this very day, 'Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts', and given that it was the DEs who had the largest Leave/Remain split by some margin (per Ashcroft's post-ref polling), then I think I'm on reasonably solid ground.
okey cokey. I didn't mention the class of those people who don't like foreigners: my point was a lot of these people would go days before knowingly bumping into a foreigner, as described so acutely by the Daily Mash, and yours in response was that in order to not not like foreigners they needed to get an education and a good job.
I've always been a fan of PR - I grew up in Denmark where you can choose between a dozen shades of opinion, while being clear which coalition they will join. That works well because you can, for instance, support the Radical Liberals, who favour free markets, liberal social values and low defence spending, a mixture of nuances that doesn't really exist in Britain. Even better, you can vote for individuals out of a list, so weighing up the relative attractions of, say, Boris vs Gove or Umunna vs Thornberry, without harming your preferred party.
If we had PR, both Tories and Labour would divide almost instantly and give some clear choices, maybe the LibDems too. The parties are all uneasy coalitions.
Yeh, and the English Patriotic National Party, or whatever, would be on 20%.
Sweden, Germany etc etc shows what can happen.
I'm really SURE that the best way of combating extremism is not to construct an electoral system that prevents their representation. If 20% of voters are nationalist xenophobes, we need to address nationalist xenophobia, not rig the system so we don't need to lsiten to them.
Sweden and Germany are both governed in a way that most people would regard as reasonably sensible and successful, but feel constrained by a substantial party representing people worried about immigration That seems to me a sensible democratic approach, whereas just making sure that Parliament doesn't have anyone representing such concerns does one of two things: (1) forces people with extreme views to join a major party and try to hijack it or (2) disillusions people with politics altogether and attracts them to non-parliamentary options.
I even favour regular referenda like Switzerland. Sometimes they lead to things I don't like (the minaret ban), but then so do regular elections. But they give people with extreme views an option to influence politics by coming up with a good idea. Basel's Communist Party (total vote 0.5%) got a majority for a referendum not to build more multi-storey carparks in the centre (because they would draw in more traffic to the congested streets) - people thought hmm, yes, they're right about that, and they in turn had been drawn into constructive politics.
I think the way to persuade my and other parties of this is to try it for local councils. Nobody reasonable thinks that councils with 80 members all from one party are a good idea.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
Good afternoon, miseryguts.
‘Tiny majority’. Last time I checked that’s still bigger than a large minority. If people of different backgrounds hadn’t supported Brexit, it wouldn’t have won.
I find the collective denial by the PB Leavers that Brexit is an identity-political event absolutely extraordinary, even by PB standards.
Tell us: How is democratic politics meant to be legitimate without some sense of solidarity and common feeling amongst the electorate? At the moment, the U.K. relies on national identity. That is far more capacious than race or religion. Would you prefer that the state legitimate itself through confessional means a la Saudi, or blunt ethnicity a la Hungary?
I campaigned for leave with immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe and beyond. Step out of your bubble.
Perfectly understandable that they'd want to pull the drawbridge up after them. Not necessarily an attractive trait, that said.
Brexit was, in short, about not liking foreigners and people from foreign parts. Couldn't be more identity politics than that.
No it wasn't, not on any view. The NHS bus was 10 times as effective as any other argument, and while it was wazzockry of the purest kind it was not anti-foreigner wazzockry.
As to whether it was wazzockry at all, perhaps we should wait until the end of this Parliament and see how much higher the NHS budget is per week versus at the time of that bus? £350m? Higher? Lower?
No, let's look at the nation's finances overall. The wazzockry comes in specifying the NHS, with the implication "either you support this case, or you hate the kids in Great Ormond Street and want them all to die."
Mr. Blue, the Conservatives have been incompetent at delivering an economic message since Osborne left.
Hammond's star is stealthily rising !
Osborne was words not actions.
Hammond is actions not words.
Noticeably, whenever people talk of May's successor as Leader, no one mentions the obvious person.
The general impression is that he doesn't want the job. If he had, and he'd stood last time, I think he would have had a good chance of winning. That does however make him even more important as kingmaker because he is pretty well certain to be the only senior figure not standing.
Of course, he may change his mind. It is allowed, even in politics.
Why is it that the Dax, Cac40 are growing but the FTSE100 is so anemic , despite such good borrowing numbers ? Is it because it is coming from the consumption part of the GDP but manufacturing and exports doing badly.
Why is it that the Dax, Cac40 are growing but the FTSE100 is so anemic , despite such good borrowing numbers ? Is it because it is coming from the consumption part of the GDP but manufacturing and exports doing badly.
Why is it that the Dax, Cac40 are growing but the FTSE100 is so anemic , despite such good borrowing numbers ? Is it because it is coming from the consumption part of the GDP but manufacturing and exports doing badly.
FTSE just does the opposite of whatever the £/$ is doing nowadays.
Mr. Blue, the Conservatives have been incompetent at delivering an economic message since Osborne left.
Hammond's star is stealthily rising !
Osborne was words not actions.
Hammond is actions not words.
Noticeably, whenever people talk of May's successor as Leader, no one mentions the obvious person.
The general impression is that he doesn't want the job. If he had, and he'd stood last time, I think he would have had a good chance of winning. That does however make him even more important as kingmaker because he is pretty well certain to be the only senior figure not standing.
Of course, he may change his mind. It is allowed, even in politics.
He would be seen as a safe pair of hands. Osborne was always seen as too clever by half, therefore he was the face of the Cameroon purge !
Why is it that the Dax, Cac40 are growing but the FTSE100 is so anemic , despite such good borrowing numbers ? Is it because it is coming from the consumption part of the GDP but manufacturing and exports doing badly.
I've always been a fan of PR - I grew up in Denmark where you can choose between a dozen shades of opinion, while being clear which coalition they will join. That works well because you can, for instance, support the Radical Liberals, who favour free markets, liberal social values and low defence spending, a mixture of nuances that doesn't really exist in Britain. Even better, you can vote for individuals out of a list, so weighing up the relative attractions of, say, Boris vs Gove or Umunna vs Thornberry, without harming your preferred party.
If we had PR, both Tories and Labour would divide almost instantly and give some clear choices, maybe the LibDems too. The parties are all uneasy coalitions.
Yeh, and the English Patriotic National Party, or whatever, would be on 20%.
Sweden, Germany etc etc shows what can happen.
I'm really SURE that the best way of combating extremism is not to construct an electoral system that prevents their representation. If 20% of voters are nationalist xenophobes, we need to address nationalist xenophobia, not rig the system so we don't need to lsiten to them.
Sweden and Germany are both governed in a way that most people would regard as reasonably sensible and successful, but feel constrained by a substantial party representing people worried about immigration That seems to me a sensible democratic approach, whereas just making sure that Parliament doesn't have anyone representing such concerns does one of two things: (1) forces people with extreme views to join a major party and try to hijack it or (2) disillusions people with politics altogether and attracts them to non-parliamentary options.
I even favour regular referenda like Switzerland. Sometimes they lead to things I don't like (the minaret ban), but then so do regular elections. But they give people with extreme views an option to influence politics by coming up with a good idea. Basel's Communist Party (total vote 0.5%) got a majority for a referendum not to build more multi-storey carparks in the centre (because they would draw in more traffic to the congested streets) - people thought hmm, yes, they're right about that, and they in turn had been drawn into constructive politics.
I think the way to persuade my and other parties of this is to try it for local councils. Nobody reasonable thinks that councils with 80 members all from one party are a good idea.
lol I remember the lengths Labour went to in Newham to pressure the single LibDem to defect to them, which in the end he did, putting an end to any other-party opposition in that Borough.
You are certainly right that having the same voting system for local elections in England and Wales as is already used in Scotland and Northern Ireland makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Blue, the Conservatives have been incompetent at delivering an economic message since Osborne left.
Hammond's star is stealthily rising !
Osborne was words not actions.
Hammond is actions not words.
Noticeably, whenever people talk of May's successor as Leader, no one mentions the obvious person.
The general impression is that he doesn't want the job. If he had, and he'd stood last time, I think he would have had a good chance of winning. That does however make him even more important as kingmaker because he is pretty well certain to be the only senior figure not standing.
Of course, he may change his mind. It is allowed, even in politics.
He would be seen as a safe pair of hands. Osborne was always seen as too clever by half, therefore he was the face of the Cameroon purge !
Yes, and that might eventually tempt him especially if he's the man who steers the economy successfully through Brexit (if)! Certainly against Boris it would be an advantage.
However, let's not get carried away. It's not that long since the NI screwup that was blamed on him (possibly unfairly). He's also getting on a bit at 62, although that wouldn't be so much of a problem against Corbyn.
Why is it that the Dax, Cac40 are growing but the FTSE100 is so anemic , despite such good borrowing numbers ? Is it because it is coming from the consumption part of the GDP but manufacturing and exports doing badly.
FTSE 100 is dominated by companies who dig holes. They get paid in foreign currency, which means a weak £ is good, but they're trading in commodities which is volatile, and therefore subject to Trumpian headwinds.
So you think a democratic polity that doesn’t discriminate between nationals and non-nationals, and has no restrictions on the entrance of the latter, is sustainable?
Good for you. Real world example in your own time. NB sustainable.
Oh get over yourself.
Of course we distinguish between nationals and non-nationals. We had decided to limit the restrictions on the entrance of some non-nationals (though there were still plenty of restrictions) and when given a chance to choose whether we liked this, we decided (because, you know, we're sovereign and all that) to impose still more restrictions.
So non-national EU migrants can't claim welfare? They can't claim tax credits etc? They get charged to use the NHS? They're treated the same as non-European non-nationals?
I'd have no problem with abolishing the cap on migration globally so long as those who arrive pay for the NHS usage and can't claim any welfare at all. They can come here, pay taxes and support themselves. After years of being law abiding residents they can claim citizenship at which point they would stop paying for the NHS etc
What are you banging on about double degree boy?
We have rules for non-EU immigrants and different rules for EU immigrants and the rules for EU immigrants was tightened up considerably as the link I provided explained.
A couple of issues there.
Firstly you edited in that link it wasn't there when I read your post.
Secondly those restrictions aren't there. They never were. Those were restrictions that Cameron sought in his negotiations and if they'd been achieved that would have been good enough for me. But they weren't. The EU rejected those restrictions and instead agreed to a temporary and considerably reduced restriction instead.
Instead of having no benefits for four years (reasonable) benefits would have been phased in over four years. That wouldn't have been permanent either it would have been a restriction only in place for 7 years which means by the next general election that restriction would have almost expired and we would be back to where we started.
In other words utterly trite and meaningless.
The fact you're claiming as reality reasonable restrictions that the EU rejected shows why Cameron's renegotiation was a failure. He didn't get what you showed off. Oops.
No, let's look at the nation's finances overall. The wazzockry comes in specifying the NHS, with the implication "either you support this case, or you hate the kids in Great Ormond Street and want them all to die."
But the point is that people DID vote Leave to divert the EU payments to the NHS. I know plenty who voted Leave for that very reason.
Why is it that the Dax, Cac40 are growing but the FTSE100 is so anemic , despite such good borrowing numbers ? Is it because it is coming from the consumption part of the GDP but manufacturing and exports doing badly.
Over what period?
Today or even the last 5 years.
Today the FTSE 100 is unchanged whilst the FTSE 250 is up a similar amout to the continent at +0,59%
The FTSE 250 is mostly smaller UK companies dependent on the UK. The FTSE 100 includes a lot of multinational companies that have large US$ earnings and subject to international trade barrier uncertainty.
Over the last five years the place to invest has been the USA not the UK or the continent. This is largely because of the performance of Amazon, Google(Alphabet), Facebook, Netflix, and other tech stocks loved by their customers and also the tax and other policies of the US President.
Mr. Blue, the Conservatives have been incompetent at delivering an economic message since Osborne left.
Hammond's star is stealthily rising !
Osborne was words not actions.
Hammond is actions not words.
Noticeably, whenever people talk of May's successor as Leader, no one mentions the obvious person.
The general impression is that he doesn't want the job. If he had, and he'd stood last time, I think he would have had a good chance of winning. That does however make him even more important as kingmaker because he is pretty well certain to be the only senior figure not standing.
Of course, he may change his mind. It is allowed, even in politics.
He would be seen as a safe pair of hands. Osborne was always seen as too clever by half, therefore he was the face of the Cameroon purge !
I would be pretty happy with Hambo as PM. He deserves enormous credit for keeping the economy in decent shape despite the best efforts of the Brexiteer wreckers. Also, he has avoided preaching to the choir with frothing Eurosceptica. He strikes me as a decent man, and an honest broker.
So you think a democratic polity that doesn’t discriminate between nationals and non-nationals, and has no restrictions on the entrance of the latter, is sustainable?
Good for you. Real world example in your own time. NB sustainable.
Oh get over yourself.
Of course we distinguish between natiol plenty of restrictions) and when given a chance to choose whether we liked this, we decided (because, you know, we're sovereign and all that) to impose still more restrictions.
So non-national EU migrants can't claim welfare? They can't claim tax credits etc? They get charged to use the NHS? They're treated the same as non-European non-nationals?
I'd have no problem with abolishing the cap on migration globally so long as those who arrive pay for the NHS usage and can't claim any welfare at all. They can come here, pay taxes and support themselves. After years of being law abiding residents they can claim citizenship at which point they would stop paying for the NHS etc
What are you banging on about double degree boy?
We have rules for non-EU immigrants and different rules for EU immigrants and the rules for EU immigrants was tightened up considerably as the link I provided explained.
A couple of issues there.
Firstly you edited in that link it wasn't there when I read your post.
Secondly those restrictions aren't there. They never were. Those were restrictions that Cameron sought in his negotiations and if they'd been achieved that would have been good enough for me. But they weren't. The EU rejected those restrictions and instead agreed to a temporary and considerably reduced restriction instead.
Instead of having no benefits for four years (reasonable) benefits would have been phased in over four years. That wouldn't have been permanent either it would have been a restriction only in place for 7 years which means by the next general election that restriction would have almost expired and we would be back to where we started.
In other words utterly trite and meaningless.
The fact you're claiming as reality reasonable restrictions that the EU rejected shows why Cameron's renegotiation was a failure. He didn't get what you showed off. Oops.
You do make it difficult, sometimes. The link I provided in my reply to whoever it was explained that the benefits that EU immigrants could claim had been reduced and were contingent on status and some of which were subject to review after three months.
It also included details of the emergency brake which is a separate issue.
It is sad that Nick Palmer has become an apologist for a violent, thuggish cult that has taken over a party that used to stand for a strand of opinion that was, while sometimes misguided, honourable and decent. The Tory party, through their throwing away of their trump card of economic competence by supporting Brexit, are allowing these economic imbeciles to inch toward power .
ir ?
Plenty on both sides are pretty critical of their own side as posts from PB will illustrate.
What I find difficult to take with Nick's post is that it is, as has been pointed out on here already, turning a blind eye to some of the less attractive, not to say repugnant tendencies of the modern left. All well and good if they turned up to conference, put a stand up in a side corridor and hoped for a few visitors. But these people are running the Party.
Jeremy Corbyn is probably not an anti-semite. Possibly. But it is unarguable that he has presided over a Labour Party within which anti-semites feel emboldened. It is plausible deniability.
We all laughed at his supposed faux pas when asked about the cemetery, but it was more acute than we realised. Jeremy Corbyn's position on anti-semitism is the very definition of being involved but not present.
I've referred to Corbyn as a 'passive anti-Semite', and I've see little evidence to change my view. He allows views that are anti-Semitic to be aired and promoted without challenge, even if he does not pronounce those views himself, yet would argue strongly against the airing or promotion of other forms of racism.
He's also deaf to it: when his own MPs gave their experiences of the anti-Semitism they're experiencing in parliament, and he didn't bother to stay to listen.
Repeat after me: Corbyn is anti zionism many more of the Jewish Faith are not Zionists, there are many people who are not Jewish who are Zionists. Zionism is a quasi religious political system created around 1860 or so, with a heavy dash of 1920's then fashionable fad of eugenics, the purity of the Jewish people and Ersatz Israel. That Zionism has been successfully conflated with the Jewish faith, with any critics being immediately condemned as anti semitic is one of the advertising success stories of the past 70 odd years
But why only criticism of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories? Why not criticism of Indian policy in Kashmir? Or of Moroccan policy in Western Sahara? Or of Russian policy in Crimea? Or Turkish policy in Kurdistan? Or Armenian policy in Nagorno Karabakh?
It is sad that Nick Palmer has become an apologist for a violent, thuggish cult that has taken over a party that used to stand for a strand of opinion that was, while sometimes misguided, honourable and decent. The Tory party, through their throwing away of their trump card of economic competence by supporting Brexit, are allowing these economic imbeciles to inch toward power .
ir ?
Plenty on both sides are pretty critical of their own side as posts from PB will illustrate.
What I find difficult to take with Nick's post is that it is, as has been pointed out on here already, turning a blind eye to some of the less attractive, not to say repugnant tendencies of the modern left. All well and good if they turned up to conference, put a stand up in a side corridor and hoped for a few visitors. But these people are running the Party.
Jeremy Corbyn is probably not an anti-semite. Possibly. But it is unarguable that he has presided over a Labour Party within which anti-semites feel emboldened. It is plausible deniability.
We all laughed at his supposed faux pas when asked about the cemetery, but it was more acute than we realised. Jeremy Corbyn's position on anti-semitism is the very definition of being involved but not present.
I've referred to Corbyn as a 'passive anti-Semite', and I've see little evidence to change my view. He allows views that are anti-Semitic to be aired and promoted without challenge, even if he does not pronounce those views himself, yet would argue strongly against the airing or promotion of other forms of racism.
He's also deaf to it: when his own MPs gave their experiences of the anti-Semitism they're experiencing in parliament, and he didn't bother to stay to listen.
Repeat after me: Corbyn is anti zionism many more of the Jewish Faith are not Zionists, there are many people who are not Jewish who are Zionists. Zionism is a quasi religious political system created around 1860 or so, with a heavy dash of 1920's then fashionable fad of eugenics, the purity of the Jewish people and Ersatz Israel. That Zionism has been successfully conflated with the Jewish faith, with any critics being immediately condemned as anti semitic is one of the advertising success stories of the past 70 odd years
But why only criticism of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories? Why not criticism of Indian policy in Kashmir? Or of Moroccan policy in Western Sahara? Or of Russian policy in Crimea? Or Turkish policy in Kurdistan? Or Armenian policy in Nagorno Karabakh?
Worcestershire are 572 for 7 Declared in reply to Yorkshire's 216.
Daryl Michell (opener) scored 178 at a modest rate and Moeen Ali (in at number three) scored 219 at a brisk rate. Of the two I would prefer Mitchell to play for England and provide some solidity to the batting in place of Jennings.
The FTSE100 is an almost totally useless index. I generally avoid FTSE100 trackers altogether, because the index serves no investment purpose. For a start it's not well diversified, with ten companies accounting for 40% of the total, and, even worse, it's heavily skewed to a small number of sectors (oil, minerals, banks). It doesn't represent the UK economy, with 70% of revenues coming from abroad, so it's not useful if you're trying to match assets against your (UK) sterling liabilities. It's essentially just a skewed jumble of international stocks which happen to be listed in the UK. Why would anyone want to track that?
Having said that, I've just invested in a FTSE100 tracker for a relative. Why? Because I think that there's a curious anomaly at the moment. Because of concerns over Brexit, the UK-listed market is unfashionable. The FTSE100 P/E ratio is around 12.8, compared with 16.7 for the CAC40, 14.4 for the Dax 30, and 20.6 for the S&P 500.
If Brexit goes well, confidence in the UK market will return. That will, I hope, lead to a re-rating. Conversely, if Brexit goes badly, sterling will tank - leading to an immediate increase in FTSE100 sterling-denominated earnings. So it's a natural hedge, IMO.
You do make it difficult, sometimes. The link I provided in my reply to whoever it was explained that the benefits that EU immigrants could claim had been reduced and were contingent on status and some of which were subject to review after three months.
It also included details of the emergency brake which is a separate issue.
3 months isn't enough. I said in my post it should be years and you posted a link fallaciously saying it would be years (it wouldn't as the EU rejected that). If your link was true that would be good enough for me. 3 months is not.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
I'm a metropolitan liberal Brexiteer.
By portraying Brexit as the preserve of provincials you are pushing a fallacious and identity based meme.
Even in metropolitan areas a significant minority backed Brexit.
The proletariat are quite resistant to parsing in simplistic ways. 43% of graduates voted for Brexit - a minority, but a reasonably substantial one. The same proportion of AB voters opted for Leave.
Even on here, there are Tories and Tories - HYUFD and TSE don't appear to have much in common. I'm a TINO, partly through ennui and disillusionment, partly because I am very much not a Unionist. An independent Scotland and a united Ireland seem like positives to me (though of course your mileage may vary).
Although I agree with your general point, both YouGov and Ipsos Mori reckon 32% of graduates voted Leave. Two thirds voted Remain.
But why only criticism of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories? Why not criticism of Indian policy in Kashmir? Or of Moroccan policy in Western Sahara? Or of Russian policy in Crimea? Or Turkish policy in Kurdistan? Or Armenian policy in Nagorno Karabakh?
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
I'm a metropolitan liberal Brexiteer.
By portraying Brexit as the preserve of provincials you are pushing a fallacious and identity based meme.
Even in metropolitan areas a significant minority backed Brexit.
The proletariat are quite resistant to parsing in simplistic ways. 43% of graduates voted for Brexit - a minority, but a reasonably substantial one. The same proportion of AB voters opted for Leave.
Even on here, there are Tories and Tories - HYUFD and TSE don't appear to have much in common. I'm a TINO, partly through ennui and disillusionment, partly because I am very much not a Unionist. An independent Scotland and a united Ireland seem like positives to me (though of course your mileage may vary).
Although I agree with your general point, both YouGov and Ipsos Mori reckon 32% of graduates voted Leave. Two thirds voted Remain.
I don't think I'm particularly partisan but I do like his survey simply because it was a reasonably large sample (>12k) and taken on the day, so less likely for retconning to occur.
I'm happy to use your figures though; it's clear that voters on both sides aren't as monolithic as some assert (and there are some genuine surprises, like the LD leavers or UKIP remainers).
No, let's look at the nation's finances overall. The wazzockry comes in specifying the NHS, with the implication "either you support this case, or you hate the kids in Great Ormond Street and want them all to die."
But the point is that people DID vote Leave to divert the EU payments to the NHS. I know plenty who voted Leave for that very reason.
No, let's look at the nation's finances overall. The wazzockry comes in specifying the NHS, with the implication "either you support this case, or you hate the kids in Great Ormond Street and want them all to die."
But the point is that people DID vote Leave to divert the EU payments to the NHS. I know plenty who voted Leave for that very reason.
No, let's look at the nation's finances overall. The wazzockry comes in specifying the NHS, with the implication "either you support this case, or you hate the kids in Great Ormond Street and want them all to die."
But the point is that people DID vote Leave to divert the EU payments to the NHS. I know plenty who voted Leave for that very reason.
Worcestershire are 572 for 7 Declared in reply to Yorkshire's 216.
Daryl Michell (opener) scored 178 at a modest rate and Moeen Ali (in at number three) scored 219 at a brisk rate. Of the two I would prefer Mitchell to play for England and provide some solidity to the batting in place of Jennings.
Yes, we need to take a serious look at our batsmen. Four of them out before lunch when we are supposed to be holding out for two days isn’t acceptable.
Stokes and Buttler are showing how it’s done, but it’ll be too little too late for England, especially when we are a man down.
But why only criticism of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories? Why not criticism of Indian policy in Kashmir? Or of Moroccan policy in Western Sahara? Or of Russian policy in Crimea? Or Turkish policy in Kurdistan? Or Armenian policy in Nagorno Karabakh?
Why this tunnel vision re. Israel?
Excellent question. It's plain weird.
Probably for the same reason Vote Leave focussed on Turks and not other potential members.
No, let's look at the nation's finances overall. The wazzockry comes in specifying the NHS, with the implication "either you support this case, or you hate the kids in Great Ormond Street and want them all to die."
But the point is that people DID vote Leave to divert the EU payments to the NHS. I know plenty who voted Leave for that very reason.
I don't deny it, indeed I am sure you are right. So clever of the people who thought of it, I suppose, but not of the people who fell for it.
But why only criticism of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories? Why not criticism of Indian policy in Kashmir? Or of Moroccan policy in Western Sahara? Or of Russian policy in Crimea? Or Turkish policy in Kurdistan? Or Armenian policy in Nagorno Karabakh?
Why this tunnel vision re. Israel?
Excellent question. It's plain weird.
Probably for the same reason Vote Leave focussed on Turks and not other potential members.
Repeat after me: Corbyn is anti zionism many more of the Jewish Faith are not Zionists, there are many people who are not Jewish who are Zionists. Zionism is a quasi religious political system created around 1860 or so, with a heavy dash of 1920's then fashionable fad of eugenics, the purity of the Jewish people and Ersatz Israel. That Zionism has been successfully conflated with the Jewish faith, with any critics being immediately condemned as anti semitic is one of the advertising success stories of the past 70 odd years
I can repeat it if you like, but what you say is pretty irrelevant to what Corbyn's been doing and the stuff that's going on in the Labour Party.
I agree that people can 'use' anti-Semitism to try to silence criticism of Israel. However likewise, people can use criticism of Israel to hide their anti-Semitism. And it's fairly clear (to me, at least) that too many people in Labour are going for the latter, in going beyond any reasonable criticism of Israel, with some even building on old anti-Semitic tropes.
And Corbyn's been utterly ignoring it. Why?
As for your last line: it's perfectly possible to criticise Israel - I have, and so have others. But too many Labourites are going too far into unreasonableness and fairly blatant anti-Semitism.
No, let's look at the nation's finances overall. The wazzockry comes in specifying the NHS, with the implication "either you support this case, or you hate the kids in Great Ormond Street and want them all to die."
But the point is that people DID vote Leave to divert the EU payments to the NHS. I know plenty who voted Leave for that very reason.
I don't deny it, indeed I am sure you are right. So clever of the people who thought of it, I suppose, but not of the people who fell for it.
Or....all those Remainers who want more spent on the NHS were too stupid not to see how to bring it about.
Not very endearing is it, calling that minority who voted to remain stupid?
I've always been a fan of PR - I grew up in Denmark where you can choose between a dozen shades of opinion, while being clear which coalition they will join. That works well because you can, for instance, support the Radical Liberals, who favour free markets, liberal social values and low defence spending, a mixture of nuances that doesn't really exist in Britain. Even better, you can vote for individuals out of a list, so weighing up the relative attractions of, say, Boris vs Gove or Umunna vs Thornberry, without harming your preferred party.
If we had PR, both Tories and Labour would divide almost instantly and give some clear choices, maybe the LibDems too. The parties are all uneasy coalitions.
Yeh, and the English Patriotic National Party, or whatever, would be on 20%.
Sweden, Germany etc etc shows what can happen.
I'm really SURE that the best way of combating extremism is not to construct an electoral system that prevents their representation. If 20% of voters are nationalist xenophobes, we need to address nationalist xenophobia, not rig the system so we don't need to lsiten to them.
Sweden and Germany are both governed in a way that most people would regard as reasonably sensible and successful, but feel constrained by a substantial party representing people worried about immigration That seems to me a sensible democratic approach, whereas just making sure that Parliament doesn't have anyone representing such concerns does one of two things: (1) forces people with extreme views to join a major party and try to hijack it or (2) disillusions people with politics altogether and attracts them to non-parliamentary options.
I even favour regular referenda like Switzerland. Sometimes they lead to things I don't like (the minaret ban), but then so do regular elections. But they give people with extreme views an option to influence politics by coming up with a good idea. Basel's Communist Party (total vote 0.5%) got a majority for a referendum not to build more multi-storey carparks in the centre (because they would draw in more traffic to the congested streets) - people thought hmm, yes, they're right about that, and they in turn had been drawn into constructive politics.
I think the way to persuade my and other parties of this is to try it for local councils. Nobody reasonable thinks that councils with 80 members all from one party are a good idea.
52% of our population are nationalistic xenophobes, or at least are prepared to vote for an agenda that is clearly orientated to that way of thinking
Plenty on both sides are pretty critical of their own side as posts from PB will illustrate.
What I find difficult to take with Nick's post is that it is, as has been pointed out on here already, turning a blind eye to some of the less attractive, not to say repugnant tendencies of the modern left. All well and good if they turned up to conference, put a stand up in a side corridor and hoped for a few visitors. But these people are running the Party.
Jeremy Corbyn is probably not an anti-semite. Possibly. But it is unarguable that he has presided over a Labour Party within which anti-semites feel emboldened. It is plausible deniability.
We all laughed at his supposed faux pas when asked about the cemetery, but it was more acute than we realised. Jeremy Corbyn's position on anti-semitism is the very definition of being involved but not present.
I've referred to Corbyn as a 'passive anti-Semite', and I've see little evidence to change my view. He allows views that are anti-Semitic to be aired and promoted without challenge, even if he does not pronounce those views himself, yet would argue strongly against the airing or promotion of other forms of racism.
He's also deaf to it: when his own MPs gave their experiences of the anti-Semitism they're experiencing in parliament, and he didn't bother to stay to listen.
Repeat after me: Corbyn is anti zionism many more of the Jewish Faith are not Zionists, there are many people who are not Jewish who are Zionists. Zionism is a quasi religious political system created around 1860 or so, with a heavy dash of 1920's then fashionable fad of eugenics, the purity of the Jewish people and Ersatz Israel. That Zionism has been successfully conflated with the Jewish faith, with any critics being immediately condemned as anti semitic is one of the advertising success stories of the past 70 odd years
But why only criticism of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories? Why not criticism of Indian policy in Kashmir? Or of Moroccan policy in Western Sahara? Or of Russian policy in Crimea? Or Turkish policy in Kurdistan? Or Armenian policy in Nagorno Karabakh?
Why this tunnel vision re. Israel?
Largely because few people attempt to defend the actions of these particular aggressors, I imagine. You need two sides to have an argument.
I've always been a fan of PR - I grew up in Denmark where you can choose between a dozen shades of opinion, while being clear which coalition they will join. That works well because you can, for instance, support the Radical Liberals, who favour free markets, liberal social values and low defence spending, a mixture of nuances that doesn't really exist in Britain. Even better, you can vote for individuals out of a list, so weighing up the relative attractions of, say, Boris vs Gove or Umunna vs Thornberry, without harming your preferred party.
If we had PR, both Tories and Labour would divide almost instantly and give some clear choices, maybe the LibDems too. The parties are all uneasy coalitions.
Yeh, and the English Patriotic National Party, or whatever, would be on 20%.
Sweden, Germany etc etc shows what can happen.
I'm really SURE that the best way of combating extremism is not to construct an electoral system that prevents their representation. If 20% of voters are nationalist xenophobes, we need to address nationalist xenophobia, not rig the system so we don't need to lsiten to them.
Sweden and Germany are both governed in a way that most people would regard as reasonably sensible and successful, but feel constrained by a substantial party representing people worried about immigration That seems to me a sensible democratic approach, whereas just making sure that Parliament doesn't have anyone representing such concerns does one of two things: (1) forces people with extreme views to join a major party and try to hijack it or (2) disillusions people with politics altogether and attracts them to non-parliamentary options.
I even favour regular referenda like Switzerland. Sometimes they lead to things I don't like (the minaret ban), but then so do regular elections. But they give people with extreme views an option to influence politics by coming up with a good idea. Basel's Communist Party (total vote 0.5%) got a majority for a referendum not to build more multi-storey carparks in the centre (because they would draw in more traffic to the congested streets) - people thought hmm, yes, they're right about that, and they in turn had been drawn into constructive politics.
I think the way to persuade my and other parties of this is to try it for local councils. Nobody reasonable thinks that councils with 80 members all from one party are a good idea.
52% of our population are nationalistic xenophobes, or at least are prepared to vote for an agenda that is clearly orientated to that way of thinking
Half of me would quite like to see a second EU referendum, if only to see the arguments the Remain side think will change minds.
I've always been a fan of PR - I grew up in Denmark where you can choose between a dozen shades of opinion, while being clear which coalition they will join. That works well because you can, for instance, support the Radical Liberals, who favour free markets, liberal social values and low defence spending, a mixture of nuances that doesn't really exist in Britain. Even better, you can vote for individuals out of a list, so weighing up the relative attractions of, say, Boris vs Gove or Umunna vs Thornberry, without harming your preferred party.
If we had PR, both Tories and Labour would divide almost instantly and give some clear choices, maybe the LibDems too. The parties are all uneasy coalitions.
Yeh, and the English Patriotic National Party, or whatever, would be on 20%.
Sweden, Germany etc etc shows what can happen.
I'm really SURE that the best way of combating extremism is not to construct an electoral system that prevents their representation. If 20% of voters are nationalist xenophobes, we need to address nationalist xenophobia, not rig the system so we don't need to lsiten to them.
Sweden and Germany are both governed in a way that most people would regard as reasonably sensible and successful, but feel constrained by a substantial party representing people worried about immigration That seems to me a sensible democratic approach, whereas just making sure that Parliament doesn't have anyone representing such concerns does one of two things: (1) forces people with extreme views to join a major party and try to hijack it or (2) disillusions people with politics altogether and attracts them to non-parliamentary options.
I think the way to persuade my and other parties of this is to try it for local councils. Nobody reasonable thinks that councils with 80 members all from one party are a good idea.
52% of our population are nationalistic xenophobes, or at least are prepared to vote for an agenda that is clearly orientated to that way of thinking
Half of me would quite like to see a second EU referendum, if only to see the arguments the Remain side think will change minds.
Indeed, they'd better hope they're the better class of xenophobe - rational and open to arguments that include being called stupid racists by the dumb c*nts running EUref II.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
No, let's look at the nation's finances overall. The wazzockry comes in specifying the NHS, with the implication "either you support this case, or you hate the kids in Great Ormond Street and want them all to die."
But the point is that people DID vote Leave to divert the EU payments to the NHS. I know plenty who voted Leave for that very reason.
Is HYUFD taking a much needed day off today?
Topping is HYUFD's mild-mannered alter ego.
HYUFD is a blunt but effective weapon against people who threw their lot in with the xenophobic Brexiters yet maintain that they really wanted to reclaim the sovereignty - that we had all along - in order not to be bossed around by Johnny Foreigner when it comes to widget safety specifications.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
I'm a metropolitan liberal Brexiteer.
By portraying Brexit as the preserve of provincials you are pushing a fallacious and identity based meme.
Even in metropolitan areas a significant minority backed Brexit.
The proletariat are quite resistant to parsing in simplistic ways. 43% of graduates voted for Brexit - a minority, but a reasonably substantial one. The same proportion of AB voters opted for Leave.
Even on here, there are Tories and Tories - HYUFD and TSE don't appear to have much in common. I'm a TINO, partly through ennui and disillusionment, partly because I am very much not a Unionist. An independent Scotland and a united Ireland seem like positives to me (though of course your mileage may vary).
Indeed I'm in that 43%. In fact I'm not just a graduate but have a postgraduate degree too. Which makes the claim that only the uneducated voted for Brexit ring rather hollow. The reality is far more complex than that
Your Mummy must be very proud of you!
It has been amply proven that the less well educated tended to fall for the Brexit propaganda, and why shouldn't they, it appeals to people's most base of instincts; the dislike or mistrust of the foreigner, the precursor to racism. More intelligent people (not always necessarily with postgrad degrees) normally curb such instincts as they recognise the benefits of diversity and the limitations of prejudice. That said, I am sure not all people who voted Leave did it for prejudiced reasons, though I think that it is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority did. Many are not ashamed .
It is sad that Nick Palmer has become an apologist for a violent, thuggish cult that has taken over a party that used to stand for a strand of opinion that was, while sometimes misguided, honourable and decent. The Tory party, through their throwing away of their trump card of economic competence by supporting Brexit, are allowing these economic imbeciles to inch toward power .
ir ?
Plenty on both sides are pretty critical of their own side as posts from PB will illustrate.
What I find difficult to take with Nick's post is that it is, as has been pointed out on here already, turning a blind eye to some of the less attractive, not to say repugnant tendencies of the modern left. All well and good if they turned up to conference, put a stand up in a side corridor and hoped for a few visitors. But these people are running the Party.
I've referred to Corbyn as a 'passive anti-Semite', and I've see little evidence to change my view. He allows views that are anti-Semitic to be aired and promoted without challenge, even if he does not pronounce those views himself, yet would argue strongly against the airing or promotion of other forms of racism.
He's also deaf to it: when his own MPs gave their experiences of the anti-Semitism they're experiencing in parliament, and he didn't bother to stay to listen.
Repeat after me: Corbyn is anti zionism many more of the Jewish Faith are not Zionists, there are many people who are not Jewish who are Zionists. Zionism is a quasi religious political system created around 1860 or so, with a heavy dash of 1920's then fashionable fad of eugenics, the purity of the Jewish people and Ersatz Israel. That Zionism has been successfully conflated with the Jewish faith, with any critics being immediately condemned as anti semitic is one of the advertising success stories of the past 70 odd years
But why only criticism of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories? Why not criticism of Indian policy in Kashmir? Or of Moroccan policy in Western Sahara? Or of Russian policy in Crimea? Or Turkish policy in Kurdistan? Or Armenian policy in Nagorno Karabakh?
Why this tunnel vision re. Israel?
But Corbyn does stand up against British policy in the Falkland Islands.
I've always been a fan of PR - I grew up in Denmark where you can choose between a dozen shades of opinion, while being clear which coalition they will join. That works well because you can, for instance, support the Radical Liberals, who favour free markets, liberal social values and low defence spending, a mixture of nuances that doesn't really exist in Britain. Even better, you can vote for individuals out of a list, so weighing up the relative attractions of, say, Boris vs Gove or Umunna vs Thornberry, without harming your preferred party.
If we had PR, both Tories and Labour would divide almost instantly and give some clear choices, maybe the LibDems too. The parties are all uneasy coalitions.
If only the die-hards in the Labour Party had the same enlightened views, Nick! Unfortunately, they still hold to the view that anybody who dislikes the Tories has to sign up for the whole Corbyn-Socialist agenda - which I most certainly do not support. So there is no way you could win over my support. Labour is destined to be a minority choice.
If we had a system of STV in multi-member constituencies, it would be the death of party whips and party control, and the beginning of permanent coalition forming around single issues - real democracy!
But vested interests and buggins turn continue to hold fast to their privileged position.
No, let's look at the nation's finances overall. The wazzockry comes in specifying the NHS, with the implication "either you support this case, or you hate the kids in Great Ormond Street and want them all to die."
But the point is that people DID vote Leave to divert the EU payments to the NHS. I know plenty who voted Leave for that very reason.
I don't deny it, indeed I am sure you are right. So clever of the people who thought of it, I suppose, but not of the people who fell for it.
Or....all those Remainers who want more spent on the NHS were too stupid not to see how to bring it about.
Not very endearing is it, calling that minority who voted to remain stupid?
You have lost me now. Surely it is uncontroversial that "more money for the country..." is a valid brexit question while "...to spend on the NHS" is merely emotive?
It would be puzzling that he supports self-determination for Palestinians and opposes it for other groups if we didn't know it wasn't really about self-determination and more about his personal determination to be as Lord Blake and before him W S Gilbert said, a friend of every country but his own.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
No, let's look at the nation's finances overall. The wazzockry comes in specifying the NHS, with the implication "either you support this case, or you hate the kids in Great Ormond Street and want them all to die."
But the point is that people DID vote Leave to divert the EU payments to the NHS. I know plenty who voted Leave for that very reason.
Is HYUFD taking a much needed day off today?
Topping is HYUFD's mild-mannered alter ego.
HYUFD is a blunt but effective weapon against people who threw their lot in with the xenophobic Brexiters yet maintain that they really wanted to reclaim the sovereignty - that we had all along - in order not to be bossed around by Johnny Foreigner when it comes to widget safety specifications.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
I'm a metropolitan liberal Brexiteer.
By portraying Brexit as the preserve of provincials you are pushing a fallacious and identity based meme.
Even in metropolitan areas a significant minority backed Brexit.
The proletariat are quite resistant to parsing in simplistic ways. 43% of graduates voted for Brexit - a minority, but a reasonably substantial one. The same proportion of AB voters opted for Leave.
Even on here, there are Tories and Tories - HYUFD and TSE don't appear to have much in common. I'm a TINO, partly through ennui and disillusionment, partly because I am very much not a Unionist. An independent Scotland and a united Ireland seem like positives to me (though of course your mileage may vary).
Indeed I'm in that 43%. In fact I'm not just a graduate but have a postgraduate degree too. Which makes the claim that only the uneducated voted for Brexit ring rather hollow. The reality is far more complex than that
Your Mummy must be very proud of you!
It has been amply proven that the less well educated tended to fall for the Brexit propaganda, and why shouldn't they, it appeals to people's most base of instincts; the dislike or mistrust of the foreigner, the precursor to racism. More intelligent people (not always necessarily with postgrad degrees) normally curb such instincts as they recognise the benefits of diversity and the limitations of prejudice. That said, I am sure not all people who voted Leave did it for prejudiced reasons, though I think that it is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority did. Many are not ashamed .
Alternatively, people who do well out of the status quo tend to vote for the status quo and as an added bonus, they can claim to be more virtuous than those who don't.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
For a moment there I thought you meant 'a majority of lawmakers,' which seemed a rather oblique way of criticising the House of Lords, but made sense all right.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
Other than the first three words, wrong on all fronts. You are the editor of The Daily Express and I claim my £5
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I could post social research results which tend to support the idea that the UK is a tolerant, relaxed and liberal country, but that would just spoil things for our bien pensant, more-disappointed-than-angry Remainers who are just so, so horrified that seemingly decent folk are in fact raging xenophobes.
We're unexceptional members of the Western European democracies. Less tolerant than the Scandis. More tolerant than the Iberians. About the same as Germany, Spain and Ireland. Oh, the horror.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
I'm a metropolitan liberal Brexiteer.
By portraying Brexit as the preserve of provincials you are pushing a fallacious and identity based meme.
Even in metropolitan areas a significant minority backed Brexit.
The proletariat are quite resistant to parsing in simplistic ways. 43% of graduates voted for Brexit - a minority, but a reasonably substantial one. The same proportion of AB voters opted for Leave.
Even on here, there are Tories and Tories - HYUFD and TSE don't appear to have much in common. I'm a TINO, partly through ennui and disillusionment, partly because I am very much not a Unionist. An independent Scotland and a united Ireland seem like positives to me (though of course your mileage may vary).
Indeed I'm in that 43%. In fact I'm not just a graduate but have a postgraduate degree too. Which makes the claim that only the uneducated voted for Brexit ring rather hollow. The reality is far more complex than that
Your Mummy must be very proud of you!
It has been amply proven that the less well educated tended to fall for the Brexit propaganda, and why shouldn't they, it appeals to people's most base of instincts; the dislike or mistrust of the foreigner, the precursor to racism. More intelligent people (not always necessarily with postgrad degrees) normally curb such instincts as they recognise the benefits of diversity and the limitations of prejudice. That said, I am sure not all people who voted Leave did it for prejudiced reasons, though I think that it is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority did. Many are not ashamed .
Nigel is a great name by the way.
Keep it up lad, people like you make me know I was right to vote leave.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
But as Topping rightly points out, most of this is regulatory administrivia. The length of aubergines, the colour of fire extinguishers, how many beans make five and so forth.
Alternatively, people who do well out of the status quo tend to vote for the status quo and as an added bonus, they can claim to be more virtuous than those who don't.
And yet most of the virtue signalling seems to come from the prosecco populists who claim that they alone are able to channel the views of the benighted masses.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
You really should check the veracity of your sources. Anyone who believes FauxFacts will definitely be a Brexit supporter, and whether they have fists full of degrees, undergraduate or post, they will definitely be described as gullible
Alternatively, people who do well out of the status quo tend to vote for the status quo and as an added bonus, they can claim to be more virtuous than those who don't.
And yet most of the virtue signalling seems to come from the prosecco populists who claim that they alone are able to channel the views of the benighted masses.
There are Just Pharisees on the side of Leave, as well as on the side of Remain.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
I could post social research results which tend to support the idea that the UK is a tolerant, relaxed and liberal country, but that would just spoil things for our bien pensant, more-disappointed-than-angry Remainers who are just so, so horrified that seemingly decent folk are in fact raging xenophobes.
We're unexceptional members of the Western European democracies. Less tolerant than the Scandis. More tolerant than the Iberians. About the same as Germany, Spain and Ireland. Oh, the horror.
You prove the point - no one is saying that the entire country is xenophobic. There is a strong case to be made (is HYUFD busy having a back, sack, and crack wax or what?) that many perhaps most Leavers however are. Which would be consistent with the Pew Research.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
You really should check the veracity of your sources. Anyone who believes FauxFacts will definitely be a Brexit supporter, and whether they have fists full of degrees, undergraduate or post, they will definitely be described as gullible
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
Mr Junker is more "removable" than The Monarch, the House of Lords and many of our MPs who are in safe seats, not to mention the numerous QUANGO heads. He is also as removable as the head of NATO and the UN.
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
If you change "elected" to "properly and honestly elected", that describes our present Conservative Government to a T. We definitely need to change the system, and take back control over these Tory politicians.
Worcestershire are 572 for 7 Declared in reply to Yorkshire's 216.
Daryl Michell (opener) scored 178 at a modest rate and Moeen Ali (in at number three) scored 219 at a brisk rate. Of the two I would prefer Mitchell to play for England and provide some solidity to the batting in place of Jennings.
Yes, we need to take a serious look at our batsmen. Four of them out before lunch when we are supposed to be holding out for two days isn’t acceptable.
Stokes and Buttler are showing how it’s done, but it’ll be too little too late for England, especially when we are a man down.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
I'm a metropolitan liberal Brexiteer.
By portraying Brexit as the preserve of provincials you are pushing a fallacious and identity based meme.
Even in metropolitan areas a significant minority backed Brexit.
The proletariat are quite resistant to parsing in simplistic ways. 43% of graduates voted for Brexit - a minority, but a reasonably substantial one. The same proportion of AB voters opted for Leave.
Even on here, there are Tories and Tories - HYUFD and TSE don't appear to have much in common. I'm a TINO, partly through ennui and disillusionment, partly because I am very much not a Unionist. An independent Scotland and a united Ireland seem like positives to me (though of course your mileage may vary).
Indeed I'm in that 43%. In fact I'm not just a graduate but have a postgraduate degree too. Which makes the claim that only the uneducated voted for Brexit ring rather hollow. The reality is far more complex than that
Your Mummy must be very proud of you!
It has been amply proven that the less well educated tended to fall for the Brexit propaganda, and why shouldn't they, it appeals to people's most base of instincts; the dislike or mistrust of the foreigner, the precursor to racism. More intelligent people (not always necessarily with postgrad degrees) normally curb such instincts as they recognise the benefits of diversity and the limitations of prejudice. That said, I am sure not all people who voted Leave did it for prejudiced reasons, though I think that it is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority did. Many are not ashamed .
How many ignorant stereotypes can you fall for and squeeze into one post?
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
Ah - you do realise she wasn't talking about UK laws, right?
From your own link: "We contacted Ms Reding's press office to find out what source she was basing this on. In fact, the percentage was actually referring to something entirely different — where the European Parliament (consisting of elected representatives for each EU country) has an equal say to the European Council (made up of the governments of all EU countries) on EU laws, not UK laws."
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
If you change "elected" to "properly and honestly elected", that describes our present Conservative Government to a T. We definitely need to change the system, and take back control over these Tory politicians.
They were properly and honestly elected winning the most votes by some margin across the country. Just because you lost the election doesn't mean you need to change the system, just appeal for more votes next time.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Oh and he said that could be in the form of a general election and there has been one of those since!
Comments
We have rules for non-EU immigrants and different rules for EU immigrants and the rules for EU immigrants was tightened up considerably as the link I provided explained.
Hammond is actions not words.
I'm really SURE that the best way of combating extremism is not to construct an electoral system that prevents their representation. If 20% of voters are nationalist xenophobes, we need to address nationalist xenophobia, not rig the system so we don't need to lsiten to them.
Sweden and Germany are both governed in a way that most people would regard as reasonably sensible and successful, but feel constrained by a substantial party representing people worried about immigration That seems to me a sensible democratic approach, whereas just making sure that Parliament doesn't have anyone representing such concerns does one of two things:
(1) forces people with extreme views to join a major party and try to hijack it or
(2) disillusions people with politics altogether and attracts them to non-parliamentary options.
I even favour regular referenda like Switzerland. Sometimes they lead to things I don't like (the minaret ban), but then so do regular elections. But they give people with extreme views an option to influence politics by coming up with a good idea. Basel's Communist Party (total vote 0.5%) got a majority for a referendum not to build more multi-storey carparks in the centre (because they would draw in more traffic to the congested streets) - people thought hmm, yes, they're right about that, and they in turn had been drawn into constructive politics.
I think the way to persuade my and other parties of this is to try it for local councils. Nobody reasonable thinks that councils with 80 members all from one party are a good idea.
Of course, he may change his mind. It is allowed, even in politics.
https://twitter.com/mendelpol/status/1031894110976843777?s=21
You are certainly right that having the same voting system for local elections in England and Wales as is already used in Scotland and Northern Ireland makes a lot of sense.
However, let's not get carried away. It's not that long since the NI screwup that was blamed on him (possibly unfairly). He's also getting on a bit at 62, although that wouldn't be so much of a problem against Corbyn.
Then I realised I was confusing him with Douglas Alexander.
Firstly you edited in that link it wasn't there when I read your post.
Secondly those restrictions aren't there. They never were. Those were restrictions that Cameron sought in his negotiations and if they'd been achieved that would have been good enough for me. But they weren't. The EU rejected those restrictions and instead agreed to a temporary and considerably reduced restriction instead.
Instead of having no benefits for four years (reasonable) benefits would have been phased in over four years. That wouldn't have been permanent either it would have been a restriction only in place for 7 years which means by the next general election that restriction would have almost expired and we would be back to where we started.
In other words utterly trite and meaningless.
The fact you're claiming as reality reasonable restrictions that the EU rejected shows why Cameron's renegotiation was a failure. He didn't get what you showed off. Oops.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/comment/vehicle-theft-will-get-worse-no-deal-brexit/
You know, we should start a scrapbook.
The FTSE 250 is mostly smaller UK companies dependent on the UK. The FTSE 100 includes a lot of multinational companies that have large US$ earnings and subject to international trade barrier uncertainty.
Over the last five years the place to invest has been the USA not the UK or the continent. This is largely because of the performance of Amazon, Google(Alphabet), Facebook, Netflix, and other tech stocks loved by their customers and also the tax and other policies of the US President.
It also included details of the emergency brake which is a separate issue.
Why not criticism of Indian policy in Kashmir?
Or of Moroccan policy in Western Sahara?
Or of Russian policy in Crimea?
Or Turkish policy in Kurdistan?
Or Armenian policy in Nagorno Karabakh?
Why this tunnel vision re. Israel?
In my best Mrs Merton voice:
"What first attracted you to the anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn?"
Daryl Michell (opener) scored 178 at a modest rate and Moeen Ali (in at number three) scored 219 at a brisk rate. Of the two I would prefer Mitchell to play for England and provide some solidity to the batting in place of Jennings.
And he didn't even stay dead.
But your argument does remind me of Jurgen the German.
"I love Christmas. Hooray, a Jew is born!"
*slight pause*
"And then you killed him!"
Good afternoon, everyone.
Having said that, I've just invested in a FTSE100 tracker for a relative. Why? Because I think that there's a curious anomaly at the moment. Because of concerns over Brexit, the UK-listed market is unfashionable. The FTSE100 P/E ratio is around 12.8, compared with 16.7 for the CAC40, 14.4 for the Dax 30, and 20.6 for the S&P 500.
If Brexit goes well, confidence in the UK market will return. That will, I hope, lead to a re-rating. Conversely, if Brexit goes badly, sterling will tank - leading to an immediate increase in FTSE100 sterling-denominated earnings. So it's a natural hedge, IMO.
(This is not investment advice, DYOR etc).
Links here; http://www.theweek.co.uk/89378/fact-check-did-uk-s-better-educated-vote-remain
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
I don't think I'm particularly partisan but I do like his survey simply because it was a reasonably large sample (>12k) and taken on the day, so less likely for retconning to occur.
I'm happy to use your figures though; it's clear that voters on both sides aren't as monolithic as some assert (and there are some genuine surprises, like the LD leavers or UKIP remainers).
Stokes and Buttler are showing how it’s done, but it’ll be too little too late for England, especially when we are a man down.
Today is one of the two days a year I have to be a good Muslim boy.
All my mother’s friends are trying to marry me off today.
I agree that people can 'use' anti-Semitism to try to silence criticism of Israel. However likewise, people can use criticism of Israel to hide their anti-Semitism. And it's fairly clear (to me, at least) that too many people in Labour are going for the latter, in going beyond any reasonable criticism of Israel, with some even building on old anti-Semitic tropes.
And Corbyn's been utterly ignoring it. Why?
As for your last line: it's perfectly possible to criticise Israel - I have, and so have others. But too many Labourites are going too far into unreasonableness and fairly blatant anti-Semitism.
Not very endearing is it, calling that minority who voted to remain stupid?
You just beat me to the same post.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
It has been amply proven that the less well educated tended to fall for the Brexit propaganda, and why shouldn't they, it appeals to people's most base of instincts; the dislike or mistrust of the foreigner, the precursor to racism. More intelligent people (not always necessarily with postgrad degrees) normally curb such instincts as they recognise the benefits of diversity and the limitations of prejudice. That said, I am sure not all people who voted Leave did it for prejudiced reasons, though I think that it is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority did. Many are not ashamed .
But Corbyn does stand up against British policy in the Falkland Islands.
See https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/24/jeremy-corbyn-power-sharing-deal-falkland-islands-argentina
If we had a system of STV in multi-member constituencies, it would be the death of party whips and party control, and the beginning of permanent coalition forming around single issues - real democracy!
But vested interests and buggins turn continue to hold fast to their privileged position.
Alternatively, people who do well out of the status quo tend to vote for the status quo and as an added bonus, they can claim to be more virtuous than those who don't.
https://fullfact.org/news/does-brussels-influence-70-uk-law/
Oh, go on then, just one.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/19/western-europeans-vary-in-their-nationalist-anti-immigrant-and-anti-religious-minority-attitudes/
We're unexceptional members of the Western European democracies. Less tolerant than the Scandis. More tolerant than the Iberians. About the same as Germany, Spain and Ireland. Oh, the horror.
Keep it up lad, people like you make me know I was right to vote leave.
You f-ing snob.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/faux-facts-disturbing-truth-about-fullfactorg
"Nigel is a great name by the way.
Keep it up lad, people like you make me know I was right to vote leave.
You f-ing snob."
...and your ineloquent and moronic attempt at a response further proved my point, thank you.
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I079969
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
From your own link:
"We contacted Ms Reding's press office to find out what source she was basing this on. In fact, the percentage was actually referring to something entirely different — where the European Parliament (consisting of elected representatives for each EU country) has an equal say to the European Council (made up of the governments of all EU countries) on EU laws, not UK laws."
Sort of a crucial bit, really...
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
Oh and he said that could be in the form of a general election and there has been one of those since!