I don't quite follow the labour position of not for a referendum, while winking to the public with people besides the leader suggesting maybe, but being for a GE. If a GE is ok a referendum definitely is and is less obviously partisan.
It’s so obviously cynical that they’re starting to get found out. I think they decided on the strategy over a year ago and aren’t astute enough to change it in light of events.
Personally I think Corbyn is talking a good deal of sene on Europe. Outside the EU but inside a customs union (I can't see a major downside to it to be frank seeing as the EU are busily doing free trade deals). No need for another vote on the matter. May's position is not so different.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
I'm going to stick my neck out and predict how I think events will develop. I expect
i May will not be able to put together a deal acceptable to both parliament and the EU, it's quite likely that we will get to January next year without a deal ready to put to parliament;
ii At some point between now and February, probably sooner rather than later, an atmopsohere of panic will develop, supermarkets will begin to warn of food shortages, there will be pressure on sterling and business groups will warn of immediate threats to jobs and essential supplies,
iii It will become clear that the country is about to rush headlong over a cliff with incalculable consequences, this will lead to immense pressure on MPs to take emergency action, the only option open to them will be to seek terms from the EU to suspend the widrawal process to allow another referendum to take place,
iv Another referendum will produce a majority for remain significantly larger than the majority for leave in the first one,
v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
Ah, the plebs will be put firmly back in their box?
I don't quite follow the labour position of not for a referendum, while winking to the public with people besides the leader suggesting maybe, but being for a GE. If a GE is ok a referendum definitely is and is less obviously partisan.
It’s so obviously cynical that they’re starting to get found out. I think they decided on the strategy over a year ago and aren’t astute enough to change it in light of events.
Personally I think Corbyn is talking a good deal of sene on Europe. Outside the EU but inside a customs union (I can't see a major downside to it to be frank seeing as the EU are busily doing free trade deals). No need for another vote on the matter. May's position is not so different.
The cynicism is Labour's position not Corbyn specifically. It has been praised as masterly inactivity and has pretty transparently been suggesting all options are available, with different senior figures giving hope to different options. Starmer seems smart and looks like he's maneuvering labour to appear as remainy as possible, while Corbyn reassures people, no, we totally still intend to leave.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
I'm going to stick my neck out and predict how I think events will develop. I expect
i May will not be able to put together a deal acceptable to both parliament and the EU, it's quite likely that we will get to January next year without a deal ready to put to parliament;
ii At some point between now and February, probably sooner rather than later, an atmopsohere of panic will develop, supermarkets will begin to warn of food shortages, there will be pressure on sterling and business groups will warn of immediate threats to jobs and essential supplies,
iii It will become clear that the country is about to rush headlong over a cliff with incalculable consequences, this will lead to immense pressure on MPs to take emergency action, the only option open to them will be to seek terms from the EU to suspend the widrawal process to allow another referendum to take place,
iv Another referendum will produce a majority for remain significantly larger than the majority for leave in the first one,
v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
Ah, the plebs will be put firmly back in their box?
Of course! Why, everybody knows that after a referendum the losing side accepts the result and never speaks of it again...
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
I'm going to stick my neck out and predict how I think events will develop. I expect
i May will not be able to put together a deal acceptable to both parliament and the EU, it's quite likely that we will get to January next year without a deal ready to put to parliament;
ii At some point between now and February, probably sooner rather than later, an atmopsohere of panic will develop, supermarkets will begin to warn of food shortages, there will be pressure on sterling and business groups will warn of immediate threats to jobs and essential supplies,
iii It will become clear that the country is about to rush headlong over a cliff with incalculable consequences, this will lead to immense pressure on MPs to take emergency action, the only option open to them will be to seek terms from the EU to suspend the widrawal process to allow another referendum to take place,
iv Another referendum will produce a majority for remain significantly larger than the majority for leave in the first one,
v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
Ah, the plebs will be put firmly back in their box?
Of course! Why, everybody knows that after a referendum the losing side accepts the result and never speaks of it again...
Police officers should be exempt from race discrimination laws in order to target black youths in high crime areas, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said.
Trevor Phillips said that "white liberals" need to stop "hand-wringing" and admit the truth that the wave of knife crime is black children killing black children.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
I'm going to stick my neck out and predict how I think events will develop. I expect
i May will not be able to put together a deal acceptable to both parliament and the EU, it's quite likely that we will get to January next year without a deal ready to put to parliament;
ii At some point between now and February, probably sooner rather than later, an atmopsohere of panic will develop, supermarkets will begin to warn of food shortages, there will be pressure on sterling and business groups will warn of immediate threats to jobs and essential supplies,
iii It will become clear that the country is about to rush headlong over a cliff with incalculable consequences, this will lead to immense pressure on MPs to take emergency action, the only option open to them will be to seek terms from the EU to suspend the widrawal process to allow another referendum to take place,
iv Another referendum will produce a majority for remain significantly larger than the majority for leave in the first one,
v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
Ah, the plebs will be put firmly back in their box?
Sapiocracy is an ancient concept. Fascist, yes, but with a long pedigree.
Will anybody pen a "thought-provoking" piece saying it's time to stop remembering thee Holocaust I wonder?
Its a matter of how it is remembered. The holocaust has many excellent museums and memorials, I dont think anyone is proposing to demolish the Cenotaph, just finding the excessiveness of Poppymas a bit much.
Scottish nationalists have certainly not disappeared from the scene and nor will Brexiteers and will continue to resist UK involvement in further EU integration.
Even with we leave with a Deal Remainers will still try and push for a closer relationship with the EU and to at least ultimately return to the Single Market even if they do not manage to achieve a return to the full EU
Ah, the plebs will be put firmly back in their box?
Deservedly so, the great unwashed shouldn't be allowed to ruin the country.
They didn't. Our parliamentary representatives made the decision with no obligation to do so, only a lot of political pressure. If you have a problem with them putting too much weight on plebian opinion, well, for one we should ignore all polling saying people want to remain since that will include a mass of plebs, but that is more a problem with MPs, not the plebs. Indeed, giving another referendum even if it produces the 'right' outcome would only reinforce the view that the plebs should run, and potentially ruin, the country. If the problem is the plebs, there definitely should not be another referendum or GE.
Will anybody pen a "thought-provoking" piece saying it's time to stop remembering thee Holocaust I wonder?
Its a matter of how it is remembered. The holocaust has many excellent museums and memorials, I dont think anyone is proposing to demolish the Cenotaph, just finding the excessiveness of Poppymas a bit much.
In all seriousness, a bit disrespectful for the people that we are supposed to be remembering.
Exactly. Remembrance Sunday seems to be developing into a matter of competitive display.
I was hoping the centenary would prompt a rather more thoughtful approach to the issues of war and its causes.
The original extended interviews from the superb 1964 series on the Great War are worth seeing though, on iplayer
So rather than adjust it, particularly once the centenary is over, a bit of tacky displaying means it should be stopped, yes, that's totally not an overreaction to superficiality.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
I'm going to stick my neck out and predict how I think events will develop. I expect
i May will not be able to put together a deal acceptable to both parliament and the EU, it's quite likely that we will get to January next year without a deal ready to put to parliament;
ii At some point between now and February, probably sooner rather than later, an atmopsohere of panic will develop, supermarkets will begin to warn of food shortages, there will be pressure on sterling and business groups will warn of immediate threats to jobs and essential supplies,
iii It will become clear that the country is about to rush headlong over a cliff with incalculable consequences, this will lead to immense pressure on MPs to take emergency action, the only option open to them will be to seek terms from the EU to suspend the widrawal process to allow another referendum to take place,
iv Another referendum will produce a majority for remain significantly larger than the majority for leave in the first one,
v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
Ah, the plebs will be put firmly back in their box?
Ah, the plebs will be put firmly back in their box?
Deservedly so, the great unwashed shouldn't be allowed to ruin the country.
They didn't. Our parliamentary representatives made the decision with no obligation to do so, only a lot of political pressure. If you have a problem with them putting too much weight on plebian opinion, well, for one we should ignore all polling saying people want to remain since that will include a mass of plebs, but that is more a problem with MPs, not the plebs. Indeed, giving another referendum even if it produces the 'right' outcome would only reinforce the view that the plebs should run, and potentially ruin, the country. If the problem is the plebs, there definitely should not be another referendum or GE.
And now I am off to see Overlord.
You'll enjoy Overlord, I did.
I'm not in favour of overturning the referendum.
We voted to Leave, it must be honoured, no matter how damaging.
The worse the damage, the easier (and quicker) it will be for us to rejoin.
We joined the EC as the sick man of Europe, I can see us rejoining as the sick man of Europe once again.
Ah, the plebs will be put firmly back in their box?
Deservedly so, the great unwashed shouldn't be allowed to ruin the country.
They didn't. Our parliamentary representatives made the decision with no obligation to do so, only a lot of political pressure. If you have a problem with them putting too much weight on plebian opinion, well, for one we should ignore all polling saying people want to remain since that will include a mass of plebs, but that is more a problem with MPs, not the plebs. Indeed, giving another referendum even if it produces the 'right' outcome would only reinforce the view that the plebs should run, and potentially ruin, the country. If the problem is the plebs, there definitely should not be another referendum or GE.
And now I am off to see Overlord.
You'll enjoy Overlord, I did.
I'm not in favour of overturning the referendum.
.
I know you are not, but many people who do want it overturned have the same opinion of the great unwashed, yes want the great unwashed to overturn it, when it would be more honest to just ignore them if that is how they feel. And either way, it still wasn't the great unwashed ruining the country. MPs could have said no. With great great difficulty to be sure. Politically suicide probably. But they did not have to.
Will anybody pen a "thought-provoking" piece saying it's time to stop remembering thee Holocaust I wonder?
Its a matter of how it is remembered. The holocaust has many excellent museums and memorials, I dont think anyone is proposing to demolish the Cenotaph, just finding the excessiveness of Poppymas a bit much.
In all seriousness, a bit disrespectful for the people that we are supposed to be remembering.
Exactly. Remembrance Sunday seems to be developing into a matter of competitive display.
I was hoping the centenary would prompt a rather more thoughtful approach to the issues of war and its causes.
The original extended interviews from the superb 1964 series on the Great War are worth seeing though, on iplayer
So rather than adjust it, particularly once the centenary is over, a bit of tacky displaying means it should be stopped, yes, that's totally not an overreaction to superficiality.
I think it stops for me this year. Others can do as they please.
Will anybody pen a "thought-provoking" piece saying it's time to stop remembering thee Holocaust I wonder?
Its a matter of how it is remembered. The holocaust has many excellent museums and memorials, I dont think anyone is proposing to demolish the Cenotaph, just finding the excessiveness of Poppymas a bit much.
In all seriousness, a bit disrespectful for the people that we are supposed to be remembering.
Exactly. Remembrance Sunday seems to be developing into a matter of competitive display.
I was hoping the centenary would prompt a rather more thoughtful approach to the issues of war and its causes.
The original extended interviews from the superb 1964 series on the Great War are worth seeing though, on iplayer
I had a bit of grief at work for voicing my opinion about the crews that went to the King Power helicopter crash all lining up, bowing their heads with their helmets under their arms and the fact we flew flags at half mast. I merely stated that we didn't afford that sort of public display for the poor pensioner who died in her council flat a few days later. Competitive mourning is out of control in this country.
Morris Dancer is sadly right. For the reasons he is right you have to go right back over the many years of getting closer into the EU without wholehearted consent of the population. The insoluble difficulty is not the referendum of 2016, but the repeated failures to hold them at crucial points over the last 30-40 years over issues such as the Euro, the Lisbon Treaty, Maastricht and so on. Like this excellent thread I can't see a short way back from the divisions of this. This, and not the present crisis, is the great post war failure of governance.
Ah, the plebs will be put firmly back in their box?
Deservedly so, the great unwashed shouldn't be allowed to ruin the country.
They didn't. Our parliamentary representatives made the decision with no obligation to do so, only a lot of political pressure. If you have a problem with them putting too much weight on plebian opinion, well, for one we should ignore all polling saying people want to remain since that will include a mass of plebs, but that is more a problem with MPs, not the plebs. Indeed, giving another referendum even if it produces the 'right' outcome would only reinforce the view that the plebs should run, and potentially ruin, the country. If the problem is the plebs, there definitely should not be another referendum or GE.
And now I am off to see Overlord.
You'll enjoy Overlord, I did.
I'm not in favour of overturning the referendum.
.
I know you are not, but many people who do want it overturned have the same opinion of the great unwashed, yes want the great unwashed to overturn it, when it would be more honest to just ignore them if that is how they feel. And either way, it still wasn't the great unwashed ruining the country. MPs could have said no. With great great difficulty to be sure. Politically suicide probably. But they did not have to.
Remember 45% back No Deal Brexit, 45% would easily give UKIP led by a returned Farage a majority under FPTP, even 35% could make them largest party in a general election following an EUref2 narrowly won by Remain.
Don't forget Scotland where despite losing the 2014 referendum the SNP won all but 3 seats in Scotland on 50% of the vote at the general election the following year
Ok, I've just seen Corbyn's coat. What is all the fuss about?
Its contents (probably).
It wasn’t as smart as Michael Foot’s. Not as nasty a day, though.
I thought it was alright if it didn't have a hood on it. As it is the hood made the coat look cheap and disrespectful. He should have bought a new one IMO. If he wants to hold a significant job in politics, he should really look the part. Compare him to the Shadow Chancellor and I doubt he would have worn such an inferior looking article.
A conspiracy theorist might suggest that the Shadow Chancellor provided Jezza with the coat...
Ah, the plebs will be put firmly back in their box?
Deservedly so, the great unwashed shouldn't be allowed to ruin the country.
They didn't. Our parliamentary representatives made the decision with no obligation to do so, only a lot of political pressure. If you have a problem with them putting too much weight on plebian opinion, well, for one we should ignore all polling saying people want to remain since that will include a mass of plebs, but that is more a problem with MPs, not the plebs. Indeed, giving another referendum even if it produces the 'right' outcome would only reinforce the view that the plebs should run, and potentially ruin, the country. If the problem is the plebs, there definitely should not be another referendum or GE.
And now I am off to see Overlord.
You'll enjoy Overlord, I did.
I'm not in favour of overturning the referendum.
.
I know you are not, but many people who do want it overturned have the same opinion of the great unwashed, yes want the great unwashed to overturn it, when it would be more honest to just ignore them if that is how they feel. And either way, it still wasn't the great unwashed ruining the country. MPs could have said no. With great great difficulty to be sure. Politically suicide probably. But they did not have to.
Remember 45% back No Deal Brexit, 45% would easily give UKIP led by a returned Farage a majority under FPTP, even 35% could make them largest party in a general election following an EUref2 narrowly won by Remain.
Don't forget Scotland where despite losing the 2014 referendum the SNP won all but 3 seats in Scotland on 50% of the vote at the general election the following year
45% for No Deal, even if that figure is true, does not equal 45% for UKIP, as I'm sure you realise. Nor even 35%. Given the widespread habit of adding UKIP to Tory prior to GE 17, one would have thought there would be an awareness of the danger of assuming where Leave voters would go. A Farage-led, tax slashing, gun-toting, pro -Trump, service-closing Party doesn't play well in Hartlepool.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
I'm going to stick my neck out and predict how I think events will develop. I expect
i May will not be able to put together a deal acceptable to both parliament and the EU, it's quite likely that we will get to January next year without a deal ready to put to parliament;
ii At some point between now and February, probably sooner rather than later, an atmopsohere of panic will develop, supermarkets will begin to warn of food shortages, there will be pressure on sterling and business groups will warn of immediate threats to jobs and essential supplies,
iii It will become clear that the country is about to rush headlong over a cliff with incalculable consequences, this will lead to immense pressure on MPs to take emergency action, the only option open to them will be to seek terms from the EU to suspend the widrawal process to allow another referendum to take place,
iv Another referendum will produce a majority for remain significantly larger than the majority for leave in the first one,
v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
Ah, the plebs will be put firmly back in their box?
Deservedly so, the great unwashed shouldn't be allowed to ruin the country.
They didn't. Our parliamentary representatives made the decision with no obligation to do so, only a lot of political pressure. If you have a problem with them putting too much weight on plebian opinion, well, for one we should ignore all polling saying people want to remain since that will include a mass of plebs, but that is more a problem with MPs, not the plebs. Indeed, giving another referendum even if it produces the 'right' outcome would only reinforce the view that the plebs should run, and potentially ruin, the country. If the problem is the plebs, there definitely should not be another referendum or GE.
And now I am off to see Overlord.
You'll enjoy Overlord, I did.
I'm not in favour of overturning the referendum.
.
I know you are not, but many people who do want it overturned have the same opinion of the great unwashed, yes want the great unwashed to overturn it, when it would be more honest to just ignore them if that is how they feel. And either way, it still wasn't the great unwashed ruining the country. MPs could have said no. With great great difficulty to be sure. Politically suicide probably. But they did not have to.
Remember 45% back No Deal Brexit, 45% would easily give UKIP led by a returned Farage a majority under FPTP, even 35% could make them largest party in a general election following an EUref2 narrowly won by Remain.
Don't forget Scotland where despite losing the 2014 referendum the SNP won all but 3 seats in Scotland on 50% of the vote at the general election the following year
45% for No Deal, even if that figure is true, does not equal 45% for UKIP, as I'm sure you realise. Nor even 35%. Given the widespread habit of adding UKIP to Tory prior to GE 17, one would have thought there would be an awareness of the danger of assuming where Leave voters would go. A Farage-led, tax slashing, gun-toting, pro -Trump, service-closing Party doesn't play well in Hartlepool.
Farage was not primarily a tax and regulation slasher in 2015, indeed UKIP came second in Hartlepool then with 28% of the vote and won a lot of former Labour voters. Who knows what would happen if Brexiteers felt denied their victory in their first vote.
(Plus of course even Trump is now promising higher infrastructure spending and has been less willing to oppose all elements of public healthcare than free market Republicans)
Ok, I've just seen Corbyn's coat. What is all the fuss about?
Its contents (probably).
It wasn’t as smart as Michael Foot’s. Not as nasty a day, though.
I thought it was alright if it didn't have a hood on it. As it is the hood made the coat look cheap and disrespectful. He should have bought a new one IMO. If he wants to hold a significant job in politics, he should really look the part. Compare him to the Shadow Chancellor and I doubt he would have worn such an inferior looking article.
Suits are absurdly impractical in all weather. I doubt I'm alone in seeing them as irrational and as a sign of insincerity (think car salesmen, lawyers, politicians, etc). I can see why it might be considered disrespectful to plump for gaudiness at sombre rituals, but the idea of a respectable dress code (inevitably policed by snobs) to mark when the folks who uniformly dressed respectably sent millions (many of whom couldn't afford to conform to that standard beforehand) to their deaths seems ridiculous.
I don't agree with Corbyn on most things (and I'll never vote Labour so he can't gain anything from my opinion here), but his reluctance to go along with such absurdity is refreshing for me.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
"I was scared of Cameron and Clegg, but I reckon I'm harder than an ill looking, ungainly old lady who is trying to navigate the country through the biggest issue in years" is a really good look. The man is a self important tosser.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
You’re even wronger than you were on the turnout for the mid terms.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
I'd love some flavourless Blairite stability right now.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
I'd love some flavourless Blairite stability right now.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
What was 'Thatcherism' in 1975 when she became party leader? Leaders should evolve when they are leader. The inability to do this is one of Corbyn's biggest problems IMO.
Police chiefs want to trigger an expansion of stop and search by lowering the level of suspicion an officer needs against a suspect to use the controversial power, the Guardian has learned.
They want to scrap the requirement that “reasonable grounds” are needed before a person can be subjected to a search, amid mounting concern over knife attacks.
Will anybody pen a "thought-provoking" piece saying it's time to stop remembering thee Holocaust I wonder?
Its a matter of how it is remembered. The holocaust has many excellent museums and memorials, I dont think anyone is proposing to demolish the Cenotaph, just finding the excessiveness of Poppymas a bit much.
In all seriousness, a bit disrespectful for the people that we are supposed to be remembering.
Exactly. Remembrance Sunday seems to be developing into a matter of competitive display.
I was hoping the centenary would prompt a rather more thoughtful approach to the issues of war and its causes.
The original extended interviews from the superb 1964 series on the Great War are worth seeing though, on iplayer
I had a bit of grief at work for voicing my opinion about the crews that went to the King Power helicopter crash all lining up, bowing their heads with their helmets under their arms and the fact we flew flags at half mast. I merely stated that we didn't afford that sort of public display for the poor pensioner who died in her council flat a few days later. Competitive mourning is out of control in this country.
A very fair point and well done you for voicing your opinion
Bet it went down like a bucket of cold sick with management though.
Police chiefs want to trigger an expansion of stop and search by lowering the level of suspicion an officer needs against a suspect to use the controversial power, the Guardian has learned.
They want to scrap the requirement that “reasonable grounds” are needed before a person can be subjected to a search, amid mounting concern over knife attacks.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
Milibandism is centrist on economics, anti Brexit and socially liberal ie little different ideologically from the Coalition of 2010 to 2015.
Indeed Miliband could say he is now the true 'heir' to Cameron and Clegg as well as Blair, with Labour being taken over by the hard left under Corbyn and the Tories now the heirs to UKIP following the Brexit vote
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
You’re even wronger than you were on the turnout for the mid terms.
I said turnout for the midterms would be under 50% , it was still under 50% even if it was higher than usual
Mr. Dean, ah, I stand corrected. As Abraham Lincoln said, people get quotes wrong sometimes.
F1: very exciting race, well worth catching the highlights if you're an occasional viewer.
Cenotaph news: I see Corbyn has accidentally gotten himself involved in a wreath laying ceremony again.
Mr. Palmer, I saw on the news that 20m people died in the First World War. By coincidence, that's the same number as Stalin executed. Lest we forget. We need to remember history more, not less.
Mr. kle4, is it? The authorities are simply showing the same judgement as they did in Rotherham. 'Cultural sensitivities' continue loom large, it seems.
Mr. Urquhart, it's like a Monty Python sketch. Evil racist stop and search has ended, and now politically correct stop and stab is occurring instead.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
I'm going to stick my neck out and predict how I think events will develop. I expect
i May will not be able to put together a deal acceptable to both parliament and the EU, it's quite likely that we will get to January next year without a deal ready to put to parliament;
ii At some point between now and February, probably sooner rather than later, an atmopsohere of panic will develop, supermarkets will begin to warn of food shortages, there will be pressure on sterling and business groups will warn of immediate threats to jobs and essential supplies,
iii It will become clear that the country is about to rush headlong over a cliff with incalculable consequences, this will lead to immense pressure on MPs to take emergency action, the only option open to them will be to seek terms from the EU to suspend the widrawal process to allow another referendum to take place,
iv Another referendum will produce a majority for remain significantly larger than the majority for leave in the first one,
v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
Of course leavers will blame May, remoaners, the elites etc etc - anyone but themselves. But their total lack of a coherent strategy for leaving is now obvious to everyone and they will be unable to attach blame to others in a convincing way.
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will live out her retirement reviled as one of the worst PMs in British history, damned for eternity by all sides - leavers because she failed to make their fantasies into reality and remainers because she tried to do so. Blair's unpopularity will be nothing compared to the opprobrium that will be hers.
Personally I think Corbyn is talking a good deal of sense on Europe. Outside the EU but inside a customs union (I can't see a major downside to it to be frank seeing as the EU are busily doing free trade deals). No need for another vote on the matter. May's position is not so different.
The cynicism is Labour's position not Corbyn specifically. It has been praised as masterly inactivity and has pretty transparently been suggesting all options are available, with different senior figures giving hope to different options. Starmer seems smart and looks like he's maneuvering labour to appear as remainy as possible, while Corbyn reassures people, no, we totally still intend to leave.
I think you're quoting me on the masterly inactivity, and I'm no longer active in national politics, so I allow myself a bit of tongue in cheek. I don't think there was much point in the opposition having a rigid position while the negotiations were going on, but it's now reached the point where they need to offer a reasonable alternative if they're going to help vote May's plan down.
Permanent customs union and regulatory alignment without actually trying to reverse the referendum altogether seems a reasonable stance to me, and one that reflects the 52-48 split fairly - yes, we'll be out, but not that far out. I'd personally rather we stayed in, but I think that's unlikely and I realise it would be incredibly divisive, which customs union really would not.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
Yes, we need a new generation through for centrist Labour to regenerate, not some reheated New Labour reject.
Will anybody pen a "thought-provoking" piece saying it's time to stop remembering thee Holocaust I wonder?
Its a matter of how it is remembered. The holocaust has many excellent museums and memorials, I dont think anyone is proposing to demolish the Cenotaph, just finding the excessiveness of Poppymas a bit much.
In all seriousness, a bit disrespectful for the people that we are supposed to be remembering.
Exactly. Remembrance Sunday seems to be developing into a matter of competitive display.
I was hoping the centenary would prompt a rather more thoughtful approach to the issues of war and its causes.
The original extended interviews from the superb 1964 series on the Great War are worth seeing though, on iplayer
I had a bit of grief at work for voicing my opinion about the crews that went to the King Power helicopter crash all lining up, bowing their heads with their helmets under their arms and the fact we flew flags at half mast. I merely stated that we didn't afford that sort of public display for the poor pensioner who died in her council flat a few days later. Competitive mourning is out of control in this country.
I had an exchange of views with a manager re two minutes silence for Tube bombings. She wanted all to do observe it, without any prior discussion or warning. I was unimpressed with her case.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
Milibandism is centrist on economics, anti Brexit and socially liberal ie little different ideologically from the Coalition of 2010 to 2015.
Indeed Miliband could say he is now the true 'heir' to Cameron and Clegg as well as Blair, with Labour being taken over by the hard left under Corbyn and the Tories now the heirs to UKIP following the Brexit vote
Correction. As a conservative member I reject being an heir to anything to do with UKIP
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
Milibandism is centrist on economics, anti Brexit and socially liberal ie little different ideologically from the Coalition of 2010 to 2015.
Indeed Miliband could say he is now the true 'heir' to Cameron and Clegg as well as Blair, with Labour being taken over by the hard left under Corbyn and the Tories now the heirs to UKIP following the Brexit vote
Correction. As a conservative member I reject being an heir to anything to do with UKIP
You may do that does not mean all Conservative Party members now do, indeed many former UKIP members are now members of the Tory Party or even Tory councillors
I think you're quoting me on the masterly inactivity, and I'm no longer active in national politics, so I allow myself a bit of tongue in cheek. I don't think there was much point in the opposition having a rigid position while the negotiations were going on, but it's now reached the point where they need to offer a reasonable alternative if they're going to help vote May's plan down.
Permanent customs union and regulatory alignment without actually trying to reverse the referendum altogether seems a reasonable stance to me, and one that reflects the 52-48 split fairly - yes, we'll be out, but not that far out. I'd personally rather we stayed in, but I think that's unlikely and I realise it would be incredibly divisive, which customs union really would not.
I think it's too late for that approach. I believe it might have been attainable if the Remain-leaning groupings had united a while back to push for it, as the best way of combining respect for the referendum result with minimal economic damage, but now it would look too much like Mrs May's proposed Chequers deal, which those groups have rubbished.
In addition, what sign is there that the EU would be happy with it? It would violate one of their holy truths, which is that you can't have the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union without accepting Freedom of Movement.
I'd have thought that the political priority for Labour should be to avoid getting landed with the problem, which is completely intractable. It looks as though they appreciate the danger.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
Milibandism is centrist on economics, anti Brexit and socially liberal ie little different ideologically from the Coalition of 2010 to 2015.
Indeed Miliband could say he is now the true 'heir' to Cameron and Clegg as well as Blair, with Labour being taken over by the hard left under Corbyn and the Tories now the heirs to UKIP following the Brexit vote
Correction. As a conservative member I reject being an heir to anything to do with UKIP
You may do that does not mean all Conservative Party members now do, indeed many former UKIP members are now members of the Tory Party or even Tory councillors
Of course some members including yourself identify with UKIP but that will not win the next election
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will live out her retirement reviled as one of the worst PMs in British history, damned for eternity by all sides - leavers because she failed to make their fantasies into reality and remainers because she tried to do so. Blair's unpopularity will be nothing compared to the opprobrium that will be hers.
I doubt that very much. She is likely to be seen as either someone who tried their best in impossible circumstances or who pulled off the near impossible in dfficult circumstances. I think there is a slim chance she will press the nuclear button and say that the EU will not be reasonable and so switch to "no deal" (actually a different sort of deal) with a short extension of the transition and frantic talks. If she proposes a deal that cannot carry the commons the leavers would be fools to atack her, far better to praise her and put the blame on the EU. I also don't think that most of the voters believe or will come to believe that anyone else would have done a better job.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will live out her retirement reviled as one of the worst PMs in British history, damned for eternity by all sides - leavers because she failed to make their fantasies into reality and remainers because she tried to do so. Blair's unpopularity will be nothing compared to the opprobrium that will be hers.
I doubt that very much. She is likely to be seen as either someone who tried their best in impossible circumstances or who pulled off the near impossible in dfficult circumstances. I think there is a slim chance she will press the nuclear button and say that the EU will not be reasonable and so switch to "no deal" (actually a different sort of deal) with a short extension of the transition and frantic talks. If she proposes a deal that cannot carry the commons the leavers would be fools to atack her, far better to praise her and put the blame on the EU. I also don't think that most of the voters believe or will come to believe that anyone else would have done a better job.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will live out her retirement reviled as one of the worst PMs in British history, damned for eternity by all sides - leavers because she failed to make their fantasies into reality and remainers because she tried to do so. Blair's unpopularity will be nothing compared to the opprobrium that will be hers.
I doubt that very much. She is likely to be seen as either someone who tried their best in impossible circumstances or who pulled off the near impossible in dfficult circumstances. I think there is a slim chance she will press the nuclear button and say that the EU will not be reasonable and so switch to "no deal" (actually a different sort of deal) with a short extension of the transition and frantic talks. If she proposes a deal that cannot carry the commons the leavers would be fools to atack her, far better to praise her and put the blame on the EU. I also don't think that most of the voters believe or will come to believe that anyone else would have done a better job.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
The reason why we are unwilling to give her asylum is deeply troubling. Apparently, the government is worried about upsetting community relations here. This is a polite way of saying that they think that there will be some amongst the Pakistani Muslim community who will agitate against her, demand that she be killed and generally make it unsafe for her to be here. That this should happen in Britain in the 21st century is utterly shameful.
The government should be facing down such bullies not appeasing them.
Instead our craven government lets into this country on a speaking tour a cleric banned from preaching in Pakistan who goes round preaching his hatred in mosques here and incites others to commit murder e.g. of the poor Ahmadi shopkeeper in Glasgow and praises those who killed the Pakistani governor who stood up for Mrs Bibi.
Meanwhile the outrage bus gets all upset that some morons behave utterly distastefully in their own home. And yet we do not show outrage and anger at matters which really deserve such a reaction and which have implications for all of us.
And today we commemorate those who fought that we might be free. Freedom to say and think what we want is the keynote freedom. Not to be bullied by those who would shut us up and use the threat of violence to do so. I feel ashamed at the feebleness of our government. If there is one thing Britain used to understand it was the importance of standing up to bullies. Now we bend over and hold our ankles (I'm sorry). It's pathetic.
I think you're quoting me on the masterly inactivity, and I'm no longer active in national politics, so I allow myself a bit of tongue in cheek. I don't think there was much point in the opposition having a rigid position while the negotiations were going on, but it's now reached the point where they need to offer a reasonable alternative if they're going to help vote May's plan down.
Permanent customs union and regulatory alignment without actually trying to reverse the referendum altogether seems a reasonable stance to me, and one that reflects the 52-48 split fairly - yes, we'll be out, but not that far out. I'd personally rather we stayed in, but I think that's unlikely and I realise it would be incredibly divisive, which customs union really would not.
I think it's too late for that approach. I believe it might have been attainable if the Remain-leaning groupings had united a while back to push for it, as the best way of combining respect for the referendum result with minimal economic damage, but now it would look too much like Mrs May's proposed Chequers deal, which those groups have rubbished.
In addition, what sign is there that the EU would be happy with it? It would violate one of their holy truths, which is that you can't have the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union without accepting Freedom of Movement.
I'd have thought that the political priority for Labour should be to avoid getting landed with the problem, which is completely intractable. It looks as though they appreciate the danger.
There is an argument that the best result long term for the Tories would be a general election in January which sees the Tories largest party but Corbyn ends up PM of a minority government in a hung parliament. Then May will depart having tried her best and the Tories can get a more charismatic leader like Boris in opposition while Labour is lumbered with the responsibility of actually getting the Brexit deal through and the post Brexit fallout
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will live out her retirement reviled as one of the worst PMs in British history, damned for eternity by all sides - leavers because she failed to make their fantasies into reality and remainers because she tried to do so. Blair's unpopularity will be nothing compared to the opprobrium that will be hers.
I doubt that very much. She is likely to be seen as either someone who tried their best in impossible circumstances or who pulled off the near impossible in dfficult circumstances. I think there is a slim chance she will press the nuclear button and say that the EU will not be reasonable and so switch to "no deal" (actually a different sort of deal) with a short extension of the transition and frantic talks. If she proposes a deal that cannot carry the commons the leavers would be fools to atack her, far better to praise her and put the blame on the EU. I also don't think that most of the voters believe or will come to believe that anyone else would have done a better job.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
I've just noticed that the Conservatives have had 17 leaders in the last 100 years. That's fewer than I would have thought.
Couple of caveats:
First of all, there was no 'leader of the Conservative party' (known as the Unionists until 1925, incidentally) until 1922. When the party was in opposition, if there was a former PM leading one of the Houses, that person was tacitly assumed to be overall leader. If not, there was no overall leader. The one dazzling exception to that was Lord Stanley, who was acknowledged by Bentinck, Granby and Disraeli to be the overall party leader from the Peelite split onwards.
Second, I make it sixteen leaders since that time. If you are counting Austen Chamberlain that gives us seventeen. But if you are counting him you also need to count Curzon. That gives us eighteen. Before you say it, I know Chamberlain was regarded by Birkenhead and Curzon and perhaps more pertinently Lloyd George as the senior member of the leadership group, but that didn't make him the official Party leader.
Third, why are you surprised by this? Most Prime Ministers have a shelf life of around five years. If we accept several had spells in Opposition first, that gives us a rough average of six years or so as party leader. Seventeen by six is 102. So that's about the right number.
Labour since 1922 (when coincidentally they also stopped having actual as opposed to formal annual elections and elected one overall permanent leader) have had fourteen permanent leaders. So they're actually still ahead.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
Milibandism is centrist on economics, anti Brexit and socially liberal ie little different ideologically from the Coalition of 2010 to 2015.
Indeed Miliband could say he is now the true 'heir' to Cameron and Clegg as well as Blair, with Labour being taken over by the hard left under Corbyn and the Tories now the heirs to UKIP following the Brexit vote
Correction. As a conservative member I reject being an heir to anything to do with UKIP
You may do that does not mean all Conservative Party members now do, indeed many former UKIP members are now members of the Tory Party or even Tory councillors
Of course some members including yourself identify with UKIP but that will not win the next election
I have never voted for UKIP in my life nor do I identify them, indeed I even voted Remain in the EU referendum while 52% of voters voted Leave
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will live out her retirement reviled as one of the worst PMs in British history, damned for eternity by all sides - leavers because she failed to make their fantasies into reality and remainers because she tried to do so. Blair's unpopularity will be nothing compared to the opprobrium that will be hers.
I doubt that very much. Shs. If she proposes a deal that cannot carry the commons the leavers would be fools to atack her, far better to praise her and put the blame on the EU. I also don't think that most of the voters believe or will come to believe that anyone else would have done a better job.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
"I was scared of Cameron and Clegg, but I reckon I'm harder than an ill looking, ungainly old lady who is trying to navigate the country through the biggest issue in years" is a really good look. The man is a self important tosser.
Miliband might wish to be a successful Roy Jenkins, but he stands no better chance than he Gang of Four did of making a meaningful breakthrough.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
I'd love some flavourless Blairite stability right now.
Surely it would be banana flavour? After all it would be the return of banana man! There has be other new-labour lite non-entities with a better chance?
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
Milibandism is centrist on economics, anti Brexit and socially liberal ie little different ideologically from the Coalition of 2010 to 2015.
Indeed Miliband could say he is now the true 'heir' to Cameron and Clegg as well as Blair, with Labour being taken over by the hard left under Corbyn and the Tories now the heirs to UKIP following the Brexit vote
Correction. As a conservative member I reject being an heir to anything to do with UKIP
You may do that does not mean all Conservative Party members now do, indeed many former UKIP members are now members of the Tory Party or even Tory councillors
Of course some members including yourself identify with UKIP but that will not win the next election
I have never voted for UKIP in my life nor do I identify them, indeed I even voted Remain in the EU referendum while 52% of voters voted Leave
You may not have voted for them but you continue to support hard brexiteers, not least Boris who would delight Farage, and generally lean to the ukip tendency
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
Winston Churchill, on being asked how he reconciled his ardent anti-Bolshevism from 1918 to 1940 with his support for Stalin: 'If Hitler had invaded Hell, I would have found words of support for the Devil.'
It is slightly ironic to reflect that neither Stalin, as an atheist, or Hitler, as a deist, believed in Hell.
Police chiefs want to trigger an expansion of stop and search by lowering the level of suspicion an officer needs against a suspect to use the controversial power, the Guardian has learned.
They want to scrap the requirement that “reasonable grounds” are needed before a person can be subjected to a search, amid mounting concern over knife attacks.
so combining that with the philips quote, would it be more or less damaging to indulge ina greater degree of racial profiling?
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will live out her retirement reviled as one of the worst PMs in British history, damned for eternity by all sides - leavers because she failed to make their fantasies into reality and remainers because she tried to do so. Blair's unpopularity will be nothing compared to the opprobrium that will be hers.
I doubt that very much. Shs. If she proposes a deal that cannot carry the commons the leavers would be fools to atack her, far better to praise her and put the blame on the EU. I also don't think that most of the voters believe or will come to believe that anyone else would have done a better job.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
I believe Snyder is considered one the best current historians of Stalin's reign.
'The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler.'
I'd have thought if you want to make points about remembering history and trite comparisons of numbers killed, accuracy would be paramount.
To do what? He was second rate even *in* government. He's not even the best politician in his own family.
Yes but now it would be David Miliband v May after 8 years of Tory led government and Corbyn not David Miliband v Cameron/Clegg after Labour just lost power and Ed, he may fancy his chances better now
What's Miliband's offer to the electorate? What *is* Milibandism except second hand, flavourless Blairism?
Milibandism is centrist on economics, anti Brexit and socially liberal ie little different ideologically from the Coalition of 2010 to 2015.
Indeed Miliband could say he is now the true 'heir' to Cameron and Clegg as well as Blair, with Labour being taken over by the hard left under Corbyn and the Tories now the heirs to UKIP following the Brexit vote
Correction. As a conservative member I reject being an heir to anything to do with UKIP
You may do that does not mean all Conservative Party members now do, indeed many former UKIP members are now members of the Tory Party or even Tory councillors
Of course some members including yourself identify with UKIP but that will not win the next election
I have never voted for UKIP in my life nor do I identify them, indeed I even voted Remain in the EU referendum while 52% of voters voted Leave
You may not have voted for them but you continue to support hard brexiteers, not least Boris who would delight Farage, and generally lean to the ukip tendency
As I have consistently said I want Boris to lead the Tories at the next general election but I do not want him doing the negotiations with the EU now
On topic, I suppose the vast majority of the people who voted don't really understand all the minutiae of Brexit-and I include myself in that group. The government offered a vote, people cast their vote, one side came out on top and the leader at that time said it needed to be honoured. I think most people thought there was some sort of plan. It turns out there wasn't, and I think people who voted- on both sides- have a right to be disappointed in the journey so far. It has turned into a bit of a clusterfek but I think you'd be surprised at just how many people don't realise exactly where we are in the process. No side is going to be happy, and there doesn't seem to be any healing on the horizon. the EU is going to be the major topic for years to come.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
I believe Snyder is considered one the best current historians of Stalin's reign.
'The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler.'
I'd have thought if you want to make points about remembering history and trite comparisons of numbers killed, accuracy would be paramount.
Seems on the low side to me. I find it difficult to believe only three million died in the Holodomor alone. The most plausible estimates I have seen from Robert Service (who really is believed to be one of the best historians of Stalin's reign) nudge towards 10 million.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
That was an error but even had she won a majority of 100 I suspect she would still have problems getting a Deal with the EU and then getting that Deal through the Commons
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
Winston Churchill, on being asked how he reconciled his ardent anti-Bolshevism from 1918 to 1940 with his support for Stalin: 'If Hitler had invaded Hell, I would have found words of support for the Devil.'
It is slightly ironic to reflect that neither Stalin, as an atheist, or Hitler, as a deist, believed in Hell.
If only I could believe that they both would have had reason to change their minds. Brings to mind 'Joe the Georgian' by Al Stewart.
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
I believe Snyder is considered one the best current historians of Stalin's reign.
'The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler.'
I'd have thought if you want to make points about remembering history and trite comparisons of numbers killed, accuracy would be paramount.
Mao supposedly is responsible for 45 million deaths through the 'Great Leap Forward' and on that basis was worse than both Hitler and Stalin even if some of those deaths were indirect
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
That was an error but even had she won a majority of 100 I suspect she would still have problems getting a Deal with the EU and then getting that Deal through the Commons
Had she not called an election the Blairites might well have backed her in seeking a compromise in the belief they had nothing to lose, and Labour members would see that after a shattering defeat.
By wrecking her authority and giving a shock boost to Corbyn's she ended that hope.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will live out her retirement reviled as one of the worst PMs in British history, damned for eternity by all sides - leavers because she failed to make their fantasies into reality and remainers because she tried to do so. Blair's unpopularity will be nothing compared to the opprobrium that will be hers.
I doubt that very
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
If it’s impossible, then the only responsible course of action is another general election. Pleasing Arlene Foster is necessary to serve the Conservative interest of remaining (at least notionally) in power, not to serve the national interest.
There may be deals that the EU would accept and Parliament would support, but they aren’t compatible with the red lines that May falsely insisted were necessary to implement the referendum result. May’s actual task was difficult, but it’s the parameters she’s chosen to set for herself that are impossible.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will live out her retirement reviled as one of the worst PMs in British history, damned for eternity by all sides - leavers because she failed to make their fantasies into reality and remainers because she tried to do so. Blair's unpopularity will be nothing compared to the opprobrium that will be hers.
I doubt that very mub.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attledisunited party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
The only BINO that would do that and get the Labour leadership to back it is one with a permanent customs union for the whole UK which would likely see her lose a no confidence vote as Tory leader anyway before she could even put it to Parliament.
It may be only a Labour minority government now can get a deal through the Commons that still technically amounts to Brexit
Of course leavers will blame May, remoaners, the elites etc etc - anyone but themselves. But their total lack of a coherent strategy for leaving is now obvious to everyone and they will be unable to attach blame to others in a convincing way.
How can any large group of people denied the power necessary for them to coalesce around a united agenda be expected to come up with a coherent approach to something complicated and all stick to it? That's an impossible demand.
The most common view among leavers seems to be not to sign a deal at all (in part because this is very straightforward and large numbers are far less likely to independently land on the same complex solution when there are an infinite number of such solutions). It's coherent. I suspect you aren't happy with it though.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
That was an error but even had she won a majority of 100 I suspect she would still have problems getting a Deal with the EU and then getting that Deal through the Commons
Had she not called an election the Blairites might well have backed her in seeking a compromise in the belief they had nothing to lose, and Labour members would see that after a shattering defeat.
By wrecking her authority and giving a shock boost to Corbyn's she ended that hope.
The Blairites would not back anything that did not amount to permanent single market membership
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
I believe Snyder is considered one the best current historians of Stalin's reign.
'The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler.'
I'd have thought if you want to make points about remembering history and trite comparisons of numbers killed, accuracy would be paramount.
Mao supposedly is responsible for 45 million deaths through the 'Great Leap Forward' and on that basis was worse than both Hitler and Stalin even if some of those deaths were indirect
If we're going for the 'my genocidal maniac is worse than yours,' can I nominate Pol Pot?
Admittedly at just 2 million dead he's not in the league of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Lenin or even the Japanese government in World War Two, but that does represent a quarter of Cambodia's entire population.
Mr. Divvie, if there's a dispute over numbers (the Montefiore book came out, I think, in 2003) that doesn't necessarily mean one side or the other is correct.
I also don't think there's anything trite about remembering the millions (and you can argue about whether it was an incredibly large number or an even more incredibly large number) that were slaughtered by the Soviets.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
That was an error but even had she won a majority of 100 I suspect she would still have problems getting a Deal with the EU and then getting that Deal through the Commons
Yes I agree with that. Brexit could never have been delivered in the way it was presented during the referendum. May's fundamental error was to start off from the position that it could be delivered as promised. This was probably driven by her desire to prove to her backbenches that she was a born again Brexiteer, ironically if a leaver had become PM they might well have adopted a more gradual approach and started off by debunking some of the more egregious untruths which their colleagues promoted during the campaign.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa to the opprobrium that will be hers.
I doubt that very
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatted party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
If it’s impossible, then the only responsible course of action is another general election. Pleasing Arlene Foster is necessary to serve the Conservative interest of remaining (at least notionally) in power, not to serve the national interest.
There may be deals that the EU would accept and Parliament would support, but they aren’t compatible with the red lines that May falsely insisted were necessary to implement the referendum result. May’s actual task was difficult, but it’s the parameters she’s chosen to set for herself that are impossible.
Her parameters were set for her by her backbenchers and the DUP
Comments
May's position is not so different.
Those users of peasant wagons will get the message when their benefits and jobs get slashed because they've borked the economy.
Trevor Phillips said that "white liberals" need to stop "hand-wringing" and admit the truth that the wave of knife crime is black children killing black children.
I was hoping the centenary would prompt a rather more thoughtful approach to the issues of war and its causes.
The original extended interviews from the superb 1964 series on the Great War are worth seeing though, on iplayer
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7
Scottish nationalists have certainly not disappeared from the scene and nor will Brexiteers and will continue to resist UK involvement in further EU integration.
Even with we leave with a Deal Remainers will still try and push for a closer relationship with the EU and to at least ultimately return to the Single Market even if they do not manage to achieve a return to the full EU
And now I am off to see Overlord.
Edit - and i think I just cursed them...
I'm not in favour of overturning the referendum.
We voted to Leave, it must be honoured, no matter how damaging.
The worse the damage, the easier (and quicker) it will be for us to rejoin.
We joined the EC as the sick man of Europe, I can see us rejoining as the sick man of Europe once again.
Don't forget Scotland where despite losing the 2014 referendum the SNP won all but 3 seats in Scotland on 50% of the vote at the general election the following year
Good evening, everybody.
Given the widespread habit of adding UKIP to Tory prior to GE 17, one would have thought there would be an awareness of the danger of assuming where Leave voters would go.
A Farage-led, tax slashing, gun-toting, pro -Trump, service-closing Party doesn't play well in Hartlepool.
Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
(Plus of course even Trump is now promising higher infrastructure spending and has been less willing to oppose all elements of public healthcare than free market Republicans)
I don't agree with Corbyn on most things (and I'll never vote Labour so he can't gain anything from my opinion here), but his reluctance to go along with such absurdity is refreshing for me.
I suppose massive consolidation is really the only way the papers will stay afloat.
They want to scrap the requirement that “reasonable grounds” are needed before a person can be subjected to a search, amid mounting concern over knife attacks.
Bet it went down like a bucket of cold sick with management though.
Indeed Miliband could say he is now the true 'heir' to Cameron and Clegg as well as Blair, with Labour being taken over by the hard left under Corbyn and the Tories now the heirs to UKIP following the Brexit vote
Mr. Dean, ah, I stand corrected. As Abraham Lincoln said, people get quotes wrong sometimes.
F1: very exciting race, well worth catching the highlights if you're an occasional viewer.
Cenotaph news: I see Corbyn has accidentally gotten himself involved in a wreath laying ceremony again.
Mr. Palmer, I saw on the news that 20m people died in the First World War. By coincidence, that's the same number as Stalin executed. Lest we forget. We need to remember history more, not less.
Mr. kle4, is it? The authorities are simply showing the same judgement as they did in Rotherham. 'Cultural sensitivities' continue loom large, it seems.
Mr. Urquhart, it's like a Monty Python sketch. Evil racist stop and search has ended, and now politically correct stop and stab is occurring instead.
Mr. Stopper, I agree on competitive mourning.
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will live out her retirement reviled as one of the worst PMs in British history, damned for eternity by all sides - leavers because she failed to make their fantasies into reality and remainers because she tried to do so. Blair's unpopularity will be nothing compared to the opprobrium that will be hers.
Permanent customs union and regulatory alignment without actually trying to reverse the referendum altogether seems a reasonable stance to me, and one that reflects the 52-48 split fairly - yes, we'll be out, but not that far out. I'd personally rather we stayed in, but I think that's unlikely and I realise it would be incredibly divisive, which customs union really would not.
Stella Creasy or Jess Philips for me.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/10/us/elections/2018-possible-midterm-recounts-georgia-florida-arizona.html
In addition, what sign is there that the EU would be happy with it? It would violate one of their holy truths, which is that you can't have the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union without accepting Freedom of Movement.
I'd have thought that the political priority for Labour should be to avoid getting landed with the problem, which is completely intractable. It looks as though they appreciate the danger.
The government should be facing down such bullies not appeasing them.
Instead our craven government lets into this country on a speaking tour a cleric banned from preaching in Pakistan who goes round preaching his hatred in mosques here and incites others to commit murder e.g. of the poor Ahmadi shopkeeper in Glasgow and praises those who killed the Pakistani governor who stood up for Mrs Bibi.
Meanwhile the outrage bus gets all upset that some morons behave utterly distastefully in their own home. And yet we do not show outrage and anger at matters which really deserve such a reaction and which have implications for all of us.
And today we commemorate those who fought that we might be free. Freedom to say and think what we want is the keynote freedom. Not to be bullied by those who would shut us up and use the threat of violence to do so. I feel ashamed at the feebleness of our government. If there is one thing Britain used to understand it was the importance of standing up to bullies. Now we bend over and hold our ankles (I'm sorry). It's pathetic.
First of all, there was no 'leader of the Conservative party' (known as the Unionists until 1925, incidentally) until 1922. When the party was in opposition, if there was a former PM leading one of the Houses, that person was tacitly assumed to be overall leader. If not, there was no overall leader. The one dazzling exception to that was Lord Stanley, who was acknowledged by Bentinck, Granby and Disraeli to be the overall party leader from the Peelite split onwards.
Second, I make it sixteen leaders since that time. If you are counting Austen Chamberlain that gives us seventeen. But if you are counting him you also need to count Curzon. That gives us eighteen. Before you say it, I know Chamberlain was regarded by Birkenhead and Curzon and perhaps more pertinently Lloyd George as the senior member of the leadership group, but that didn't make him the official Party leader.
Third, why are you surprised by this? Most Prime Ministers have a shelf life of around five years. If we accept several had spells in Opposition first, that gives us a rough average of six years or so as party leader. Seventeen by six is 102. So that's about the right number.
Labour since 1922 (when coincidentally they also stopped having actual as opposed to formal annual elections and elected one overall permanent leader) have had fourteen permanent leaders. So they're actually still ahead.
Of course most of Stalin's 'executions' would have taken place before he became our satunch ally.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
It is slightly ironic to reflect that neither Stalin, as an atheist, or Hitler, as a deist, believed in Hell.
I managed to restrain myself on historical references (I cut one about the Ghibellines and Guelfs).
'The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler.'
I'd have thought if you want to make points about remembering history and trite comparisons of numbers killed, accuracy would be paramount.
Brings to mind 'Joe the Georgian' by Al Stewart.
By wrecking her authority and giving a shock boost to Corbyn's she ended that hope.
There may be deals that the EU would accept and Parliament would support, but they aren’t compatible with the red lines that May falsely insisted were necessary to implement the referendum result. May’s actual task was difficult, but it’s the parameters she’s chosen to set for herself that are impossible.
It may be only a Labour minority government now can get a deal through the Commons that still technically amounts to Brexit
The most common view among leavers seems to be not to sign a deal at all (in part because this is very straightforward and large numbers are far less likely to independently land on the same complex solution when there are an infinite number of such solutions). It's coherent. I suspect you aren't happy with it though.
Admittedly at just 2 million dead he's not in the league of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Lenin or even the Japanese government in World War Two, but that does represent a quarter of Cambodia's entire population.
I also don't think there's anything trite about remembering the millions (and you can argue about whether it was an incredibly large number or an even more incredibly large number) that were slaughtered by the Soviets.