This feels an important discussion. I'm not convinced it will happen but if it does?
It's the middle of April and Chris Grayling has done it again. Queues across the ports. THe army can't fly enough insulin in and the tabloids are leading on families claiming their loved ones have died due to Brexit. Power cuts across the north. Supermarket shelves running empty. Petrol prices sky-rocketing, airplane capacity slashed and pricey, 50 Tory MPs urge a rethink, wrong to leave hits 70% in polls.
A bit like the US shutdown - fine to hold out in principle but there comes a point where the accumulating pain is just too great.
So what happens? I reckon that a majority would be found to ask for a temporary transition deal 'we pay £X bn for associate membership to end of June' and a withdrawal agreement (more likely than a serious rejoin) is negotiated by then. The EU get what they want with extra pain and humiliation for the Uk - I reckon they might go for it.
OK, here's one for the lawyers.
If we crash out with No Deal and the Irish agree with the EU not to put up a border - doesn't that mean we can force them to have open borders at the French, Dutch, Belgian and Danish ports as well under WTO rules?
And also, doesn't it mean Poland will have to open the border with Russia and Ukraine?
I think that's what the posters who said there wouldn't be any WTO legal action were rather overlooking...
I kind of think the WTO fairy is a bit over done. I imagine its actual authority is very little. Things just get bogged down for years in negotiations and the miscreant carries on doing what they want.
The only court that can really tell the EU or its member states what to do is the ECJ, everything else is a serving suggestion, a message on a bus and little else...
Well, actually, even that doesn't work. Look at the French and their seven year ban on our beef despite being told to lift it. Plus the €100 million euro a day fine that was slapped on them that they never paid.
Is it true it was never paid? I do worry that outside the EU, the ECJ wont even do that, third party countries will just get a shrug. The ECJ were quite emphatic with us in regards to other legislation and fining us accordingly.
I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.
Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.
Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.
Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
You can only play against the opponent you are given.Perhaps if Trump had gone against Obama, then Trump may have had more votes. Comparing Romney/Obama vs Trump/Clinton has its limits.
In other news, if I were a member of the Maduro cabinet I would right now be on my way to Bolivia or Mexico where I could live with the vast sums of money that the good Socialists have embezzled amassed in the name of the people:
Venezuela crisis: Diplomat to US defects from Maduro
If Maduro's authority is so far shot he can't even break off diplomatic relations and has to back down, and the army are beginning to slip away, it's pretty much game over for him.
This feels an important discussion. I'm not convinced it will happen but if it does?
It's the middle of April and Chris Grayling has done it again. Queues across the ports. THe army can't fly enough insulin in and the tabloids are leading on families claiming their loved ones have died due to Brexit. Power cuts across the north. Supermarket shelves running empty. Petrol prices sky-rocketing, airplane capacity slashed and pricey, 50 Tory MPs urge a rethink, wrong to leave hits 70% in polls.
A bit like the US shutdown - fine to hold out in principle but there comes a point where the accumulating pain is just too great.
So what happens? I reckon that a majority would be found to ask for a temporary transition deal 'we pay £X bn for associate membership to end of June' and a withdrawal agreement (more likely than a serious rejoin) is negotiated by then. The EU get what they want with extra pain and humiliation for the Uk - I reckon they might go for it.
OK, here's one for the lawyers.
If we crash out with No Deal and the Irish agree with the EU not to put up a border - doesn't that mean we can force them to have open borders at the French, Dutch, Belgian and Danish ports as well under WTO rules?
And also, doesn't it mean Poland will have to open the border with Russia and Ukraine?
I think that's what the posters who said there wouldn't be any WTO legal action were rather overlooking...
I kind of think the WTO fairy is a bit over done. I imagine its actual authority is very little. Things just get bogged down for years in negotiations and the miscreant carries on doing what they want.
The only court that can really tell the EU or its member states what to do is the ECJ, everything else is a serving suggestion, a message on a bus and little else...
Well, actually, even that doesn't work. Look at the French and their seven year ban on our beef despite being told to lift it. Plus the €100 million euro a day fine that was slapped on them that they never paid.
Is it true it was never paid? I do worry that outside the EU, the ECJ wont even do that, third party countries will just get a shrug. The ECJ were quite emphatic with us in regards to other legislation and fining us accordingly.
Yes. I believe eventually because they were good boys and girls and lifted it after a mere seven years The ECJ decided they didn't need to. Which was silly given the very considerable economic damage to us that we've still never been compensated for.
If we crash out with No Deal and the Irish agree with the EU not to put up a border - doesn't that mean we can force them to have open borders at the French, Dutch, Belgian and Danish ports as well under WTO rules?...
IANAL. But some things spring to mind.
* You cannot simultaneously a) sue Ireland for keeping the border open, and b) insist that the border be kept open. * I do not know the WTO implications of a EU border between Ireland and the European mainland (what Andrew Lilico refers to as a "Celtic Sea" border) are with respect to Ireland. * I do not know what the WTO implications of UK keeping the Ni/Ire border open.
Personally I think we should Gordian Knot it, close the border and build a big wall with mines and Aliens Sentry guns, and just cope with it. "Take control" means exactly that.
There was. From the current Labour leadership. John McDonnell wanted to be on the ballot rather than her as the left's standard bearer until it became clear there was no way on Earth Labour MPs would put him on the ballot paper. If only MPs had done the same to Corbyn in 2015 the Labour Party wouldn't be irredeemable.
But how does this show that he was not taking Abbott seriously?
All it seems to indicate is that Labour MPs did not take him seriously.
* You cannot simultaneously a) sue Ireland for keeping the border open, and b) insist that the border be kept open. * I do not know the WTO implications of a EU border between Ireland and the European mainland (what Andrew Lilico refers to as a "Celtic Sea" border) are with respect to Ireland. * I do not know what the WTO implications of UK keeping the Ni/Ire border open.
Personally I think we should Gordian Knot it, close the border and build a big wall with mines and Aliens Sentry guns, and just cope with it. "Take control" means exactly that.
Can you however sue them for having an inconsistent border policy? That's what I'm asking as my understanding is without a properly signed agreement all borders should be treated equally. But as I am no expert I am asking whether that is a correct understanding.
* You cannot simultaneously a) sue Ireland for keeping the border open, and b) insist that the border be kept open. * I do not know the WTO implications of a EU border between Ireland and the European mainland (what Andrew Lilico refers to as a "Celtic Sea" border) are with respect to Ireland. * I do not know what the WTO implications of UK keeping the Ni/Ire border open.
Personally I think we should Gordian Knot it, close the border and build a big wall with mines and Aliens Sentry guns, and just cope with it. "Take control" means exactly that.
Can you however sue them for having an inconsistent border policy? That's what I'm asking as my understanding is without a properly signed agreement all borders should be treated equally. But as I am no expert I am asking whether that is a correct understanding.
I think so, yes.
But they might respond with "UK is doing that too". But in turn that might not affect the WTO decision, since "He started it!" is not necessarily a valid legal argument.
There was. From the current Labour leadership. John McDonnell wanted to be on the ballot rather than her as the left's standard bearer until it became clear there was no way on Earth Labour MPs would put him on the ballot paper. If only MPs had done the same to Corbyn in 2015 the Labour Party wouldn't be irredeemable.
But how does this show that he was not taking Abbott seriously?
All it seems to indicate is that Labour MPs did not take him seriously.
Which is foolish, for whatever his other faults public and less than public John McDonnell is undoubtedly a very able man and a formidable politician. He is head and shoulders above the rest of the Shadow Cabinet, admittedly a feat about as difficult as melting an ice cream in an oven.
The question really in that subject is this. Did Diane Abbott get on the ballot ahead of McDonnell because she was a black woman and those last minute backers (e.g. David Miliband) wanted to show they weren't just a bunch of white blokes with policy wonk pasts? Because if so I don't see how it's racist to point it out. If she was on there to represent the left, as Corbyn was, that's a different matter, but then you're left with the awkward question of how he won so easily and she despite being a much stronger candidate came last.
* You cannot simultaneously a) sue Ireland for keeping the border open, and b) insist that the border be kept open. * I do not know the WTO implications of a EU border between Ireland and the European mainland (what Andrew Lilico refers to as a "Celtic Sea" border) are with respect to Ireland. * I do not know what the WTO implications of UK keeping the Ni/Ire border open.
Personally I think we should Gordian Knot it, close the border and build a big wall with mines and Aliens Sentry guns, and just cope with it. "Take control" means exactly that.
Can you however sue them for having an inconsistent border policy? That's what I'm asking as my understanding is without a properly signed agreement all borders should be treated equally. But as I am no expert I am asking whether that is a correct understanding.
I think so, yes.
But they might respond with "UK is doing that too". But in turn that might not affect the WTO decision, since "He started it!" is not necessarily a valid legal argument.
Not if we don't impose border controls at the Channel ports ourselves. Which I suspect we won't for the very good reason we haven't the resources to do it in the time left.
There are 2 aspects to the DA thing that strike me. The first is the vile racist and sexist abuse she gets online, but there is precious little one can say about this other than what you say here - it's terrible and so are those who do it. All in their right minds agree.
The other thing is more insidious and (to me) subtle and interesting. The way that perfectly intelligent and balanced people (in most respects) will kind of compete to come up with the 'best' Diane Abbott joke on a regular basis - happens both online and out there in the land of the living. These gags will not ostensibly be racist or sexist or 'fatist' - not usually - will probably be about numbers - but the relentlessness of it and the tone in which it is purveyed is unpleasant.
IMO someone engaging in this very frequently has, as they say, 'questions to answer'. Not in the menacing way of that phrase, but to themselves - why are they doing it?
There was. From the current Labour leadership. John McDonnell wanted to be on the ballot rather than her as the left's standard bearer until it became clear there was no way on Earth Labour MPs would put him on the ballot paper. If only MPs had done the same to Corbyn in 2015 the Labour Party wouldn't be irredeemable.
But how does this show that he was not taking Abbott seriously?
All it seems to indicate is that Labour MPs did not take him seriously.
Which is foolish, for whatever his other faults public and less than public John McDonnell is undoubtedly a very able man and a formidable politician. He is head and shoulders above the rest of the Shadow Cabinet, admittedly a feat about as difficult as melting an ice cream in an oven.
The question really in that subject is this. Did Diane Abbott get on the ballot ahead of McDonnell because she was a black woman and those last minute backers (e.g. David Miliband) wanted to show they weren't just a bunch of white blokes with policy wonk pasts? Because if so I don't see how it's racist to point it out. If she was on there to represent the left, as Corbyn was, that's a different matter, but then you're left with the awkward question of how he won so easily and she despite being a much stronger candidate came last.
The system for elected candidates was changed after 2010 by Ed Miliband. The unions had a choice between Ed and David they picked Ed, the MPs made that the realistic choice. I think Diane actually did best with the membership but they ultimately knew they realistically had a choice between Ed and David as well.
The system was 1/3 each of the electoral college. Also Diane is a little more divisive on the left because of sending her child to private school (although I don't share the criticism she lives with the system, she doesn't make it)
There was. From the current Labour leadership. John McDonnell wanted to be on the ballot rather than her as the left's standard bearer until it became clear there was no way on Earth Labour MPs would put him on the ballot paper. If only MPs had done the same to Corbyn in 2015 the Labour Party wouldn't be irredeemable.
But how does this show that he was not taking Abbott seriously?
All it seems to indicate is that Labour MPs did not take him seriously.
Which is foolish, for whatever his other faults public and less than public John McDonnell is undoubtedly a very able man and a formidable politician. He is head and shoulders above the rest of the Shadow Cabinet, admittedly a feat about as difficult as melting an ice cream in an oven.
The question really in that subject is this. Did Diane Abbott get on the ballot ahead of McDonnell because she was a black woman and those last minute backers (e.g. David Miliband) wanted to show they weren't just a bunch of white blokes with policy wonk pasts? Because if so I don't see how it's racist to point it out. If she was on there to represent the left, as Corbyn was, that's a different matter, but then you're left with the awkward question of how he won so easily and she despite being a much stronger candidate came last.
The system for elected candidates was changed after 2010 by Ed Miliband. The unions had a choice between Ed and David they picked Ed, the MPs made that the realistic choice. I think Diane actually did best with the membership but they ultimately knew they realistically had a choice between Ed and David as well.
The system was 1/3 each of the electoral college. Also Diane is a little more divisive on the left because of sending her child to private school (although I don't share the criticism she lives with the system, she doesn't make it)
Incorrect. She did best with the unions. She only got 7.3% of the membership, against 12.3% of affiliates:
Indeed, she came third - admittedly a poor third - in that category. She was plumb last in both the others.
Edit - you do of course make a good point about the changed system I should have thought of, but she would still have been second last with the new system. Another valid comment would be however that 2015 was an unimpressive field compared to the one in 2010.
I just can't believe how dumb some of these people are.
At least we now see how he lost twice to a pseud like Boris.
Ken was actually a decent mayor in his first term, and only lost to Johnson after being mired in allegations of cronyism related to his Equalities (and Policing) Director Lee Jasper after a campaign in the Evening Standard by Andrew Gilligan.
Edit: these allegations came to naught after detailed investigation.
Upon becoming mayor, Boris Johnson then appointed both Gilligan and the editor of the Evening Standard Victoria Wadley into official sinecures.
Livingstone’s true, anti-Semitic, pro-socialist dictatorship colours weren’t soooo obvious in 2008, except perhaps to long time Livingstone watchers.
Well, in an attempt to bring some sweetness and light and a topic other than B*****, you can see the nearest town to me in Cumbria beat Red Star Belgrade in the rugby.
In other news, if I were a member of the Maduro cabinet I would right now be on my way to Bolivia or Mexico where I could live with the vast sums of money that the good Socialists have embezzled amassed in the name of the people:
Venezuela crisis: Diplomat to US defects from Maduro
If Maduro's authority is so far shot he can't even break off diplomatic relations and has to back down, and the army are beginning to slip away, it's pretty much game over for him.
The top brass have profited mightily, but the lower ranks are suffering.
I suspect the top brass will save themselves by turning on Maduro, as their Romanian counterparts turned on Ceascescu.
The system for elected candidates was changed after 2010 by Ed Miliband. The unions had a choice between Ed and David they picked Ed, the MPs made that the realistic choice. I think Diane actually did best with the membership but they ultimately knew they realistically had a choice between Ed and David as well.
The system was 1/3 each of the electoral college. Also Diane is a little more divisive on the left because of sending her child to private school (although I don't share the criticism she lives with the system, she doesn't make it)
Incorrect. She did best with the unions. She only got 7.3% of the membership, against 12.3% of affiliates:
Indeed, she came third - admittedly a poor third - in that category. She was plumb last in both the others.
Edit - you do of course make a good point about the changed system I should have thought of, but she would still have been second last with the new system. Another valid comment would be however that 2015 was an unimpressive field compared to the one in 2010.
Ahh I stand corrected, still the changed system would have changed votes. Members knew they had a choice between 2 people, even if they had overwhelmingly gone for Diane it just would have been for nothing really.
If anything it was for the best at it meant Labour went to OMOV and the members could just pick who they really wanted next time.
Well, in an attempt to bring some sweetness and light and a topic other than B*****, you can see the nearest town to me in Cumbria beat Red Star Belgrade in the rugby.
I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.
Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.
Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.
Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
No he did not get fewer votes, Trump got more votes than Romney in Iowa and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio (fractionally less in Wisconsin) ie the key Midwestern and rustbelt swing states where it mattered in order to win the Electoral College. Even if Romney got a higher voteshare in the popular vote nationwide than Trump (but still fewer votes than Trump nationwide) the popular vote does not determine the Presidency, the Electoral College does
I was specifically talking about Wisconsin with the less votes comment.
AAAAAAAARGHHHHH!
Sir, do you order pineapple on pizza while watching The Last Jedi?
I hope you are not getting annoyed about any purported breaking of a completely bogus and utterly made up gramatical "rule" that is utterly unsupported by any contemporary analysis.
I just can't believe how dumb some of these people are.
At least we now see how he lost twice to a pseud like Boris.
Ken was actually a decent mayor in his first term, and only lost to Johnson after being mired in allegations of cronyism related to his Equalities (and Policing) Director Lee Jasper after a campaign in the Evening Standard by Andrew Gilligan.
Upon becoming mayor, Boris Johnson then appointed both Gilligan and the editor of the Evening Standard Victoria Wadley into official sinecures.
Livingstone’s true, anti-Semitic, pro-socialist dictatorship colours weren’t soooo obvious in 2008, except perhaps to long time Livingstone watchers.
Er ..... he had invited Al-Qaradawi to City Hall in 2004. And was pretty severely criticised by those who wondered what he was doing inviting a person with such views onto such a big stage. His views were out in the open while he was Mayor. His friendships with terrorists and appeasers and justifiers of terrorists was well known while he was in charge of the GLC.
Livingstone got in first time because his opponents was rubbish and because many voters wanted to cock a snook at Blair's attempts to control everything within Labour and because too many people fell for Ken's cheeky-but-basically-lovable rebel act. He always was a nasty piece of work and a weathervane, too, all too willing to suck up to money when it suited him. London is well rid of him.
I just can't believe how dumb some of these people are.
At least we now see how he lost twice to a pseud like Boris.
Ken was actually a decent mayor in his first term, and only lost to Johnson after being mired in allegations of cronyism related to his Equalities (and Policing) Director Lee Jasper after a campaign in the Evening Standard by Andrew Gilligan.
Edit: these allegations came to naught after detailed investigation.
Upon becoming mayor, Boris Johnson then appointed both Gilligan and the editor of the Evening Standard Victoria Wadley into official sinecures.
Livingstone’s true, anti-Semitic, pro-socialist dictatorship colours weren’t soooo obvious in 2008, except perhaps to long time Livingstone watchers.
Yes that's pretty much what happened at the Standard.
Btw, it's Veronica Wadley, not Victoria, and she is now Chair of Arts Council London and board member of Arts Council England. She seems to have a knack of finding sinecures.
Ken Livingstone demonstrates one of the less discussed problems of older candidates. You’d have thought family and long standing friends would discreetly have taken action to look after him.
I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.
Hmm.
But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and wea full ratification by the EU27 member states.
Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'oth parties decided it would be to their advantage.
The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opn the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.
If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
We are going to rejoin. Why would the terms be punitive? What even is the meaning of punitive in this context? A lot of people on this very forum object to things that others on it regard as benefits.
We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
Well, in an attempt to bring some sweetness and light and a topic other than B*****, you can see the nearest town to me in Cumbria beat Red Star Belgrade in the rugby.
The ocean on one side, mountains on the other and on a clear day you can see NI, the Isle of Man, across Morecambe Bay and into Scotland from the top of Black Combe.
The road over the fells from Gawthwaite to Grizebeck and down to Broughton looking across the estuary is, whatever the time of year, one of the most beautiful in all England.
I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.
Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.
Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.
Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
No he did not get fewer votes, Trump got more votes than Romney in Iowa and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio (fractionally less in Wisconsin) ie the key Midwestern and rustbelt swing states where it mattered in order to win the Electoral College. Even if Romney got a higher voteshare in the popular vote nationwide than Trump (but still fewer votes than Trump nationwide) the popular vote does not determine the Presidency, the Electoral College does
I was specifically talking about Wisconsin with the less votes comment.
AAAAAAAARGHHHHH!
Sir, do you order pineapple on pizza while watching The Last Jedi?
I hope you are not getting annoyed about any purported breaking of a completely bogus and utterly made up gramatical "rule" that is utterly unsupported by any contemporary analysis.
No.
I'm getting annoyed at you using 'less' when it should be 'fewer!'
But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and wea full ratification by the EU27 member states.
Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'oth parties decided it would be to their advantage.
The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opn the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.
If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
We are going to rejoin. Why would the terms be punitive? What even is the meaning of punitive in this context? A lot of people on this very forum object to things that others on it regard as benefits.
We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
I just can't believe how dumb some of these people are.
At least we now see how he lost twice to a pseud like Boris.
Ken was actually a decent mayor in his first term, and only lost to Johnson after being mired in allegations of cronyism related to his Equalities (and Policing) Director Lee Jasper after a campaign in the Evening Standard by Andrew Gilligan.
Upon becoming mayor, Boris Johnson then appointed both Gilligan and the editor of the Evening Standard Victoria Wadley into official sinecures.
Livingstone’s true, anti-Semitic, pro-socialist dictatorship colours weren’t soooo obvious in 2008, except perhaps to long time Livingstone watchers.
Er ..... he had invited Al-Qaradawi to City Hall in 2004. And was pretty severely criticised by those who wondered what he was doing inviting a person with such views onto such a big stage. His views were out in the open while he was Mayor. His friendships with terrorists and appeasers and justifiers of terrorists was well known while he was in charge of the GLC.
Livingstone got in first time because his opponents was rubbish and because many voters wanted to cock a snook at Blair's attempts to control everything within Labour and because too many people fell for Ken's cheeky-but-basically-lovable rebel act. He always was a nasty piece of work and a weathervane, too, all too willing to suck up to money when it suited him. London is well rid of him.
Didn't he also buy cheap fuel from Venezuela on a deal with Chavez - so cheap that the country produced it at a loss and the workers were plunged into poverty...
There are 2 aspects to the DA thing that strike me. The first is the vile racist and sexist abuse she gets online, but there is precious little one can say about this other than what you say here - it's terrible and so are those who do it. All in their right minds agree.
The other thing is more insidious and (to me) subtle and interesting. The way that perfectly intelligent and balanced people (in most respects) will kind of compete to come up with the 'best' Diane Abbott joke on a regular basis - happens both online and out there in the land of the living. These gags will not ostensibly be racist or sexist or 'fatist' - not usually - will probably be about numbers - but the relentlessness of it and the tone in which it is purveyed is unpleasant.
IMO someone engaging in this very frequently has, as they say, 'questions to answer'. Not in the menacing way of that phrase, but to themselves - why are they doing it?
You have had plenty of footballers from the past talking about similar experiences, even aside from the overt racism there was always just extra demands on them and people will to pull them up twice as much over the slightest mistake, the crowd was never as forgiving with the Black players. It is why Diane gets claimed as some kind of moron who doesn't understand numbers and the idea successfully catches when she makes a single mistake on police numbers in the build up to the election.
I think it was around the same time Hammond underestimated HS2 by about £20B, a far bigger and more serious error than Abbotts.
The stupid thing is neither of those were actually based on maths ability, neither person was presented sums they had to figure out to get the right answer. The problem was memory. Which is kind of funny that you have some right wingers laughing at her for not being good at numeracy and variations on that when they aren't even smart enough to figure out her memory was the issue in that incident.
I bet Diane could figure that out, she is a bit smarter than most of her critics in fairness...
I just can't believe how dumb some of these people are.
At least we now see how he lost twice to a pseud like Boris.
Ken was actually a decent mayor in his first term, and only lost to Johnson after being mired in allegations of cronyism related to his Equalities (and Policing) Director Lee Jasper after a campaign in the Evening Standard by Andrew Gilligan.
Upon becoming mayor, Boris Johnson then appointed both Gilligan and the editor of the Evening Standard Victoria Wadley into official sinecures.
Livingstone’s true, anti-Semitic, pro-socialist dictatorship colours weren’t soooo obvious in 2008, except perhaps to long time Livingstone watchers.
Er ..... he had invited Al-Qaradawi to City Hall in 2004. And was pretty severely criticised by those who wondered what he was doing inviting a person with such views onto such a big stage. His views were out in the open while he was Mayor. His friendships with terrorists and appeasers and justifiers of terrorists was well known while he was in charge of the GLC.
Livingstone got in first time because his opponents was rubbish and because many voters wanted to cock a snook at Blair's attempts to control everything within Labour and because too many people fell for Ken's cheeky-but-basically-lovable rebel act. He always was a nasty piece of work and a weathervane, too, all too willing to suck up to money when it suited him. London is well rid of him.
Yes I am agreeing with you. But from memory, none of this really resonated with the man in the street and it was the Lee Jasper campaign by the Evening Standard that really dented him.
He always had a soft spot for dictators of various stripes.
One of the weird things I noted in his first term is that official GLA advertising would often carry an actual headshot of Ken, like something out of Cuba — and for a while they even adopted some weird 1930s totalitarian branding.
I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.
Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.
Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.
Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
No he did not get fewer votes, Trump got more votes than Romney in Iowa and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio (fractionally less in Wisconsin) ie the key Midwestern and rustbelt swing states where it mattered in order to win the Electoral College. Even if Romney got a higher voteshare in the popular vote nationwide than Trump (but still fewer votes than Trump nationwide) the popular vote does not determine the Presidency, the Electoral College does
I was specifically talking about Wisconsin with the less votes comment.
AAAAAAAARGHHHHH!
Sir, do you order pineapple on pizza while watching The Last Jedi?
I hope you are not getting annoyed about any purported breaking of a completely bogus and utterly made up gramatical "rule" that is utterly unsupported by any contemporary analysis.
But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and wea full ratification by the EU27 member states.
Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'oth parties decided it would be to their advantage.
The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The
We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.
If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
We are going to rejoin. Why would the terms be punitive? What even is the meaning of punitive in this context? A lot of people on this very forum object to things that others on it regard as benefits.
We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Ken Livingstone demonstrates one of the less discussed problems of older candidates. You’d have thought family and long standing friends would discreetly have taken action to look after him.
In fairness to Ken this is actually an article and comments from a couple of years back rather than new ones...
There are 2 aspects to the DA thing that strike me. The first is the vile racist and sexist abuse she gets online, but there is precious little one can say about this other than what you say here - it's terrible and so are those who do it. All in their right minds agree.
The other thing is more insidious and (to me) subtle and interesting. The way that perfectly intelligent and balanced people (in most respects) will kind of compete to come up with the 'best' Diane Abbott joke on a regular basis - happens both online and out there in the land of the living. These gags will not ostensibly be racist or sexist or 'fatist' - not usually - will probably be about numbers - but the relentlessness of it and the tone in which it is purveyed is unpleasant.
IMO someone engaging in this very frequently has, as they say, 'questions to answer'. Not in the menacing way of that phrase, but to themselves - why are they doing it?
You have had plenty of footballers from the past talking about similar experiences, even aside from the overt racism there was always just extra demands on them and people will to pull them up twice as much over the slightest mistake, the crowd was never as forgiving with the Black players. It is why Diane gets claimed as some kind of moron who doesn't understand numbers and the idea successfully catches when she makes a single mistake on police numbers in the build up to the election.
I think it was around the same time Hammond underestimated HS2 by about £20B, a far bigger and more serious error than Abbotts.
The stupid thing is neither of those were actually based on maths ability, neither person was presented sums they had to figure out to get the right answer. The problem was memory. Which is kind of funny that you have some right wingers laughing at her for not being good at numeracy and variations on that when they aren't even smart enough to figure out her memory was the issue in that incident.
I bet Diane could figure that out, she is a bit smarter than most of her critics in fairness...
OK, so she had an excuse in that she was ill with a long term condition that wasn't being well managed.
However...as with Rory Stewart, she got ridiculed because she had made a fool of herself.
Stewart has rehabilitated himself by not making silly errors since. The problem with Abbott is she keeps messing up, and has done over many years, which doesn't exactly suggest she is the right person to be Shadow Home Secretary.
And before anyone accuses me of partisanship, racism, sexism, Old Uncle Tom Cobbleighism and all, two words - Michael Gove.
Apologies 'ydoether', I messed up the quotes, but replying to you about RACISM:
Let me pivot from Diane and take the more general point that you raise.
If a 'person of colour' gets preferential treatment on account of it, it is not IMO racist to point this out.
For example(ish), when I watch a TV crime drama and there is just the one prominent black character in it, I know for a fact that he or she will NOT be the murderer.
Is it racist of me to simply share that with you people on here? No.
But if I continually go on and on and on about it - how PC diversity is just ruining decent television these days - how it's got to one of the very worst things about modern Britain - if, you know, I come over all rod liddle about it, then there's a very good chance that I am (like him) at least a teeny bit racist.
Tricky thing, racism, because it is prevalent yet no-one ever admits to it. If we did an 'are you racist?' survey it would return close to 0% yes - we would think the problem had gone away entirely.
Bit like (with men) 'are you a bad driver?' If we self-assessed that, there would not be any. Not even the Duke.
And yet, as we know, there are loads. Ditto racists.
And some of those racists are also bad drivers, I would imagine.
Any correlation? ... er, steady on! Stop typing now. Don't overdo it.
I just can't believe how dumb some of these people are.
At least we now see how he lost twice to a pseud like Boris.
Ken was actually a decent mayor in his first term, and only lost to Johnson after being mired in allegations of cronyism related to his Equalities (and Policing) Director Lee Jasper after a campaign in the Evening Standard by Andrew Gilligan.
Upon becoming mayor, Boris Johnson then appointed both Gilligan and the editor of the Evening Standard Victoria Wadley into official sinecures.
Livingstone’s true, anti-Semitic, pro-socialist dictatorship colours weren’t soooo obvious in 2008, except perhaps to long time Livingstone watchers.
Er ..... he had invited Al-Qaradawi to City Hall in 2004. And was pretty severely criticised by those who wondered what he was doing inviting a person with such views onto such a big stage. His views were out in the open while he was Mayor. His friendships with terrorists and appeasers and justifiers of terrorists was well known while he was in charge of the GLC.
Livingstone got in first time because his opponents was rubbish and because many voters wanted to cock a snook at Blair's attempts to control everything within Labour and because too many people fell for Ken's cheeky-but-basically-lovable rebel act. He always was a nasty piece of work and a weathervane, too, all too willing to suck up to money when it suited him. London is well rid of him.
Yes I am agreeing with you. But from memory, none of this really resonated with the man in the street and it was the Lee Jasper campaign by the Evening Standard that really dented him.
He always had a soft spot for dictators of various stripes.
One of the weird things I noted in his first term is that official GLA advertising would often carry an actual headshot of Ken, like something out of Cuba — and for a while they even adopted some weird 1930s totalitarian branding.
You know who else had some weird 1930s totalitarian branding...
This is going to be the very first digital civil emergency.
I am reminded of the London riots. Going into Twitter to get up-to-the minute reports I saw that the police had closed Lordship Lane (to Dulwich Village), to which someone had responded, “Does anyone know if this means my Waitrose delivery will still get through????”
There are 2 aspects to the DA thing that strike me. The first is the vile racist and sexist abuse she gets online, but there is precious little one can say about this other than what you say here - it's terrible and so are those who do it. All in their right minds agree.
The other thing is more insidious and (to me) subtle and interesting. The way that perfectly intelligent and balanced people (in most respects) will kind of compete to come up with the 'best' Diane Abbott joke on a regular basis - happens both online and out there in the land of the living. These gags will not ostensibly be racist or sexist or 'fatist' - not usually - will probably be about numbers - but the relentlessness of it and the tone in which it is purveyed is unpleasant.
IMO someone engaging in this very frequently has, as they say, 'questions to answer'. Not in the menacing way of that phrase, but to themselves - why are they doing it?
You have had plenty of footballers from the past talking about similar experiences, even aside from the overt racism there was always just extra demands on them and people will to pull them up twice as much over the slightest mistake, the crowd was never as forgiving with the Black players. It is why Diane gets claimed as some kind of moron who doesn't understand numbers and the idea successfully catches when she makes a single mistake on police numbers in the build up to the election.
I think it was around the same time Hammond underestimated HS2 by about £20B, a far bigger and more serious error than Abbotts.
The stupid thing is neither of those were actually based on maths ability, neither person was presented sums they had to figure out to get the right answer. The problem was memory. Which is kind of funny that you have some right wingers laughing at her for not being good at numeracy and variations on that when they aren't even smart enough to figure out her memory was the issue in that incident.
I bet Diane could figure that out, she is a bit smarter than most of her critics in fairness...
DA used to be quite smart and quick witted, but I think her health is not what it was, and this affects her work.
The question really in that subject is this. Did Diane Abbott get on the ballot ahead of McDonnell because she was a black woman and those last minute backers (e.g. David Miliband) wanted to show they weren't just a bunch of white blokes with policy wonk pasts? Because if so I don't see how it's racist to point it out. If she was on there to represent the left, as Corbyn was, that's a different matter, but then you're left with the awkward question of how he won so easily and she despite being a much stronger candidate came last.
Let me pivot from Diane and take the more general point that you raise.
If a 'person of colour' gets preferential treatment on account of it, it is not IMO racist to point this out.
For example(ish), when I watch a TV crime drama and there is just the one prominent black character in it, I know for a fact that he or she will NOT be the murderer.
Is it racist of me to simply share that with you people on here? No.
But if I continually go on and on and on about it - how PC diversity is just ruining decent television these days - how it's got to one of the very worst things about modern Britain - if, you know, I come over all rod liddle about it, then there's a very good chance that I am (like him) at least a teeny bit racist.
Tricky thing, racism, because it is prevalent yet no-one ever admits to it. If we did an 'are you racist?' survey it would return close to 0% yes - we would think the problem had gone away entirely.
Bit like (with men) 'are you a bad driver?' If we self-assessed that, there would not be any. Not even the Duke.
And yet, as we know, there are loads. Ditto racists.
And some of those racists are also bad drivers, I would imagine.
Any correlation? ... er, steady on! Stop typing now. Don't overdo it.
There are, as is well known, two sorts of male drivers.
There are useless numpties who shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, don't know the rules of the road, and aren't fit to pilot a scooter.
You have had plenty of footballers from the past talking about similar experiences, even aside from the overt racism there was always just extra demands on them and people will to pull them up twice as much over the slightest mistake, the crowd was never as forgiving with the Black players. It is why Diane gets claimed as some kind of moron who doesn't understand numbers and the idea successfully catches when she makes a single mistake on police numbers in the build up to the election.
I think it was around the same time Hammond underestimated HS2 by about £20B, a far bigger and more serious error than Abbotts.
The stupid thing is neither of those were actually based on maths ability, neither person was presented sums they had to figure out to get the right answer. The problem was memory. Which is kind of funny that you have some right wingers laughing at her for not being good at numeracy and variations on that when they aren't even smart enough to figure out her memory was the issue in that incident.
I bet Diane could figure that out, she is a bit smarter than most of her critics in fairness...
OK, so she had an excuse in that she was ill with a long term condition that wasn't being well managed.
However...as with Rory Stewart, she got ridiculed because she had made a fool of herself.
Stewart has rehabilitated himself by not making silly errors since. The problem with Abbott is she keeps messing up, and has done over many years, which doesn't exactly suggest she is the right person to be Shadow Home Secretary.
And before anyone accuses me of partisanship, racism, sexism, Old Uncle Tom Cobbleighism and all, two words - Michael Gove.
People make mistakes all the time, Hammond was many factors out further than Diane. The papers and others whip up against her more than Hammond partially because they are just right wing but it is her being Black that helps move the idea as well.
Until politics catches up more to the territory we have in football people like Diane will suffer, the good thing is people like Diane are the pioneers that make it easier for the next generation. She is an inspiration the way she takes all the jokes from racists, mild racists and those who should know better.
You have had plenty of footballers from the past talking about similar experiences, even aside from the overt racism there was always just extra demands on them and people will to pull them up twice as much over the slightest mistake, the crowd was never as forgiving with the Black players. It is why Diane gets claimed as some kind of moron who doesn't understand numbers and the idea successfully catches when she makes a single mistake on police numbers in the build up to the election.
I think it was around the same time Hammond underestimated HS2 by about £20B, a far bigger and more serious error than Abbotts.
The stupid thing is neither of those were actually based on maths ability, neither person was presented sums they had to figure out to get the right answer. The problem was memory. Which is kind of funny that you have some right wingers laughing at her for not being good at numeracy and variations on that when they aren't even smart enough to figure out her memory was the issue in that incident.
I bet Diane could figure that out, she is a bit smarter than most of her critics in fairness...
I do think that if you are presenting yourself as a possible Home Secretary it is incumbent on you to do the necessary presentation and hard work before going into an interview. She didn't and was rightly criticised. I did have some sympathy when I learnt that she was ill. But if she is not up to the job then it is fair enough to point it out. It is not necessary to be abusive in a racist or sexist manner in doing so.
She does not have a particularly simpatica personality - at least some of the time - though on Andrew Neil's show she could come across quite well, probably helped by having a very long-standing friendship with Michael Portillo with whom she was at school.
I don't think a huge amount of her abilities though on stuff like detention without trial she was very good indeed. But she certainly does not deserve the level of really quite horrible abuse she gets. She is not however the only person to get abuse and if you are going to complain about it (my choice would be to ignore) then you should make sure there are no beams in your own eyes before attacking others' motes.
The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and wea full ratification by the EU27 member states.
Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'oth parties decided it would be to their advantage.
The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The
We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.
If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
We are going to rejoin. Why would the terms be punitive? What even is the meaning of punitive in this context? A lot of people on this very forum object to things that others on it regard as benefits.
We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
You have had plenty of footballers from the past talking about similar experiences, even aside from the overt racism there was always just extra demands on them and people will to pull them up twice as much over the slightest mistake, the crowd was never as forgiving with the Black players. It is why Diane gets claimed as some kind of moron who doesn't understand numbers and the idea successfully catches when she makes a single mistake on police numbers in the build up to the election.
I think it was around the same time Hammond underestimated HS2 by about £20B, a far bigger and more serious error than Abbotts.
The stupid thing is neither of those were actually based on maths ability, neither person was presented sums they had to figure out to get the right answer. The problem was memory. Which is kind of funny that you have some right wingers laughing at her for not being good at numeracy and variations on that when they aren't even smart enough to figure out her memory was the issue in that incident.
I bet Diane could figure that out, she is a bit smarter than most of her critics in fairness...
OK, so she had an excuse in that she was ill with a long term condition that wasn't being well managed.
However...as with Rory Stewart, she got ridiculed because she had made a fool of herself.
Stewart has rehabilitated himself by not making silly errors since. The problem with Abbott is she keeps messing up, and has done over many years, which doesn't exactly suggest she is the right person to be Shadow Home Secretary.
And before anyone accuses me of partisanship, racism, sexism, Old Uncle Tom Cobbleighism and all, two words - Michael Gove.
People make mistakes all the time, Hammond was many factors out further than Diane. The papers and others whip up against her more than Hammond partially because they are just right wing but it is her being Black that helps move the idea as well.
Until politics catches up more to the territory we have in football people like Diane will suffer, the good thing is people like Diane are the pioneers that make it easier for the next generation. She is an inspiration the way she takes all the jokes from racists, mild racists and those who should know better.
While not disputing the errors Hammond made over HS2, which are disastrous, did Hammond give two directly contradictory figures within thirty seconds?
Apologies 'ydoether', I messed up the quotes, but replying to you about RACISM:
Let me pivot from Diane and take the more general point that you raise.
If a 'person of colour' gets preferential treatment on account of it, it is not IMO racist to point this out.
For example(ish), when I watch a TV crime drama and there is just the one prominent black character in it, I know for a fact that he or she will NOT be the murderer.
Is it racist of me to simply share that with you people on here? No.
But if I continually go on and on and on about it - how PC diversity is just ruining decent television these days - how it's got to one of the very worst things about modern Britain - if, you know, I come over all rod liddle about it, then there's a very good chance that I am (like him) at least a teeny bit racist.
Tricky thing, racism, because it is prevalent yet no-one ever admits to it. If we did an 'are you racist?' survey it would return close to 0% yes - we would think the problem had gone away entirely.
Bit like (with men) 'are you a bad driver?' If we self-assessed that, there would not be any. Not even the Duke.
And yet, as we know, there are loads. Ditto racists.
And some of those racists are also bad drivers, I would imagine.
Any correlation? ... er, steady on! Stop typing now. Don't overdo it.
To be fair, we all have prejudices. That's human. At one end, prejudice is harmless, at the other end, it's murderous.
I just can't believe how dumb some of these people are.
At least we now see how he lost twice to a pseud like Boris.
Ken was actually a decent mayor in his first term, and only lost to Johnson after being mired in allegations of cronyism related to his Equalities (and Policing) Director Lee Jasper after a campaign in the Evening Standard by Andrew Gilligan.
Upon becoming mayor, Boris Johnson then appointed both Gilligan and the editor of the Evening Standard Victoria Wadley into official sinecures.
Livingstone’s true, anti-Semitic, pro-socialist dictatorship colours weren’t soooo obvious in 2008, except perhaps to long time Livingstone watchers.
Er ..... he had invited Al-Qaradawi to City Hall in 2004. And was pretty severely criticised by those who wondered what he was doing inviting a person with such views onto such a big stage. His views were out in the open while he was Mayor. His friendships with terrorists and appeasers and justifiers of terrorists was well known while he was in charge of the GLC.
Livingstone got in first time because his opponents was rubbish and because many voters wanted to cock a snook at Blair's attempts to control everything within Labour and because too many people fell for Ken's cheeky-but-basically-lovable rebel act. He always was a nasty piece of work and a weathervane, too, all too willing to suck up to money when it suited him. London is well rid of him.
Yes I am agreeing with you. But from memory, none of this really resonated with the man in the street and it was the Lee Jasper campaign by the Evening Standard that really dented him.
He always had a soft spot for dictators of various stripes.
One of the weird things I noted in his first term is that official GLA advertising would often carry an actual headshot of Ken, like something out of Cuba — and for a while they even adopted some weird 1930s totalitarian branding.
Oh sure. Plus Boris - then - seemed jolly and positive. And Ken did not.
Apologies 'ydoether', I messed up the quotes, but replying to you about RACISM:
Let me pivot from Diane and take the more general point that you raise.
If a 'person of colour' gets preferential treatment on account of it, it is not IMO racist to point this out.
For example(ish), when I watch a TV crime drama and there is just the one prominent black character in it, I know for a fact that he or she will NOT be the murderer.
Is it racist of me to simply share that with you people on here? No.
But if I continually go on and on and on about it - how PC diversity is just ruining decent television these days - how it's got to one of the very worst things about modern Britain - if, you know, I come over all rod liddle about it, then there's a very good chance that I am (like him) at least a teeny bit racist.
Tricky thing, racism, because it is prevalent yet no-one ever admits to it. If we did an 'are you racist?' survey it would return close to 0% yes - we would think the problem had gone away entirely.
Bit like (with men) 'are you a bad driver?' If we self-assessed that, there would not be any. Not even the Duke.
And yet, as we know, there are loads. Ditto racists.
And some of those racists are also bad drivers, I would imagine.
Any correlation? ... er, steady on! Stop typing now. Don't overdo it.
I don't think that you are correct. In the current excellent colourblind version of Les Mis on Sunday, the two main villains of the story are played by BME actors, Javert and the Innkeeper. Both very well cast and played IMO.
As ever, playing the villain is more fun, but surely not the sort of "political correctness" that you cite.
Well, in an attempt to bring some sweetness and light and a topic other than B*****, you can see the nearest town to me in Cumbria beat Red Star Belgrade in the rugby.
The ocean on one side, mountains on the other and on a clear day you can see NI, the Isle of Man, across Morecambe Bay and into Scotland from the top of Black Combe.
The road over the fells from Gawthwaite to Grizebeck and down to Broughton looking across the estuary is, whatever the time of year, one of the most beautiful in all England.
Without a doubt. I very often end up around Loweswater and Ennerdale on work related matters. Stunningly beautiful and remote. But Millom is even remote to that, how remote do you have to be to for it to be acceptable to have an A classification road going through a farm yard?
I just can't believe how dumb some of these people are.
At least we now see how he lost twice to a pseud like Boris.
Ken was actually a decent mayor in his first term, and only lost to Johnson after being mired in allegations of cronyism related to his Equalities (and Policing) Director Lee Jasper after a campaign in the Evening Standard by Andrew Gilligan.
Upon becoming mayor, Boris Johnson then appointed both Gilligan and the editor of the Evening Standard Victoria Wadley into official sinecures.
Livingstone’s true, anti-Semitic, pro-socialist dictatorship colours weren’t soooo obvious in 2008, except perhaps to long time Livingstone watchers.
Er ..... he had invited Al-Qaradawi to City Hall in 2004. And was pretty severely criticised by those who wondered what he was doing inviting a person with such views onto such a big stage. His views were out in the open while he was Mayor. His friendships with terrorists and appeasers and justifiers of terrorists was well known while he was in charge of the GLC.
Livingstone got in first time because his opponents was rubbish and because many voters wanted to cock a snook at Blair's attempts to control everything within Labour and because too many people fell for Ken's cheeky-but-basically-lovable rebel act. He always was a nasty piece of work and a weathervane, too, all too willing to suck up to money when it suited him. London is well rid of him.
Yes I am agreeing with you. But from memory, none of this really resonated with the man in the street and it was the Lee Jasper campaign by the Evening Standard that really dented him.
He always had a soft spot for dictators of various stripes.
One of the weird things I noted in his first term is that official GLA advertising would often carry an actual headshot of Ken, like something out of Cuba — and for a while they even adopted some weird 1930s totalitarian branding.
Oh sure. Plus Boris - then - seemed jolly and positive. And Ken did not.
He also chimed with London's cosmopolitan, international and outward-looking culture..
Apologies 'ydoether', I messed up the quotes, but replying to you about RACISM:
Let me pivot from Diane and take the more general point that you raise.
If a 'person of colour' gets preferential treatment on account of it, it is not IMO racist to point this out.
For example(ish), when I watch a TV crime drama and there is just the one prominent black character in it, I know for a fact that he or she will NOT be the murderer.
Is it racist of me to simply share that with you people on here? No.
But if I continually go on and on and on about it - how PC diversity is just ruining decent television these days - how it's got to one of the very worst things about modern Britain - if, you know, I come over all rod liddle about it, then there's a very good chance that I am (like him) at least a teeny bit racist.
Tricky thing, racism, because it is prevalent yet no-one ever admits to it. If we did an 'are you racist?' survey it would return close to 0% yes - we would think the problem had gone away entirely.
Bit like (with men) 'are you a bad driver?' If we self-assessed that, there would not be any. Not even the Duke.
And yet, as we know, there are loads. Ditto racists.
And some of those racists are also bad drivers, I would imagine.
Any correlation? ... er, steady on! Stop typing now. Don't overdo it.
To be fair, we all have prejudices. That's human. At one end, prejudice is harmless, at the other end, it's murderous.
I'm not sure prejudice is 'harmless.' It can be not dangerous, which is different.
A sensible person knows their own prejudices and works to overcome them.
I just can't believe how dumb some of these people are.
At least we now see how he lost twice to a pseud like Boris.
Ken was actually a decent mayor in his first term, and only lost to Johnson after being mired in allegations of cronyism related to his Equalities (and Policing) Director Lee Jasper after a campaign in the Evening Standard by Andrew Gilligan.
Upon becoming mayor, Boris Johnson then appointed both Gilligan and the editor of the Evening Standard Victoria Wadley into official sinecures.
Livingstone’s true, anti-Semitic, pro-socialist dictatorship colours weren’t soooo obvious in 2008, except perhaps to long time Livingstone watchers.
Er ..... he had invited Al-Qaradawi to City Hall in 2004. And was pretty severely criticised by those who wondered what he was doing inviting a person with such views onto such a big stage. His views were out in the open while he was Mayor. His friendships with terrorists and appeasers and justifiers of terrorists was well known while he was in charge of the GLC.
Livingstone got in first time because his opponents was rubbish and because many voters wanted to cock a snook at Blair's attempts to control everything within Labour and because too many people fell for Ken's cheeky-but-basically-lovable rebel act. He always was a nasty piece of work and a weathervane, too, all too willing to suck up to money when it suited him. London is well rid of him.
Yes I am agreeing with you. But from memory, none of this really resonated with the man in the street and it was the Lee Jasper campaign by the Evening Standard that really dented him.
He always had a soft spot for dictators of various stripes.
One of the weird things I noted in his first term is that official GLA advertising would often carry an actual headshot of Ken, like something out of Cuba — and for a while they even adopted some weird 1930s totalitarian branding.
Oh sure. Plus Boris - then - seemed jolly and positive. And Ken did not.
He also chimed with London's cosmopolitan, international and outward-looking culture..
Was he conning us, or did he change?
Who is the real Boris Johnson? I’m not even sure Boris knows.
However he has a long term record of deceit and narcissism. To that extent, perhaps there is no *real* Boris; he is whatever you want him to be if he thinks it will serve his interests.
We are going to rejoin. Why would the terms be punitive? What even is the meaning of punitive in this context? A lot of people on this very forum object to things that others on it regard as benefits.
We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
It is quite extraordinary. The party of Mrs T - who worshipped business - is now behaving in a way that makes Labour seem sane on the question of business friendly environments.
Being sceptical (in the best senses of that word) about grand ideas and projects is one thing and can be healthy and necessary. But the euroscepticism of too many Tory MPs has morphed into an irrational hatred which will destroy their party and risks causing great harm to Britain. I find it very puzzling.
I do think that if you are presenting yourself as a possible Home Secretary it is incumbent on you to do the necessary presentation and hard work before going into an interview. She didn't and was rightly criticised. I did have some sympathy when I learnt that she was ill. But if she is not up to the job then it is fair enough to point it out. It is not necessary to be abusive in a racist or sexist manner in doing so.
She does not have a particularly simpatica personality - at least some of the time - though on Andrew Neil's show she could come across quite well, probably helped by having a very long-standing friendship with Michael Portillo with whom she was at school.
I don't think a huge amount of her abilities though on stuff like detention without trial she was very good indeed. But she certainly does not deserve the level of really quite horrible abuse she gets. She is not however the only person to get abuse and if you are going to complain about it (my choice would be to ignore) then you should make sure there are no beams in your own eyes before attacking others' motes.
I have no problem with valid criticism, getting figures wrong is validly worth criticising. I mean personally and to give an opposition example, Hammond being out by about 20B on the HS2 figure actually means nothing to me, remembering random figures (or failing to) isn't necessarily essential. If Hammond or Abbot could literally remember nothing then that might be a problem but forgetting some figures out of the many things they have to remember isn't a huge problem for me but I can fully understand why others would either think it was a big problem or would at least pretend to do so for political effect.
OK, so she had an excuse in that she was ill with a long term condition that wasn't being well managed.
However...as with Rory Stewart, she got ridiculed because she had made a fool of herself.
Stewart has rehabilitated himself by not making silly errors since. The problem with Abbott is she keeps messing up, and has done over many years, which doesn't exactly suggest she is the right person to be Shadow Home Secretary.
And before anyone accuses me of partisanship, racism, sexism, Old Uncle Tom Cobbleighism and all, two words - Michael Gove.
People make mistakes all the time, Hammond was many factors out further than Diane. The papers and others whip up against her more than Hammond partially because they are just right wing but it is her being Black that helps move the idea as well.
Until politics catches up more to the territory we have in football people like Diane will suffer, the good thing is people like Diane are the pioneers that make it easier for the next generation. She is an inspiration the way she takes all the jokes from racists, mild racists and those who should know better.
While not disputing the errors Hammond made over HS2, which are disastrous, did Hammond give two directly contradictory figures within thirty seconds?
Is that really more disastrous?
I mean as in my above post neither actually matter that much as the worst that would happen in reality is Hammond or Abbot would leave the interview and find out they were wrong (if the interviewer didn't correct them)
To take the Hammond example we weren't actually going to be £20B off on funding it, he just got the figure wrong in an interview.
Whilst there is something to be said for being sharp in interviews I've never been sure it is the key thing.
The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and wea full ratification by the EU27 member states.
Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'oth parties decided it would be to their advantage.
The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The
We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.
If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
We are going to rejoin. Why would the terms be punitive? What even is the meaning of punitive in this context? A lot of people on this very forum object to things that others on it regard as benefits.
We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
I don't view the Conservatives as a death cult, though some MP's are plainly mad. But, if you have capital, and your main priority is to keep it, it's clear how you should vote.
Well, in an attempt to bring some sweetness and light and a topic other than B*****, you can see the nearest town to me in Cumbria beat Red Star Belgrade in the rugby.
The ocean on one side, mountains on the other and on a clear day you can see NI, the Isle of Man, across Morecambe Bay and into Scotland from the top of Black Combe.
The road over the fells from Gawthwaite to Grizebeck and down to Broughton looking across the estuary is, whatever the time of year, one of the most beautiful in all England.
Without a doubt. I very often end up around Loweswater and Ennerdale on work related matters. Stunningly beautiful and remote. But Millom is even remote to that, how remote do you have to be to for it to be acceptable to have an A classification road going through a farm yard?
And what's wrong with that, eh?
I love remote places. Millom and the area around it reminds me in many ways of the Ireland of my childhood, though the mountains are much nicer in Cumbria. Still Millom is not so remote as all that: it has a very good Comedy Club which gets all the pre-tours of comics - at a fraction of the cost and in a much nicer ambience.
And it has one recent claim to fame - or infamy. It was Trudy Harrison's victory in the constituency in 2016 which resulted in Mrs May visiting the main square in Millom to celebrate. We all know what the hubris from that victory led to .......
What sort of work brings you to the Lakes, if you don't mind me asking?
OK, so she had an excuse in that she was ill with a long term condition that wasn't being well managed.
However...as with Rory Stewart, she got ridiculed because she had made a fool of herself.
Stewart has rehabilitated himself by not making silly errors since. The problem with Abbott is she keeps messing up, and has done over many years, which doesn't exactly suggest she is the right person to be Shadow Home Secretary.
And before anyone accuses me of partisanship, racism, sexism, Old Uncle Tom Cobbleighism and all, two words - Michael Gove.
People make mistakes all the time, Hammond was many factors out further than Diane. The papers and others whip up against her more than Hammond partially because they are just right wing but it is her being Black that helps move the idea as well.
Until politics catches up more to the territory we have in football people like Diane will suffer, the good thing is people like Diane are the pioneers that make it easier for the next generation. She is an inspiration the way she takes all the jokes from racists, mild racists and those who should know better.
While not disputing the errors Hammond made over HS2, which are disastrous, did Hammond give two directly contradictory figures within thirty seconds?
Is that really more disastrous?
I mean as in my above post neither actually matter that much as the worst that would happen in reality is Hammond or Abbot would leave the interview and find out they were wrong (if the interviewer didn't correct them)
To take the Hammond example we weren't actually going to be £20B off on funding it, he just got the figure wrong in an interview.
Whilst there is something to be said for being sharp in interviews I've never been sure it is the key thing.
Er ..... he had invited Al-Qaradawi to City Hall in 2004. And was pretty severely criticised by those who wondered what he was doing inviting a person with such views onto such a big stage. His views were out in the open while he was Mayor. His friendships with terrorists and appeasers and justifiers of terrorists was well known while he was in charge of the GLC.
Livingstone got in first time because his opponents was rubbish and because many voters wanted to cock a snook at Blair's attempts to control everything within Labour and because too many people fell for Ken's cheeky-but-basically-lovable rebel act. He always was a nasty piece of work and a weathervane, too, all too willing to suck up to money when it suited him. London is well rid of him.
He was a capable Mayor. Skilled with the politics and both creative and pragmatic on policy. Above average in this regard.
Apologies 'ydoether', I messed up the quotes, but replying to you about RACISM:
Let me pivot from Diane and take the more general point that you raise.
If a 'person of colour' gets preferential treatment on account of it, it is not IMO racist to point this out.
For example(ish), when I watch a TV crime drama and there is just the one prominent black character in it, I know for a fact that he or she will NOT be the murderer.
Is it racist of me to simply share that with you people on here? No.
But if I continually go on and on and on about it - how PC diversity is just ruining decent television these days - how it's got to one of the very worst things about modern Britain - if, you know, I come over all rod liddle about it, then there's a very good chance that I am (like him) at least a teeny bit racist.
Tricky thing, racism, because it is prevalent yet no-one ever admits to it. If we did an 'are you racist?' survey it would return close to 0% yes - we would think the problem had gone away entirely.
Bit like (with men) 'are you a bad driver?' If we self-assessed that, there would not be any. Not even the Duke.
And yet, as we know, there are loads. Ditto racists.
And some of those racists are also bad drivers, I would imagine.
Any correlation? ... er, steady on! Stop typing now. Don't overdo it.
I don't think that you are correct. In the current excellent colourblind version of Les Mis on Sunday, the two main villains of the story are played by BME actors, Javert and the Innkeeper. Both very well cast and played IMO.
As ever, playing the villain is more fun, but surely not the sort of "political correctness" that you cite.
Playing the villain is best. I loved being Herod in nativity plays.
The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and wea full ratification by the EU27 member states.
Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'oth parties decided it would be to their advantage.
The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The
We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.
If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
We are going to rejoin. Why would the terms be punitive? What even is the meaning of punitive in this context? A lot of people on this very forum object to things that others on it regard as benefits.
We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
I don't view the Conservatives as a death cult, though some MP's are plainly mad. But, if you have capital, and your main priority is to keep it, it's clear how you should vote.
It really isn’t clear at all. The Conservatives’ top priority and new shibboleth is actively in conflict with capitalism now. That doesn’t look like ending any time soon.
I just can't believe how dumb some of these people are.
At least we now see how he lost twice to a pseud like Boris.
Ken was actually a decent mayor in his first term, and only lost to Johnson after being mired in allegations of cronyism related to his Equalities (and Policing) Director Lee Jasper after a campaign in the Evening Standard by Andrew Gilligan.
Upon becoming mayor, Boris Johnson then appointed both Gilligan and the editor of the Evening Standard Victoria Wadley into official sinecures.
Livingstone’s true, anti-Semitic, pro-socialist dictatorship colours weren’t soooo obvious in 2008, except perhaps to long time Livingstone watchers.
Er ..... he had invited Al-Qaradawi to City Hall in 2004. And was pretty severely criticised by those who wondered what he was doing inviting a person with such views onto such a big stage. His views were out in the open while he was Mayor. His friendships with terrorists and appeasers and justifiers of terrorists was well known while he was in charge of the GLC.
Livingstone got in first time because his opponents was rubbish and because many voters wanted to cock a snook at Blair's attempts to control everything within Labour and because too many people fell for Ken's cheeky-but-basically-lovable rebel act. He always was a nasty piece of work and a weathervane, too, all too willing to suck up to money when it suited him. London is well rid of him.
Yes I am agreeing with you. But from memory, none of this really resonated with the man in the street and it was the Lee Jasper campaign by the Evening Standard that really dented him.
He always had a soft spot for dictators of various stripes.
One of the weird things I noted in his first term is that official GLA advertising would often carry an actual headshot of Ken, like something out of Cuba — and for a while they even adopted some weird 1930s totalitarian branding.
Oh sure. Plus Boris - then - seemed jolly and positive. And Ken did not.
He also chimed with London's cosmopolitan, international and outward-looking culture..
Was he conning us, or did he change?
I believe you are after '2nd letter Boris' who needed to be killed in pursuit of the leadership.
Well, in an attempt to bring some sweetness and light and a topic other than B*****, you can see the nearest town to me in Cumbria beat Red Star Belgrade in the rugby.
The ocean on one side, mountains on the other and on a clear day you can see NI, the Isle of Man, across Morecambe Bay and into Scotland from the top of Black Combe.
The road over the fells from Gawthwaite to Grizebeck and down to Broughton looking across the estuary is, whatever the time of year, one of the most beautiful in all England.
Without a doubt. I very often end up around Loweswater and Ennerdale on work related matters. Stunningly beautiful and remote. But Millom is even remote to that, how remote do you have to be to for it to be acceptable to have an A classification road going through a farm yard?
And what's wrong with that, eh?
I love remote places. Millom and the area around it reminds me in many ways of the Ireland of my childhood, though the mountains are much nicer in Cumbria. Still Millom is not so remote as all that: it has a very good Comedy Club which gets all the pre-tours of comics - at a fraction of the cost and in a much nicer ambience.
And it has one recent claim to fame - or infamy. It was Trudy Harrison's victory in the constituency in 2016 which resulted in Mrs May visiting the main square in Millom to celebrate. We all know what the hubris from that victory led to .......
What sort of work brings you to the Lakes, if you don't mind me asking?
I have a special fondness for Nidderdale, near Pateley Bridge, which is way off the beaten track.
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
I don't view the Conservatives as a death cult, though some MP's are plainly mad. But, if you have capital, and your main priority is to keep it, it's clear how you should vote.
I think, with respect, you are being a touch complacent. We are reading in the papers of possible martial law - in Britain, for God's sake - of the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, which permits the confiscation of assets, of companies planning to move out of Britain if there is a No Deal exit. God knows what this means for the value of the pound, for jobs, for prospects. There is more than one way of losing capital.
On The Food Programme on Radio 4 today, there was someone running a veg basket business who said that he was very worried indeed about No Deal - because if the disruption lasted more than a few days, his business would be in serious difficulties and much longer than that and he would be in breach of banking covenants. So he faces potential ruin. It is not at all clear that someone like him would view the Tories as being the party helping him preserve his capital.
Well, in an attempt to bring some sweetness and light and a topic other than B*****, you can see the nearest town to me in Cumbria beat Red Star Belgrade in the rugby.
The ocean on one side, mountains on the other and on a clear day you can see NI, the Isle of Man, across Morecambe Bay and into Scotland from the top of Black Combe.
The road over the fells from Gawthwaite to Grizebeck and down to Broughton looking across the estuary is, whatever the time of year, one of the most beautiful in all England.
Without a doubt. I very often end up around Loweswater and Ennerdale on work related matters. Stunningly beautiful and remote. But Millom is even remote to that, how remote do you have to be to for it to be acceptable to have an A classification road going through a farm yard?
And what's wrong with that, eh?
I love remote places. Millom and the area around it reminds me in many ways of the Ireland of my childhood, though the mountains are much nicer in Cumbria. Still Millom is not so remote as all that: it has a very good Comedy Club which gets all the pre-tours of comics - at a fraction of the cost and in a much nicer ambience.
And it has one recent claim to fame - or infamy. It was Trudy Harrison's victory in the constituency in 2016 which resulted in Mrs May visiting the main square in Millom to celebrate. We all know what the hubris from that victory led to .......
What sort of work brings you to the Lakes, if you don't mind me asking?
Very close to a "Conservatives take Bootle"... headline
Apologies 'ydoether', I messed up the quotes, but replying to you about RACISM:
Let me pivot from Diane and take the more general point that you raise.
If a 'person of colour' gets preferential treatment on account of it, it is not IMO racist to point this out.
For example(ish), when I watch a TV crime drama and there is just the one prominent black character in it, I know for a fact that he or she will NOT be the murderer.
Is it racist of me to simply share that with you people on here? No.
But if I continually go on and on and on about it - how PC diversity is just ruining decent television these days - how it's got to one of the very worst things about modern Britain - if, you know, I come over all rod liddle about it, then there's a very good chance that I am (like him) at least a teeny bit racist.
Tricky thing, racism, because it is prevalent yet no-one ever admits to it. If we did an 'are you racist?' survey it would return close to 0% yes - we would think the problem had gone away entirely.
Bit like (with men) 'are you a bad driver?' If we self-assessed that, there would not be any. Not even the Duke.
And yet, as we know, there are loads. Ditto racists.
And some of those racists are also bad drivers, I would imagine.
Any correlation? ... er, steady on! Stop typing now. Don't overdo it.
I don't think that you are correct. In the current excellent colourblind version of Les Mis on Sunday, the two main villains of the story are played by BME actors, Javert and the Innkeeper. Both very well cast and played IMO.
As ever, playing the villain is more fun, but surely not the sort of "political correctness" that you cite.
Interesting. I've never viewed Javert as any more of a villain than Valjean - his job is to catch criminals, and he's doing it to the best of his ability. I'm not sure the current adaptation portrays him in a less favourable light. Marius' grandfather, on the other hand, seems to be getting a right kicking that I don't recall from the book.
The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and wea full ratification by the EU27 member states.
Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'oth parties decided it would be to their advantage.
The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The
We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.
If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
We are going
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
I don't view the Conservatives as a death cult, though some MP's are plainly mad. But, if you have capital, and your main priority is to keep it, it's clear how you should vote.
It really isn’t clear at all. The Conservatives’ top priority and new shibboleth is actively in conflict with capitalism now. That doesn’t look like ending any time soon.
The Tories have bet the farm on austerity and Brexit. They have forgotten that Thatcher’s Tories won three elections as the party of aspiration.
In other news, if I were a member of the Maduro cabinet I would right now be on my way to Bolivia or Mexico where I could live with the vast sums of money that the good Socialists have embezzled amassed in the name of the people:
Venezuela crisis: Diplomat to US defects from Maduro
If Maduro's authority is so far shot he can't even break off diplomatic relations and has to back down, and the army are beginning to slip away, it's pretty much game over for him.
They don’t embezzle. They hold it in trust for the people and use it at their discretion to further the welfare of people
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
I don't view the Conservatives as a death cult, though some MP's are plainly mad. But, if you have capital, and your main priority is to keep it, it's clear how you should vote.
I think, with respect, you are being a touch complacent. We are reading in the papers of possible martial law - in Britain, for God's sake - of the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, which permits the confiscation of assets, of companies planning to move out of Britain if there is a No Deal exit. God knows what this means for the value of the pound, for jobs, for prospects. There is more than one way of losing capital.
On The Food Programme on Radio 4 today, there was someone running a veg basket business who said that he was very worried indeed about No Deal - because if the disruption lasted more than a few days, his business would be in serious difficulties and much longer than that and he would be in breach of banking covenants. So he faces potential ruin. It is not at all clear that someone like him would view the Tories as being the party helping him preserve his capital.
The sociologically interesting point is that the Tories now seem to be full of people who don’t actually understand business at all.
Most businessmen and women wouldn’t put all their money into unicorns.
Well, in an attempt to bring some sweetness and light and a topic other than B*****, you can see the nearest town to me in Cumbria beat Red Star Belgrade in the rugby.
While not disputing the errors Hammond made over HS2, which are disastrous, did Hammond give two directly contradictory figures within thirty seconds?
Is that really more disastrous?
I mean as in my above post neither actually matter that much as the worst that would happen in reality is Hammond or Abbot would leave the interview and find out they were wrong (if the interviewer didn't correct them)
To take the Hammond example we weren't actually going to be £20B off on funding it, he just got the figure wrong in an interview.
Whilst there is something to be said for being sharp in interviews I've never been sure it is the key thing.
Yes. Because it shows it wasn't a slip of memory.
If you are talking about the first interview on the video you displayed* then she says I think it is about 50 seats he says it is 125 and then she says it was 100 last time I saw but it is an evolving situation.
Without knowing what she's is actually thinking there could be lots of reasons for this one of which could be a slip of memory, if you have seen a figure (of 100) but can't remember the interviewer giving a figure could trigger your memory.
*which is quite amusing as this first interview had nothing to do with calculations but for some reason the video had a calculator. These right wing racist types are so thick they don't even understand that, quite amusing they claim Abbot is thick when you think about it....
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
I don't view the Conservatives as a death cult, though some MP's are plainly mad. But, if you have capital, and your main priority is to keep it, it's clear how you should vote.
I think, with respect, you are being a touch complacent. We are reading in the papers of possible martial law - in Britain, for God's sake - of the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, which permits the confiscation of assets, of companies planning to move out of Britain if there is a No Deal exit. God knows what this means for the value of the pound, for jobs, for prospects. There is more than one way of losing capital.
On The Food Programme on Radio 4 today, there was someone running a veg basket business who said that he was very worried indeed about No Deal - because if the disruption lasted more than a few days, his business would be in serious difficulties and much longer than that and he would be in breach of banking covenants. So he faces potential ruin. It is not at all clear that someone like him would view the Tories as being the party helping him preserve his capital.
The sociologically interesting point is that the Tories now seem to be full of people who don’t actually understand business at all.
Most businessmen and women wouldn’t put all their money into unicorns.
I don't know, unicorns sound like a damn good investment to me.
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
I don't view the Conservatives as a death cult, though some MP's are plainly mad. But, if you have capital, and your main priority is to keep it, it's clear how you should vote.
I think, with respect, you are being a touch complacent. We are reading in the papers of possible martial law - in Britain, for God's sake - of the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, which permits the confiscation of assets, of companies planning to move out of Britain if there is a No Deal exit. God knows what this means for the value of the pound, for jobs, for prospects. There is more than one way of losing capital.
On The Food Programme on Radio 4 today, there was someone running a veg basket business who said that he was very worried indeed about No Deal - because if the disruption lasted more than a few days, his business would be in serious difficulties and much longer than that and he would be in breach of banking covenants. So he faces potential ruin. It is not at all clear that someone like him would view the Tories as being the party helping him preserve his capital.
The sociologically interesting point is that the Tories now seem to be full of people who don’t actually understand business at all.
Most businessmen and women wouldn’t put all their money into unicorns.
Point out that a majority of Conservative MPs backed the Withdrawal Agreement.
Apologies 'ydoether', I messed up the quotes, but replying to you about RACISM:
Let me pivot from Diane and take the more general point that you raise.
If a 'person of colour' gets preferential treatment on account of it, it is not IMO racist to point this out.
For example(ish), when I watch a TV crime drama and there is just the one prominent black character in it, I know for a fact that he or she will NOT be the murderer.
Is it racist of me to simply share that with you people on here? No.
But if I continually go on and on and on about it - how PC diversity is just ruining decent television these days - how it's got to one of the very worst things about modern Britain - if, you know, I come over all rod liddle about it, then there's a very good chance that I am (like him) at least a teeny bit racist.
Tricky thing, racism, because it is prevalent yet no-one ever admits to it. If we did an 'are you racist?' survey it would return close to 0% yes - we would think the problem had gone away entirely.
Bit like (with men) 'are you a bad driver?' If we self-assessed that, there would not be any. Not even the Duke.
And yet, as we know, there are loads. Ditto racists.
And some of those racists are also bad drivers, I would imagine.
Any correlation? ... er, steady on! Stop typing now. Don't overdo it.
I don't think that you are correct. In the current excellent colourblind version of Les Mis on Sunday, the two main villains of the story are played by BME actors, Javert and the Innkeeper. Both very well cast and played IMO.
As ever, playing the villain is more fun, but surely not the sort of "political correctness" that you cite.
Interesting. I've never viewed Javert as any more of a villain than Valjean - his job is to catch criminals, and he's doing it to the best of his ability. I'm not sure the current adaptation portrays him in a less favourable light. Marius' grandfather, on the other hand, seems to be getting a right kicking that I don't recall from the book.
The story of Valjean is one of repentance and redemption, with Inspector Javert as the unforgiving past that keeps re-appearing. In the end Javert cannot cope when Valjean demonstrates his reformed heart by sparing him.
While not disputing the errors Hammond made over HS2, which are disastrous, did Hammond give two directly contradictory figures within thirty seconds?
Is that really more disastrous?
I mean as in my above post neither actually matter that much as the worst that would happen in reality is Hammond or Abbot would leave the interview and find out they were wrong (if the interviewer didn't correct them)
To take the Hammond example we weren't actually going to be £20B off on funding it, he just got the figure wrong in an interview.
Whilst there is something to be said for being sharp in interviews I've never been sure it is the key thing.
Yes. Because it shows it wasn't a slip of memory.
If you are talking about the first interview on the video you displayed* then she says I think it is about 50 seats he says it is 125 and then she says it was 100 last time I saw but it is an evolving situation.
Without knowing what she's is actually thinking there could be lots of reasons for this one of which could be a slip of memory, if you have seen a figure (of 100) but can't remember the interviewer giving a figure could trigger your memory.
*which is quite amusing as this first interview had nothing to do with calculations but for some reason the video had a calculator. These right wing racist types are so thick they don't even understand that, quite amusing they claim Abbot is thick when you think about it....
The point is she does it too often. Anyone can make a mistake. That's allowed. She simply plucks figures from the air and doesn't even try to reconcile them. (Epitaph for Corbynism?)
And even Have I Got News For You showed that clip as 'Abbott making another error with numbers.'
The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and wea full ratification by the EU27 member states.
Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'oth parties decided it would be to their advantage.
The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The
We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.
If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
We are going
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
I don't view the Conservatives as a death cult, though some MP's are plainly mad. But, if you have capital, and your main priority is to keep it, it's clear how you should vote.
It really isn’t clear at all. The Conservatives’ top priority and new shibboleth is actively in conflict with capitalism now. That doesn’t look like ending any time soon.
The Tories have bet the farm on austerity and Brexit. They have forgotten that Thatcher’s Tories won three elections as the party of aspiration.
And outside of the police and local authorities 'austerity' was a marketing gimmick.
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
I don't view the Conservatives as a death cult, though some MP's are plainly mad. But, if you have capital, and your main priority is to keep it, it's clear how you should vote.
I think, with respect, you are being a touch complacent. We are reading in the papers of possible martial law - in Britain, for God's sake - of the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, which permits the confiscation of assets, of companies planning to move out of Britain if there is a No Deal exit. God knows what this means for the value of the pound, for jobs, for prospects. There is more than one way of losing capital.
On The Food Programme on Radio 4 today, there was someone running a veg basket business who said that he was very worried indeed about No Deal - because if the disruption lasted more than a few days, his business would be in serious difficulties and much longer than that and he would be in breach of banking covenants. So he faces potential ruin. It is not at all clear that someone like him would view the Tories as being the party helping him preserve his capital.
The sociologically interesting point is that the Tories now seem to be full of people who don’t actually understand business at all.
Most businessmen and women wouldn’t put all their money into unicorns.
I don't know, unicorns sound like a damn good investment to me.
I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.
Hmm.
BuU?
If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
ed.
The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and wea full ratification by the EU27 member states.
Yage.
The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opn the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.
If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
We are going to rejoin. Why would the terms be punitive? What even is the meaning of punitive in this context? A lot of people on this very forum object to things that others on it regard as benefits.
We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
So we hear, but it we heard the same about die hard ideological socialists in the Labour Party in the eighties. But it turned out they were flexible enough to shift to a more elector friendly position when the right leader turned up. And try the thought experiment of how a narrow remain win would have affected the Tories under Cameron. I have a feeling a lot of them would have decided that the EU was not so bad after all.
The Vicar of Bray would be at home in both the main parties.
Apologies 'ydoether', I messed up the quotes, but replying to you about RACISM:
Let me pivot from Diane and take the more general point that you raise.
If a 'person of colour' gets preferential treatment on account of it, it is not IMO racist to point this out.
For example(ish), when I watch a TV crime drama and there is just the one prominent black character in it, I know for a fact that he or she will NOT be the murderer.
Is it racist of me to simply share that with you people on here? No.
But if I continually go on and on and on about it - how PC diversity is just ruining decent television these days - how it's got to one of the very worst things about modern Britain - if, you know, I come over all rod liddle about it, then there's a very good chance that I am (like him) at least a teeny bit racist.
Tricky thing, racism, because it is prevalent yet no-one ever admits to it. If we did an 'are you racist?' survey it would return close to 0% yes - we would think the problem had gone away entirely.
Bit like (with men) 'are you a bad driver?' If we self-assessed that, there would not be any. Not even the Duke.
And yet, as we know, there are loads. Ditto racists.
And some of those racists are also bad drivers, I would imagine.
Any correlation? ... er, steady on! Stop typing now. Don't overdo it.
I don't think that you are correct. In the current excellent colourblind version of Les Mis on Sunday, the two main villains of the story are played by BME actors, Javert and the Innkeeper. Both very well cast and played IMO.
As ever, playing the villain is more fun, but surely not the sort of "political correctness" that you cite.
Interesting. I've never viewed Javert as any more of a villain than Valjean - his job is to catch criminals, and he's doing it to the best of his ability. I'm not sure the current adaptation portrays him in a less favourable light. Marius' grandfather, on the other hand, seems to be getting a right kicking that I don't recall from the book.
The story of Valjean is one of repentance and redemption, with Inspector Javert as the unforgiving past that keeps re-appearing. In the end Javert cannot cope when Valjean demonstrates his reformed heart by sparing him.
The villain is the system though surely, not its representative? Hugo is having a go at a system that destroys a man's life for trying to feed his starving family and won't let him back into society even after serving his sentence, continually pushing him back towards crime. The whole point is that all men have good inside them but circumstances force them to behave like animals, ergo something about socialism.
The other thing is more insidious and (to me) subtle and interesting. The way that perfectly intelligent and balanced people (in most respects) will kind of compete to come up with the 'best' Diane Abbott joke on a regular basis - happens both online and out there in the land of the living. These gags will not ostensibly be racist or sexist or 'fatist' - not usually - will probably be about numbers - but the relentlessness of it and the tone in which it is purveyed is unpleasant.
IMO someone engaging in this very frequently has, as they say, 'questions to answer'. Not in the menacing way of that phrase, but to themselves - why are they doing it?
You have had plenty of footballers from the past talking about similar experiences, even aside from the overt racism there was always just extra demands on them and people will to pull them up twice as much over the slightest mistake, the crowd was never as forgiving with the Black players. It is why Diane gets claimed as some kind of moron who doesn't understand numbers and the idea successfully catches when she makes a single mistake on police numbers in the build up to the election.
I think it was around the same time Hammond underestimated HS2 by about £20B, a far bigger and more serious error than Abbotts.
The stupid thing is neither of those were actually based on maths ability, neither person was presented sums they had to figure out to get the right answer. The problem was memory. Which is kind of funny that you have some right wingers laughing at her for not being good at numeracy and variations on that when they aren't even smart enough to figure out her memory was the issue in that incident.
I bet Diane could figure that out, she is a bit smarter than most of her critics in fairness...
OK, so she had an excuse in that she was ill with a long term condition that wasn't being well managed.
However...as with Rory Stewart, she got ridiculed because she had made a fool of herself.
Stewart has rehabilitated himself by not making silly errors since. The problem with Abbott is she keeps messing up, and has done over many years, which doesn't exactly suggest she is the right person to be Shadow Home Secretary.
And before anyone accuses me of partisanship, racism, sexism, Old Uncle Tom Cobbleighism and all, two words - Michael Gove.
Abbott made a stupid mistake (she said £300k instead of £300m) but it’s pretty meaningless - she then got frazzled under pressure. It’s a bit embarrassing for a senior politician but about the level of not knowing the price of a pint of milk
The eurosceptics are the root and marrow of the Conservative Party. You might just as well wish for the removal of monarchists or capitalists from the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptocs are driving the capitalists out. “Fuck business” takes precedence now and the capitalists have noticed.
Capitalists will always be Conservative, until a more capitalistic party turns up.
Because of Brexit, the Conservative party is turning into a party of centralised state planning and surly populism as it determines the exonomy’s needs sector by sector for immigrants, sabotages supply lines and party talking heads queue up to denounce business leaders who make inconvenient announcements that show Brexit in a poor light. No wonder donors are sitting on their hands. They’re not going to hang about as the death cult gets ever more maniacal.
I don't view the Conservatives as a death cult, though some MP's are plainly mad. But, if you have capital, and your main priority is to keep it, it's clear how you should vote.
Iital.
The sociologically interesting point is that the Tories now seem to be full of people who don’t actually understand business at all.
Most businessmen and women wouldn’t put all their money into unicorns.
Point out that a majority of Conservative MPs backed the Withdrawal Agreement.
The Tories cutting through are May, Rees-Mogg, and Johnson in that order. And we know that the next Tory leader must be a hard Brexiter - maybe even a no deal Brexiter - because of what is now a rabid party membership.
The Tory brand is Ratnered for anyone under the age of 50. (I would argue that Labour’s brand is less tarnished and has every chance of recovery post Corbyn).
The other thing is more insidious and (to me) subtle and interesting. The way that perfectly intelligent and balanced people (in most respects) will kind of compete to come up with the 'best' Diane Abbott joke on a regular basis - happens both online and out there in the land of the living. These gags will not ostensibly be racist or sexist or 'fatist' - not usually - will probably be about numbers - but the relentlessness of it and the tone in which it is purveyed is unpleasant.
IMO someone engaging in this very frequently has, as they say, 'questions to answer'. Not in the menacing way of that phrase, but to themselves - why are they doing it?
You have had plenty of footballers from the past talking about similar experiences, even aside from the overt racism there was always just extra demands on them and people will to pull them up twice as much over the slightest mistake, the crowd was never as forgiving with the Black players. It is why Diane gets claimed as some kind of moron who doesn't understand numbers and the idea successfully catches when she makes a single mistake on police numbers in the build up to the election.
I think it was around the same time Hammond underestimated HS2 by about £20B, a far bigger and more serious error than Abbotts.
The stupid thing is neither of those were actually based on maths ability, neither person was presented sums they had to figure out to get the right answer. The problem was memory. Which is kind of funny that you have some right wingers laughing at her for not being good at numeracy and variations on that when they aren't even smart enough to figure out her memory was the issue in that incident.
I bet Diane could figure that out, she is a bit smarter than most of her critics in fairness...
OK, so she had an excuse in that she was ill with a long term condition that wasn't being well managed.
However...as with Rory Stewart, she got ridiculed because she had made a fool of herself.
Stewart has rehabilitated himself by not making silly errors since. The problem with Abbott is she keeps messing up, and has done over many years, which doesn't exactly suggest she is the right person to be Shadow Home Secretary.
And before anyone accuses me of partisanship, racism, sexism, Old Uncle Tom Cobbleighism and all, two words - Michael Gove.
Abbott made a stupid mistake (she said £300k instead of £300m) but it’s pretty meaningless - she then got frazzled under pressure. It’s a bit embarrassing for a senior politician but about the level of not knowing the price of a pint of milk
Comments
embezzledamassed in the name of the people:Venezuela crisis: Diplomat to US defects from Maduro
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-47019347
If Maduro's authority is so far shot he can't even break off diplomatic relations and has to back down, and the army are beginning to slip away, it's pretty much game over for him.
* You cannot simultaneously a) sue Ireland for keeping the border open, and b) insist that the border be kept open.
* I do not know the WTO implications of a EU border between Ireland and the European mainland (what Andrew Lilico refers to as a "Celtic Sea" border) are with respect to Ireland.
* I do not know what the WTO implications of UK keeping the Ni/Ire border open.
Personally I think we should Gordian Knot it, close the border and build a big wall with mines and Aliens Sentry guns, and just cope with it. "Take control" means exactly that.
All it seems to indicate is that Labour MPs did not take him seriously.
But they might respond with "UK is doing that too". But in turn that might not affect the WTO decision, since "He started it!" is not necessarily a valid legal argument.
The question really in that subject is this. Did Diane Abbott get on the ballot ahead of McDonnell because she was a black woman and those last minute backers (e.g. David Miliband) wanted to show they weren't just a bunch of white blokes with policy wonk pasts? Because if so I don't see how it's racist to point it out. If she was on there to represent the left, as Corbyn was, that's a different matter, but then you're left with the awkward question of how he won so easily and she despite being a much stronger candidate came last.
https://twitter.com/GilesUdy/status/892460022772510721
At least we now see how he lost twice to a pseud like Boris.
Ah I replied on PT, so will copy over too.
There are 2 aspects to the DA thing that strike me. The first is the vile racist and sexist abuse she gets online, but there is precious little one can say about this other than what you say here - it's terrible and so are those who do it. All in their right minds agree.
The other thing is more insidious and (to me) subtle and interesting. The way that perfectly intelligent and balanced people (in most respects) will kind of compete to come up with the 'best' Diane Abbott joke on a regular basis - happens both online and out there in the land of the living. These gags will not ostensibly be racist or sexist or 'fatist' - not usually - will probably be about numbers - but the relentlessness of it and the tone in which it is purveyed is unpleasant.
IMO someone engaging in this very frequently has, as they say, 'questions to answer'. Not in the menacing way of that phrase, but to themselves - why are they doing it?
The system was 1/3 each of the electoral college. Also Diane is a little more divisive on the left because of sending her child to private school (although I don't share the criticism she lives with the system, she doesn't make it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election#Results
Indeed, she came third - admittedly a poor third - in that category. She was plumb last in both the others.
Edit - you do of course make a good point about the changed system I should have thought of, but she would still have been second last with the new system. Another valid comment would be however that 2015 was an unimpressive field compared to the one in 2010.
Edit: these allegations came to naught after detailed investigation.
Upon becoming mayor, Boris Johnson then appointed both Gilligan and the editor of the Evening Standard Victoria Wadley into official sinecures.
Livingstone’s true, anti-Semitic, pro-socialist dictatorship colours weren’t soooo obvious in 2008, except perhaps to long time Livingstone watchers.
Look at that blue sky - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-league/46633025.
I suspect the top brass will save themselves by turning on Maduro, as their Romanian counterparts turned on Ceascescu.
Someone else has said this already, but it is a truly beautiful Brexit analogy: an story of utter chaos, powered by fraud, delusion, and narcissism.
If anything it was for the best at it meant Labour went to OMOV and the members could just pick who they really wanted next time.
Livingstone got in first time because his opponents was rubbish and because many voters wanted to cock a snook at Blair's attempts to control everything within Labour and because too many people fell for Ken's cheeky-but-basically-lovable rebel act. He always was a nasty piece of work and a weathervane, too, all too willing to suck up to money when it suited him. London is well rid of him.
https://www.ft.com/content/3cecf28e-222a-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632
Btw, it's Veronica Wadley, not Victoria, and she is now Chair of Arts Council London and board member of Arts Council England. She seems to have a knack of finding sinecures.
The road over the fells from Gawthwaite to Grizebeck and down to Broughton looking across the estuary is, whatever the time of year, one of the most beautiful in all England.
I'm getting annoyed at you using 'less' when it should be 'fewer!'
I think it was around the same time Hammond underestimated HS2 by about £20B, a far bigger and more serious error than Abbotts.
The stupid thing is neither of those were actually based on maths ability, neither person was presented sums they had to figure out to get the right answer. The problem was memory. Which is kind of funny that you have some right wingers laughing at her for not being good at numeracy and variations on that when they aren't even smart enough to figure out her memory was the issue in that incident.
I bet Diane could figure that out, she is a bit smarter than most of her critics in fairness...
But from memory, none of this really resonated with the man in the street and it was the Lee Jasper campaign by the Evening Standard that really dented him.
He always had a soft spot for dictators of various stripes.
One of the weird things I noted in his first term is that official GLA advertising would often carry an actual headshot of Ken, like something out of Cuba — and for a while they even adopted some weird 1930s totalitarian branding.
https://youtu.be/cYZ262b7wBI
Just watch the first minute.
OK, so she had an excuse in that she was ill with a long term condition that wasn't being well managed.
However...as with Rory Stewart, she got ridiculed because she had made a fool of herself.
Stewart has rehabilitated himself by not making silly errors since. The problem with Abbott is she keeps messing up, and has done over many years, which doesn't exactly suggest she is the right person to be Shadow Home Secretary.
And before anyone accuses me of partisanship, racism, sexism, Old Uncle Tom Cobbleighism and all, two words - Michael Gove.
Let me pivot from Diane and take the more general point that you raise.
If a 'person of colour' gets preferential treatment on account of it, it is not IMO racist to point this out.
For example(ish), when I watch a TV crime drama and there is just the one prominent black character in it, I know for a fact that he or she will NOT be the murderer.
Is it racist of me to simply share that with you people on here? No.
But if I continually go on and on and on about it - how PC diversity is just ruining decent television these days - how it's got to one of the very worst things about modern Britain - if, you know, I come over all rod liddle about it, then there's a very good chance that I am (like him) at least a teeny bit racist.
Tricky thing, racism, because it is prevalent yet no-one ever admits to it. If we did an 'are you racist?' survey it would return close to 0% yes - we would think the problem had gone away entirely.
Bit like (with men) 'are you a bad driver?' If we self-assessed that, there would not be any. Not even the Duke.
And yet, as we know, there are loads. Ditto racists.
And some of those racists are also bad drivers, I would imagine.
Any correlation? ... er, steady on! Stop typing now. Don't overdo it.
I am reminded of the London riots.
Going into Twitter to get up-to-the minute reports I saw that the police had closed Lordship Lane (to Dulwich Village), to which someone had responded, “Does anyone know if this means my Waitrose delivery will still get through????”
There are useless numpties who shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, don't know the rules of the road, and aren't fit to pilot a scooter.
And there's me.
Quoting up spout!
I am you and you are me and we are we and we are all together.
EDIT: Ah well done. Feel myself again now ...
If you say so!
(Don't worry, easily done and I think we all know who was which!)
Until politics catches up more to the territory we have in football people like Diane will suffer, the good thing is people like Diane are the pioneers that make it easier for the next generation. She is an inspiration the way she takes all the jokes from racists, mild racists and those who should know better.
She does not have a particularly simpatica personality - at least some of the time - though on Andrew Neil's show she could come across quite well, probably helped by having a very long-standing friendship with Michael Portillo with whom she was at school.
I don't think a huge amount of her abilities though on stuff like detention without trial she was very good indeed. But she certainly does not deserve the level of really quite horrible abuse she gets. She is not however the only person to get abuse and if you are going to complain about it (my choice would be to ignore) then you should make sure there are no beams in your own eyes before attacking others' motes.
As ever, playing the villain is more fun, but surely not the sort of "political correctness" that you cite.
Was he conning us, or did he change?
A sensible person knows their own prejudices and works to overcome them.
Can I make a modest claim to have been first to punt Sherrod back in October?
I have him at 75 for dem candidate.
I’m not even sure Boris knows.
However he has a long term record of deceit and narcissism. To that extent, perhaps there is no *real* Boris; he is whatever you want him to be if he thinks it will serve his interests.
Great line from Brown.
I mean as in my above post neither actually matter that much as the worst that would happen in reality is Hammond or Abbot would leave the interview and find out they were wrong (if the interviewer didn't correct them)
To take the Hammond example we weren't actually going to be £20B off on funding it, he just got the figure wrong in an interview.
Whilst there is something to be said for being sharp in interviews I've never been sure it is the key thing.
I love remote places. Millom and the area around it reminds me in many ways of the Ireland of my childhood, though the mountains are much nicer in Cumbria. Still Millom is not so remote as all that: it has a very good Comedy Club which gets all the pre-tours of comics - at a fraction of the cost and in a much nicer ambience.
And it has one recent claim to fame - or infamy. It was Trudy Harrison's victory in the constituency in 2016 which resulted in Mrs May visiting the main square in Millom to celebrate. We all know what the hubris from that victory led to .......
What sort of work brings you to the Lakes, if you don't mind me asking?
Going loco now, sadly.
On The Food Programme on Radio 4 today, there was someone running a veg basket business who said that he was very worried indeed about No Deal - because if the disruption lasted more than a few days, his business would be in serious difficulties and much longer than that and he would be in breach of banking covenants. So he faces potential ruin. It is not at all clear that someone like him would view the Tories as being the party helping him preserve his capital.
Live in Cumbria....
Most businessmen and women wouldn’t put all their money into unicorns.
Being an idiot, he won the contest he didn't care about and failed to even compete in the contest that he really wanted to win.
Without knowing what she's is actually thinking there could be lots of reasons for this one of which could be a slip of memory, if you have seen a figure (of 100) but can't remember the interviewer giving a figure could trigger your memory.
*which is quite amusing as this first interview had nothing to do with calculations but for some reason the video had a calculator. These right wing racist types are so thick they don't even understand that, quite amusing they claim Abbot is thick when you think about it....
I've been wondering how likely he is to hold his W London seat at the next GE. Wish I could get some odds.
And even Have I Got News For You showed that clip as 'Abbott making another error with numbers.'
The Vicar of Bray would be at home in both the main parties.
The Tory brand is Ratnered for anyone under the age of 50. (I would argue that Labour’s brand is less tarnished and has every chance of recovery post Corbyn).
https://twitter.com/skullmandible/status/373108506506702848?s=21