I am afraid I disagree entirely with this header. If the Democrats want to beat Trump they have to win white blue collar voters in the rustbelt and swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
All the polling shows Biden is by far the best chance for them to do that followed to a lesser extent by Sanders. If they go with another elitist coastal liberal like Warren or Harris the Democrats will have learnt nothing from Hilary's defeat in 2016 when her winning huge majorities amongst college educated women and in the coastal states like New York and California did nothing to help her win the key Midwest states and they will likely lose the Electoral College again
Sanders is persona non grata with the establishment/money behind the Democrats which is why they bought it for hills in 2016. Biden will be dogged by insinuation.
Trump will be re elected then,
That is certain imo
The Dems best chance is for Trump to agree not to stand in return for parking any investigation.
When Mueller comes up blank/only prosecutes a few process crimes, the continuing investigations are going to start looking decidedly iffy. And don't forget Trump still has to declassify details of the FISA requests to spy on him during the election which appear to be the basis of Mueller - the document paid for by Hillarys campaign. Now I could be wrong, but I expect things to look very different by the end of this year, investigations can be conducted both ways
You surely mean 'If' rather than 'When'. Mueller has been rather good at his job so far and the investigation has been remarkably leak-proof.
Unless there isn't actually anything incriminating on Trump to leak....
(Not saying that's the case. Just that it is possible. It certainly helps terrify witnesses if they THINK tha Mueller has dirt on the President that will drag them down too - unless they plea bargain.)
Or to go totally down the rabbit hole that there is collusion but it ain't trump All things are deliciously possible in this weird world
I agree the reds and blues would do poorly in theoretical EU elections, not only because it's a risk-free way of hitting them and they're both incompetent, but also because the current political atmosphere is quite polarising. Even with halfway decent front benches, I think ardently pro- and anti-EU parties would punch above their weight.
That is a fair point. I must say I don't know Stace's oeuvre so I can't comment but yes I do remember clips during Strictly of her prancing off with a camera in combats.
But his broader point, ie Comic Relief is deeply problematic, is I believe valid.
Why is a night of entertainment (at no cost to the charity - it's paid for by the BBC) to raise money for a charity with a very low cost base, deeply problematic?
Comic Relief really doesn't have the issues Oxfam and other relief agencies seem to have...
I agree the reds and blues would do poorly in theoretical EU elections, not only because it's a risk-free way of hitting them and they're both incompetent, but also because the current political atmosphere is quite polarising. Even with halfway decent front benches, I think ardently pro- and anti-EU parties would punch above their weight.
As I stated on Monday - I would expect the TIGs to get 45%+ of the votes - as the default pro EU party and Farage's party to share the rest with Labour and the Tories. Even with a referendum scheduled for the autumn it would be a proxy referendum especially on the remain side..
There might be a broader point in there about Comic Relief, but his parents are Guyanese and he was born in the UK and went to Oxbridge. He thinks he can speak on behalf of poor Africans but just comes across as unhelpful and somewhat racist. If an important African figure made similar points I suspect they would find a more receptive audience.
I agree the reds and blues would do poorly in theoretical EU elections, not only because it's a risk-free way of hitting them and they're both incompetent, but also because the current political atmosphere is quite polarising. Even with halfway decent front benches, I think ardently pro- and anti-EU parties would punch above their weight.
As I stated on Monday - I would expect the TIGs to get 45%+ of the votes - as the default pro EU party and Farage's party to share the rest with Labour and the Tories. Even with a referendum scheduled for the autumn it would be a proxy referendum especially on the remain side..
The other pro-Remain parties would have to be polling very low single figures, for TIG to win 45%.
I agree the reds and blues would do poorly in theoretical EU elections, not only because it's a risk-free way of hitting them and they're both incompetent, but also because the current political atmosphere is quite polarising. Even with halfway decent front benches, I think ardently pro- and anti-EU parties would punch above their weight.
As I stated on Monday - I would expect the TIGs to get 45%+ of the votes - as the default pro EU party and Farage's party to share the rest with Labour and the Tories. Even with a referendum scheduled for the autumn it would be a proxy referendum especially on the remain side..
The other pro-Remain parties would have to be polling very low single figures, for TIG to win 45%.
What over pro-Remain parties? For most voters the only option would be the Lib Dems and with no chances of winning a seat I suspect even their usual voters will want to make an obvious stand. Granted things would be different in Scotland as the SNP are a remain party..
There might be a broader point in there about Comic Relief, but his parents are Guyanese and he was born in the UK and went to Oxbridge. He thinks he can speak on behalf of poor Africans but just comes across as unhelpful and somewhat racist. If an important African figure made similar points I suspect they would find a more receptive audience.
Maybe but plenty of white people have made similar points, Paul Collier for example, whose notable book (The Bottom Billion) castigates the west for imposing solutions on Africa and then goes on to...impose solutions on (or make suggestions for) Africa.
I agree the reds and blues would do poorly in theoretical EU elections, not only because it's a risk-free way of hitting them and they're both incompetent, but also because the current political atmosphere is quite polarising. Even with halfway decent front benches, I think ardently pro- and anti-EU parties would punch above their weight.
As I stated on Monday - I would expect the TIGs to get 45%+ of the votes - as the default pro EU party and Farage's party to share the rest with Labour and the Tories. Even with a referendum scheduled for the autumn it would be a proxy referendum especially on the remain side..
The other pro-Remain parties would have to be polling very low single figures, for TIG to win 45%.
I don't like to state future events will or will not happen but that seems very unlikely to me.
That is a fair point. I must say I don't know Stace's oeuvre so I can't comment but yes I do remember clips during Strictly of her prancing off with a camera in combats.
But his broader point, ie Comic Relief is deeply problematic, is I believe valid.
Why is a night of entertainment (at no cost to the charity - it's paid for by the BBC) to raise money for a charity with a very low cost base, deeply problematic?
Comic Relief really doesn't have the issues Oxfam and other relief agencies seem to have...
Same question to you - would you pay off Al Shabab in guns and supplies in order to feed IDPs in the refugee camp they had control over?
I agree the reds and blues would do poorly in theoretical EU elections, not only because it's a risk-free way of hitting them and they're both incompetent, but also because the current political atmosphere is quite polarising. Even with halfway decent front benches, I think ardently pro- and anti-EU parties would punch above their weight.
As I stated on Monday - I would expect the TIGs to get 45%+ of the votes - as the default pro EU party and Farage's party to share the rest with Labour and the Tories. Even with a referendum scheduled for the autumn it would be a proxy referendum especially on the remain side..
The other pro-Remain parties would have to be polling very low single figures, for TIG to win 45%.
What over pro-Remain parties? For most voters the only option would be the Lib Dems and with no chances of winning a seat I suspect even their usual voters will want to make an obvious stand. Granted things would be different in Scotland as the SNP are a remain party..
I agree the reds and blues would do poorly in theoretical EU elections, not only because it's a risk-free way of hitting them and they're both incompetent, but also because the current political atmosphere is quite polarising. Even with halfway decent front benches, I think ardently pro- and anti-EU parties would punch above their weight.
As I stated on Monday - I would expect the TIGs to get 45%+ of the votes - as the default pro EU party and Farage's party to share the rest with Labour and the Tories. Even with a referendum scheduled for the autumn it would be a proxy referendum especially on the remain side..
Why on earth would the TIGs get 45% of the vote as the pro-EU party when the Lib Dems (in their guise as the SDP/Liberals) as the default EU party never got above 18.5%?
If it did come to EU elections I would be amazed to see the TIGs get more than 15%
That is a fair point. I must say I don't know Stace's oeuvre so I can't comment but yes I do remember clips during Strictly of her prancing off with a camera in combats.
But his broader point, ie Comic Relief is deeply problematic, is I believe valid.
Why is a night of entertainment (at no cost to the charity - it's paid for by the BBC) to raise money for a charity with a very low cost base, deeply problematic?
Comic Relief really doesn't have the issues Oxfam and other relief agencies seem to have...
Same question to you - would you pay off Al Shabab in guns and supplies in order to feed IDPs in the refugee camp they had control over?
Not feeding people in the camp results in people dying now. Giving guns to people may result in deaths later (but it's possible it may not).
That's a moral / ethical question with no easy answer and the fact you think there is an easy answer probably says more about you than it does about Comic Relief...
That is a fair point. I must say I don't know Stace's oeuvre so I can't comment but yes I do remember clips during Strictly of her prancing off with a camera in combats.
But his broader point, ie Comic Relief is deeply problematic, is I believe valid.
Why is a night of entertainment (at no cost to the charity - it's paid for by the BBC) to raise money for a charity with a very low cost base, deeply problematic?
Comic Relief really doesn't have the issues Oxfam and other relief agencies seem to have...
Same question to you - would you pay off Al Shabab in guns and supplies in order to feed IDPs in the refugee camp they had control over?
Not feeding people in the camp results in people dying now. Giving guns to people may result in deaths later.
That's a moral / ethical question with no easy answer and the fact you think there is an easy answer probably says more about you than it does about Comic Relief...
D'oh!!! It is precisely because there is no easy answer that I believe Comic Relief is flawed! Did I say what I thought the answer was?
What if the proceeds of Comic Relief went to Al Shabab, thereby saving the lives of some IDPs. Is that what Stacey Dooley is asking for?
Edit: I need a basic level of intelligence from people if I'm going to debate with them on PB. You so far have failed that test.
That is a fair point. I must say I don't know Stace's oeuvre so I can't comment but yes I do remember clips during Strictly of her prancing off with a camera in combats.
But his broader point, ie Comic Relief is deeply problematic, is I believe valid.
Why is a night of entertainment (at no cost to the charity - it's paid for by the BBC) to raise money for a charity with a very low cost base, deeply problematic?
Comic Relief really doesn't have the issues Oxfam and other relief agencies seem to have...
A couple of decades ago I was university RAG committee treasurer. We decided that, as we had done before, we should only work with mostly smaller UK charities, and shouldn't send any money overseas.
The one exception we made was for the Comic Relief Appeal. They were very open with their finances and had a fraction of the admin costs of the likes of Oxfam or World Vision. The BBC telethon provided a huge amount of free fundraising publicity, and most of the 'celebrity' visitors to Africa had paid their own way there. They had a tiny permanent staff in the UK, outside the BBC team.
There might be a broader point in there about Comic Relief, but his parents are Guyanese and he was born in the UK and went to Oxbridge. He thinks he can speak on behalf of poor Africans but just comes across as unhelpful and somewhat racist. If an important African figure made similar points I suspect they would find a more receptive audience.
Maybe but plenty of white people have made similar points, Paul Collier for example, whose notable book (The Bottom Billion) castigates the west for imposing solutions on Africa and then goes on to...impose solutions on (or make suggestions for) Africa.
I agree the reds and blues would do poorly in theoretical EU elections, not only because it's a risk-free way of hitting them and they're both incompetent, but also because the current political atmosphere is quite polarising. Even with halfway decent front benches, I think ardently pro- and anti-EU parties would punch above their weight.
As I stated on Monday - I would expect the TIGs to get 45%+ of the votes - as the default pro EU party and Farage's party to share the rest with Labour and the Tories. Even with a referendum scheduled for the autumn it would be a proxy referendum especially on the remain side..
The other pro-Remain parties would have to be polling very low single figures, for TIG to win 45%.
What over pro-Remain parties? For most voters the only option would be the Lib Dems and with no chances of winning a seat I suspect even their usual voters will want to make an obvious stand. Granted things would be different in Scotland as the SNP are a remain party..
There might be a broader point in there about Comic Relief, but his parents are Guyanese and he was born in the UK and went to Oxbridge. He thinks he can speak on behalf of poor Africans but just comes across as unhelpful and somewhat racist. If an important African figure made similar points I suspect they would find a more receptive audience.
Maybe but plenty of white people have made similar points, Paul Collier for example, whose notable book (The Bottom Billion) castigates the west for imposing solutions on Africa and then goes on to...impose solutions on (or make suggestions for) Africa.
So he uses the word west and not white ?
yep I get that but it is shorthand. I can live with it.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
There's something that almost all this analysis misses:
It is highly likely the Democrats will end up with a brokered convention.
Why?
Three reasons:
1. It's a very large field, 2. The Dem's primaries are practically all proportionate, with very few caucuses. 3. California and Texas - the largest two states in the US - are both on Super Tuesday.
This means that there will be a lot of candidates who have significant numbers of delegates, even though they won't have a chance of winning. If Beto runs, he's likely to do very well in Texas. And I have little doubt Kamala Harris will do well in California. Even if these guys flop in every other state, they will have substantial delegate counts on March 3rd.
This has a number of consequences. Firstly, if you're offered better than evens on a brokered convention, go for it. Secondly, ask yourself who is a benefit of "transfers". Hint: it's not Sanders. The establishment Democrats who would benefit would probably be Biden (former VP) and/or one of the female Senators (Harris/Kloboucher/Gillibrand).
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
Absolutely. It’s human nature that as things come to the crunch, there will be some ministers who profoundly disagree with the course being taken. While the PM and the whips have done a good job of being ambiguous enough to keep people mostly happy so far, it’s inevitable a few will choose to resign - probably on both sides of the Brexit debate
If Texas is very close, then its an absolute landslide for the Dems.
And, Texas is close if Trump retains current levels of popularity. If his popularity were to rise. (or his Democratic opponent were to make him look good by comparison) then Texas will not be close.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
Absolutely. It’s human nature that as things come to the crunch, there will be some ministers who profoundly disagree with the course being taken. While the PM and the whips have done a good job of being ambiguous enough to keep people mostly happy so far, it’s inevitable a few will choose to resign - probably on both sides of the Brexit debate
Anyone who thinks that Britain is not already free can safely be consigned to the category of nutjob.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
It reads very reasonably until he talks about reclaiming our freedom, which is an absurd view of our voluntary membership of a Union of European nations.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Actually, I don't know why anybody bothers the fuck talking to you. Along with Dura Ace, you are the most certain, intemperate, squaddy-mouthed "contributors" on here. Both ex-military, it's as though you have a problem with people not taking orders.
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
Absolutely. It’s human nature that as things come to the crunch, there will be some ministers who profoundly disagree with the course being taken. While the PM and the whips have done a good job of being ambiguous enough to keep people mostly happy so far, it’s inevitable a few will choose to resign - probably on both sides of the Brexit debate
Anyone who thinks that Britain is not already free can safely be consigned to the category of nutjob.
+1. I'm bored having to explain that we do have sovereignty, or how the fuck did we manage to have an in/out referendum and go to war in Iraq etc. without Brussels agreeing? The sovereignty argument is one of the biggest lies Leave advocates perpetrated on a gullible public
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Actually, I don't know why anybody bothers the fuck talking to you. Along with Dura Ace, you are the most certain, intemperate, squaddy-mouthed "contributors" on here. Both ex-military, it's as though you have a problem with people not taking orders.
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
The SLR was before my time, grandad. Fine. Stop talking to me. Bliss. The fewer dolts whom I have to waste time on the better.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
It reads very reasonably until he talks about reclaiming our freedom, which is an absurd view of our voluntary membership of a Union of European nations.
Well, that bit's overblown. But the important message is that he's still prepared to vote for the WA.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
It reads very reasonably until he talks about reclaiming our freedom, which is an absurd view of our voluntary membership of a Union of European nations.
Well, that bit's overblown. But the important message is that he's still prepared to vote for the WA.
Indeed. Slowly but surely with much kicking and screaming along the way is this starting to move in Theresa's direction?
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
Absolutely. It’s human nature that as things come to the crunch, there will be some ministers who profoundly disagree with the course being taken. While the PM and the whips have done a good job of being ambiguous enough to keep people mostly happy so far, it’s inevitable a few will choose to resign - probably on both sides of the Brexit debate
These are carefully stage managed shots across the bows of the PM by the ERG. And why not - it worked for the Ruddy Remainers.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Actually, I don't know why anybody bothers the fuck talking to you. Along with Dura Ace, you are the most certain, intemperate, squaddy-mouthed "contributors" on here. Both ex-military, it's as though you have a problem with people not taking orders.
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
What an unpleasant post. These idiots that claim to be patriotic because they voted for Putin's Brexit, and then slagging people off who have actually worn the Queen's uniform! Wanker doesn't sum it up sufficiently.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
Absolutely. It’s human nature that as things come to the crunch, there will be some ministers who profoundly disagree with the course being taken. While the PM and the whips have done a good job of being ambiguous enough to keep people mostly happy so far, it’s inevitable a few will choose to resign - probably on both sides of the Brexit debate
Anyone who thinks that Britain is not already free can safely be consigned to the category of nutjob.
+1. I'm bored having to explain that we do have sovereignty, or how the fuck did we manage to have an in/out referendum and go to war in Iraq etc. without Brussels agreeing? The sovereignty argument is one of the biggest lies Leave advocates perpetrated on a gullible public
That is probably because you are too dumb to understand what the word means. Which I suspect derives from you not actually caring.
"The power that a country has to govern itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
Just because we are able to do the things you mention does not mean we are sovereign since there are many other areas where we have given up those powers to the EU.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Actually, I don't know why anybody bothers the fuck talking to you. Along with Dura Ace, you are the most certain, intemperate, squaddy-mouthed "contributors" on here. Both ex-military, it's as though you have a problem with people not taking orders.
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
He (Dura Ace) is also regularly wrong on those things he claims to be an authority on. My good friend and neighbour who just retired as a squadron leader a couple of months ago regularly comes in to sit and laugh over a cuppa at some of the claims Dura Ace makes.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Actually, I don't know why anybody bothers the fuck talking to you. Along with Dura Ace, you are the most certain, intemperate, squaddy-mouthed "contributors" on here. Both ex-military, it's as though you have a problem with people not taking orders.
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
What an unpleasant post. These idiots that claim to be patriotic because they voted for Putin's Brexit, and then slagging people off who have actually worn the Queen's uniform! Wanker doesn't sum it up sufficiently.
And they'll be criticising Corbyn for not wearing a large enough poppy next October.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Actually, I don't know why anybody bothers the fuck talking to you. Along with Dura Ace, you are the most certain, intemperate, squaddy-mouthed "contributors" on here. Both ex-military, it's as though you have a problem with people not taking orders.
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
Is he ex military? It's a claim often made on internet forums.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
Absolutely. It’s human nature that as things come to the crunch, there will be some ministers who profoundly disagree with the course being taken. While the PM and the whips have done a good job of being ambiguous enough to keep people mostly happy so far, it’s inevitable a few will choose to resign - probably on both sides of the Brexit debate
Anyone who thinks that Britain is not already free can safely be consigned to the category of nutjob.
+1. I'm bored having to explain that we do have sovereignty, or how the fuck did we manage to have an in/out referendum and go to war in Iraq etc. without Brussels agreeing? The sovereignty argument is one of the biggest lies Leave advocates perpetrated on a gullible public
That is probably because you are too dumb to understand what the word means. Which I suspect derives from you not actually caring.
"The power that a country has to govern itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
Just because we are able to do the things you mention does not mean we are sovereign since there are many other areas where we have given up those powers to the EU.
Showing your complete lack of understanding again. You are reasonably articulate for the average person that supports UKIP/EDL/BNP, but the bar isn't that high. The sovereignty was pooled in the same way we do with NATO and UN ... the fact that we are at liberty to pull out demonstrates we (and the other 27) are sovereign...oh why am I bothering, you are so dumb it is really not worth it. Go and do some goosestepping and maybe try and support another part of Putin's foreign policy.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Actually, I don't know why anybody bothers the fuck talking to you. Along with Dura Ace, you are the most certain, intemperate, squaddy-mouthed "contributors" on here. Both ex-military, it's as though you have a problem with people not taking orders.
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
Is he ex military? It's a claim often made on internet forums.
And I won gold in the 110m hurdles at the Beijing Olympics.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Actually, I don't know why anybody bothers the fuck talking to you. Along with Dura Ace, you are the most certain, intemperate, squaddy-mouthed "contributors" on here. Both ex-military, it's as though you have a problem with people not taking orders.
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
Is he ex military? It's a claim often made on internet forums.
And I won gold in the 110m hurdles at the Beijing Olympics.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
Absolutely. It’s human nature that as things come to the crunch, there will be some ministers who profoundly disagree with the course being taken. While the PM and the whips have done a good job of being ambiguous enough to keep people mostly happy so far, it’s inevitable a few will choose to resign - probably on both sides of the Brexit debate
Anyone who thinks that Britain is not already free can safely be consigned to the category of nutjob.
+1. I'm bored having to explain that we do have sovereignty, or how the fuck did we manage to have an in/out referendum and go to war in Iraq etc. without Brussels agreeing? The sovereignty argument is one of the biggest lies Leave advocates perpetrated on a gullible public
That is probably because you are too dumb to understand what the word means. Which I suspect derives from you not actually caring.
"The power that a country has to govern itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
Just because we are able to do the things you mention does not mean we are sovereign since there are many other areas where we have given up those powers to the EU.
Showing your complete lack of understanding again. You are reasonably articulate for the average person that supports UKIP/EDL/BNP, but the bar isn't that high. The sovereignty was pooled in the same way we do with NATO and UN ... the fact that we are at liberty to pull out demonstrates we (and the other 27) are sovereign...oh why am I bothering, you are so dumb it is really not worth it. Go and do some goosestepping and maybe try and support another part of Putin's foreign policy.
You cannot pool sovereignty. Linguistically it is an oxymoron. Unlike you who are just a plain old fashioned moron.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
Absolutely. It’s human nature that as things come to the crunch, there will be some ministers who profoundly disagree with the course being taken. While the PM and the whips have done a good job of being ambiguous enough to keep people mostly happy so far, it’s inevitable a few will choose to resign - probably on both sides of the Brexit debate
Anyone who thinks that Britain is not already free can safely be consigned to the category of nutjob.
+1. I'm bored having to explain that we do have sovereignty, or how the fuck did we manage to have an in/out referendum and go to war in Iraq etc. without Brussels agreeing? The sovereignty argument is one of the biggest lies Leave advocates perpetrated on a gullible public
That is probably because you are too dumb to understand what the word means. Which I suspect derives from you not actually caring.
"The power that a country has to govern itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
Just because we are able to do the things you mention does not mean we are sovereign since there are many other areas where we have given up those powers to the EU.
Showing your complete lack of understanding again. You are reasonably articulate for the average person that supports UKIP/EDL/BNP, but the bar isn't that high. The sovereignty was pooled in the same way we do with NATO and UN ... the fact that we are at liberty to pull out demonstrates we (and the other 27) are sovereign...oh why am I bothering, you are so dumb it is really not worth it. Go and do some goosestepping and maybe try and support another part of Putin's foreign policy.
It'll be a shock to Tyndall when North Korea eventually joins the international community and thereby ceases to be perhaps the last remaining "sovereign" country.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Actually, I don't know why anybody bothers the fuck talking to you. Along with Dura Ace, you are the most certain, intemperate, squaddy-mouthed "contributors" on here. Both ex-military, it's as though you have a problem with people not taking orders.
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
He (Dura Ace) is also regularly wrong on those things he claims to be an authority on. My good friend and neighbour who just retired as a squadron leader a couple of months ago regularly comes in to sit and laugh over a cuppa at some of the claims Dura Ace makes.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Actually, I don't know why anybody bothers the fuck talking to you. Along with Dura Ace, you are the most certain, intemperate, squaddy-mouthed "contributors" on here. Both ex-military, it's as though you have a problem with people not taking orders.
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
Is he ex military? It's a claim often made on internet forums.
And I won gold in the 110m hurdles at the Beijing Olympics.
And I thought you were Lord Lucan....
That was just a very unfortunate accident. I was trying to put up a picture.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
Absolutely. It’s human nature that as things come to the crunch, there will be some ministers who profoundly disagree with the course being taken. While the PM and the whips have done a good job of being ambiguous enough to keep people mostly happy so far, it’s inevitable a few will choose to resign - probably on both sides of the Brexit debate
Anyone who thinks that Britain is not already free can safely be consigned to the category of nutjob.
+1. I'm bored having to explain that we do have sovereignty, or how the fuck did we manage to have an in/out referendum and go to war in Iraq etc. without Brussels agreeing? The sovereignty argument is one of the biggest lies Leave advocates perpetrated on a gullible public
That is probably because you are too dumb to understand what the word means. Which I suspect derives from you not actually caring.
"The power that a country has to govern itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
Just because we are able to do the things you mention does not mean we are sovereign since there are many other areas where we have given up those powers to the EU.
The UK remains a sovereign nation. All sovereign nations exist with some interference from outside entities. I look upon our relationship with the EU as a form of contract that we have (voluntarily) entered into for mutual benefit.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
Absolutely. It’s human nature that as things come to the crunch, there will be some ministers who profoundly disagree with the course being taken. While the PM and the whips have done a good job of being ambiguous enough to keep people mostly happy so far, it’s inevitable a few will choose to resign - probably on both sides of the Brexit debate
Anyone who thinks that Britain is not already free can safely be consigned to the category of nutjob.
+1. I'm bored having to explain that we do have sovereignty, or how the fuck did we manage to have an in/out referendum and go to war in Iraq etc. without Brussels agreeing? The sovereignty argument is one of the biggest lies Leave advocates perpetrated on a gullible public
That is probably because you are too dumb to understand what the word means. Which I suspect derives from you not actually caring.
"The power that a country has to govern itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
Just because we are able to do the things you mention does not mean we are sovereign since there are many other areas where we have given up those powers to the EU.
The UK remains a sovereign nation. All sovereign nations exist with some interference from outside entities. I look upon our relationship with the EU as a form of contract that we have (voluntarily) entered into for mutual benefit.
I think you'll need crayons and a Peppa Pig book for Richard.
Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.
To be fair his letter and his stated reasons for resigning are very reasonable.
Absolutely. It’s human nature that as things come to the crunch, there will be some ministers who profoundly disagree with the course being taken. While the PM and the whips have done a good job of being ambiguous enough to keep people mostly happy so far, it’s inevitable a few will choose to resign - probably on both sides of the Brexit debate
Anyone who thinks that Britain is not already free can safely be consigned to the category of nutjob.
+1. I'm bored having to explain that we do have sovereignty, or how the fuck did we manage to have an in/out referendum and go to war in Iraq etc. without Brussels agreeing? The sovereignty argument is one of the biggest lies Leave advocates perpetrated on a gullible public
That is probably because you are too dumb to understand what the word means. Which I suspect derives from you not actually caring.
"The power that a country has to govern itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
Just because we are able to do the things you mention does not mean we are sovereign since there are many other areas where we have given up those powers to the EU.
Showing your complete lack of understanding again. You are reasonably articulate for the average person that supports UKIP/EDL/BNP, but the bar isn't that high. The sovereignty was pooled in the same way we do with NATO and UN ... the fact that we are at liberty to pull out demonstrates we (and the other 27) are sovereign...oh why am I bothering, you are so dumb it is really not worth it. Go and do some goosestepping and maybe try and support another part of Putin's foreign policy.
It'll be a shock to Tyndall when North Korea eventually joins the international community and thereby ceases to be perhaps the last remaining "sovereign" country.
Tyndall favours a weird kind of utopian internationalism that relies on every country eliminating barriers between each other, but with absolutely no political institutions to agree any common rules.
tl;dr them all? If aid worked, why was poverty not eradicated decades ago? if all it took to eradicate malaria in sub-Saharan Africa was mosquito nets and why hasn't malaria been eradicated there?
As they say, aid is a way of channelling money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
Lots of foreign aid projects don't work, but some do. Foreign aid eradicated smallpox. No way the health systems of Bangladesh, Nigeria Somali etc. could have done that on their own.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of George Eustace's resignation, the fact remains the point is at last coming when, to use the colloquialism, people have to sh1t or get off the pot.
First up is the vote that really matters, the WA. The sole question is whether enough Conservatives will support to carry it (with some help from other parties). The margin of defeat was large last time and unless Geoffrey Cox (so beloved of this parish) can come up with a form of words which will please both everybody and nobody at the same time, I just don't see from where May will get the numbers.
The Wednesday vote is meaningless - Parliament can reject No Deal every day from now until March 29th, it carries no weight.
Then we have the second critical vote IF the WA fails - the question of an extension to A50. Will the Conservative Party really agree to a two-year extension to A50? 3 months is one thing - 24 is eight times as much (good old O Level Maths).
There will be those who argue extension is the first step to capitulation but Labour has huge issues if it votes against this as well. It's a thing nobody wants but nobody can be seen not to want it (pardon the double negative). I just wonder if in the chaos of voting down the WA, the mood to go ahead and get it over with will prevail and we will be on the path to No Deal.
If it all fails and May is forced to recognise No Deal, her Cabinet will be shattered.
The one piece in the puzzle we don't have is what length of extension the EU will accept.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Actually, I don't know why anybody bothers the fuck talking to you. Along with Dura Ace, you are the most certain, intemperate, squaddy-mouthed "contributors" on here. Both ex-military, it's as though you have a problem with people not taking orders.
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
What an unpleasant post. These idiots that claim to be patriotic because they voted for Putin's Brexit, and then slagging people off who have actually worn the Queen's uniform! Wanker doesn't sum it up sufficiently.
What a unpleasant post Nigel,keep telling you and self awareness pal.
I can understand someone resigning over a 24 month extension. Resigning over a three month one, which will still almost certainly be required even if the WA passes, seems silly.
Live Aid isn't Comic Relief. Equally 1985 is not 2019....
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
What are you talking about? Jeez. Did people know in 1985 that they were supporting Mengistu? Do you know who Comic Relief is actually supporting when they are sending money to Africa? Does Stacey Dooley?
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
And I will repeat my comments from below - 1) Live Aid != Comic Relief. 2) 1985 is very different from 2019 - charities have learnt a lot in 35 years.
You clearly see everything as black and white in a world that, at a minimum has various shades of grey, and often has other colours and issues to deal with at the same time.
The one piece in the puzzle we don't have is what length of extension the EU will accept.
From what has been said about this there seem to be two extensions on offer from the EU. Up to three months to tidy up legislative details if the Deal is passed by the Commons. Or ~2 years to start negotiating the future trade deal in detail, as a way to bypass the backstop.
Theresa May has said that she will ask for a couple of months of time-wasting.
There's a view expressed that the EU will agree to any extension in preference to No Deal, but I think that would be very much a last resort.
tl;dr them all? If aid worked, why was poverty not eradicated decades ago? if all it took to eradicate malaria in sub-Saharan Africa was mosquito nets and why hasn't malaria been eradicated there?
As they say, aid is a way of channelling money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
Lots of foreign aid projects don't work, but some do. Foreign aid eradicated smallpox. No way the health systems of Bangladesh, Nigeria Somali etc. could have done that on their own.
I appreciate that. And in such instances (the MDGs and the SDGs for example) "big pushes" as Jeffrey Sachs would say, can have an effect (although excluding India and China the effects are not as clear as they might be).
But regardless, the involvement of those countries' governments is vital. More often than not the aid agencies function outside the remit of governments which in turn represents a dilemma because the government then lacks agency and becomes subordinate to or must act in parallel to the external agencies/non-state actors.
Only one by-election today - Con defence in Stroud
Looks safe Tory, and I saw on another forum a labour canvasser saying that TIG had made door knocking very difficult for Labour. Doubt there'll be any surprise tonight.
I can understand someone resigning over a 24 month extension. Resigning over a three month one, which will still almost certainly be required even if the WA passes, seems silly.
As silly as being sacked for supporting government policy?
I can understand someone resigning over a 24 month extension. Resigning over a three month one, which will still almost certainly be required even if the WA passes, seems silly.
He knows that it's not just going to be a three month extension.
Comments
All things are deliciously possible in this weird world
Comic Relief really doesn't have the issues Oxfam and other relief agencies seem to have...
Mr. Brom, I recall Lammy criticising the judge on the Grenfell Inquiry on the basis of his whiteness.
Labour 1/7
Conservatives 9/2
Any Independent 16/1
UKIP 33/1
Plaid Cymru 50/1
The Brexit Party 100/1
Green 200/1
Liberal Democrats 200/1
https://www.bet365.com/#/AC/B5/C20633862/D1/E40799080/F2/
If it did come to EU elections I would be amazed to see the TIGs get more than 15%
Giving guns to people may result in deaths later (but it's possible it may not).
That's a moral / ethical question with no easy answer and the fact you think there is an easy answer probably says more about you than it does about Comic Relief...
What if the proceeds of Comic Relief went to Al Shabab, thereby saving the lives of some IDPs. Is that what Stacey Dooley is asking for?
Edit: I need a basic level of intelligence from people if I'm going to debate with them on PB. You so far have failed that test.
The one exception we made was for the Comic Relief Appeal. They were very open with their finances and had a fraction of the admin costs of the likes of Oxfam or World Vision. The BBC telethon provided a huge amount of free fundraising publicity, and most of the 'celebrity' visitors to Africa had paid their own way there. They had a tiny permanent staff in the UK, outside the BBC team.
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1101125771295408128
here you go - re-read this.
https://spin.com/featured/live-aid-the-terrible-truth-ethiopia-bob-geldof-feature/
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1101130338238107649
On your final point in your previous comment you seem unable to recognise who is getting facts confused, who is claiming one charity (Live Aid) is actually another (Comic Relief) and posts without checking / suitable evidence to back up their facts.
Equally I don't think I'm the first person to call you out on those issues.
It is highly likely the Democrats will end up with a brokered convention.
Why?
Three reasons:
1. It's a very large field,
2. The Dem's primaries are practically all proportionate, with very few caucuses.
3. California and Texas - the largest two states in the US - are both on Super Tuesday.
This means that there will be a lot of candidates who have significant numbers of delegates, even though they won't have a chance of winning. If Beto runs, he's likely to do very well in Texas. And I have little doubt Kamala Harris will do well in California. Even if these guys flop in every other state, they will have substantial delegate counts on March 3rd.
This has a number of consequences. Firstly, if you're offered better than evens on a brokered convention, go for it. Secondly, ask yourself who is a benefit of "transfers". Hint: it's not Sanders. The establishment Democrats who would benefit would probably be Biden (former VP) and/or one of the female Senators (Harris/Kloboucher/Gillibrand).
There are several issues here - first, the "white man's burden" issue of white people (yes @Tykejohnno they have historically been white), or the West, imposing a solution and "saving" Africa because of course the Africans are wholly unable to do so themselves, right? The second issue is that of the one above. We don't know where the money is going to and if, say, there is an African country that "needs reform" then sending money to them to alleviate any domestic suffering is removing the onus on that government to do so (cf. the resource curse).
Actually why the fuck am I bothering talking to you as you fundamentally misunderstand the issues under discussion.
Of course its possible both sides were able to arm up from the $$..
(or @eek!)
Your orders.
Hint. You're on Civvy Street. The days of people giving a damn about you ended when you stopped having an SLR to back up your "arguments".....
But he just wanted to have a rant about something which is fine!
"The power that a country has to govern itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
Just because we are able to do the things you mention does not mean we are sovereign since there are many other areas where we have given up those powers to the EU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yua17eOTKYY
I think I'll sign up for this.
https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/humanities/ma/militaryhistory
Whatever the merits or otherwise of George Eustace's resignation, the fact remains the point is at last coming when, to use the colloquialism, people have to sh1t or get off the pot.
First up is the vote that really matters, the WA. The sole question is whether enough Conservatives will support to carry it (with some help from other parties). The margin of defeat was large last time and unless Geoffrey Cox (so beloved of this parish) can come up with a form of words which will please both everybody and nobody at the same time, I just don't see from where May will get the numbers.
The Wednesday vote is meaningless - Parliament can reject No Deal every day from now until March 29th, it carries no weight.
Then we have the second critical vote IF the WA fails - the question of an extension to A50. Will the Conservative Party really agree to a two-year extension to A50? 3 months is one thing - 24 is eight times as much (good old O Level Maths).
There will be those who argue extension is the first step to capitulation but Labour has huge issues if it votes against this as well. It's a thing nobody wants but nobody can be seen not to want it (pardon the double negative). I just wonder if in the chaos of voting down the WA, the mood to go ahead and get it over with will prevail and we will be on the path to No Deal.
If it all fails and May is forced to recognise No Deal, her Cabinet will be shattered.
The one piece in the puzzle we don't have is what length of extension the EU will accept.
(Not defending his stance on Brexit, but he is pretty consistent)
https://twitter.com/redditchrachel/status/1101133564765224960
1) Live Aid != Comic Relief.
2) 1985 is very different from 2019 - charities have learnt a lot in 35 years.
You clearly see everything as black and white in a world that, at a minimum has various shades of grey, and often has other colours and issues to deal with at the same time.
Theresa May has said that she will ask for a couple of months of time-wasting.
There's a view expressed that the EU will agree to any extension in preference to No Deal, but I think that would be very much a last resort.
But regardless, the involvement of those countries' governments is vital. More often than not the aid agencies function outside the remit of governments which in turn represents a dilemma because the government then lacks agency and becomes subordinate to or must act in parallel to the external agencies/non-state actors.
Is the UK 'free'? Of course it is if you frame the argument in an absolute context.
'Free' in relation to the dynamics of its membership of the EU however may elicit a somewhat different answer for many.
https://researchgate.net/publication/4863536_The_Increasing_Selectivity_of_Foreign_Aid_1984-2003