I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
That might explain the scale of the Labour victory in 1997 but not the fact of it. Labour would have won that election had it simply repeated the 1992 manifesto - albeit much more narrowly. In the intervening years the public mood had shifted against the Tories - and was probably ready for and expecting a much clearer reversal of the Thatcher/Major years than Blair was inclined to offer.
Possibly, possibly not but the 1997 election would have been much closer if Kinnock had stayed Labour leader and the Tories would have had a much better chance in 2001 too.
The fact is no old Left Labour leader and no Thatcherite Tory leader has won a majority at a general election for 32 years. Major, Blair, Cameron, indeed to some extent May are all closer ideologically to each other than they are to say Corbyn and Ed Miliband or IDS and Michael Howard
A Tory majority was not inevitable even in 1992, and probably only happened as a result of Kinnock's loss of self control at Sheffield a week before Polling Day. Without that he would probably have managed a 2017 type result - ie a minority Tory Government relying on Ulster Unionists.
Anyone thinking the current UK Labour party is at the lowest possible ebb should check out SLab leader Richard Leonard on Sunday Politics Scotland. Even I'm embarrassed.
These stories usually unravel. But this isn't really something I know much about - is it true? If it is it will be damage that will last long after we've rejoined.
That is a fair point: the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” complex was a feature of the Cold War. But the same criticism is made of Corbyn: that in his desire to befriend anyone who is against the US, the West, he supports any old group of monsters without inquiring too deeply into what they are about, what they do and whether they are in line with his loudly proclaimed principles. And he doesn’t even have the excuse of a Cold War.
I think that's fair too and I'd apply it to myself as well (I'm embarrassed to think of some people that I once quite liked, like Arthur Scargill), except that I don't think people on the left (including me) feel that the aspects of the Cold War which involved the developed world vs the Third World have been resolved at all. For example, unlike some I'm not against Israel continuing as a distinct Jewish state, but it's undeniably true that if you are looking for suffering and unfairness in the area, the situation in Gaza is horrible, and in the West we're all tolerating it because Israel's an ally and Hamas are nasty. The reaction that therefore Hamas must be OK is of course wrong, but wrong in *exactly* the same way that most people on all sides practice in international attitudes.
What Iraq really taught me is that it's a mistake to believe that one fully understands an area one's not really familiar with, and intervention and killing people on one side or the other is rarely justified. I used to be quite a keen interventionist for perceived good causes. Now I'm really not, and one reason I like Corbyn apart from his personal merits is that he spotted the flaw before I did.
I agree that intervening in an area like the Middle East that one does not understand is almost certainly a mistake. I would make an exception for limited humanitarian intervention eg helping the Kurds poisoned by Saddam or the Yazidis.
But intervening in an area he does not understand is exactly what Corbyn is doing by his willingness to take one side in the Israel-Palestine dispute without bothering to understand the other. Or in his support for Assad. And his failure to countenance any form of humanitarian intervention - he was against any help to the Yazidis, for instance - is very obviously and expressly at odds with what he himself he has said:
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
Anyone thinking the current UK Labour party is at the lowest possible ebb should check out SLab leader Richard Leonard on Sunday Politics Scotland. Even I'm embarrassed.
How is it possible for someone so thick to survive as long and be leading the regional office. Kind of sums labour up.
Have you seen some of the others in the SLab 'leadership team', though? James Kelly makes Leonard look like a genius.
I wonder how Kelly manages to dress himself. You are correct in Leonard having strong competition, hard to believe how so much rubbish could have floated to the top.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
And this changing of clothes but not policies is how we got here. Millions of angry voters who simply aren't going to vote for Labour or Tory again. It's possible that a residual ERG Tory party or residual Corbynite only Labour party could try and shore up the vote by adopting out means out. But at the cost of losing the rest of their voters which means out of power.
The Brexit Party will have at least a LibDem level of representation after the next election, I expect the TIGgers to be in decent numbers, can't see the demise of the SNP whilst all this is going on. Which means no majority for whatever is left of Labour or the Tories. And immense pressure for electoral reform from all sides
That is a fair point: the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” complex was a feature of the Cold War. But the same criticism is made of Corbyn: that in his desire to befriend anyone who is against the US, the West, he supports any old group of monsters without inquiring too deeply into what they are about, what they do and whether they are in line with his loudly proclaimed principles. And he doesn’t even have the excuse of a Cold War.
I think that's fair too and I'd apply it to myself as well (I'm embarrassed to think of some people that I once quite liked, like Arthur Scargill), except that I don't think people on the left (including me) feel that the aspects of the Cold War which involved the developed world vs the Third World have been resolved at all. For example, unlike some I'm not against Israel continuing as a distinct Jewish state, but it's undeniably true that if you are looking for suffering and unfairness in the area, the situation in Gaza is horrible, and in the West we're all tolerating it because Israel's an ally and Hamas are nasty. The reaction that therefore Hamas must be OK is of course wrong, but wrong in *exactly* the same way that most people on all sides practice in international attitudes.
What Iraq really taught me is that it's a mistake to believe that one fully understands an area one's not really familiar with, and intervention and killing people on one side or the other is rarely justified. I used to be quite a keen interventionist for perceived good causes. Now I'm really not, and one reason I like Corbyn apart from his personal merits is that he spotted the flaw before I did.
But not the flaws on his vision of international socialism ?
Long-Bailey’s suggestion that any referendum ballot should have a deal versus “a number of other options” on the ballot paper is characteristically absurd.
These stories usually unravel. But this isn't really something I know much about - is it true? If it is it will be damage that will last long after we've rejoined.
It is just whataboutery mince. All if if if if by some moronic halfwit trying to justify the crappy Tory deal. Utter and total bollox.
Not this one Malc. As I mentioned on here a couple of weeks ago after a chat with a local grain merchant, you wouldn't want to be a sheep in the event of no deal Brexit.
He also me that not a vessel of wheat had traded beyond March 29th delivery.
He will win the fight. It's possible he does so by leading a mass exodus into TIG once it becomes clear that it's a death cult who will slaughter literally anyone who opposes them no matter how futile it has become. But I still believe Corbyn can be defeated - it's emperor's new clothes time and unfortunately on Brexit all the mass membership who had enthusiastically supported him can see his cock and they're repulsed by what they see.
No, I don't think that the cultists have the power of sight. Be careful about making this all about Brexit, where things may in any case move on. It is far more about the narrow and vile intolerance of non-believers generally. Any mass defection needs to have sufficient scope for differences of view that the new vehicle(s?) can accommodate the likes of Frank Field, Ian Austin and John Mann.
But that's the problem with this new party. For years Labour and Tory have existed as very broad churches. I'm in the same political party as TSE. Early we disagree on quite a lot, but when it comes down to it if he ran to be an MP I'd be out there knocking on doors to help him become one. The new party seems to represent an anti-Brexit cult and stands for little else.
I agree with you, but TIG isn't a new party yet, Ian Austin specifically chose not to be associated with TIG and nor has Frank Field retrospectively. Things are very fluid still. If Watson goes the defection of Labour MPs would dwarf TIG in size, lots of negotiations would ensue and I would hope that whatever emerges could accommodate a greater plurality of views on Brexit.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
And this changing of clothes but not policies is how we got here. Millions of angry voters who simply aren't going to vote for Labour or Tory again. It's possible that a residual ERG Tory party or residual Corbynite only Labour party could try and shore up the vote by adopting out means out. But at the cost of losing the rest of their voters which means out of power.
The Brexit Party will have at least a LibDem level of representation after the next election, I expect the TIGgers to be in decent numbers, can't see the demise of the SNP whilst all this is going on. Which means no majority for whatever is left of Labour or the Tories. And immense pressure for electoral reform from all sides
To repeat points made on here last night, I think you underestimate the problems likely to be faced by both the Brexit Party and TIG in receiving airtime from the Broadcasters during an election campaign. It seems unlikely that either would be granted 'major party status'by the Electoral Commission and so would be squeezed out of major events such as Debates etc.. The Brexit Party will also be facing a battle with UKIP for public attention .I would not expect it to win a single seat.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
And this changing of clothes but not policies is how we got here. Millions of angry voters who simply aren't going to vote for Labour or Tory again. It's possible that a residual ERG Tory party or residual Corbynite only Labour party could try and shore up the vote by adopting out means out. But at the cost of losing the rest of their voters which means out of power.
The Brexit Party will have at least a LibDem level of representation after the next election, I expect the TIGgers to be in decent numbers, can't see the demise of the SNP whilst all this is going on. Which means no majority for whatever is left of Labour or the Tories. And immense pressure for electoral reform from all sides
What we will have is a lot more MP's elected on 25-30% or so of the votes in their constituencies.
Mr. 124, TIG needs to become a party first, but it might receive substantially more defections. If it doesn't get some soon, it might look like a flash in the pan.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
And this changing of clothes but not policies is how we got here. Millions of angry voters who simply aren't going to vote for Labour or Tory again. It's possible that a residual ERG Tory party or residual Corbynite only Labour party could try and shore up the vote by adopting out means out. But at the cost of losing the rest of their voters which means out of power.
The Brexit Party will have at least a LibDem level of representation after the next election, I expect the TIGgers to be in decent numbers, can't see the demise of the SNP whilst all this is going on. Which means no majority for whatever is left of Labour or the Tories. And immense pressure for electoral reform from all sides
To repeat points made on here last night, I think you underestimate the problems likely to be faced by both the Brexit Party and TIG in receiving airtime from the Broadcasters during an election campaign. It seems unlikely that either would be granted 'major party status'by the Electoral Commission and so would be squeezed out of major events such as Debates etc.. The Brexit Party will also be facing a battle with UKIP for public attention .I would not expect it to win a single seat.
Social media will be more important than the conventional media. Or as least as.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
That might explain theffer.
Possibly, possibly not but the 1997 election would have been much closer if Kinnock had stayed Labour leader and the Tories would have had a much better chance in 2001 too.
The fact is no old Left Labour leader and no Thatcherite Tory leader has won a majority at a general election for 32 years. Major, Blair, Cameron, indeed to some extent May are all closer ideologically to each other than they are to say Corbyn and Ed Miliband or IDS and Michael Howard
A Tory majority was not inevitable even in 1992, and probably only happened as a result of Kinnock's loss of self control at Sheffield a week before Polling Day. Without that he would probably have managed a 2017 type result - ie a minority Tory Government relying on Ulster Unionists.
Yet still a Tory led government, Blair could have won in 1992 as Bill Clinton did in the US, Labour putting up Kinnock again was the equivalent of the Democrats renominating Dukakis
At the moment too many Leavers think they can get No Deal if the Deal is rejected, as it becomes increasingly clear the alternative to the Deal in the Commons will be extension of Art 50, EUref2 and quite possibly No Brexit at all many of those same Leavers will be forced to come behind the Deal
The problem with the ERG'ers is that, being rather dim, they will only reach this conclusion too late .....
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
And this changing of clothes but not policies is how we got here. Millions of angry voters who simply aren't going to vote for Labour or Tory again. It's possible that a residual ERG Tory party or residual Corbynite only Labour party could try and shore up the vote by adopting out means out. But at the cost of losing the rest of their voters which means out of power.
The Brexit Party will have at least a LibDem level of representation after the next election, I expect the TIGgers to be in decent numbers, can't see the demise of the SNP whilst all this is going on. Which means no majority for whatever is left of Labour or the Tories. And immense pressure for electoral reform from all sides
That may well be the case, yet we have already had hung parliaments after 2 of the last 3 general elections
This paragraph particularly resonated: Whatever process is in place, whatever procedures and rules exist, however good and effective they are, they are never sufficient. Necessary yes. But they are mostly proof of the importance with which the issue is viewed. The real test of any complaints process is whether those for whom it exists trust the organisation to investigate properly and act on the findings, no matter who is involved. Without that trust, even the best written procedures implemented by a whole host of angels are mere will o’ the wisps.
An over-reliance on procedures bedevils modern society, either because it’s assumed they deal with a problem when, as you point out, they don’t - or because they are insufficient, ill-suited, or too inflexible to to deal with complex issues, and create their own unintended problems (Windrush).
He is a Tory so it is outright lying for sure. They have to swear an oath to lie when being selected
Now that's an interesting example of what's called the library paradox, and much better than the ones that tenth-rate egomaniac Russell actually came up with.
That is to say, if you keep the oath, you haven't lied and therefore you have broken it. But the only way to break the oath, and therefore to avoid the paradox, is to tell the truth.
He will win the fight. It's possible he does so by leading a mass exodus into TIG once it becomes clear that it's a death cult who will slaughter literally anyone who opposes them no matter how futile it has become. But I still believe Corbyn can be defeated - it's emperor's new clothes time and unfortunately on Brexit all the mass membership who had enthusiastically supported him can see his cock and they're repulsed by what they see.
No, I don't think that the cultists have the power of sight. Be careful about making this all about Brexit, where things may in any case move on. It is far more about the narrow and vile intolerance of non-believers generally. Any mass defection needs to have sufficient scope for differences of view that the new vehicle(s?) can accommodate the likes of Frank Field, Ian Austin and John Mann.
But that's the problem with this new party. For years Labour and Tory have existed as very broad churches. I'm in the same political party as TSE. Early we disagree on quite a lot, but when it comes down to it if he ran to be an MP I'd be out there knocking on doors to help him become one. The new party seems to represent an anti-Brexit cult and stands for little else.
I agree with you, but TIG isn't a new party yet, Ian Austin specifically chose not to be associated with TIG and nor has Frank Field retrospectively. Things are very fluid still. If Watson goes the defection of Labour MPs would dwarf TIG in size, lots of negotiations would ensue and I would hope that whatever emerges could accommodate a greater plurality of views on Brexit.
I suspect if Watson goes, he will take a very large number of MPs with him, who might sit under a "Co-operative Labour" or some such banner. Shortly after that, the TIGs will comprise 3 ex-Tories and perhaps Chuka.....
I see 3 jobs that need doing on Labour antisemitism.
1. Punish anti semitic behaviour by members and in bad cases expel the member. 2. Discourage anti semitism in the Labour Party. 3. Convince those who care - which is not only Jewish people but also the many, many non-Jews for whom anti semitism offends core values - that 1. and 2. are on track.
Jennie Formby, Len McLuskey and the Corbyn fanclub never get past 1. They think that as long as they have a disciplinary process for 1. nothing else can be expected of them and all the rest must be bad faith black ops by someone or other.
This means that they utterly fail on 2. Process is not enough. Those who attack the people making accusations, and whose first instinct is to defend the people accused, not only fail to discourage anti semitism, they actively carve out a safe place for it. In other words, their disciplinary process nothwithstanding, they are encouraging anti semitism.
Of course that means that they are nowhere on 3. No outsider thinks that Labour is doing enough, and outsiders are most of the potential Labour voters, only a small minority of whom are party members, let alone party activists.
Jennie Formby and the #]IStandWithWilliamson crowd (who seem to include Jeremy Corbyn) cannot solve this problem by disciplinary action, even it is ramped up more than it is now. The Labour Party leadership has to move on to 2. and 3. - but there is absolutely no sign that they will. They are in a spiral of failure, because, not understanding the difference between 1., 2, and 3., they respond to criticism by sticking with 1., going in the wrong direction on 2. and so failing over and over again on 3.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
ime.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of
And this changing of clothes but not policies is how we got here. Millions of angry voters who simply aren't going to vote for Labour or Tory again. It's possible that a residual ERG Tory party or residual Corbynite only Labour party could try and shore up the vote by adopting out means out. But at the cost of losing the rest of their voters which means out of power.
The Brexit Party will have at least a LibDem level of representation after the next election, I expect the TIGgers to be in decent numbers, can't see the demise of the SNP whilst all this is going on. Which means no majority for whatever is left of Labour or the Tories. And immense pressure for electoral reform from all sides
To repeat points made on here last night, I think you underestimate the problems likely to be faced by both the Brexit Party and TIG in receiving airtime from the Broadcasters during an election campaign. It seems unlikely that either would be granted 'major party status'by the Electoral Commission and so would be squeezed out of major events such as Debates etc.. The Brexit Party will also be facing a battle with UKIP for public attention .I would not expect it to win a single seat.
Social media will be more important than the conventional media. Or as least as.
I understand that , but the fact that they would be missing from major events and would rarely have representatives included on panels etc would seriously disadvantage them.
King Cole, that's an interesting comment. I wonder how persuadable online audiences are, and how much of it would be about drumming up like-minded support in echo chambers.
Mr. 124, that's true (particularly for things like reactions to debates).
These stories usually unravel. But this isn't really something I know much about - is it true? If it is it will be damage that will last long after we've rejoined.
It is just whataboutery mince. All if if if if by some moronic halfwit trying to justify the crappy Tory deal. Utter and total bollox.
Not this one Malc. As I mentioned on here a couple of weeks ago after a chat with a local grain merchant, you wouldn't want to be a sheep in the event of no deal Brexit.
He also me that not a vessel of wheat had traded beyond March 29th delivery.
That's interesting.
I am putting together a deal right now to get some manufacturing done in the UK instead of China. It means I need to get a component over from Germany by the last week in March. The standard delivery quoted is 4-6 weeks. They say this for their entire catalogue and have done for years. So I gave the UK stockist a ring to see if I could get a prediction.
The reply was there's a good chance it will be less than 4 weeks. But they are making no predictions after the end of March.
"You think there might be disruption to transport?"
"I think it may no longer be available via us - they are talking about only dealing directly with UK customers."
That was a bit of a faux pas on the part of the guy on the phone. If losing the account was in the offing, especially if it was still in negotiation, the last thing he should have done was make this information known to a customer. But it is one of those imponderable effects of Brexit. Currently I have a credit account with a UK supplier so I can place an order the day I work out that I need the goods. Come April I might need to work on pro forma and possibly a bigger minimum order quantity and certainly more paperwork and a longer wait for what I need.
You won't see this kind of loss of competitiveness showing up in any statistics, but that doesn't mean it won't be real.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
And this changing of clothes but not policies is how we got here. Millions of angry voters who simply aren't going to vote for Labour or Tory again. It's possible that a residual ERG Tory party or residual Corbynite only Labour party could try and shore up the vote by adopting out means out. But at the cost of losing the rest of their voters which means out of power.
The Brexit Party will have at least a LibDem level of representation after the next election, I expect the TIGgers to be in decent numbers, can't see the demise of the SNP whilst all this is going on. Which means no majority for whatever is left of Labour or the Tories. And immense pressure for electoral reform from all sides
Alternatively, a party will win a majority with a third of the vote.
At the moment too many Leavers think they can get No Deal if the Deal is rejected, as it becomes increasingly clear the alternative to the Deal in the Commons will be extension of Art 50, EUref2 and quite possibly No Brexit at all many of those same Leavers will be forced to come behind the Deal
The problem with the ERG'ers is that, being rather dim, they will only reach this conclusion too late .....
The diehards maybe but as Fabricant tweeted yesterday many will switch to the Deal as No Brexit increasingly becomes a possibility
Anyone thinking the current UK Labour party is at the lowest possible ebb should check out SLab leader Richard Leonard on Sunday Politics Scotland. Even I'm embarrassed.
Yes, an interesting tale. The Czechs originally fought in the Austrian Army on the Eastern Front, were captured by the Imperial Russian Army, and then were supposed to have been given safe passage by the Bolsheviks after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. They ended up being one of the chief anti-Communist forces during the Russian Civil War.
In the south they also ended up being one of the main pro-Soviet forces. In 1918 the Tashkent Soviet were fighting against a combined British-Transcaspian force near Merv and the Soviets told the POWs that they could go free if they fought their way through the British to the Caspian
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
And this changing of clothes but not policies is how we got here. Millions of angry voters who simply aren't going to vote for Labour or Tory again. It's possible that a residual ERG Tory party or residual Corbynite only Labour party could try and shore up the vote by adopting out means out. But at the cost of losing the rest of their voters which means out of power.
The Brexit Party will have at least a LibDem level of representation after the next election, I expect the TIGgers to be in decent numbers, can't see the demise of the SNP whilst all this is going on. Which means no majority for whatever is left of Labour or the Tories. And immense pressure for electoral reform from all sides
To repeat points made on here last night, I think you underestimate the problems likely to be faced by both the Brexit Party and TIG in receiving airtime from the Broadcasters during an election campaign. It seems unlikely that either would be granted 'major party status'by the Electoral Commission and so would be squeezed out of major events such as Debates etc.. The Brexit Party will also be facing a battle with UKIP for public attention .I would not expect it to win a single seat.
Is it not based partly on number of MPs, which would favour the Bouncing Party.
To repeat points made on here last night, I think you underestimate the problems likely to be faced by both the Brexit Party and TIG in receiving airtime from the Broadcasters during an election campaign. It seems unlikely that either would be granted 'major party status'by the Electoral Commission and so would be squeezed out of major events such as Debates etc.. The Brexit Party will also be facing a battle with UKIP for public attention .I would not expect it to win a single seat.
Is it not based partly on number of MPs, which would favour the Bouncing Party.
How do we know all this abuse directed at some Labour MPs is just from anti Semitic Labour members and supporters and not also from non Labour supporters trying to smear the party .
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem but anyone can go online proclaiming to be a Corbyn fan and direct abuse at people .
These stories usually unravel. But this isn't really something I know much about - is it true? If it is it will be damage that will last long after we've rejoined.
It is just whataboutery mince. All if if if if by some moronic halfwit trying to justify the crappy Tory deal. Utter and total bollox.
Not this one Malc. As I mentioned on here a couple of weeks ago after a chat with a local grain merchant, you wouldn't want to be a sheep in the event of no deal Brexit.
He also me that not a vessel of wheat had traded beyond March 29th delivery.
That's interesting.
I am putting together a deal right now to get some manufacturing done in the UK instead of China. It means I need to get a component over from Germany by the last week in March. The standard delivery quoted is 4-6 weeks. They say this for their entire catalogue and have done for years. So I gave the UK stockist a ring to see if I could get a prediction.
The reply was there's a good chance it will be less than 4 weeks. But they are making no predictions after the end of March.
"You think there might be disruption to transport?"
"I think it may no longer be available via us - they are talking about only dealing directly with UK customers."
That was a bit of a faux pas on the part of the guy on the phone. If losing the account was in the offing, especially if it was still in negotiation, the last thing he should have done was make this information known to a customer. But it is one of those imponderable effects of Brexit. Currently I have a credit account with a UK supplier so I can place an order the day I work out that I need the goods. Come April I might need to work on pro forma and possibly a bigger minimum order quantity and certainly more paperwork and a longer wait for what I need.
You won't see this kind of loss of competitiveness showing up in any statistics, but that doesn't mean it won't be real.
The Tory party has dropped being the party of the union and tte party of business to be the party of brexit. I am not sure long term this will be seen as a great realignment.
The loss of competitiveness is already showing in the numbers. Consumers are ahead of the government in this regards. They realise it is going to be tough and are cutting back.
He is a Tory so it is outright lying for sure. They have to swear an oath to lie when being selected
Now that's an interesting example of what's called the library paradox, and much better than the ones that tenth-rate egomaniac Russell actually came up with.
That is to say, if you keep the oath, you haven't lied and therefore you have broken it. But the only way to break the oath, and therefore to avoid the paradox, is to tell the truth.
You are being unfair on Russell here, because this is not an example of Russell's Paradox (which is the name I know it by and the wikipedia site you link calls it). This is a much older paradox which often rears it's head with the statement "I always lie".
In this example the Conservative Party member is an element of a set. Russell's paradox deals with sets not elements. He defines a set which can neither be assigned to a second set nor to its complement. The difference from the liar's paradox might at first appear trivial, but it was key to identifying the stumbling block in the early 20thC thinking in fundamental mathematics.
If there is a neater way of explaining Russell's Paradox than the library catalog example someone in the last 80 years would have already come up with one.
I agree that intervening in an area like the Middle East that one does not understand is almost certainly a mistake. I would make an exception for limited humanitarian intervention eg helping the Kurds poisoned by Saddam or the Yazidis.
But intervening in an area he does not understand is exactly what Corbyn is doing by his willingness to take one side in the Israel-Palestine dispute without bothering to understand the other. Or in his support for Assad. And his failure to countenance any form of humanitarian intervention - he was against any help to the Yazidis, for instance - is very obviously and expressly at odds with what he himself he has said:
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
He cannot have it both ways.
I agree with that, but I'd also add that intervention is very complex. In the case of Syria, we had a dictator gassing his own civilians - an act that is against many international laws, and a massive war crime.
We had three choices: 1) Choose to intervene, militarily and/or diplomatically. 2) Choose to not intervene and ignore. 3) Not make a decision as it is too difficult - which is, in itself, a decision, and can also have hideous consequences.
Sometimes there are no 'right' options, and the consequences of actions are murky and nasty. But not making an active decision because it is difficult is as much a decision as the other options: and just as worthy of censure after the event.
In the case of Syria, due to Miliband's hideous actions, we did the third option - and one of the countries actively aiding and abetting Assad's use of chemical weapons used chemical weapons against us a couple of years later.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
And this changing of clothes but not policies is how we got here. Millions of angry voters who simply aren't going to vote for Labour or Tory again. It's possible that a residual ERG Tory party or residual Corbynite only Labour party could try and shore up the vote by adopting out means out. But at the cost of losing the rest of their voters which means out of power.
The Brexit Party will have at least a LibDem level of representation after the next election, I expect the TIGgers to be in decent numbers, can't see the demise of the SNP whilst all this is going on. Which means no majority for whatever is left of Labour or the Tories. And immense pressure for electoral reform from all sides
To repeat points made on here last night, I think you underestimate the problems likely to be faced by both the Brexit Party and TIG in receiving airtime from the Broadcasters during an election campaign. It seems unlikely that either would be granted 'major party status'by the Electoral Commission and so would be squeezed out of major events such as Debates etc.. The Brexit Party will also be facing a battle with UKIP for public attention .I would not expect it to win a single seat.
Is it not based partly on number of MPs, which would favour the Bouncing Party.
Not if the MPs concerned were elected as candidates of other parties. As things stand TIG and the Brexit Party have no electoral history at all to justify any status - the OMRLP and Literal Democrats etc can at least claim to have received some support at earlier elections.
These stories usually unravel. But this isn't really something I know much about - is it true? If it is it will be damage that will last long after we've rejoined.
It is just whataboutery mince. All if if if if by some moronic halfwit trying to justify the crappy Tory deal. Utter and total bollox.
Not this one Malc. As I mentioned on here a couple of weeks ago after a chat with a local grain merchant, you wouldn't want to be a sheep in the event of no deal Brexit.
He also me that not a vessel of wheat had traded beyond March 29th delivery.
Still do not see why you would have to cull and burn them, seems over the top fearmongering. Someone would buy them and at that time of year there is plenty of grass. Seems over the top.
How do we know all this abuse directed at some Labour MPs is just from anti Semitic Labour members and supporters and not also from non Labour supporters trying to smear the party .
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem but anyone can go online proclaiming to be a Corbyn fan and direct abuse at people .
That's almost certainly the case - though it isn't the whole story. The problem is that the (in)actions of the Labour party has allowed such comments to stick to them. If they'd acted earlier and clearer, it wouldn't be sticking.
You just need to look at some of the comments on here to see this in action, with Corbynite Labour supporters denying and excusing anti-Semitism. They sometimes have reasonable arguments, but all too often they deny and excuse real and evident anti-Semitic comments and patterns of behaviour.
I'd also add that it wouldn't surprise me if the Conservative Party was as deep in the mire in five or ten years wrt Islamaphobia. But at the moment, it's Labour's problem, and their handling of it has been lamentable.
And you have to ask why it's been lamentable. There's a very worrying answer: that they don't actually mind anti-Semitism because they agree with it ...
He is a Tory so it is outright lying for sure. They have to swear an oath to lie when being selected
Now that's an interesting example of what's called the library paradox, and much better than the ones that tenth-rate egomaniac Russell actually came up with.
That is to say, if you keep the oath, you haven't lied and therefore you have broken it. But the only way to break the oath, and therefore to avoid the paradox, is to tell the truth.
You are being unfair on Russell here, because this is not an example of Russell's Paradox (which is the name I know it by and the wikipedia site you link calls it). This is a much older paradox which often rears it's head with the statement "I always lie".
In this example the Conservative Party member is an element of a set. Russell's paradox deals with sets not elements. He defines a set which can neither be assigned to a second set nor to its complement. The difference from the liar's paradox might at first appear trivial, but it was key to identifying the stumbling block in the early 20thC thinking in fundamental mathematics.
If there is a neater way of explaining Russell's Paradox than the library catalog example someone in the last 80 years would have already come up with one.
Except the 'library catalog example' doesn't explain it. Because all you have to do to eliminate the paradox is reverse the example.
Falconer wont be allowed to last long in his new role I see:
"A Labour peer drafted in to put out the flames of its hugely damaging anti-Semitism crisis has warned 'clear-cut' cases where no action was taken will be reopened."
He is a Tory so it is outright lying for sure. They have to swear an oath to lie when being selected
Now that's an interesting example of what's called the library paradox, and much better than the ones that tenth-rate egomaniac Russell actually came up with.
That is to say, if you keep the oath, you haven't lied and therefore you have broken it. But the only way to break the oath, and therefore to avoid the paradox, is to tell the truth.
You are being unfair on Russell here, because this is not an example of Russell's Paradox (which is the name I know it by and the wikipedia site you link calls it). This is a much older paradox which often rears it's head with the statement "I always lie".
In this example the Conservative Party member is an element of a set. Russell's paradox deals with sets not elements. He defines a set which can neither be assigned to a second set nor to its complement. The difference from the liar's paradox might at first appear trivial, but it was key to identifying the stumbling block in the early 20thC thinking in fundamental mathematics.
If there is a neater way of explaining Russell's Paradox than the library catalog example someone in the last 80 years would have already come up with one.
Except the 'library catalog example' doesn't explain it. Because all you have to do to eliminate the paradox is reverse the example.
How do we know all this abuse directed at some Labour MPs is just from anti Semitic Labour members and supporters and not also from non Labour supporters trying to smear the party .
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem but anyone can go online proclaiming to be a Corbyn fan and direct abuse at people .
It is just whataboutery mince. All if if if if by some moronic halfwit trying to justify the crappy Tory deal. Utter and total bollox.
Not this one Malc. As I mentioned on here a couple of weeks ago after a chat with a local grain merchant, you wouldn't want to be a sheep in the event of no deal Brexit.
He also me that not a vessel of wheat had traded beyond March 29th delivery.
That's interesting.
I am putting together a deal right now to get some manufacturing done in the UK instead of China. It means I need to get a component over from Germany by the last week in March. The standard delivery quoted is 4-6 weeks. They say this for their entire catalogue and have done for years. So I gave the UK stockist a ring to see if I could get a prediction.
The reply was there's a good chance it will be less than 4 weeks. But they are making no predictions after the end of March.
"You think there might be disruption to transport?"
"I think it may no longer be available via us - they are talking about only dealing directly with UK customers."
That was a bit of a faux pas on the part of the guy on the phone. If losing the account was in the offing, especially if it was still in negotiation, the last thing he should have done was make this information known to a customer. But it is one of those imponderable effects of Brexit. Currently I have a credit account with a UK supplier so I can place an order the day I work out that I need the goods. Come April I might need to work on pro forma and possibly a bigger minimum order quantity and certainly more paperwork and a longer wait for what I need.
You won't see this kind of loss of competitiveness showing up in any statistics, but that doesn't mean it won't be real.
The Tory party has dropped being the party of the union and tte party of business to be the party of brexit. I am not sure long term this will be seen as a great realignment.
The loss of competitiveness is already showing in the numbers. Consumers are ahead of the government in this regards. They realise it is going to be tough and are cutting back.
What 'cutting back' ?
' Year-on-year growth in the quantity bought in January 2019 was 4.2%, the highest since December 2016; while year-on-year average store prices slowed to 0.4%, the lowest price increase since November 2016. '
How do we know all this abuse directed at some Labour MPs is just from anti Semitic Labour members and supporters and not also from non Labour supporters trying to smear the party .
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem but anyone can go online proclaiming to be a Corbyn fan and direct abuse at people .
He is a Tory so it is outright lying for sure. They have to swear an oath to lie when being selected
Now that's an interesting example of what's called the library paradox, and much better than the ones that tenth-rate egomaniac Russell actually came up with.
That is to say, if you keep the oath, you haven't lied and therefore you have broken it. But the only way to break the oath, and therefore to avoid the paradox, is to tell the truth.
You are being unfair on Russell here, because this is not an example of Russell's Paradox (which is the name I know it by and the wikipedia site you link calls it). This is a much older paradox which often rears it's head with the statement "I always lie".
In this example the Conservative Party member is an element of a set. Russell's paradox deals with sets not elements. He defines a set which can neither be assigned to a second set nor to its complement. The difference from the liar's paradox might at first appear trivial, but it was key to identifying the stumbling block in the early 20thC thinking in fundamental mathematics.
If there is a neater way of explaining Russell's Paradox than the library catalog example someone in the last 80 years would have already come up with one.
Except the 'library catalog example' doesn't explain it. Because all you have to do to eliminate the paradox is reverse the example.
Can you explain that?
Russell's example was of a librarian who wanted to make a catalogue of all library catalogues that didn't include the catalogue itself. Which is impossible because if it doesn't include the catalogue thus created, it is incomplete, and if it does, it isn't accurate.
Leaving aside the minor fact that it's barely more coherent in practical terms than his ludicrous suggestion of a barber who shaved every man in the world except himself, it can be very simply got round by making a catalogue of all the catalogues that DO include the catalogue - and putting the catalogue itself in it. That way it is both complete and accurate.
If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.
Prominent Labour members implicated in the coverup of this scandal include Hodge, Harman, Corbyn, Macdonnell, Blair...
TBH I think it is mainly you and a few other out there thinkers that implicate Corbyn in this...
You understand of course that as MP Corbyn wasn't actually anything to do with the running of care homes. Slipped your mind again I'm sure.
You mean like, for example, Liz Davies, the whistleblower, who told him three times only for him to smile her and tell her there wasn't really a problem?
Of course he didn't have anything to do with running children's homes. Nobody is suggesting that. But he knew what was happening and failed to report it or take any action over it. That counts as being part of the 'cover up.'
Put it this way - if, knowing what he did, I had acted as he did, I would be sacked and banned from teaching.
If there was proof of what you claim Corbyn would indeed be fired, as it is he passed information he received on.
Corbyn is no more responsible for paedophilia that he didn't know about in his area than you are as a teacher for paedophilia you don't know about in your area.
Those who would accuse you and try and get you fired from your jobs for such a thing almost certainly have alternative motives and probably don't give a damn about paedophilia.
Comments
Happy, innocent days.
But intervening in an area he does not understand is exactly what Corbyn is doing by his willingness to take one side in the Israel-Palestine dispute without bothering to understand the other. Or in his support for Assad. And his failure to countenance any form of humanitarian intervention - he was against any help to the Yazidis, for instance - is very obviously and expressly at odds with what he himself he has said:
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
He cannot have it both ways.
They have to swear an oath to lie when being selected
The Brexit Party will have at least a LibDem level of representation after the next election, I expect the TIGgers to be in decent numbers, can't see the demise of the SNP whilst all this is going on. Which means no majority for whatever is left of Labour or the Tories. And immense pressure for electoral reform from all sides
He also me that not a vessel of wheat had traded beyond March 29th delivery.
This paragraph particularly resonated:
Whatever process is in place, whatever procedures and rules exist, however good and effective they are, they are never sufficient. Necessary yes. But they are mostly proof of the importance with which the issue is viewed. The real test of any complaints process is whether those for whom it exists trust the organisation to investigate properly and act on the findings, no matter who is involved. Without that trust, even the best written procedures implemented by a whole host of angels are mere will o’ the wisps.
An over-reliance on procedures bedevils modern society, either because it’s assumed they deal with a problem when, as you point out, they don’t - or because they are insufficient, ill-suited, or too inflexible to to deal with complex issues, and create their own unintended problems (Windrush).
That is to say, if you keep the oath, you haven't lied and therefore you have broken it. But the only way to break the oath, and therefore to avoid the paradox, is to tell the truth.
1. Punish anti semitic behaviour by members and in bad cases expel the member.
2. Discourage anti semitism in the Labour Party.
3. Convince those who care - which is not only Jewish people but also the many, many non-Jews for whom anti semitism offends core values - that 1. and 2. are on track.
Jennie Formby, Len McLuskey and the Corbyn fanclub never get past 1. They think that as long as they have a disciplinary process for 1. nothing else can be expected of them and all the rest must be bad faith black ops by someone or other.
This means that they utterly fail on 2. Process is not enough. Those who attack the people making accusations, and whose first instinct is to defend the people accused, not only fail to discourage anti semitism, they actively carve out a safe place for it. In other words, their disciplinary process nothwithstanding, they are encouraging anti semitism.
Of course that means that they are nowhere on 3. No outsider thinks that Labour is doing enough, and outsiders are most of the potential Labour voters, only a small minority of whom are party members, let alone party activists.
Jennie Formby and the #]IStandWithWilliamson crowd (who seem to include Jeremy Corbyn) cannot solve this problem by disciplinary action, even it is ramped up more than it is now. The Labour Party leadership has to move on to 2. and 3. - but there is absolutely no sign that they will. They are in a spiral of failure, because, not understanding the difference between 1., 2, and 3., they respond to criticism by sticking with 1., going in the wrong direction on 2. and so failing over and over again on 3.
Mr. 124, that's true (particularly for things like reactions to debates).
I am putting together a deal right now to get some manufacturing done in the UK instead of China. It means I need to get a component over from Germany by the last week in March. The standard delivery quoted is 4-6 weeks. They say this for their entire catalogue and have done for years. So I gave the UK stockist a ring to see if I could get a prediction.
The reply was there's a good chance it will be less than 4 weeks. But they are making no predictions after the end of March.
"You think there might be disruption to transport?"
"I think it may no longer be available via us - they are talking about only dealing directly with UK customers."
That was a bit of a faux pas on the part of the guy on the phone. If losing the account was in the offing, especially if it was still in negotiation, the last thing he should have done was make this information known to a customer. But it is one of those imponderable effects of Brexit. Currently I have a credit account with a UK supplier so I can place an order the day I work out that I need the goods. Come April I might need to work on pro forma and possibly a bigger minimum order quantity and certainly more paperwork and a longer wait for what I need.
You won't see this kind of loss of competitiveness showing up in any statistics, but that doesn't mean it won't be real.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2019/03/02/exclusive-why-i-left-the-labour-party/
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem but anyone can go online proclaiming to be a Corbyn fan and direct abuse at people .
The loss of competitiveness is already showing in the numbers. Consumers are ahead of the government in this regards. They realise it is going to be tough and are cutting back.
In this example the Conservative Party member is an element of a set. Russell's paradox deals with sets not elements. He defines a set which can neither be assigned to a second set nor to its complement. The difference from the liar's paradox might at first appear trivial, but it was key to identifying the stumbling block in the early 20thC thinking in fundamental mathematics.
If there is a neater way of explaining Russell's Paradox than the library catalog example someone in the last 80 years would have already come up with one.
We had three choices:
1) Choose to intervene, militarily and/or diplomatically.
2) Choose to not intervene and ignore.
3) Not make a decision as it is too difficult - which is, in itself, a decision, and can also have hideous consequences.
Sometimes there are no 'right' options, and the consequences of actions are murky and nasty. But not making an active decision because it is difficult is as much a decision as the other options: and just as worthy of censure after the event.
In the case of Syria, due to Miliband's hideous actions, we did the third option - and one of the countries actively aiding and abetting Assad's use of chemical weapons used chemical weapons against us a couple of years later.
BTW, good threader, thanks.
You just need to look at some of the comments on here to see this in action, with Corbynite Labour supporters denying and excusing anti-Semitism. They sometimes have reasonable arguments, but all too often they deny and excuse real and evident anti-Semitic comments and patterns of behaviour.
I'd also add that it wouldn't surprise me if the Conservative Party was as deep in the mire in five or ten years wrt Islamaphobia. But at the moment, it's Labour's problem, and their handling of it has been lamentable.
And you have to ask why it's been lamentable. There's a very worrying answer: that they don't actually mind anti-Semitism because they agree with it ...
"A Labour peer drafted in to put out the flames of its hugely damaging anti-Semitism crisis has warned 'clear-cut' cases where no action was taken will be reopened."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6765805/Peer-probing-Labour-anti-Semitism-vows-reopen-STONE-COLD-cases-boot-offenders.html
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1101919215676723201
https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/computational-propaganda-jewish-americans-and-the-2018-midterms-the-amplification
' Year-on-year growth in the quantity bought in January 2019 was 4.2%, the highest since December 2016; while year-on-year average store prices slowed to 0.4%, the lowest price increase since November 2016. '
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/bulletins/retailsales/january2019
But, much it is not
NEW THREAD
Leaving aside the minor fact that it's barely more coherent in practical terms than his ludicrous suggestion of a barber who shaved every man in the world except himself, it can be very simply got round by making a catalogue of all the catalogues that DO include the catalogue - and putting the catalogue itself in it. That way it is both complete and accurate.
Corbyn is no more responsible for paedophilia that he didn't know about in his area than you are as a teacher for paedophilia you don't know about in your area.
Those who would accuse you and try and get you fired from your jobs for such a thing almost certainly have alternative motives and probably don't give a damn about paedophilia.