I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
On balance I am persuaded. It's a good idea.
I bet Iain Duncan Smith isn't though. Can't see him accepting something like this lying down.
Ian Duncan Smith has an intelligence limiter implanted in his brain.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
The fact that it is an authoritarian country like China, that regularly locks up large numbers of its people for the most spurious of reasons, that is leading with this sort of thing should be a warning to us all.
Something we can agree on Mr Tyndall. They have largely done away with cash. Everyone uses phones. A very neat system for a surveillance state to not only monitor your spending, but also what you are buying and where you are. Pretty scary.
To be honest Nigel outside of Brexit and your attachment to a party, I suspect we would agree on a great many things.
That is one of the odd things about the ID card mess: there was a heck of a lot of controversy over governmental ID / biometric cards, and the idea was more or less scrapped. Yet within a few years, we're willingly giving vast amounts of personal data to fairly unaccountable third parties over the Internet...
TBF there's a big difference depending on whether you get to choose which third-parties you interact with. OK, TBF that's hard in practice because basically every website in the known universe opts in to Facebook and Google tracking, but you can at least do it if you work at it.
Use a VPN and limit the information you put out there.
It is sensible advice, but even then. For example it is known Facebook is the larger purchaser of personal data in the world and builds profiles of people have never even signed up to facebook. They buy so much info and have such large processing resources they can turn anonymized data into personal just by the sheer scale of all the bits they have bought.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
The fact that it is an authoritarian country like China, that regularly locks up large numbers of its people for the most spurious of reasons, that is leading with this sort of thing should be a warning to us all.
Totally agree. But how do you encourage good behaviour without the fear of getting caught and punished? Or doesn't it matter? By "good" I mean not driving while drunk, respecting other people's property etc - but not being able to recite the thoughts of Mao.
I'm an atheist with strong moral values. I suspect it is my Catholic upbringing, or perhaps that my parents had strong moral values. I'm very tolerant though.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
If you floor the accelerator you car would still accelerate under the new regulations.
The intent is to stop dozy drivers exceeding the speed limit because they aren't paying attention, not to enforce a speed limit in all circumstances.
Indeed. Many on this thread seem to be labouring under a gigantic misapprehension, and running with it (but hey, PB). To be clear these regs simply mandate that cars have a warning system, they won't mechanically govern the vehicle down to 80mph out 70mph or whatever.
I don't own a car, but like to hire nice exec cars when I need them. The last couple I have rented already had a very similar system. I still broke the limit, on open roads, from time to time, but the warning was useful.
What's the big problem? Anyone would think the gammons are getting all hot and bothered for the fun of it.
No need to spoil an interesting post with a quasi-racial slur.
Only a semi-serious post but anyone who has worked in the Middle East will know the nightmare of speed warnings in cars. In the Emirates in the 80s and 90s they were a bell that started ringing when you exceeded the national speed limit.
And never stopped.
Ever.
Until you dropped below the limit again.
5 minutes of that bloody bell was enough to make anyone drive within the limit.
Massive Movement on Betfair in the last 15 minutes in favour of May's deal being approved at 3rd attempt.
This seems to be optimistic - Rees Mogg's article in the Mail says he is "now willing to support [the deal] IF THE DUP DOES." But there is little sign that the DUP are going to do that, their statements yesterday do not suggest any movement on their part.
Evidently, he was upset by the reaction from twatter about his lack of ideological purity.
Not sure this has been mentioned, but Ken Clarke just said IF the House comes to a conclusion and Mrs May ignores it "she would have to be removed by VONC"...
By "She" I presume he meant "the government"?
I think he meant her. And by extension her government But FTPA means VONC merely leads to a new leader. He sounded more than prepared to do so.
I don't think you can VONC just the PM - its got to be the government.
Indeed. Merely reporting that the Father of the House said he would vote to bring down the government. Quite extraordinary under any normal circumstances.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
The fact that it is an authoritarian country like China, that regularly locks up large numbers of its people for the most spurious of reasons, that is leading with this sort of thing should be a warning to us all.
Something we can agree on Mr Tyndall. They have largely done away with cash. Everyone uses phones. A very neat system for a surveillance state to not only monitor your spending, but also what you are buying and where you are. Pretty scary.
To be honest Nigel outside of Brexit and your attachment to a party, I suspect we would agree on a great many things.
I suspect that may well be true. My attachment to a party is somewhat tenuous as you have probably guessed.
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I wouldn’t worry. There is no chance that he gets through to the final 2.
Wasn't it widely believed that there was no chance of the UK voting to leave the EU at one, quite recent, time?
I’m an active member of the Tory Party and know a few MPs. Trust me; he has no chance.
If you don’t believe me, speak to TSE.
If Johnson was self-aware enough to know he stood no chance even in the days following the referendum, why does he still keep trying?
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
On balance I am persuaded. It's a good idea.
I bet Iain Duncan Smith isn't though. Can't see him accepting something like this lying down.
Ian Duncan Smith has an intelligence limiter implanted in his brain.
That is one of the odd things about the ID card mess: there was a heck of a lot of controversy over governmental ID / biometric cards, and the idea was more or less scrapped. Yet within a few years, we're willingly giving vast amounts of personal data to fairly unaccountable third parties over the Internet...
TBF there's a big difference depending on whether you get to choose which third-parties you interact with. OK, TBF that's hard in practice because basically every website in the known universe opts in to Facebook and Google tracking, but you can at least do it if you work at it.
Use a VPN and limit the information you put out there.
That won't do much if I have an ID tracking you through pretty much every website your VPN-proxied browser visits, which if I'm Facebook or Google I do.
Add an ad blocker to that and you're getting somewhere, but still maybe not as far as you'd like.
Car speed limiters in 2022, we're getting them whether in the EU or not.
Isn’t this a complete non story? Speed limiting technology does not enforce speed limits, it allows drivers to control their speed by means other than the accelerator and the brake.
No - It very much is a story and the EU will pass it into law in September applying to all new cars and commercial vehicles from 2022. The speed will be governed by a limiter based on gps. The driver will be able to override the speed limiter but aftet a short period an audible warning will cut in
There’s an awful lot of shitcake nannying legislation coming out of the EU this week that reminds me why I voted to Leave. They seem intent on taking all the freedom and pleasure out of driving.
It’s reminded me why I voted to Leave and felt so strongly about it prior to the vote.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Yes, and so do you.
I’ve never met anyone who’s religiously stuck to 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways at all times, and wouldn’t believe you if you said you were one of them.
Going 100mph+ is obviously dickish but rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
I agree with that post completely. However EU rules tend to be very sensible (I'm sure there are exceptions), but then we in the UK get hold of them and gold plate them and/or enforce them religiously. Our 'jobs worth' attitude to rules in this country is very frustrating. It often results in laws not being passed that should be because we can't cope with all exceptions, or laws being enforced when clearly common sense says they shouldn't in particular instances.
And, also, that too many in positions of authority take pleasure in “catching” those who technically break the rules.
Easier to do so as to meet the required stats rather than catch those the rules were implemented to catch.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
On balance I am persuaded. It's a good idea.
I bet Iain Duncan Smith isn't though. Can't see him accepting something like this lying down.
Ian Duncan Smith has an intelligence limiter implanted in his brain.
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I wouldn’t worry. There is no chance that he gets through to the final 2.
Wasn't it widely believed that there was no chance of the UK voting to leave the EU at one, quite recent, time?
I’m an active member of the Tory Party and know a few MPs. Trust me; he has no chance.
If you don’t believe me, speak to TSE.
If Johnson was self-aware enough to know he stood no chance even in the days following the referendum, why does he still keep trying?
What proportion of the Tory membership do you think want to see him in the final 2, and if he isn't there, would consider it a "stitch up" by the "elite"? Who else would need to get through to the final 2 to assuage those members' fears? One issue I think the Tories have with selecting a new leader is the lack of democracy given to the members; if they don't trust the party MPs to pick the top 2 candidates, why should they bother with the party? (Ignoring negative partisanship, ofc)
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
The problem comes when my (or your) idea of what constitutes good behaviour conflicts with the government's
In answer to your question, I would never drive through a red light unless the light was obviously broken. There will always be a risk of an accident, however remote, and why take a chance?
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
If you floor the accelerator you car would still accelerate under the new regulations.
The intent is to stop dozy drivers exceeding the speed limit because they aren't paying attention, not to enforce a speed limit in all circumstances.
Indeed. Many on this thread seem to be labouring under a gigantic misapprehension, and running with it (but hey, PB). To be clear these regs simply mandate that cars have a warning system, they won't mechanically govern the vehicle down to 80mph out 70mph or whatever.
I don't own a car, but like to hire nice exec cars when I need them. The last couple I have rented already had a very similar system. I still broke the limit, on open roads, from time to time, but the warning was useful.
What's the big problem? Anyone would think the gammons are getting all hot and bothered for the fun of it.
No need to spoil an interesting post with a quasi-racial slur.
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I think it will be Gove or Hunt, therefore you should be able to stay.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I wouldn’t worry. There is no chance that he gets through to the final 2.
Wasn't it widely believed that there was no chance of the UK voting to leave the EU at one, quite recent, time?
I’m an active member of the Tory Party and know a few MPs. Trust me; he has no chance.
If you don’t believe me, speak to TSE.
If Johnson was self-aware enough to know he stood no chance even in the days following the referendum, why does he still keep trying?
Because you never know how "events dear boy events" are going to play out.
And presumably he'll want to be included in any future Cabinet?
I've always thought Theresa May only ran in the 2016 leadership election to try and solidify her position in the Cabinet.
I doubt she ever genuinely thought she'd become PM as who could have envisioned Boris and Gove would blow each other up like they did...
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I wouldn’t worry. There is no chance that he gets through to the final 2.
Wasn't it widely believed that there was no chance of the UK voting to leave the EU at one, quite recent, time?
I’m an active member of the Tory Party and know a few MPs. Trust me; he has no chance.
If you don’t believe me, speak to TSE.
If Johnson was self-aware enough to know he stood no chance even in the days following the referendum, why does he still keep trying?
You have put your finger on the whole MP dynamic. They are the ones that are persistent long after everyone else has given up. To become an MP, to be promoted, to join the cabinet and finally to become PM.
If BoJo becomes leader he will have deserved it through hard work. We may sit here mocking (and do) but that is what politics is all about.
I would of course resign my membership same as @Nigel_Foremain but that would not be to detract from Boris' achievement.
The problem comes when my (or your) idea of what constitutes good behaviour conflicts with the government's
In answer to your question, I would never drive through a red light unless the light was obviously broken. There will always be a risk of an accident, however remote, and why take a chance?
Having said that I wish we had the American system where we could turn left on a red light. Its irritating sometimes being sat for a long time where it would be safe to turn left, you're not crossing the junction and can see into the distance, but you have to wait.
The other stupidity sometimes in planning is except for large ones like on a motorway junction traffic lights and roundabouts should not mix! Traffic lights on a roundabout is a terrible idea and far too often the light changes to green but the roundabout is still congested from someone else on a red so nobody moves. Then light goes back to red and the traffic hasn't budged. Stupid design. Either use lights, or use a roundabout - no need for both together.
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I wouldn’t worry. There is no chance that he gets through to the final 2.
Wasn't it widely believed that there was no chance of the UK voting to leave the EU at one, quite recent, time?
I’m an active member of the Tory Party and know a few MPs. Trust me; he has no chance.
If you don’t believe me, speak to TSE.
If Johnson was self-aware enough to know he stood no chance even in the days following the referendum, why does he still keep trying?
What proportion of the Tory membership do you think want to see him in the final 2, and if he isn't there, would consider it a "stitch up" by the "elite"? Who else would need to get through to the final 2 to assuage those members' fears? One issue I think the Tories have with selecting a new leader is the lack of democracy given to the members; if they don't trust the party MPs to pick the top 2 candidates, why should they bother with the party? (Ignoring negative partisanship, ofc)
I think in the current party membership there are probably quite a number who are still gullible enough to be taken in by the blond charlatan. I know it is only a personal opinion, but I am not convinced by the idea that giving the final say to members of either of the main parties is more "democratic" than just allowing the parliamentary parties to decide.
I believe this to be a sop to activists, and MPs don't have the balls to challenge it. The reality is that MPs represent "real" people; some who have party affiliations and most who do not. MPs are therefore far better qualified to make a decision who their parliamentary leader should be, both from an understanding of the real, more representative electorate and they have a better knowledge of the personalities of the potential leaders.
The problem comes when my (or your) idea of what constitutes good behaviour conflicts with the government's
In answer to your question, I would never drive through a red light unless the light was obviously broken. There will always be a risk of an accident, however remote, and why take a chance?
Having said that I wish we had the American system where we could turn left on a red light. Its irritating sometimes being sat for a long time where it would be safe to turn left, you're not crossing the junction and can see into the distance, but you have to wait.
The other stupidity sometimes in planning is except for large ones like on a motorway junction traffic lights and roundabouts should not mix! Traffic lights on a roundabout is a terrible idea and far too often the light changes to green but the roundabout is still congested from someone else on a red so nobody moves. Then light goes back to red and the traffic hasn't budged. Stupid design. Either use lights, or use a roundabout - no need for both together.
The stupidest idea is to have pedestrian crossings at roundabouts.
Fear not, the EU proposal that we have had input into via the Commission allows that sort of manoeuvre. The alcohol interlock is only for those with previous convictions for drunk driving. Details here.
Of course if we had MEPs at the new session in September we could raise issues, rather than just follow them.
There may be some issues for low volume manufacturers such as Morgan.
Yes, it would appear that I went off half cocked, proffering an opinion without first availing myself of the full inventory of relevant facts pertaining to the issue at the hand.
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I think it will be Gove or Hunt, therefore you should be able to stay.
But, remember, Jeremy's door is always open.
Gove has made too many enemies and is too associated with plotting and scheming.
The problem comes when my (or your) idea of what constitutes good behaviour conflicts with the government's
In answer to your question, I would never drive through a red light unless the light was obviously broken. There will always be a risk of an accident, however remote, and why take a chance?
Having said that I wish we had the American system where we could turn left on a red light. Its irritating sometimes being sat for a long time where it would be safe to turn left, you're not crossing the junction and can see into the distance, but you have to wait.
The other stupidity sometimes in planning is except for large ones like on a motorway junction traffic lights and roundabouts should not mix! Traffic lights on a roundabout is a terrible idea and far too often the light changes to green but the roundabout is still congested from someone else on a red so nobody moves. Then light goes back to red and the traffic hasn't budged. Stupid design. Either use lights, or use a roundabout - no need for both together.
In NZ, in 1990, right turn had priority over oncoming traffic. Once used to it, it worked rather well at preventing tailbacks behind cars wanting to turn.
I've always thought Theresa May only ran in the 2016 leadership election to try and solidify her position in the Cabinet.
I doubt she ever genuinely thought she'd become PM as who could have envisioned Boris and Gove would blow each other up like they did...
Don't forget she had already been the favourite at some point prior to the referendum. She didn't run the campaign of someone playing for second place.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
It is like people who say if you fly the Union Flag you're racist because racists fly it.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
Sure, but that doesn't alter the fact that in the context of that sentence, there is no conceivable way in which the usage or intention was anti-semitic.
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I wouldn’t worry. There is no chance that he gets through to the final 2.
Wasn't it widely believed that there was no chance of the UK voting to leave the EU at one, quite recent, time?
I’m an active member of the Tory Party and know a few MPs. Trust me; he has no chance.
If you don’t believe me, speak to TSE.
If Johnson was self-aware enough to know he stood no chance even in the days following the referendum, why does he still keep trying?
What proportion of the Tory membership do you think want to see him in the final 2, and if he isn't there, would consider it a "stitch up" by the "elite"? Who else would need to get through to the final 2 to assuage those members' fears? One issue I think the Tories have with selecting a new leader is the lack of democracy given to the members; if they don't trust the party MPs to pick the top 2 candidates, why should they bother with the party? (Ignoring negative partisanship, ofc)
I think in the current party membership there are probably quite a number who are still gullible enough to be taken in by the blond charlatan. I know it is only a personal opinion, but I am not convinced by the idea that giving the final say to members of either of the main parties is more "democratic" than just allowing the parliamentary parties to decide.
I believe this to be a sop to activists, and MPs don't have the balls to challenge it. The reality is that MPs represent "real" people; some who have party affiliations and most who do not. MPs are therefore far better qualified to make a decision who their parliamentary leader should be, both from an understanding of the real, more representative electorate and they have a better knowledge of the personalities of the potential leaders.
It is quite an issue for parties that their members may well pick a leader without support from their MPs.
It would be better for the members to shortlist and the MPs to appoint rather than the reverse. the
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
She is probably too stupid to know that! She thought it sounded an intelligent phrase. I saw her on TV this morning saying people "voted for a no-deal Brexit". Funny, I didn't see that on my ballot paper and I am sure most leave advocates were saying there would be a deal.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
It is like people who say if you fly the Union Flag you're racist because racists fly it.
TBF that's a fairly reliable indicator, unless it's a royal wedding or you're an embassy or whatever.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
Sure, but that doesn't alter the fact that in the context of that sentence, there is no conceivable way in which the usage or intention was anti-semitic.
I think it's clear that since the whole Labour antisemitism row, the Left have tried their hardest to show the Tories in a bad light with regards to Islamophobia and, if possible, antisemitism. I think they've overreached on this occasion.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
It is like people who say if you fly the Union Flag you're racist because racists fly it.
TBF, I have seen it used derogatorily an in an anti-Semitic way elsewhere on the web. It's not common, but it is used in that way.
Besides, it's a fairly stupid term, designed to make the person say it sound more intelligent whilst rendering no real meaning.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
It is not, of course, limited to government and state institutions; Facebook or Google are probably more effective at monitoring their users.
Privacy has to be coded into the system for it to exist. Apple, and (ironically) the EU with the GDPR have made tentative and/or flawed steps in that direction...
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
She is probably too stupid to know that! She thought it sounded an intelligent phrase. I saw her on TV this morning saying people "voted for a no-deal Brexit". Funny, I didn't see that on my ballot paper and I am sure most leave advocates were saying there would be a deal.
The article contradicts itself, though, by acknowledging that Marxist theorists did indeed think that by gaining control of institutions, they could promote their cultural beliefs.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
Sure, but that doesn't alter the fact that in the context of that sentence, there is no conceivable way in which the usage or intention was anti-semitic.
I think it's clear that since the whole Labour antisemitism row, the Left have tried their hardest to show the Tories in a bad light with regards to Islamophobia and, if possible, antisemitism. I think they've overreached on this occasion.
Isn't it Tories who have been calling out Tories? Not "the left".
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I wouldn’t worry. There is no chance that he gets through to the final 2.
Wasn't it widely believed that there was no chance of the UK voting to leave the EU at one, quite recent, time?
I’m an active member of the Tory Party and know a few MPs. Trust me; he has no chance.
If you don’t believe me, speak to TSE.
If Johnson was self-aware enough to know he stood no chance even in the days following the referendum, why does he still keep trying?
What negative partisanship, ofc)
I think in the current party membership there are probably quite a number who are still gullible enough to be taken in by the blond charlatan. I know it is only a personal opinion, but I am not convinced by the idea that giving the final say to members of either of the main parties is more "democratic" than just allowing the parliamentary parties to decide.
I believe this to be a sop to activists, and MPs don't have the balls to challenge it. The reality is that MPs represent "real" people; some who have party affiliations and most who do not. MPs are therefore far better qualified to make a decision who their parliamentary leader should be, both from an understanding of the real, more representative electorate and they have a better knowledge of the personalities of the potential leaders.
It is quite an issue for parties that their members may well pick a leader without support from their MPs.
It would be better for the members to shortlist and the MPs to appoint rather than the reverse. the
The Tory system will be tested as and when it elects the candidate who came second among the MPs. Who will then need to lead their colleagues as their "second choice" and have to decide what to do with the more popular candidate.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
It is like people who say if you fly the Union Flag you're racist because racists fly it.
TBF that's a fairly reliable indicator, unless it's a royal wedding or you're an embassy or whatever.
National flags need to be reclaimed from racists and extremists. Let them keep their ones with funny little twisted crosses and hammers and sickles and their silly salutes and uniforms, and let them be laughed at.
Those of you in the narcissist-delusional subset of the ERG who have spent the last three years scrambling for the 810 Today slot while spouting gibberish about trade and the law across SW1 — i.e exactly the contemptible behaviour that led to your enforced marginalisation during the referendum and your attempt to destroy Vote Leave — you are also in the pirate category. You were useful idiots for Remain during the campaign and with every piece of bullshit from Bill Cash et al you have helped only Remain for three years. Remember how you WELCOMED the backstop as a ‘triumph’ in December 2017 when it was obvious to everybody who knew what was going on — NOT the Cabinet obviously — that this effectively ended the ‘negotiations’? Remember how Bernard Jenkin wrote on ConHome that he didn’t have to ‘ruin his weekend’ reading the document to know it was another success for the natural party of government — bringing to mind very clearly how during the referendum so many of you guys were too busy shooting or skiing or chasing girls to do any actual work. You should be treated like a metastasising tumour and excised from the UK body politic.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
Sure, but that doesn't alter the fact that in the context of that sentence, there is no conceivable way in which the usage or intention was anti-semitic.
I think it's clear that since the whole Labour antisemitism row, the Left have tried their hardest to show the Tories in a bad light with regards to Islamophobia and, if possible, antisemitism. I think they've overreached on this occasion.
Yes of course they have. Look at BJO of this parish - desperately searching to find any scrap of something he can use for whataboutism.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
It is like people who say if you fly the Union Flag you're racist because racists fly it.
TBF that's a fairly reliable indicator, unless it's a royal wedding or you're an embassy or whatever.
Good morning. The petition has reached 5.85 million signatures, although the rate has slowed to 98 per minute. I'll update my London signatures spreadsheet shortly.
The problem comes when my (or your) idea of what constitutes good behaviour conflicts with the government's
In answer to your question, I would never drive through a red light unless the light was obviously broken. There will always be a risk of an accident, however remote, and why take a chance?
Having said that I wish we had the American system where we could turn left on a red light. Its irritating sometimes being sat for a long time where it would be safe to turn left, you're not crossing the junction and can see into the distance, but you have to wait.
The other stupidity sometimes in planning is except for large ones like on a motorway junction traffic lights and roundabouts should not mix! Traffic lights on a roundabout is a terrible idea and far too often the light changes to green but the roundabout is still congested from someone else on a red so nobody moves. Then light goes back to red and the traffic hasn't budged. Stupid design. Either use lights, or use a roundabout - no need for both together.
The stupidest idea is to have pedestrian crossings at roundabouts.
How do you expect the pedestrians to cross? I mean, you could not have roundabouts, but that would be a shame, because they're totally great. They're pretty much the British government's greatest post-war achievement.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
It is like people who say if you fly the Union Flag you're racist because racists fly it.
TBF that's a fairly reliable indicator, unless it's a royal wedding or you're an embassy or whatever.
There's a chap round here who flies an Essex flag.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
Sure, but that doesn't alter the fact that in the context of that sentence, there is no conceivable way in which the usage or intention was anti-semitic.
I think it's clear that since the whole Labour antisemitism row, the Left have tried their hardest to show the Tories in a bad light with regards to Islamophobia and, if possible, antisemitism. I think they've overreached on this occasion.
Isn't it Tories who have been calling out Tories? Not "the left".
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
It is like people who say if you fly the Union Flag you're racist because racists fly it.
TBF that's a fairly reliable indicator, unless it's a royal wedding or you're an embassy or whatever.
Is it?
I think so - who else flies one without a special occasion? Billy Bragg once tried to make it a thing but he was specifically trying to *take back* the flag from the racists.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think what it comes down to is there are two meanings of cultural Marxism. The first has been used in academia for years and refers back to Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony.. It's a harmless way to describe the idea that the best way to achieve socialism is by cultural means rather than through revolution. In fact I learned of the term at uni, nearly twenty years ago, from a Marxist, who spoke very highly of the concept as being the best way to achieve socialism.
The second, more recent usage of the term as anti semitic conspiracy theory has taken hold in the darker corners of the Internet most people don't visit and wouldn't be aware of. I certainly wasn't until yesterday. It clearly exists, though it seems to be a recent thing, "popularised" by the manifesto of anders breivik. Which I suspect most sane people have never read.
Downthread I linked to a guardian article from 2007 where the phrase was so un-contentious the guardian allowed it to be used in a headline "the BBC's cultural Marxism" and none of the 300 or so commenters mentioned the conspiracy theory, which seems to have gained traction much more recently.
Read the comments. In 2007 nobody seemed to think this phrase had any anti semitic connotations. Perhaps that has changed, but it is perfectly possible to be familiar with the phrase without being familiar with the conspiracy theory, which seems to be a more recent development.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
It is like people who say if you fly the Union Flag you're racist because racists fly it.
TBF that's a fairly reliable indicator, unless it's a royal wedding or you're an embassy or whatever.
I don't think so and I find that rather sad.
Especially growing up overseas in Australia lots of homes proudly flew the Aussie flag without anyone second guessing it. And I saw many other nationalities flags [including the Union Flag] without anyone batting an eyelid either.
I got a Union Flag while at an Aus v Eng ODI while there and after moving back to the UK and into a Halls of Residence at University I flew the flag out my window without thinking twice about it . . . until one a couple of day later as I was walking back to the Halls with a friend of mine she said "urgh who is the BNP supporter?" and pointed at my flag. I took it down as I didn't want to give out the wrong idea but found that quite upsetting at the time.
Flying your own nation's flag should never be something to be ashamed off.
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
Whilst I don’t disagree with your views of Boris, you are an awful advert for the Conservative Party, which we share.
There are Labour posters on here I far prefer to you, and you’re routinely pompous, condescending and rude.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
It is like people who say if you fly the Union Flag you're racist because racists fly it.
TBF that's a fairly reliable indicator, unless it's a royal wedding or you're an embassy or whatever.
Goodness knows what you'd make of the place in my profile pic!
I think in the current party membership there are probably quite a number who are still gullible enough to be taken in by the blond charlatan. I know it is only a personal opinion, but I am not convinced by the idea that giving the final say to members of either of the main parties is more "democratic" than just allowing the parliamentary parties to decide.
I believe this to be a sop to activists, and MPs don't have the balls to challenge it. The reality is that MPs represent "real" people; some who have party affiliations and most who do not. MPs are therefore far better qualified to make a decision who their parliamentary leader should be, both from an understanding of the real, more representative electorate and they have a better knowledge of the personalities of the potential leaders.
Spot on. Handing the choice of leader to the party membership has proved disastrous for both parties. Party members are, by definition, more politically engaged than most people and their views are in no way representative of the population as a whole. Anyone who has ever been a member of a party knows that there are many nutters and obsessives amongst their ranks and most of them abhor the compromises necessary to exercise political power in the interests of the country as a whole.
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
Whilst I don’t disagree with your views of Boris, you are an awful advert for the Conservative Party, which we share.
There are Labour posters on here I far prefer to you, and you’re routinely pompous, condescending and rude.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
It is like people who say if you fly the Union Flag you're racist because racists fly it.
TBF that's a fairly reliable indicator, unless it's a royal wedding or you're an embassy or whatever.
I don't think so and I find that rather sad.
Especially growing up overseas in Australia lots of homes proudly flew the Aussie flag without anyone second guessing it. And I saw many other nationalities flags [including the Union Flag] without anyone batting an eyelid either.
I got a Union Flag while at an Aus v Eng ODI while there and after moving back to the UK and into a Halls of Residence at University I flew the flag out my window without thinking twice about it . . . until one a couple of day later as I was walking back to the Halls with a friend of mine she said "urgh who is the BNP supporter?" and pointed at my flag. I took it down as I didn't want to give out the wrong idea but found that quite upsetting at the time.
Flying your own nation's flag should never be something to be ashamed off.
Well, this is kind of my point. Normal people don't fly the flag, because they don't want people to think they're BNP supporters. The people who don't mind people thinking they're BNP supporters are mostly... BNP supporters.
It didn't have to be that way; As you say, most countries' flags don't have that kind of symbolism. And you can argue it *shouldn't* be that way, and try to do what Billy Bragg failed to do and take back the symbol, but that would be an attempt to *change* what it communicates.
Its certainly news to me that Cultural Marxism is tied up with anti-semitism. My understanding of the term was all about achieving socialism / marxism via campaigning hard for changes in societal norms.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
Sure, but that doesn't alter the fact that in the context of that sentence, there is no conceivable way in which the usage or intention was anti-semitic.
I think it's clear that since the whole Labour antisemitism row, the Left have tried their hardest to show the Tories in a bad light with regards to Islamophobia and, if possible, antisemitism. I think they've overreached on this occasion.
Yes of course they have. Look at BJO of this parish - desperately searching to find any scrap of something he can use for whataboutism.
Sayeeda Warsi Verified account
@SayeedaWarsi Follow Follow @SayeedaWarsi More Another Monday morning aaaannnnddd another bunch of bigots found out @Conservatives 🤦🏽♀️ So @BrandonLewis are these five members of the Party and are you going to expel “swiftly”? #DailyDetox
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
Sure, but that doesn't alter the fact that in the context of that sentence, there is no conceivable way in which the usage or intention was anti-semitic.
I think it's clear that since the whole Labour antisemitism row, the Left have tried their hardest to show the Tories in a bad light with regards to Islamophobia and, if possible, antisemitism. I think they've overreached on this occasion.
Isn't it Tories who have been calling out Tories? Not "the left".
Only if the Board of Deputies is "the Left".
They're actually pretty left wing these days on a lot of issues, on an individual basis. It's just because of the need to respond to Labour anti-semitism it appears that collectively they're right wing.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
If you floor the accelerator you car would still accelerate under the new regulations.
The intent is to stop dozy drivers exceeding the speed limit because they aren't paying attention, not to enforce a speed limit in all circumstances.
Indeed. Many on this thread seem to be labouring under a gigantic misapprehension, and running with it (but hey, PB). To be clear these regs simply mandate that cars have a warning system, they won't mechanically govern the vehicle down to 80mph out 70mph or whatever.
I don't own a car, but like to hire nice exec cars when I need them. The last couple I have rented already had a very similar system. I still broke the limit, on open roads, from time to time, but the warning was useful.
What's the big problem? Anyone would think the gammons are getting all hot and bothered for the fun of it.
I don’t agree with your argument, but it’s not an unreasonable one, so why spoil it with the racial slur in your final sentence?
How on earth do you think that’s constructive for healthy debate?
I am a European - in the true sense of the word. But as a remain voter who would now vote otherwise, I am anti-EU - at least in the current form. A form that is not going to change in the short-medium term as far as I can see.
Are you in favour of customs barriers between the countries that are currently in the EU? If not, then whatever you replace the EU with would need to look remarkably like the current EU.
I am perfectly happy to have a well-constructed trading bloc with reciprocal arrangements - what I object to is everything that has been loaded on top of that. The 'European Project' has moved beyond trade and the necessary structures to support and facilitate that into areas that really should be left to the nation state.
It would have been preferable if the EU had stayed as the Western European Union; the original six, plus us, Austria and Iberia and maybe Scandinavia. However, thanks in no small part to Mrs T, we are where we are. The culture in the East, for historic reasons is, it seems to me, somewhat different.
It's the med countries that have been the centre of the EU problems over the last years though, Eastern European Countries have been fairly well adjusted in EU until the recent awkward squad. Even now only Orban is a genuine problem for them, Polands government etc are just minor headaches. Freedom of movement from the East has not been anywhere near as toxic in other EU countries as in UK, I don't even recall Le Pen talking much about it as one of her EU critiques.
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
Sure, but that doesn't alter the fact that in the context of that sentence, there is no conceivable way in which the usage or intention was anti-semitic.
I think it's clear that since the whole Labour antisemitism row, the Left have tried their hardest to show the Tories in a bad light with regards to Islamophobia and, if possible, antisemitism. I think they've overreached on this occasion.
Yes of course they have. Look at BJO of this parish - desperately searching to find any scrap of something he can use for whataboutism.
Sayeeda Warsi Verified account
@SayeedaWarsi Follow Follow @SayeedaWarsi More Another Monday morning aaaannnnddd another bunch of bigots found out @Conservatives 🤦🏽♀️ So @BrandonLewis are these five members of the Party and are you going to expel “swiftly”? #DailyDetox
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think what it comes down to is there are two meanings of cultural Marxism. The first has been used in academia for years and refers back to Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony.. It's a harmless way to describe the idea that the best way to achieve socialism is by cultural means rather than through revolution. In fact I learned of the term at uni, nearly twenty years ago, from a Marxist, who spoke very highly of the concept as being the best way to achieve socialism.
The second, more recent usage of the term as anti semitic conspiracy theory has taken hold in the darker corners of the Internet most people don't visit and wouldn't be aware of. I certainly wasn't until yesterday. It clearly exists, though it seems to be a recent thing, "popularised" by the manifesto of anders breivik. Which I suspect most sane people have never read.
Downthread I linked to a guardian article from 2007 where the phrase was so un-contentious the guardian allowed it to be used in a headline "the BBC's cultural Marxism" and none of the 300 or so commenters mentioned the conspiracy theory, which seems to have gained traction much more recently.
Read the comments. In 2007 nobody seemed to think this phrase had any anti semitic connotations. Perhaps that has changed, but it is perfectly possible to be familiar with the phrase without being familiar with the conspiracy theory, which seems to be a more recent development.
Reminds me a bit of when there was all that uproar about Boris' insensitive joke about burka's and letterboxes....which he lifted from a Guardian article....
If 'Cultral Maxism' is now deemed to be anti-semitic, can we also do the same for 'neo-liberal elites'??
Cultural Marxism has always been an acceptable term of abuse on all sides of the political spectrum with the obvious exception of believers in Cultural Marxism.
Jezza could feed the whole commons with half a loaf and a bit of fish
Well he's certainly had a good Brexit so far.
But it's not over yet. If he fails to get a GE in 2019 out of this humdinger of a political crisis all of his sterling efforts to date will have been in vain.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
The fact that it is an authoritarian country like China, that regularly locks up large numbers of its people for the most spurious of reasons, that is leading with this sort of thing should be a warning to us all.
Totally agree. But how do you encourage good behaviour without the fear of getting caught and punished? Or doesn't it matter? By "good" I mean not driving while drunk, respecting other people's property etc - but not being able to recite the thoughts of Mao.
I'm an atheist with strong moral values. I suspect it is my Catholic upbringing, or perhaps that my parents had strong moral values. I'm very tolerant though.
You do it through social pressures and not just legal sanctions. Drink driving is a good example of that.
Relying on just the latter actually can break down social bonds and individual judgement and responsibility.
Goodness knows what you'd make of the place in my profile pic!
That's a good way to solve @Philip_Thompson's problem and fly the flag without being thought to be a BNP supporter, at least not of one of the major factions...
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
She is probably too stupid to know that! She thought it sounded an intelligent phrase. I saw her on TV this morning saying people "voted for a no-deal Brexit". Funny, I didn't see that on my ballot paper and I am sure most leave advocates were saying there would be a deal.
I agree it's unlikely she was using it consciously in an anti-semitic sense. So what does it tell you that she used it? That it is current in the groups and debates that she participates in. I think that says something disturbing about the philosophical currents swirling around the Tory right, given its origins. It is also incidentally a fundamentally dishonest phrase. There are probably fewer Marxists at British universities now than at any time in the last few decades. And people simply don't become academics in order to overthrow the existing social order. They do it because they enjoy teaching and/or research and don't mind mostly rubbish pay. It's not that surprising that many people in that category tend to be on the Liberal left of the political spectrum. Just like most people in finance are right wing but didn't go into finance in order to take control of the economy.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
If you floor the accelerator you car would still accelerate under the new regulations.
The intent is to stop dozy drivers exceeding the speed limit because they aren't paying attention, not to enforce a speed limit in all circumstances.
Indeed. Many on this thread seem to be labouring under a gigantic misapprehension, and running with it (but hey, PB). To be clear these regs simply mandate that cars have a warning system, they won't mechanically govern the vehicle down to 80mph out 70mph or whatever.
I don't own a car, but like to hire nice exec cars when I need them. The last couple I have rented already had a very similar system. I still broke the limit, on open roads, from time to time, but the warning was useful.
What's the big problem? Anyone would think the gammons are getting all hot and bothered for the fun of it.
Never seen anyone being so baffling wrong about something, even on PB. From the well-known hotbed of gammonry, the Guardian:
All new cars sold in the UK and Europe are to be fitted with devices to automatically stop drivers exceeding the speed limit under sweeping changes to vehicle safety rules that the EU has provisionally agreed...
I'm no fan of Suella Braverman, but, really, this accusation of anti-semitism is utterly barmy. Look at what she actually said:
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
I think it turns on the fact that some people use "cultural Marxism" as code for "Jewish conspiracy" on social media, but clearly, a lot of people use the term without doing so.
It is like people who say if you fly the Union Flag you're racist because racists fly it.
TBF that's a fairly reliable indicator, unless it's a royal wedding or you're an embassy or whatever.
National flags need to be reclaimed from racists and extremists. Let them keep their ones with funny little twisted crosses and hammers and sickles and their silly salutes and uniforms, and let them be laughed at.
Agreed! National flags are not racist, bastardised versions with crosses etc absolutely can be.
Good morning. The petition has reached 5.85 million signatures, although the rate has slowed to 98 per minute. I'll update my London signatures spreadsheet shortly.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Really?
I mean...
1) the tech for ID cards has been there for decades but we still don't have them
2) there is a very clear lack of coordination in government data; if what you say were true, the NHS wouldn't have to check if your address had changed, because they would be notified by central government. You fill out a form at the opticians if you're on benefits to show you don't have to pay. Even within the tax and benefits systems you sometimes have to shuffle information from one to the other.
3) and then the electoral register is entirely separate from the above databases as well and you don't even have to bring a poll card to the polling station.
Of course, the security services are going to do whatever they can if they think you are a terrorist, but you're acting like the government is tracking people's Google phone locations and arresting people for speeding on the basis of that.
Car speed limiters in 2022, we're getting them whether in the EU or not.
Isn’t this a complete non story? Speed limiting technology does not enforce speed limits, it allows drivers to control their speed by means other than the accelerator and the brake.
No - It very much is a story and the EU will pass it into law in September applying to all new cars and commercial vehicles from 2022. The speed will be governed by a limiter based on gps. The driver will be able to override the speed limiter but aftet a short period an audible warning will cut in
There’s an awful lot of shitcake nannying legislation coming out of the EU this week that reminds me why I voted to Leave. They seem intent on taking all the freedom and pleasure out of driving.
It’s reminded me why I voted to Leave and felt so strongly about it prior to the vote.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Yes, and so do you.
I’ve never met anyone who’s religiously stuck to 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways at all times, and wouldn’t believe you if you said you were one of them.
Going 100mph+ is obviously dickish but rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
I agree with that post completely. However EU rules tend to be very sensible (I'm sure there are exceptions), but then we in the UK get hold of them and gold plate them and/or enforce them religiously. Our 'jobs worth' attitude to rules in this country is very frustrating. It often results in laws not being passed that should be because we can't cope with all exceptions, or laws being enforced when clearly common sense says they shouldn't in particular instances.
And, also, that too many in positions of authority take pleasure in “catching” those who technically break the rules.
Easier to do so as to meet the required stats rather than catch those the rules were implemented to catch.
In many walks of life there are many people who follow the path of least resistance to please their superiors.
Jezza could feed the whole commons with half a loaf and a bit of fish
Well he's certainly had a good Brexit so far.
But it's not over yet. If he fails to get a GE in 2019 out of this humdinger of a political crisis all of his sterling efforts to date will have been in vain.
Good morning. The petition has reached 5.85 million signatures, although the rate has slowed to 98 per minute. I'll update my London signatures spreadsheet shortly.
That is fantastic Andy is that your work? Can it be shared?
No that page isn't my work, I've done a spreadsheet for London constituencies because there isn't an option on that page as there is for England, Scotland, etc.
Its certainly news to me that Cultural Marxism is tied up with anti-semitism. My understanding of the term was all about achieving socialism / marxism via campaigning hard for changes in societal norms.
Indeed. It used to be. It has now become shorthand for Jews masterminding a worldwide plot to replace the "white race" via immigration and mixed marriages. Leading to homosexuality, free health care, no guns, anything else I don't like, blah, blah, blah....kill them all!!!! Which is why MPs should be bloody careful about using it. And preferably, unless they are specifically discussing the ideas of Gramsci, not do so.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
If you floor the accelerator you car would still accelerate under the new regulations.
The intent is to stop dozy drivers exceeding the speed limit because they aren't paying attention, not to enforce a speed limit in all circumstances.
Indeed. Many on this thread seem to be labouring under a gigantic misapprehension, and running with it (but hey, PB). To be clear these regs simply mandate that cars have a warning system, they won't mechanically govern the vehicle down to 80mph out 70mph or whatever.
I don't own a car, but like to hire nice exec cars when I need them. The last couple I have rented already had a very similar system. I still broke the limit, on open roads, from time to time, but the warning was useful.
What's the big problem? Anyone would think the gammons are getting all hot and bothered for the fun of it.
Never seen anyone being so baffling wrong about something, even on PB. From the well-known hotbed of gammonry, the Guardian:
All new cars sold in the UK and Europe are to be fitted with devices to automatically stop drivers exceeding the speed limit under sweeping changes to vehicle safety rules that the EU has provisionally agreed...
To be fair, the Daily Rant said that initially there would be an on / off switch, and when turned off it would just be a warning system. But this is seen as a temporary education period and that after consultation it is likely that they on / off override would be disabled.
This is the EU, they will of course go for the no override auto-limiter down the line, no matter what the consultation says.
Comments
I'm an atheist with strong moral values. I suspect it is my Catholic upbringing, or perhaps that my parents had strong moral values. I'm very tolerant though.
Running at about half a million per day now - maybe to reach six million in a few hours.
And never stopped.
Ever.
Until you dropped below the limit again.
5 minutes of that bloody bell was enough to make anyone drive within the limit.
Quite extraordinary under any normal circumstances.
Add an ad blocker to that and you're getting somewhere, but still maybe not as far as you'd like.
“We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
There is no conceivable way in which any sane person could possibly interpret that as anti-semitic.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/26/tory-mp-criticised-for-using-antisemitic-term-cultural-marxism
In answer to your question, I would never drive through a red light unless the light was obviously broken. There will always be a risk of an accident, however remote, and why take a chance?
But, remember, Jeremy's door is always open.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim
It has a murky past.
And presumably he'll want to be included in any future Cabinet?
I've always thought Theresa May only ran in the 2016 leadership election to try and solidify her position in the Cabinet.
I doubt she ever genuinely thought she'd become PM as who could have envisioned Boris and Gove would blow each other up like they did...
If BoJo becomes leader he will have deserved it through hard work. We may sit here mocking (and do) but that is what politics is all about.
I would of course resign my membership same as @Nigel_Foremain but that would not be to detract from Boris' achievement.
Mogg in deep philosophical vein now in support of the Deal.
The other stupidity sometimes in planning is except for large ones like on a motorway junction traffic lights and roundabouts should not mix! Traffic lights on a roundabout is a terrible idea and far too often the light changes to green but the roundabout is still congested from someone else on a red so nobody moves. Then light goes back to red and the traffic hasn't budged. Stupid design. Either use lights, or use a roundabout - no need for both together.
I believe this to be a sop to activists, and MPs don't have the balls to challenge it. The reality is that MPs represent "real" people; some who have party affiliations and most who do not. MPs are therefore far better qualified to make a decision who their parliamentary leader should be, both from an understanding of the real, more representative electorate and they have a better knowledge of the personalities of the potential leaders.
It only remains for me to find a winnable seat.
It would be better for the members to shortlist and the MPs to appoint rather than the reverse. the
https://dominiccummings.com/2019/03/27/on-the-referendum-24n-actions-have-consequences/
Besides, it's a fairly stupid term, designed to make the person say it sound more intelligent whilst rendering no real meaning.
Privacy has to be coded into the system for it to exist. Apple, and (ironically) the EU with the GDPR have made tentative and/or flawed steps in that direction...
Those of you in the narcissist-delusional subset of the ERG who have spent the last three years scrambling for the 810 Today slot while spouting gibberish about trade and the law across SW1 — i.e exactly the contemptible behaviour that led to your enforced marginalisation during the referendum and your attempt to destroy Vote Leave — you are also in the pirate category. You were useful idiots for Remain during the campaign and with every piece of bullshit from Bill Cash et al you have helped only Remain for three years. Remember how you WELCOMED the backstop as a ‘triumph’ in December 2017 when it was obvious to everybody who knew what was going on — NOT the Cabinet obviously — that this effectively ended the ‘negotiations’? Remember how Bernard Jenkin wrote on ConHome that he didn’t have to ‘ruin his weekend’ reading the document to know it was another success for the natural party of government — bringing to mind very clearly how during the referendum so many of you guys were too busy shooting or skiing or chasing girls to do any actual work. You should be treated like a metastasising tumour and excised from the UK body politic.
https://dominiccummings.com/2019/03/27/on-the-referendum-24n-actions-have-consequences/
https://www.livefrombrexit.com/petitions/241584
I think what it comes down to is there are two meanings of cultural Marxism. The first has been used in academia for years and refers back to Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony.. It's a harmless way to describe the idea that the best way to achieve socialism is by cultural means rather than through revolution. In fact I learned of the term at uni, nearly twenty years ago, from a Marxist, who spoke very highly of the concept as being the best way to achieve socialism.
The second, more recent usage of the term as anti semitic conspiracy theory has taken hold in the darker corners of the Internet most people don't visit and wouldn't be aware of. I certainly wasn't until yesterday. It clearly exists, though it seems to be a recent thing, "popularised" by the manifesto of anders breivik. Which I suspect most sane people have never read.
Downthread I linked to a guardian article from 2007 where the phrase was so un-contentious the guardian allowed it to be used in a headline "the BBC's cultural Marxism" and none of the 300 or so commenters mentioned the conspiracy theory, which seems to have gained traction much more recently.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jan/24/comment.comment
Read the comments. In 2007 nobody seemed to think this phrase had any anti semitic connotations. Perhaps that has changed, but it is perfectly possible to be familiar with the phrase without being familiar with the conspiracy theory, which seems to be a more recent development.
Especially growing up overseas in Australia lots of homes proudly flew the Aussie flag without anyone second guessing it. And I saw many other nationalities flags [including the Union Flag] without anyone batting an eyelid either.
I got a Union Flag while at an Aus v Eng ODI while there and after moving back to the UK and into a Halls of Residence at University I flew the flag out my window without thinking twice about it . . . until one a couple of day later as I was walking back to the Halls with a friend of mine she said "urgh who is the BNP supporter?" and pointed at my flag. I took it down as I didn't want to give out the wrong idea but found that quite upsetting at the time.
Flying your own nation's flag should never be something to be ashamed off.
There are Labour posters on here I far prefer to you, and you’re routinely pompous, condescending and rude.
Change your style.
It didn't have to be that way; As you say, most countries' flags don't have that kind of symbolism. And you can argue it *shouldn't* be that way, and try to do what Billy Bragg failed to do and take back the symbol, but that would be an attempt to *change* what it communicates.
Sayeeda Warsi
Verified account
@SayeedaWarsi
Follow Follow @SayeedaWarsi
More
Another Monday morning aaaannnnddd another bunch of bigots found out @Conservatives 🤦🏽♀️
So @BrandonLewis are these five members of the Party and are you going to expel “swiftly”? #DailyDetox
I can confirm I am not @SayeedaWarsi
RN in denial
How on earth do you think that’s constructive for healthy debate?
Surely it suffices most people to say that Braverman had an effect she did not intend?
Utterly ridiculous.
But it's not over yet. If he fails to get a GE in 2019 out of this humdinger of a political crisis all of his sterling efforts to date will have been in vain.
Relying on just the latter actually can break down social bonds and individual judgement and responsibility.
It is also incidentally a fundamentally dishonest phrase. There are probably fewer Marxists at British universities now than at any time in the last few decades. And people simply don't become academics in order to overthrow the existing social order. They do it because they enjoy teaching and/or research and don't mind mostly rubbish pay. It's not that surprising that many people in that category tend to be on the Liberal left of the political spectrum. Just like most people in finance are right wing but didn't go into finance in order to take control of the economy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-cars-to-have-speed-limiters-by-2022-under-eu-plans
All new cars sold in the UK and Europe are to be fitted with devices to automatically stop drivers exceeding the speed limit under sweeping changes to vehicle safety rules that the EU has provisionally agreed...
I mean...
1) the tech for ID cards has been there for decades but we still don't have them
2) there is a very clear lack of coordination in government data; if what you say were true, the NHS wouldn't have to check if your address had changed, because they would be notified by central government. You fill out a form at the opticians if you're on benefits to show you don't have to pay. Even within the tax and benefits systems you sometimes have to shuffle information from one to the other.
3) and then the electoral register is entirely separate from the above databases as well and you don't even have to bring a poll card to the polling station.
Of course, the security services are going to do whatever they can if they think you are a terrorist, but you're acting like the government is tracking people's Google phone locations and arresting people for speeding on the basis of that.
The police are no different.
Not a bad 2nd prize IMO
https://twitter.com/NigelDoddsDUP/status/1110869213823057924
I think we can be 100% sure that this indicative vote malarkey is not going to resolve anything.
Which is why MPs should be bloody careful about using it.
And preferably, unless they are specifically discussing the ideas of Gramsci, not do so.
This is the EU, they will of course go for the no override auto-limiter down the line, no matter what the consultation says.