"The reaction to the video was decidedly mixed — even among political professionals. Some hailed it as stroke of genius that distinguished Biden from the crowded Democratic field by announcing in stark terms his intention to take the fight to Trump in a way no one else has dared.
Others, however, viewed it as a serious miscalculation, an exercise in stepping on his own message as the heir to Obama’s inspirational legacy." [Politico]
Prejudice against powerful groups, such as the Jews, can be as murderous as prejudice against groups without power.
I understand your point.
However, to tag the Jews as 'a powerful group' is something that if you were in the Labour Party could bring you to the attention of Margaret Hodge, with a possible referral to Laura Murray to explain the exact context and meaning of the phrase.
One could cite plenty of other examples such as the Tutsis, or American Liberians, or the Armenians in WWI.
Yeah that non standard question generally produces larger leads for Unionists.
Still if we get Indyref2 the UK government knows that question should be on the ballot papers.
That would be a misleading question because it wrongly implies that the UK is a voluntary union of separate states.
I know that some Scots are convinced that the 1707 Act of Union was in some way deficient, but it does appear that Scotland and England both created Great Britain voluntarily.
And I've seen some Irish people argue that when Ireland split in the 20's NI momentarily left the UK before (re)joining voluntarily.
Plus given that Northern Ireland and Scotland have both voted in referendums (albeit in different decades) to remain in the UK, it would seem that is the voluntary association you disclaim.
It's a constitutional point, not a political point. The UK is only a voluntary union to the extent that the government of the day decides that it's voluntary.
Same as the EU.
Except one allows their members to democratically decide to leave it at any point (regardless of that member's absolute incompetence in carrying it out), the other doesn't.
In theory maybe, in practice not so much.
Britain is in a unique position when it comes to the difficulty of leaving the EU as, in the Good Friday Agreement, we gave up on an exclusive territorial claim to Northern Island and accepted that Irish unity was a legitimate aspiration - and an aspiration that we would help to bring to fruition if it was supported by a majority of the Northern Ireland population.
This implies a close relationship between the UK and the Republic of Ireland that has no parallel between any other European countries. Any other country would find it simpler to leave the EU.
"The reaction to the video was decidedly mixed — even among political professionals. Some hailed it as stroke of genius that distinguished Biden from the crowded Democratic field by announcing in stark terms his intention to take the fight to Trump in a way no one else has dared.
Others, however, viewed it as a serious miscalculation, an exercise in stepping on his own message as the heir to Obama’s inspirational legacy." [Politico]
I'm with the former group.
A polarised reaction is good in a large field, I think he'll pick up plenty of moderate/centrist democrats... the campus wokies weren't ever going to be his constituency this election.
"The reaction to the video was decidedly mixed — even among political professionals. Some hailed it as stroke of genius that distinguished Biden from the crowded Democratic field by announcing in stark terms his intention to take the fight to Trump in a way no one else has dared.
Others, however, viewed it as a serious miscalculation, an exercise in stepping on his own message as the heir to Obama’s inspirational legacy." [Politico]
I'm with the former group.
Yes, all the other Democratic candidates have been shamefully silent on the key issue of Orange Man Bad.
Buttigieg: Trump 'should never have been able to come within cheating distance of the Oval Office' Warren on impeaching Trump: If anyone else did what he did, 'they would be arrested and put in jail' Bernie Sanders: Trump 'a fraud, a pathological liar and a racist' Kamala Harris promises to 'prosecute the case' against Trump in 2020 election bid
Looks like Neil Kinnock isn't the only politician Biden needs to copy from...
"The reaction to the video was decidedly mixed — even among political professionals. Some hailed it as stroke of genius that distinguished Biden from the crowded Democratic field by announcing in stark terms his intention to take the fight to Trump in a way no one else has dared.
Others, however, viewed it as a serious miscalculation, an exercise in stepping on his own message as the heir to Obama’s inspirational legacy." [Politico]
I'm with the former group.
It makes sense as a strategy from his point of view. He doesn't really have any vision or policies to sell, so he's trying to harness the base's Trump-hating fervour. I'm not sure people will go for it though- if you had to imagine an anti-Trump who represents his opposite, that would probably look a lot more like Buttigieg or Harris than Biden.
Yeah that non standard question generally produces larger leads for Unionists.
Still if we get Indyref2 the UK government knows that question should be on the ballot papers.
That would be a misleading question because it wrongly implies that the UK is a voluntary union of separate states.
I know that some Scots are convinced that the 1707 Act of Union was in some way deficient, but it does appear that Scotland and England both created Great Britain voluntarily.
And I've seen some Irish people argue that when Ireland split in the 20's NI momentarily left the UK before (re)joining voluntarily.
Plus given that Northern Ireland and Scotland have both voted in referendums (albeit in different decades) to remain in the UK, it would seem that is the voluntary association you disclaim.
It's a constitutional point, not a political point. The UK is only a voluntary union to the extent that the government of the day decides that it's voluntary.
Same as the EU.
Except one allows their members to democratically decide to leave it at any point (regardless of that member's absolute incompetence in carrying it out), the other doesn't.
In theory maybe, in practice not so much.
In practice we decided to leave the EU, they said yes, we realised we couldn't get it done in time and asked for a withdrawal agreement to bridge the gap, they said yes, we asked them to modify it, they said yes, we couldn't agree on that agreement and asked them for an extension, they said yes, we still couldn't agree and asked for a further extension, they said yes, we then went on holiday for a bit because stress.
I'm not alleging that Jews, either now, or in the 1920's, were engaged in a conspiracy.
1. The world is run by the Jews.
2. Jews have a disproportionate influence on the world given that there are so few of them.
(1) is drop-dead antisemitism. (2) can be too in the wrong hands.
Then again, (2) can form the basis of a bum rap of antisemitism in the wrong hands.
Minefield.
Really?
There's no justification for treating Jews as a cohesive group in this context - that's why it's anti-Semitic.
Yes exactly. The idea of race conferring (or removing) power isn't that they all get together to form lobbies, and that some races' lobbies are more powerful than others. It's something that happens on an individual level.
He's the tory membership's dream candidate on paper due to his unimpeachable, principled and honest position on brexit. He's an ex 2nd Lt. in the poachers and any military record always summons forth dewdrops on the otherwise utterly desiccated labia majora of the tories. He just needs to master the Boris style subtle islamophobia and he'd really be in with a shot.
He's the tory membership's dream candidate on paper due to his unimpeachable, principled and honest position on brexit. He's an ex 2nd Lt. in the poachers and any military record always summons forth dewdrops on the otherwise utterly desiccated labia majora of the tories. He just needs to master the Boris style subtle islamophobia and he'd really be in with a shot.
He's the tory membership's dream candidate on paper due to his unimpeachable, principled and honest position on brexit. He's an ex 2nd Lt. in the poachers and any military record always summons forth dewdrops on the otherwise utterly desiccated labia majora of the tories. He just needs to master the Boris style subtle islamophobia and he'd really be in with a shot.
What fun a Jeremy Corbyn v Mark Francois general election would be!
He's the tory membership's dream candidate on paper due to his unimpeachable, principled and honest position on brexit. He's an ex 2nd Lt. in the poachers and any military record always summons forth dewdrops on the otherwise utterly desiccated labia majora of the tories. He just needs to master the Boris style subtle islamophobia and he'd really be in with a shot.
Well, I suppose if a thickhead like Corbyn can become Labour Leader then anything is possible.
"The reaction to the video was decidedly mixed — even among political professionals. Some hailed it as stroke of genius that distinguished Biden from the crowded Democratic field by announcing in stark terms his intention to take the fight to Trump in a way no one else has dared.
Others, however, viewed it as a serious miscalculation, an exercise in stepping on his own message as the heir to Obama’s inspirational legacy." [Politico]
I'm with the former group.
It makes sense as a strategy from his point of view. He doesn't really have any vision or policies to sell, so he's trying to harness the base's Trump-hating fervour. I'm not sure people will go for it though- if you had to imagine an anti-Trump who represents his opposite, that would probably look a lot more like Buttigieg or Harris than Biden.
The Democrats will lose if they go full polar opposite anti Trump, that only appeals to the coasts, New York and California and safe Democratic states. To win they have to win the rustbelt swing states and some voters who actually voted for Trump in 2016
The Brexit Party is the one doing the politically-correct quota-filling, which given their support base is very amusing. It's also astute of Farage, of course.
I have three options to get to Barcelona, which airline should I fly with?
i) EasyJet
ii) Ryanair
iii) Jet2
Depends on price and what luggage you need, also time of flights but I find jet2 frequently the best option back an forth to Alicante but it’s a bloody long walk if flight is from the A gates inT2 Manchester
Lennon's problem in the northwest will be the same as the greens/Lib Dem/Change UK ... dividing the two main blocks up as right/left- a right vote that is already taken up by a large portion (Brexit + Tories) is then further split between UKIP and Tommy Robinson.
His ultimate job may well be to deny UKIP a seat in the Northwest.
He's the tory membership's dream candidate on paper due to his unimpeachable, principled and honest position on brexit. He's an ex 2nd Lt. in the poachers and any military record always summons forth dewdrops on the otherwise utterly desiccated labia majora of the tories. He just needs to master the Boris style subtle islamophobia and he'd really be in with a shot.
What fun a Jeremy Corbyn v Mark Francois general election would be!
Lennon's problem in the northwest will be the same as the greens/Lib Dem/Change UK ... dividing the two main blocks up as right/left- a right vote that is already taken up by a large portion (Brexit + Tories) is then further split between UKIP and Tommy Robinson.
His ultimate job may well be to deny UKIP a seat in the Northwest.
Robinson if he wins will probably launch an EDL takeover of UKIP anyway and ultimately end up replacing Batten as its leader. He has already called Farage 'a Tory' and will aim for more working class Leavers than the Brexit Party
Yeah that non standard question generally produces larger leads for Unionists.
Still if we get Indyref2 the UK government knows that question should be on the ballot papers.
That would be a misleading question because it wrongly implies that the UK is a voluntary union of separate states.
I know that some Scots are convinced that the 1707 Act of Union was in some way deficient, but it does appear that Scotland and England both created Great Britain voluntarily.
And I've seen some Irish people argue that when Ireland split in the 20's NI momentarily left the UK before (re)joining voluntarily.
Plus given that Northern Ireland and Scotland have both voted in referendums (albeit in different decades) to remain in the UK, it would seem that is the voluntary association you disclaim.
It's a constitutional point, not a political point. The UK is only a voluntary union to the extent that the government of the day decides that it's voluntary.
Same as the EU.
Mr Sandpit, you are showing complete ignorance here. It is nothing like "same as EU". Despite all the lies from Brexiteers, Britain is a sovereign nation within the EU, hence why it can decide to leave, go to war etc. etc. Scotland does not have sovereignty, anymore than Cornwall or Greater London does.
Prejudice against powerful groups, such as the Jews, can be as murderous as prejudice against groups without power.
I understand your point.
However, to tag the Jews as 'a powerful group' is something that if you were in the Labour Party could bring you to the attention of Margaret Hodge, with a possible referral to Laura Murray to explain the exact context and meaning of the phrase.
Yes posing Jews as a "powerful group" is anti-semitism under point 2 of the IHRA definition:
He's the tory membership's dream candidate on paper due to his unimpeachable, principled and honest position on brexit. He's an ex 2nd Lt. in the poachers and any military record always summons forth dewdrops on the otherwise utterly desiccated labia majora of the tories. He just needs to master the Boris style subtle islamophobia and he'd really be in with a shot.
What fun a Jeremy Corbyn v Mark Francois general election would be!
Lenin v. Napoleon
Don't flatter either of them. Lenin's embalmed brain probably still has more little grey cells than Corbyn's and Francois's put together
He's the tory membership's dream candidate on paper due to his unimpeachable, principled and honest position on brexit. He's an ex 2nd Lt. in the poachers and any military record always summons forth dewdrops on the otherwise utterly desiccated labia majora of the tories. He just needs to master the Boris style subtle islamophobia and he'd really be in with a shot.
What fun a Jeremy Corbyn v Mark Francois general election would be!
There's no justification for treating Jews as a cohesive group in this context - that's why it's anti-Semitic.
Am I saying differently? I don't think so.
Let's clarify by looking at the following statement:
"Jews have a level of attainment and influence which is disproportionate to their relatively small numbers."
I'm saying that this might or might not be antisemitic depending on context, intent etc.
Are you saying that it is always and de facto antisemitic? - i.e. that such a statement would only be made by somebody who felt prejudice against Jews?
Lennon's problem in the northwest will be the same as the greens/Lib Dem/Change UK ... dividing the two main blocks up as right/left- a right vote that is already taken up by a large portion (Brexit + Tories) is then further split between UKIP and Tommy Robinson.
His ultimate job may well be to deny UKIP a seat in the Northwest.
Robinson if he wins will probably launch an EDL takeover of UKIP anyway and ultimately end up replacing Batten as its leader. He has already called Farage 'a Tory' and will aim for more working class Leavers than the Brexit Party
EDL, UKIP, Brexit Party. An unholy fascist trinity to appeal to bigots from all sections of society.
Name - logo - even logo colour - they're running rings round the "professional" politicians (not that Farage isn't professional).
Lord Ashcroft is obviously a supporter of the Brexit party (see his twitter account). A lot of what they are doing looks to have his hand or at least his insight behind it.
There's no justification for treating Jews as a cohesive group in this context - that's why it's anti-Semitic.
Am I saying differently? I don't think so.
Let's clarify by looking at the following statement:
"Jews have a level of attainment and influence which is disproportionate to their relatively small numbers."
I'm saying that this might or might not be antisemitic depending on context, intent etc.
Are you saying that it is always and de facto antisemitic? - i.e. that such a statement would only be made by somebody who felt prejudice against Jews?
I think that any objective historian could make that statement. The influence of Jewish writers, philosophers, theologians, scientists has been extraordinary, given their small numbers.
One could cite plenty of other examples such as the Tutsis, or American Liberians, or the Armenians in WWI.
I don't have an issue with your "Jews as a powerful group" in the context you meant it.
Just got me thinking (again) about the subject of antisemitism, which is of course topical.
Another example. Lots of talk a few weeks ago on here about how the very powerful Irish Lobby in the US could torpedo our efforts to get a good trade deal with them if we were perceived to have stiffed the Republic on Brexit. Comments were not seen as in any way anti-Irish.
Whereas talk of the Jewish Lobby, I venture, would meet with some disapproval.
Ed Davey is on LBC at the moment and has just stated that if TMay came out of 10 Downing St and said she had revoked article 50 he would still argue for a People’s Vote because the last vote divided people. I don’t know which bit to disbelieve more - that he wouldn’t remain full stop given half a chance or that he thinks another referendum will unite people. I guess it might unite him with his preferred outcome
He's the tory membership's dream candidate on paper due to his unimpeachable, principled and honest position on brexit. He's an ex 2nd Lt. in the poachers and any military record always summons forth dewdrops on the otherwise utterly desiccated labia majora of the tories. He just needs to master the Boris style subtle islamophobia and he'd really be in with a shot.
A comment which aptly bears truth to Martin Luther’King’s observation that there is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance.
Labours leaflet silliness has the potential to badly affect their euro vote. I'm increasingly of the opinion both the big two will be in the teens. Brexit to win imo on ca 25%, change, ld and green to be in the 7 to 11 range
What I can't understand is why Lord Adonis agreed to that ridiculous statement. He should have stood his ground - they knew his views when he was selected as an MEP candidate. He would have done far better to stick to his principles even if he was deselected.
He is your typical greedy troughing politician, do anything for money.
Labours leaflet silliness has the potential to badly affect their euro vote. I'm increasingly of the opinion both the big two will be in the teens. Brexit to win imo on ca 25%, change, ld and green to be in the 7 to 11 range
What I can't understand is why Lord Adonis agreed to that ridiculous statement. He should have stood his ground - they knew his views when he was selected as an MEP candidate. He would have done far better to stick to his principles even if he was deselected.
He is your typical greedy troughing politician, do anything for money.
I have three options to get to Barcelona, which airline should I fly with?
i) EasyJet
ii) Ryanair
iii) Jet2
Depends on price and what luggage you need, also time of flights but I find jet2 frequently the best option back an forth to Alicante but it’s a bloody long walk if flight is from the A gates inT2 Manchester
Get the 0719 Eurostar from London (or Ashford) to Lyon (some days of the week only), arriving 1300. Then by high speed train from Lyon 1424 arriving Barcelona 1930.
I think that any objective historian could make that statement. The influence of Jewish writers, philosophers, theologians, scientists has been extraordinary, given their small numbers.
Influence derived from individual attainment versus from acting in concert as a group.
Yes, I think that is the million dollar distinction.
The first not usually AS. The second could well be, and if the acting in concert is also alleged to be in secret, then it's 'cabals' and all of that and you are off to the races.
And then there is the 'ultimate loyalty is to Israel' sentiment. That is a red flag. Trump, interestingly, fell into that with his "YOUR Prime Minister" reference to Bibi when he (Trump) was addressing a group of American Jews.
The only reason to vote Tory since 1997 has been to try and keep Labour out. Given the total muppets in the current parliamentary party and in Gov in particular, that reason no longer seems so compelling notwithstanding the absolutely disgusting nature of Corbyn’s Labour.
Rubbish, many voted positively for Cameron or Howard, even May last time.
However next time there certainly will be a large part of the Tory vote to keep Corbyn out, far more than yo keep Blair or Ed Miliband out
Rubbish in itself. Cameron’s 2010 Big Society was such an electoral turn off that Brown who was as popular as the pox at the start of the campaign was clawing back Cameron’s poll lead. Cameron’s campaign was facile with nothing going for it. His campaign in 2015 was entirely negative based on the threat of Miliband propped up by the SNP. May copied Cameron's tactics but substituted Corbyn for Miliband and blew a 20% lead in the polls as a result. Can anyone actually remember Howard’s campaign which anodyne in the extreme.
You need to wake up and smell the coffee as someone once said if you want the Tories to ever win again.
I wonder how many people in line to receive these inheritances have just stopped for one moment and contemplated what a Corbyn Government might mean for them personally.
It's one thing being happy to pay a bit more tax - I wonder how many people would be happy to lose a large chunk of a life changing inheritance.
I suspect it's never occurred to many such people just how much they would be affected.
Ed Davey is on LBC at the moment and has just stated that if TMay came out of 10 Downing St and said she had revoked article 50 he would still argue for a People’s Vote because the last vote divided people. I don’t know which bit to disbelieve more - that he wouldn’t remain full stop given half a chance or that he thinks another referendum will unite people. I guess it might unite him with his preferred outcome
It's as disingenuous as the Lib Dem support for an in-out referendum around the time of the Lisbon controversy.
The only reason to vote Tory since 1997 has been to try and keep Labour out. Given the total muppets in the current parliamentary party and in Gov in particular, that reason no longer seems so compelling notwithstanding the absolutely disgusting nature of Corbyn’s Labour.
Rubbish, many voted positively for Cameron or Howard, even May last time.
However next time there certainly will be a large part of the Tory vote to keep Corbyn out, far more than yo keep Blair or Ed Miliband out
Rubbish in itself. Cameron’s 2010 Big Society was such an electoral turn off that Brown who was as popular as the pox at the start of the campaign was clawing back Cameron’s poll lead. Cameron’s campaign was facile with nothing going for it. His campaign in 2015 was entirely negative based on the threat of Miliband propped up by the SNP. May copied Cameron's tactics but substituted Corbyn for Miliband and blew a 20% lead in the polls as a result. Can anyone actually remember Howard’s campaign which anodyne in the extreme.
You need to wake up and smell the coffee as someone once said if you want the Tories to ever win again.
Dave 2010 = 36% Dave 2015 = 37% Theresa 2017 = 42%
Labours leaflet silliness has the potential to badly affect their euro vote. I'm increasingly of the opinion both the big two will be in the teens. Brexit to win imo on ca 25%, change, ld and green to be in the 7 to 11 range
What I can't understand is why Lord Adonis agreed to that ridiculous statement. He should have stood his ground - they knew his views when he was selected as an MEP candidate. He would have done far better to stick to his principles even if he was deselected.
He is your typical greedy troughing politician, do anything for money.
He’s no Natalie McGarry.
Not that we know anyway, who knows what he gets up to at night. Still an absolute bellend. She was your abnormal MP she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar ( obviously dumber than the average dumb MP ).
The only reason to vote Tory since 1997 has been to try and keep Labour out. Given the total muppets in the current parliamentary party and in Gov in particular, that reason no longer seems so compelling notwithstanding the absolutely disgusting nature of Corbyn’s Labour.
Rubbish, many voted positively for Cameron or Howard, even May last time.
However next time there certainly will be a large part of the Tory vote to keep Corbyn out, far more than yo keep Blair or Ed Miliband out
Rubbish in itself. Cameron’s 2010 Big Society was such an electoral turn off that Brown who was as popular as the pox at the start of the campaign was clawing back Cameron’s poll lead. Cameron’s campaign was facile with nothing going for it. His campaign in 2015 was entirely negative based on the threat of Miliband propped up by the SNP. May copied Cameron's tactics but substituted Corbyn for Miliband and blew a 20% lead in the polls as a result. Can anyone actually remember Howard’s campaign which anodyne in the extreme.
You need to wake up and smell the coffee as someone once said if you want the Tories to ever win again.
Dave 2010 = 36% Dave 2015 = 37% Theresa 2017 = 42%
Lies, damn lies and statistics. Only Cameron in 2015 won an absolute majority which is what general elections are all about. Vote share is only relevant if it delivers that.
Labours leaflet silliness has the potential to badly affect their euro vote. I'm increasingly of the opinion both the big two will be in the teens. Brexit to win imo on ca 25%, change, ld and green to be in the 7 to 11 range
What I can't understand is why Lord Adonis agreed to that ridiculous statement. He should have stood his ground - they knew his views when he was selected as an MEP candidate. He would have done far better to stick to his principles even if he was deselected.
He is your typical greedy troughing politician, do anything for money.
He’s no Natalie McGarry.
Not that we know anyway, who knows what he gets up to at night. Still an absolute bellend. She was your abnormal MP she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar ( obviously dumber than the average dumb MP ).
And she married a Tory. Obviously a wrong'un, eh Malcolm?
I wonder how many people in line to receive these inheritances have just stopped for one moment and contemplated what a Corbyn Government might mean for them personally.
It's one thing being happy to pay a bit more tax - I wonder how many people would be happy to lose a large chunk of a life changing inheritance.
I suspect it's never occurred to many such people just how much they would be affected.
Hang on - for every £7 received in income this year, £1 is by way of inheritance? Pretty striking.
I wonder how many people in line to receive these inheritances have just stopped for one moment and contemplated what a Corbyn Government might mean for them personally.
It's one thing being happy to pay a bit more tax - I wonder how many people would be happy to lose a large chunk of a life changing inheritance.
I suspect it's never occurred to many such people just how much they would be affected.
Hang on - for every £7 received in income this year, £1 is by way of inheritance? Pretty striking.
It would be interesting to see an overlay of house prices on that graph. My hypothesis is that the two are strongly correlated.
I think that any objective historian could make that statement. The influence of Jewish writers, philosophers, theologians, scientists has been extraordinary, given their small numbers.
Influence derived from individual attainment versus from acting in concert as a group.
Yes, I think that is the million dollar distinction.
The first not usually AS. The second could well be, and if the acting in concert is also alleged to be in secret, then it's 'cabals' and all of that and you are off to the races.
And then there is the 'ultimate loyalty is to Israel' sentiment. That is a red flag. Trump, interestingly, fell into that with his "YOUR Prime Minister" reference to Bibi when he (Trump) was addressing a group of American Jews.
In his History of the Jews, Paul Johnson made the point that ex-Jews and the children of Jewish converts were frequently involved in heretical Christian movements. He suggested that Jews had always been encouraged to debate and argue over their religion, and to challenge orthodoxy - and that spilled over into both Christianity, though converts, and then into all sorts of non-religious intellectual areas.
I wonder how many people in line to receive these inheritances have just stopped for one moment and contemplated what a Corbyn Government might mean for them personally.
It's one thing being happy to pay a bit more tax - I wonder how many people would be happy to lose a large chunk of a life changing inheritance.
I suspect it's never occurred to many such people just how much they would be affected.
I think that you have to bear in mind that the average or median inheiritance is well below the limit, and that a very high proportion of people inherit very little. 15% of income is a lot, but the devil is in the detail of distribution. Certainly the amount taken in tax is redistributed quite widely.
On topic, I’d make these distinctions between Newport West and the EU elections:
1. I think there’s a mood change between the first and second Brexit delays. The first was still pitchable by TM as “getting on with the job despite a little local difficulty”. The second looks like a catastrophic failure to deliver.
2. Every EU election has had a ring of either ‘proxy referendum’ or ‘screw you’ opportunity. Given few people expect the people they elect to be there for long, I expect that to be doubly so this time. I appreciate by-elections can play the same role, but I think most people still see Westminster as a more serious business.
3. In either or both of those cases, Tory incompetence/division and Labour indecision/division will give voters ample excuse to justify looking elsewhere, especially if they want to cast a clear vote for leave (Brexit/UKIP/SDP), or remain (CHUK/LD/Green).
4. The shiny new choices were either not standing or nowhere near as visible in Newport.
5. Hamilton/Batten’s UKIP is not a proxy for Farage’s Brexit Party. As I’ve previously posited, Farage stays within the minimum geniality and maximum racism limits for a whole bunch of voters who wouldn’t touch Batten or Robinson with someone else’s bargepole.
There’s probably enough core vote to stave off utter destruction, but I wouldn’t make plans to spend my MEP salary if I was below top slot for them on most regional lists!
I wonder how many people in line to receive these inheritances have just stopped for one moment and contemplated what a Corbyn Government might mean for them personally.
It's one thing being happy to pay a bit more tax - I wonder how many people would be happy to lose a large chunk of a life changing inheritance.
I suspect it's never occurred to many such people just how much they would be affected.
He'd better keep his grubby socialist hands off my inheritance! I worked hard to have a rich grandparent!
"Inheritance Boom" is an interesting way to describe the end of meritocracy and opportunity. Tax it all as income, and confiscate it if people try to avoid it. To compensate, increase the income tax personal allowance by whatever is raised (could it move it up to 15-20k?).
(Only exemption would be for children under 21 which is pretty rare and tax free to £1m would be fine).
Go for the Monty Hall Paradox if you really want your mind blown.
Got asked that question in two of my Oxford maths interviews (ChristChurch & Pembroke). Luckily I'd read about it in the Racing Post sport section two weeks previously.
Go for the Monty Hall Paradox if you really want your mind blown.
Got asked that question in two of my Oxford maths interviews (ChristChurch & Pembroke). Luckily I'd read about it in the Racing Post sport section two weeks previously.
There's a rap version of this paradox. Sir Mix-A-Lot likes big butts and he cannot lie. His brother does not like big butts and he cannot tell the truth...
In his History of the Jews, Paul Johnson made the point that ex-Jews and the children of Jewish converts were frequently involved in heretical Christian movements. He suggested that Jews had always been encouraged to debate and argue over their religion, and to challenge orthodoxy - and that spilled over into both Christianity, though converts, and then into all sorts of non-religious intellectual areas.
Interesting. That type of thing is IMO always the probable answer when looking at other than physical 'racial' differences - they can be explained by cultural and environmental factors, historic and/or current.
I think we are all the same if all of that is adjusted for. A great pity that it can't be.
One could cite plenty of other examples such as the Tutsis, or American Liberians, or the Armenians in WWI.
I don't have an issue with your "Jews as a powerful group" in the context you meant it.
Just got me thinking (again) about the subject of antisemitism, which is of course topical.
Another example. Lots of talk a few weeks ago on here about how the very powerful Irish Lobby in the US could torpedo our efforts to get a good trade deal with them if we were perceived to have stiffed the Republic on Brexit. Comments were not seen as in any way anti-Irish.
Whereas talk of the Jewish Lobby, I venture, would meet with some disapproval.
For me, there's a difference between talking about a group of identifiable Jewish or Irish people successfully acting together to advance shared interests, and implying that "(all) Jews are a powerful group". "Jewish lobby" is potentially problematic if there is no such defined group, but it's likely to be better than "The Jews".
In short.. assigning almost any characteristic or behaviour to a group of people based on their race or religion (or sexual orientation or hair colour or whatever) is likely to cause widespread offence because it will almost certainly not be universally true. Even if there is a proven higher propensity, one still shouldn't generalise.
Go for the Monty Hall Paradox if you really want your mind blown.
Got asked that question in two of my Oxford maths interviews (ChristChurch & Pembroke). Luckily I'd read about it in the Racing Post sport section two weeks previously.
My favorite is the "boy and girl problem", specifically what I like to call the 'Jason' variant.
In Part 1, the question is:
"Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?"
And you have to reconcile your common sense, of 50%, with the correct answer, of 33%.
Then in Part 2, the question is:
Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. The boy's name is Jason. What is the probability that both children are boys?
And you have to reconcile your answer of 33% with the fact the probability is now 49.99% or so....
Comments
https://order-order.com/2019/04/25/chuk-microtargeting-guardian-readers-facebook/
I’m not sure they realise how this looks to anyone outside London and the Home Counties.
"The reaction to the video was decidedly mixed — even among political professionals. Some hailed it as stroke of genius that distinguished Biden from the crowded Democratic field by announcing in stark terms his intention to take the fight to Trump in a way no one else has dared.
Others, however, viewed it as a serious miscalculation, an exercise in stepping on his own message as the heir to Obama’s inspirational legacy." [Politico]
I'm with the former group.
This implies a close relationship between the UK and the Republic of Ireland that has no parallel between any other European countries. Any other country would find it simpler to leave the EU.
2. Jews have a disproportionate influence on the world given that there are so few of them.
(1) is drop-dead antisemitism. (2) can be too in the wrong hands.
Then again, (2) can form the basis of a bum rap of antisemitism in the wrong hands.
Minefield.
Massive twat
Wisdom pouring forth from all and sundry on the board today!
Buttigieg: Trump 'should never have been able to come within cheating distance of the Oval Office'
Warren on impeaching Trump: If anyone else did what he did, 'they would be arrested and put in jail'
Bernie Sanders: Trump 'a fraud, a pathological liar and a racist'
Kamala Harris promises to 'prosecute the case' against Trump in 2020 election bid
Looks like Neil Kinnock isn't the only politician Biden needs to copy from... Is that the homophobic one, or the one who talked about Romanian pickpockets?
There's no justification for treating Jews as a cohesive group in this context - that's why it's anti-Semitic.
2. In the story he was quite clear that he had done that as a joke with a mate and that he was very unlikely to stand
Neither of these observations undermine the fundamental truth of your post
His ultimate job may well be to deny UKIP a seat in the Northwest.
Let's clarify by looking at the following statement:
"Jews have a level of attainment and influence which is disproportionate to their relatively small numbers."
I'm saying that this might or might not be antisemitic depending on context, intent etc.
Are you saying that it is always and de facto antisemitic? - i.e. that such a statement would only be made by somebody who felt prejudice against Jews?
https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1121749111936573440
Just got me thinking (again) about the subject of antisemitism, which is of course topical.
Another example. Lots of talk a few weeks ago on here about how the very powerful Irish Lobby in the US could torpedo our efforts to get a good trade deal with them if we were perceived to have stiffed the Republic on Brexit. Comments were not seen as in any way anti-Irish.
Whereas talk of the Jewish Lobby, I venture, would meet with some disapproval.
"It's against the law to execute a virgin."
"Then make sure she's not a virgin before you execute her."
You've probably heard it but -
You reach a fork in the road, one way leads to paradise, the other to purgatory.
There are 2 creatures standing there. One always tells the truth, the other always lies. You know this but you do not know which is which.
You are allowed to ask one question (to one or the other, does not matter) the answer to which will tell you the fork to choose.
What is the question?
Yes, I think that is the million dollar distinction.
The first not usually AS. The second could well be, and if the acting in concert is also alleged to be in secret, then it's 'cabals' and all of that and you are off to the races.
And then there is the 'ultimate loyalty is to Israel' sentiment. That is a red flag. Trump, interestingly, fell into that with his "YOUR Prime Minister" reference to Bibi when he (Trump) was addressing a group of American Jews.
Rubbish in itself. Cameron’s 2010 Big Society was such an electoral turn off that Brown who was as popular as the pox at the start of the campaign was clawing back Cameron’s poll lead. Cameron’s campaign was facile with nothing going for it. His campaign in 2015 was entirely negative based on the threat of Miliband propped up by the SNP. May copied Cameron's tactics but substituted Corbyn for Miliband and blew a 20% lead in the polls as a result. Can anyone actually remember Howard’s campaign which anodyne in the extreme.
You need to wake up and smell the coffee as someone once said if you want the Tories to ever win again.
It's one thing being happy to pay a bit more tax - I wonder how many people would be happy to lose a large chunk of a life changing inheritance.
I suspect it's never occurred to many such people just how much they would be affected.
Dave 2015 = 37%
Theresa 2017 = 42%
Still, glad I know it now, since if I ever find myself in that position ...
Guard 1:ONE OF US SPEAKS NOTHING BUT TRUTH
Guard 2:THE OTHER NOTHING BUT LIES
Wizard: ok, i know this, we have to ask..
Barbarian: *takes axe and kills the first guard*
Wizard: WHAT THE HELL!
Barbarian: *to remaining guard* is he dead
Guard 2:NO
barbarian: this one liar.
Have any more manhole covers exploded in Azerbaijan?
1. I think there’s a mood change between the first and second Brexit delays. The first was still pitchable by TM as “getting on with the job despite a little local difficulty”. The second looks like a catastrophic failure to deliver.
2. Every EU election has had a ring of either ‘proxy referendum’ or ‘screw you’ opportunity. Given few people expect the people they elect to be there for long, I expect that to be doubly so this time. I appreciate by-elections can play the same role, but I think most people still see Westminster as a more serious business.
3. In either or both of those cases, Tory incompetence/division and Labour indecision/division will give voters ample excuse to justify looking elsewhere, especially if they want to cast a clear vote for leave (Brexit/UKIP/SDP), or remain (CHUK/LD/Green).
4. The shiny new choices were either not standing or nowhere near as visible in Newport.
5. Hamilton/Batten’s UKIP is not a proxy for Farage’s Brexit Party. As I’ve previously posited, Farage stays within the minimum geniality and maximum racism limits for a whole bunch of voters who wouldn’t touch Batten or Robinson with someone else’s bargepole.
There’s probably enough core vote to stave off utter destruction, but I wouldn’t make plans to spend my MEP salary if I was below top slot for them on most regional lists!
(Only exemption would be for children under 21 which is pretty rare and tax free to £1m would be fine).
Weirdly formed question on this latest poll, I must say.
That is much better to be fair.
Go by train.
I think we are all the same if all of that is adjusted for. A great pity that it can't be.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/25/bernie-sanders-booed-she-the-people-women-of-color-2020
In short.. assigning almost any characteristic or behaviour to a group of people based on their race or religion (or sexual orientation or hair colour or whatever) is likely to cause widespread offence because it will almost certainly not be universally true. Even if there is a proven higher propensity, one still shouldn't generalise.
In Part 1, the question is:
"Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?"
And you have to reconcile your common sense, of 50%, with the correct answer, of 33%.
Then in Part 2, the question is:
Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. The boy's name is Jason. What is the probability that both children are boys?
And you have to reconcile your answer of 33% with the fact the probability is now 49.99% or so....
A lot's hinging on when she goes