Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Once again political gamblers have been overstating the chance

12346

Comments

  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Noo said:
    Not for Labour 😃
  • TGOHF said:
    He won't need to campaign for remain, given that the ERG and the Brexit Party will boycott his referendum.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,733
    Noo said:
    Yep, for Ms Swinson!
  • Noo said:
    Interesting bit of Political Grammar in the sidebar - it's an Unborn Baby when it's exposed to air pollution. Not usually for the Guardian, I think.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    TGOHF said:

    Noo said:
    Not for Labour 😃
    Not sure I agree with you about that, but that's not why I think it's good news.
  • Danny565 said:
    So the play by Johnson, Cummings and the ERG would be.
    1. Vote for a deal. Any deal. On a "meaningful vote" basis.
    2. This means no extension has to be requested as per the Benn Act.
    3. Oh, is that the time? You mean we've run out of time to pass all the legislation to put this deal into effect. Oh, bother. I guess we've accidentally left the EU without a deal? Silly Boris...
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:
    Interesting bit of Political Grammar in the sidebar - it's an Unborn Baby when it's exposed to air pollution. Not usually for the Guardian, I think.
    Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,131
    edited September 2019
    TGOHF said:
    Roughly around the time Margaret Thatcher defined freedom as "liberty under the law"?

    And who adjudicates the law if not judges... :)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
  • isam said:

    A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it

    I find that a fairly convincing argument, excepting that it is open to them to walk away from the whole thing any moment they want.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,131

    CatMan said:

    eristdoof said:



    Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.

    I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.

    You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
    That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.

    Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
    So it's basically pointless
    Far from it.
    What is the point of it? Other than providing fodder for the gossip columns (which I admit is an important service for many).

    I’m the only republican in my family. My mother, wife and mother-in-law all revel in the royals. To me it’s an affront to meritocracy, is a genetic lottery, and doesn’t even work on any strategic, political or logical basis.
    The point is that it makes vast sums of money for this country. It also provides an important non-political head of state.
    I'm sure there's plenty of visitors to Versailles in Republican France...
    The monarchy works, it's relatively cheap, and it would take too long and cost too much to replace it, so let's keep it.

    Pause,

    You know, like the E[that's enough - Ed]
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    TGOHF said:
    Do they want to skip the referendum and just Revoke the Act of Union?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698

    isam said:

    A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it

    I find that a fairly convincing argument, excepting that it is open to them to walk away from the whole thing any moment they want.
    And given not many do, it's probably not quite as bad as some imagine.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698
    rcs1000 said:

    TGOHF said:
    Do they want to skip the referendum and just Revoke the Act of Union?
    'Revoke' of course maintains the status quo.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Danny565 said:
    So the play by Johnson, Cummings and the ERG would be.
    1. Vote for a deal. Any deal. On a "meaningful vote" basis.
    2. This means no extension has to be requested as per the Benn Act.
    3. Oh, is that the time? You mean we've run out of time to pass all the legislation to put this deal into effect. Oh, bother. I guess we've accidentally left the EU without a deal? Silly Boris...
    Amendments. Put a rider on such a bill passing to require an extension for the negotiation period etc. MPs already know about this possible play.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:



    Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.

    Aren't you a Labour party member? You've literally made the single biggest argument against the welfare state.
    The welfare stare is ordinary people clubbing together to help other ordinary people in need. It’s not a higher authority.
    That I feel is where you're badly wrong. Friendly societies, cooperatives, building societies, credit unions, and to an extent, charities, are ordinary people clubbing together to mutual benefit. Which is why the outcomes of those ventures are almost always positive. The welfare state isn't that. It is the opposite. It is the state absorbing within itself, power over peoples' welfare. The Government is the client and the people have no role other than to be endlessly grateful for what they themselves pay for, regardless of how poor the outcome.
    Some of the greatest financial frauds and missapropriations the world has ever seen came through mutuals: the Savings and Loans in the US and the Caixa in Spain being prime examples.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Noo said:

    Danny565 said:
    So the play by Johnson, Cummings and the ERG would be.
    1. Vote for a deal. Any deal. On a "meaningful vote" basis.
    2. This means no extension has to be requested as per the Benn Act.
    3. Oh, is that the time? You mean we've run out of time to pass all the legislation to put this deal into effect. Oh, bother. I guess we've accidentally left the EU without a deal? Silly Boris...
    Amendments. Put a rider on such a bill passing to require an extension for the negotiation period etc. MPs already know about this possible play.
    Sorry, I mean implementation
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited September 2019

    isam said:

    A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it

    I find that a fairly convincing argument, excepting that it is open to them to walk away from the whole thing any moment they want.
    If they do that they’re ostracising themselves from all of their blood relatives; upsetting your nearest and dearest is another thing that money doesn’t comfort.

    I also find it difficult to believe that a high profile abdicator would feel any less in the goldfish bowl than one who stayed in the family. Maybe they’d get even more attention
  • Noo said:

    Danny565 said:
    So the play by Johnson, Cummings and the ERG would be.
    1. Vote for a deal. Any deal. On a "meaningful vote" basis.
    2. This means no extension has to be requested as per the Benn Act.
    3. Oh, is that the time? You mean we've run out of time to pass all the legislation to put this deal into effect. Oh, bother. I guess we've accidentally left the EU without a deal? Silly Boris...
    Amendments. Put a rider on such a bill passing to require an extension for the negotiation period etc. MPs already know about this possible play.
    As I understand it the Benn Act only requires that a deal passes a meaningful vote - which is not a Bill.

    Any amendment to Bills to implement the deal would be pointless, if the passage of the Bills through Parliament is sufficiently delayed beyond October 31st.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    isam said:

    isam said:

    A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it

    I find that a fairly convincing argument, excepting that it is open to them to walk away from the whole thing any moment they want.
    If they do that they’re ostracising themselves from all of their blood relatives; upsetting your nearest and dearest is another thing that money doesn’t comfort.

    I also find it difficult to believe that a high profile abdicator would feel any less in the goldfish bowl than one who stayed in the family. Maybe they’d get even more attention
    Ostracising themselves? You make it sound like a cult. Whose side are you on?

    Also, I have the perfect solution to the goldfish bowl you speak of. Instead of hiding from the papers, they just need to talk to any journalist they see about the scientific stories of the day, like how vaccines are a good thing, or how grouse moors are bad for biodiversity. The press will never bother them again.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    edited September 2019

    I'd love it to be true, but I suspect the Scottish survation poll is push polling. I doubt support for independence has decreased in light of the last two months.

    It's push polling. It is, nonetheless, indicative of Scots opinion. They really don't want a vote anytime soon, and it would be a mad SNP PM that pushed it, as it would probably be lost, and with it Sindy as a cause, probably forever - cf Quebec. Sturgeon is not mad.

    The next Sindyref will be in the late 2020s. When Brexit is finally in the rearview mirror.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    Danny565 said:
    So the play by Johnson, Cummings and the ERG would be.
    1. Vote for a deal. Any deal. On a "meaningful vote" basis.
    2. This means no extension has to be requested as per the Benn Act.
    3. Oh, is that the time? You mean we've run out of time to pass all the legislation to put this deal into effect. Oh, bother. I guess we've accidentally left the EU without a deal? Silly Boris...
    Amendments. Put a rider on such a bill passing to require an extension for the negotiation period etc. MPs already know about this possible play.
    As I understand it the Benn Act only requires that a deal passes a meaningful vote - which is not a Bill.

    Any amendment to Bills to implement the deal would be pointless, if the passage of the Bills through Parliament is sufficiently delayed beyond October 31st.
    Then vote against it.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Alistair said:
    It’s the question that will be on any future referendum poll.... Arf.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it

    I find that a fairly convincing argument, excepting that it is open to them to walk away from the whole thing any moment they want.
    If they do that they’re ostracising themselves from all of their blood relatives; upsetting your nearest and dearest is another thing that money doesn’t comfort.

    I also find it difficult to believe that a high profile abdicator would feel any less in the goldfish bowl than one who stayed in the family. Maybe they’d get even more attention
    Isn't then the logical conclusion that the maintenance of a high-profile constitutional monarchy is cruel and unusual punishment, and for their own good we should abolish it and replace it with a voluntary, or at least time-limited model?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Byronic said:

    SNP PM

    ;)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Andy_JS said:
    Blimey. How many elections does it take before parties decide they might need to compromise for more than a few months at a time?
    Roger said:

    Israeli girl asked on the news who she would be voting for said her Rabbi had told her to vote for Netanyahu. 'So who are you voting for?' asked Jeremy Bowen. "Netanyahu' she answered looking at him as though he was stupid!

    That wouldn't go down well here....

    Wouldn't it be a crime?
    TGOHF said:
    I'm with RandallFlagg on this one, I'd love to believe it though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Byronic said:

    I'd love it to be true, but I suspect the Scottish survation poll is push polling. I doubt support for independence has decreased in light of the last two months.

    It's push polling. It is, nonetheless, indicative of Scots opinion. They really don't want a vote anytime soon, and it would be a mad SNP PM that pushed it, as it would probably be lost, and with it Sindy as a cause, probably forever - cf Quebec. Sturgeon is not mad.

    The next Sindyref will be in the late 2020s. When Brexit is finally in the rearview mirror.
    The head of Holyrood is the Mayor not a PM.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    viewcode said:

    TGOHF said:
    Roughly around the time Margaret Thatcher defined freedom as "liberty under the law"?

    And who adjudicates the law if not judges... :)
    The Daily Mail?
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477
    If the Saudis and Iranians end up in open conflict then even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it. Thank Christ at least Bolton isn’t involved any more.


  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited September 2019
    Noo said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it

    I find that a fairly convincing argument, excepting that it is open to them to walk away from the whole thing any moment they want.
    If they do that they’re ostracising themselves from all of their blood relatives; upsetting your nearest and dearest is another thing that money doesn’t comfort.

    I also find it difficult to believe that a high profile abdicator would feel any less in the goldfish bowl than one who stayed in the family. Maybe they’d get even more attention
    Ostracising themselves? You make it sound like a cult. Whose side are you on?

    Also, I have the perfect solution to the goldfish bowl you speak of. Instead of hiding from the papers, they just need to talk to any journalist they see about the scientific stories of the day, like how vaccines are a good thing, or how grouse moors are bad for biodiversity. The press will never bother them again.
    I’m not really on anyone’s side. I feel sorry for them as I think they have been born into a life that I would find very difficult to cope with
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,131
    kle4 said:

    viewcode said:

    TGOHF said:
    Roughly around the time Margaret Thatcher defined freedom as "liberty under the law"?

    And who adjudicates the law if not judges... :)
    The Daily Mail?
    Ah yes. I forgot the British constitutional settlement. The rich own the press, the press torments the people... :(
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Byronic said:

    When Brexit is finally in the rearview mirror.

    ...sat on the back seat, sharpening its knife, growling "just drive" as a terrified Conservative prime minister -- the country's 6th in the last decade -- grips the steering wheel, eyes darting side to side, looking for a way to get away from the maniac.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698
    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    Indeed it appears so...

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/17/labour-final-say-brexit-boris-johnson-britain-eu
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    ab195 said:

    even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it

    Loving the idea that the only thing that can save us now is WW3.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    TGOHF said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
    True of most articles by a top politician I have no doubt!
    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    When Brexit is finally in the rearview mirror.

    ...sat on the back seat, sharpening its knife, growling "just drive" as a terrified Conservative prime minister -- the country's 6th in the last decade -- grips the steering wheel, eyes darting side to side, looking for a way to get away from the maniac.
    Nicely done. You should write thrillers.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    When Brexit is finally in the rearview mirror.

    ...sat on the back seat, sharpening its knife, growling "just drive" as a terrified Conservative prime minister -- the country's 6th in the last decade -- grips the steering wheel, eyes darting side to side, looking for a way to get away from the maniac.
    Nicely done. You should write thrillers.
    If you think my writing is good, you're definitely drunk ;)
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477
    Noo said:

    ab195 said:

    even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it

    Loving the idea that the only thing that can save us now is WW3.
    WW3 is such negative phrasing. I prefer to think of it as indefinite prorogation.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited September 2019
    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
    Classic bunker mentality (at best).
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    ab195 said:

    If the Saudis and Iranians end up in open conflict then even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it. Thank Christ at least Bolton isn’t involved any more.


    I think the key word there (but unspoken) would be "yet"
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    All this talk of what everyone is going to be doing in the election but when can we actually get on and have the bleedin' thing? :D
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914

    Danny565 said:
    Nick boles there, bravely blocking no deal by blocking any deal.
    He's a wise man. Who in their right mind would trust Johnson to do anything? He's just one of the most unpleasant pieces of work British politics has ever seen
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Roger said:

    Danny565 said:
    Nick boles there, bravely blocking no deal by blocking any deal.
    He's a wise man. Who in their right mind would trust Johnson to do anything? He's just one of the most unpleasant pieces of work British politics has ever seen
    He sounds furious that the chances of a deal aren’t zero.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    isam said:

    isam said:

    A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it

    I find that a fairly convincing argument, excepting that it is open to them to walk away from the whole thing any moment they want.
    If they do that they’re ostracising themselves from all of their blood relatives; upsetting your nearest and dearest is another thing that money doesn’t comfort.

    I also find it difficult to believe that a high profile abdicator would feel any less in the goldfish bowl than one who stayed in the family. Maybe they’d get even more attention
    Look at poor shy retiring Prince Harry, with his new show with Oprah and all.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    So an even softer Brexit than May's deal versus remain, with no one campaigning for the previous. I can't see how that referendum would have any credibility.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    ab195 said:

    If the Saudis and Iranians end up in open conflict then even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it. Thank Christ at least Bolton isn’t involved any more.


    Where are our chums in the EU when we need them?
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    When Brexit is finally in the rearview mirror.

    ...sat on the back seat, sharpening its knife, growling "just drive" as a terrified Conservative prime minister -- the country's 6th in the last decade -- grips the steering wheel, eyes darting side to side, looking for a way to get away from the maniac.
    Nicely done. You should write thrillers.
    We used to have a thriller writer on here. I admired his technique.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,167
    edited September 2019
    TGOHF said:
    The British Press's own truly inimitable way of identifying Trump as "the US " and the populist bandwagon around Boris Johnson as "the UK".
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,733
    Roger said:

    ab195 said:

    If the Saudis and Iranians end up in open conflict then even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it. Thank Christ at least Bolton isn’t involved any more.


    Where are our chums in the EU when we need them?
    Standing well back. Saudi vs Iran will be a mess, but I reckon Saudi has more to lose.I

    Keep clear imo.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    I see from wikipedia that the leaders of the top five parties in the spanish parliament all have their seats in Madrid. I know it's multi member, but a little more regional variety surely would not go amiss!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,869
    Tabman said:

    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    When Brexit is finally in the rearview mirror.

    ...sat on the back seat, sharpening its knife, growling "just drive" as a terrified Conservative prime minister -- the country's 6th in the last decade -- grips the steering wheel, eyes darting side to side, looking for a way to get away from the maniac.
    Nicely done. You should write thrillers.
    We used to have a thriller writer on here. I admired his technique.
    As I recall his weak spot was characterisation - all his characters seemed to have the same personality.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    Artist said:

    So an even softer Brexit than May's deal versus remain, with no one campaigning for the previous. I can't see how that referendum would have any credibility.

    We've said it on here in 2010, 2015 and 2017 and yet somehow their vote always manages to hold up but I do think Labour could be heading for electoral oblivion in this election...
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,856
    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    When Brexit is finally in the rearview mirror.

    ...sat on the back seat, sharpening its knife, growling "just drive" as a terrified Conservative prime minister -- the country's 6th in the last decade -- grips the steering wheel, eyes darting side to side, looking for a way to get away from the maniac.
    Nicely done. You should write thrillers.
    Best leave that to the experts I'd say.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
    True of most articles by a top politician I have no doubt!
    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
    It's just bullshit. If the country stopped for every sabbath and shabbat and every Jewish and other denominational holiday we would be a third world country by now. It's time somene stopped these people with an agenda spewing there crap for the delectation of everyone's ignorance
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,167
    edited September 2019
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    ab195 said:

    If the Saudis and Iranians end up in open conflict then even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it. Thank Christ at least Bolton isn’t involved any more.


    Where are our chums in the EU when we need them?
    Standing well back. Saudi vs Iran will be a mess, but I reckon Saudi has more to lose.I

    Keep clear imo.
    An escalation of the Saudi versus Iran conflict has the potential to be the stuff of nightmares, because the proxies of both nations are spread throughout the middle east. That's not a conflict that would be easy to stand back from, metaphorically speaking, but yes, western involvement on either side may make things ten times worse.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
    True of most articles by a top politician I have no doubt!
    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
    It's just bullshit. If the country stopped for every sabbath and shabbat and every Jewish and other denominational holiday we would be a third world country by now. It's time somene stopped these people with an agenda spewing there crap for the delectation of everyone's ignorance
    I was actually referring to consulting on the plans, not the holding the discussion on a particular day. Can they really not have even emailed them in advance to seek their view, if only to remove one complaint?
  • Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    When Brexit is finally in the rearview mirror.

    ...sat on the back seat, sharpening its knife, growling "just drive" as a terrified Conservative prime minister -- the country's 6th in the last decade -- grips the steering wheel, eyes darting side to side, looking for a way to get away from the maniac.
    Nicely done. You should write thrillers.
    Ugh! The stench was disgusting! SeanT opened one eye, then the other, and saw to his disgust that he was lying on the floor of a dingy cell. And then he suddenly felt a sharp pain in his left buttock and his trousers, what was left of them at any rate, started peeling apart! SeanT screamed in pain, but the relentless agony soon blacked him out. Only then did the malicious BUM-THROBBER emerge from SeanT's trousers, another victim for it to feed on...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    kle4 said:

    I see from wikipedia that the leaders of the top five parties in the spanish parliament all have their seats in Madrid. I know it's multi member, but a little more regional variety surely would not go amiss!

    Even Citizen's?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    ab195 said:

    If the Saudis and Iranians end up in open conflict then even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it. Thank Christ at least Bolton isn’t involved any more.


    The Saudis don’t have the balls to attack Iran without the US fully on board. And even then they’d be wondering if Trump would change his mind at the last minute when he sees the US casualty estimates.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    I see from wikipedia that the leaders of the top five parties in the spanish parliament all have their seats in Madrid. I know it's multi member, but a little more regional variety surely would not go amiss!

    Even Citizen's?
    According to this page
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2019_Spanish_general_election
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    IanB2 said:

    Tabman said:

    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    When Brexit is finally in the rearview mirror.

    ...sat on the back seat, sharpening its knife, growling "just drive" as a terrified Conservative prime minister -- the country's 6th in the last decade -- grips the steering wheel, eyes darting side to side, looking for a way to get away from the maniac.
    Nicely done. You should write thrillers.
    We used to have a thriller writer on here. I admired his technique.
    As I recall his weak spot was characterisation - all his characters seemed to have the same personality.

    🤣 POTD
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,167
    edited September 2019
    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
    True of most articles by a top politician I have no doubt!
    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
    It's just bullshit. If the country stopped for every sabbath and shabbat and every Jewish and other denominational holiday we would be a third world country by now. It's time somene stopped these people with an agenda spewing there crap for the delectation of everyone's ignorance
    My wife, as a floating Labour and variously also green and liberal Jewish voter, tends to agree with you. Each time the Mail and Telegraph run with these supposedly progressive, religiously-tolerant stories, as a clear stick to beat Corbyn with, she mentions the Telegraph's "Soros funding Remain" and Mail's "Ralph Miiliband 30s Jew" stories, and I think she's got a point. Crocodile tears from the rightwing press, however dislikeable some of Corbyn's more extreme fellow travellers may be.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
    True of most articles by a top politician I have no doubt!
    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
    It's just bullshit. If the country stopped for every sabbath and shabbat and every Jewish and other denominational holiday we would be a third world country by now. It's time somene stopped these people with an agenda spewing there crap for the delectation of everyone's ignorance
    I seem to remember when Dom Cummings was rumoured to maybe have an election on this day he was the greatest incompetent and Nazi ever born.

    Yet some seem more sanguine about this ..
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,856
    I am fed up with hearing about how the prime minister has prorogued parliament. He hasn't - he doesn't have the authority to do so. He requested to the Queen that it be prorogued and she allowed it. How can he have broken the law if it wasn't his decision? The Scottish court concluded he acted illegally because he lied. I'm not convinced. It's sounds pedantic but then I thought the law was.

    If anyone has broken the law then surely it is the Queen.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900



    An escalation of the Saudi versus Iran conflict has the potential to be the stuff of nightmares, because the proxies of both nations are spread throughout the middle east. That's not a conflict that would be easy to stand back from, metaphorically speaking, but yes, western involvement on either side may make things ten times worse.


    Indeed.

    It's something that appears inevitable though. Even before this Iran had already bombed the two alternate routes that bypass their Hormuz chokepoint (the Red Sea pipeline, and Fujairah, where the UAE's bypass pipeline ends). Now they've used cruise missiles on Saudi oil facilities.

    For whatever reason, Iran has basically declared war on two of its neighbours. Either Rouhani has lost the plot, or their military are freelancing - I'm not sure which is more worrying.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,152
    'A majority of Scots would vote to stay in the UK in a fresh independence referendum, new polling indicates.
    The survey by the Scotland in Union organisation found 59% would vote to remain, while 41% would back independence.

    The Survation survey also found 27% of people support Nicola Sturgeon’s plan for a second referendum within 18 months, while 87% of those who don’t want another referendum believe the 2014 contest was a ‘once-in-a-generation’ event.'

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-poll-majority-of-scots-will-vote-remain-in-the-uk-1-5005983/amp?__twitter_impression=true

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163

    I am fed up with hearing about how the prime minister has prorogued parliament. He hasn't - he doesn't have the authority to do so. He requested to the Queen that it be prorogued and she allowed it. How can he have broken the law if it wasn't his decision? The Scottish court concluded he acted illegally because he lied. I'm not convinced. It's sounds pedantic but then I thought the law was.

    If anyone has broken the law then surely it is the Queen.

    I don't think that follows necessarily. Following advice in good faith even if later turns out to be wrong advice does not mean the person acting has behaved incorrectly, particularly where they were deceived.

    And is it not a matter than she can technically prorogue at her whim, the issue as put forth is the PM can only request her to do so for a legitimate purpose? If it was an illegitimate purpose he was still the one engaged in active wrongdoing.

    Certainly I don't follow your assertion that it is impossible to break the law if the prorogation was not his decision - its very possible to break the law in preparing a decision without reference to the formal decision maker.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914

    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
    True of most articles by a top politician I have no doubt!
    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
    It's just bullshit. If the country stopped for every sabbath and shabbat and every Jewish and other denominational holiday we would be a third world country by now. It's time somene stopped these people with an agenda spewing there crap for the delectation of everyone's ignorance
    My wife, as a floating Labour and variously also green and liberal Jewish voter, tends to agree with you. Each time the Mail and Telegraph run with these supposedly progressive, religiously-tolerant stories, as a clear stick to beat Corbyn with, she mentions the Telegraph's "Soros funding Remain" and Mail's "Ralph Miiliband 30s Jew" stories, and I think she's got a point. Crocodile tears from the rightwing press, however dislikeable some of Corbyn's more extreme fellow travellers may be.
    I agree with your wife. I'm sure she'll also find it quite creepy all these people suddenly interested in all things Jewish. You missed the Mail by the way. The most commented piece was one by Quentin Letts on Ed Milliband. A trully disgusting article reeking of anti semitism but it seemed to have passed everyone by.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,406
    Artist said:

    So an even softer Brexit than May's deal versus remain, with no one campaigning for the previous. I can't see how that referendum would have any credibility.

    It’s a type of leave versus remain - if May had been sensible she would have put her Deal vs remain to a referendum - now any deal in a referendum will be softer than that
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,131

    I am fed up with hearing about how the prime minister has prorogued parliament. He hasn't - he doesn't have the authority to do so. He requested to the Queen that it be prorogued and she allowed it. How can he have broken the law if it wasn't his decision? The Scottish court concluded he acted illegally because he lied. I'm not convinced. It's sounds pedantic but then I thought the law was.

    If anyone has broken the law then surely it is the Queen.

    If you ever plead before the Supreme Court, I wouldn't lead with that... :)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    rpjs said:

    ab195 said:

    If the Saudis and Iranians end up in open conflict then even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it. Thank Christ at least Bolton isn’t involved any more.


    The Saudis don’t have the balls to attack Iran without the US fully on board. And even then they’d be wondering if Trump would change his mind at the last minute when he sees the US casualty estimates.
    Without the help of the US Iran would cause Saudi Arabia great difficulties. They have a large immigrant population who are treated as second class citizens and have no loyalty whatever towards the Saudis. There would be every chance of a civil war in the Kingdom. It was described to me about 10 years ago by a Lebanese friend who works there regularly as a tinderbox waiting for a spark
  • eek said:

    Artist said:

    So an even softer Brexit than May's deal versus remain, with no one campaigning for the previous. I can't see how that referendum would have any credibility.

    It’s a type of leave versus remain - if May had been sensible she would have put her Deal vs remain to a referendum - now any deal in a referendum will be softer than that
    Which Farage and the Conservative Party will ignore, which means Brexit will be back on the agenda once Labour inevitably lose power. Labour either need to offer straight leave vs remain, or remain vs no deal as the referendum choices, otherwise a huge proportion of the leave won't regard this as legit (I prefer the former because Labour having to implement no deal really isn't a desirable outcome). I don't see how this option is anymore stable than Revoke.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    Ishmael_Z said:

    I put 993 into Google translate and got Entry level Nazi penis substitute.

    Great name for a punk band.

    A car capable of no more than 70mph would have to be very low powered and so dangerously slow at accelerating past bicycles for example.

    I used to drive a 2CV (and Ami/Dyane variants) in my youth. It's fine at overtaking bikes.
    I had a 2CV fourgonnette when I was at university in France and it was terrific. Mine had the 680cc barrels from a Citroen Visa and a jetted carb so it could (just) crack 80mph.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    TGOHF said:
    The many who are far from obsessed with Brexit and who have other priorities!
  • Roger said:

    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
    True of most articles by a top politician I have no doubt!
    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
    It's just bullshit. If the country stopped for every sabbath and shabbat and every Jewish and other denominational holiday we would be a third world country by now. It's time somene stopped these people with an agenda spewing there crap for the delectation of everyone's ignorance
    My wife, as a floating Labour and variously also green and liberal Jewish voter, tends to agree with you. Each time the Mail and Telegraph run with these supposedly progressive, religiously-tolerant stories, as a clear stick to beat Corbyn with, she mentions the Telegraph's "Soros funding Remain" and Mail's "Ralph Miiliband 30s Jew" stories, and I think she's got a point. Crocodile tears from the rightwing press, however dislikeable some of Corbyn's more extreme fellow travellers may be.
    I agree with your wife. I'm sure she'll also find it quite creepy all these people suddenly interested in all things Jewish. You missed the Mail by the way. The most commented piece was one by Quentin Letts on Ed Milliband. A trully disgusting article reeking of anti semitism but it seemed to have passed everyone by.
    "Miliband is bad at eating bacon" wasn't exactly subtle, but then neither is debating an amnesty for Labour antisemites and scheduling the debate for Shabbat, eh.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 597

    eek said:

    Artist said:

    So an even softer Brexit than May's deal versus remain, with no one campaigning for the previous. I can't see how that referendum would have any credibility.

    It’s a type of leave versus remain - if May had been sensible she would have put her Deal vs remain to a referendum - now any deal in a referendum will be softer than that
    Which Farage and the Conservative Party will ignore, which means Brexit will be back on the agenda once Labour inevitably lose power. Labour either need to offer straight leave vs remain, or remain vs no deal as the referendum choices, otherwise a huge proportion of the leave won't regard this as legit (I prefer the former because Labour having to implement no deal really isn't a desirable outcome). I don't see how this option is anymore stable than Revoke.
    I would imagine in such a vote there would be thousands of spoilt ballot papers with "NO DEAL" written on them.
  • Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
    True of most articles by a top politician I have no doubt!
    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
    It's just bullshit. If the country stopped for every sabbath and shabbat and every Jewish and other denominational holiday we would be a third world country by now. It's time somene stopped these people with an agenda spewing there crap for the delectation of everyone's ignorance
    The country doesn't have to stop, it just has to not hold a debate on whether hating Jews is a bad thing within a particular movement at a time observant Jews can't turn up and say "it's a bad thing".
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited September 2019

    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
    True of most articles by a top politician I have no doubt!
    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
    It's just bullshit. If the country stopped for every sabbath and shabbat and every Jewish and other denominational holiday we would be a third world country by now. It's time somene stopped these people with an agenda spewing there crap for the delectation of everyone's ignorance
    My wife, as a floating Labour and variously also green and liberal Jewish voter, tends to agree with you. Each time the Mail and Telegraph run with these supposedly progressive, religiously-tolerant stories, as a clear stick to beat Corbyn with, she mentions the Telegraph's "Soros funding Remain" and Mail's "Ralph Miiliband 30s Jew" stories, and I think she's got a point. Crocodile tears from the rightwing press, however dislikeable some of Corbyn's more extreme fellow travellers may be.
    Sorry you didn't miss the Mail. The worst by some distance and certainly the most insidious. Yes the Soros stories. It doesn't get much more blatent and unlike Corbyn they know exactly what they're doing.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    eek said:

    Artist said:

    So an even softer Brexit than May's deal versus remain, with no one campaigning for the previous. I can't see how that referendum would have any credibility.

    It’s a type of leave versus remain - if May had been sensible she would have put her Deal vs remain to a referendum - now any deal in a referendum will be softer than that
    Would pass 90-10 on a turnout less than half the previous referendum - would mean massive BXP gains at the next election until they won power and we leave.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    Roger said:

    rpjs said:

    ab195 said:

    If the Saudis and Iranians end up in open conflict then even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it. Thank Christ at least Bolton isn’t involved any more.


    The Saudis don’t have the balls to attack Iran without the US fully on board. And even then they’d be wondering if Trump would change his mind at the last minute when he sees the US casualty estimates.
    Without the help of the US Iran would cause Saudi Arabia great difficulties. They have a large immigrant population who are treated as second class citizens and have no loyalty whatever towards the Saudis. There would be every chance of a civil war in the Kingdom. It was described to me about 10 years ago by a Lebanese friend who works there regularly as a tinderbox waiting for a spark
    He works as a tinderbox??? My goodness, they really do have problems, don't they.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    rcs1000 said:

    Roger said:

    rpjs said:

    ab195 said:

    If the Saudis and Iranians end up in open conflict then even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it. Thank Christ at least Bolton isn’t involved any more.


    The Saudis don’t have the balls to attack Iran without the US fully on board. And even then they’d be wondering if Trump would change his mind at the last minute when he sees the US casualty estimates.
    Without the help of the US Iran would cause Saudi Arabia great difficulties. They have a large immigrant population who are treated as second class citizens and have no loyalty whatever towards the Saudis. There would be every chance of a civil war in the Kingdom. It was described to me about 10 years ago by a Lebanese friend who works there regularly as a tinderbox waiting for a spark
    He works as a tinderbox??? My goodness, they really do have problems, don't they.
    I think what I wrote makes sense!
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    Andrew said:



    An escalation of the Saudi versus Iran conflict has the potential to be the stuff of nightmares, because the proxies of both nations are spread throughout the middle east. That's not a conflict that would be easy to stand back from, metaphorically speaking, but yes, western involvement on either side may make things ten times worse.


    Indeed.

    It's something that appears inevitable though. Even before this Iran had already bombed the two alternate routes that bypass their Hormuz chokepoint (the Red Sea pipeline, and Fujairah, where the UAE's bypass pipeline ends). Now they've used cruise missiles on Saudi oil facilities.

    For whatever reason, Iran has basically declared war on two of its neighbours. Either Rouhani has lost the plot, or their military are freelancing - I'm not sure which is more worrying.
    Or, maybe a very well thought out strategy ! What has Iran got to lose now ? It is signaling that if it [ Iran ] cannot sell oil, then no one can .
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    TGOHF said:
    The British Press's own truly inimitable way of identifying Trump as "the US " and the populist bandwagon around Boris Johnson as "the UK".
    Who the fuck is the US to give us advice ?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914

    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
    True of most articles by a top politician I have no doubt!
    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
    It's just bullshit. If the country stopped for every sabbath and shabbat and every Jewish and other denominational holiday we would be a third world country by now. It's time somene stopped these people with an agenda spewing there crap for the delectation of everyone's ignorance
    The country doesn't have to stop, it just has to not hold a debate on whether hating Jews is a bad thing within a particular movement at a time observant Jews can't turn up and say "it's a bad thing".
    Would an observant Jew find somewhere suitable to have Friday night in Brighton? And if you cancelled Friday and Saturday and Sunday for the observant Christians and the Tuesday for the leaders speech you are only left with Monday. Assuming the devout are likely to be about one in ten I don't think it's unreasonable to go ahead on Saturday
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237

    Andrew said:



    An escalation of the Saudi versus Iran conflict has the potential to be the stuff of nightmares, because the proxies of both nations are spread throughout the middle east. That's not a conflict that would be easy to stand back from, metaphorically speaking, but yes, western involvement on either side may make things ten times worse.


    Indeed.

    It's something that appears inevitable though. Even before this Iran had already bombed the two alternate routes that bypass their Hormuz chokepoint (the Red Sea pipeline, and Fujairah, where the UAE's bypass pipeline ends). Now they've used cruise missiles on Saudi oil facilities.

    For whatever reason, Iran has basically declared war on two of its neighbours. Either Rouhani has lost the plot, or their military are freelancing - I'm not sure which is more worrying.
    Or, maybe a very well thought out strategy ! What has Iran got to lose now ? It is signaling that if it [ Iran ] cannot sell oil, then no one can .
    Also, it increases the value of whatever oil Iran is able to get out, by restricting world supply.


  • I'm sure there's plenty of visitors to Versailles in Republican France...

    Ask anyone who has been on a trade mission to the Far East when there are Royals along to help. They are literally worth billions in extra trade. Now you may think it is stupid that people are swayed by Royalty and I would probably agree with you but it doesn't change the fact that they are and it is much to the benefit of our country.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,124
    Motion for conference: Labour to stop being so shitty to Jews after all these years.

    All delegates and submissions welcome*, main hall, 11.30am.

    *no Jews, obvs.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914

    TGOHF said:
    The British Press's own truly inimitable way of identifying Trump as "the US " and the populist bandwagon around Boris Johnson as "the UK".
    The Telegraph is becoming Johnson's in-house comic. I remember when it used to be a newspaper.
  • Roger said:

    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Byronic said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    TGOHF said:
    The Guardian have lost their way. There's no way even Corbyn at his most stupid would have said that.
    I can easily imagine him saying it, just not where it could be reported. Labour remainers will need to push even harder to reassure their voters I guess.
    Er, I think the quote comes from a Corbyn article, written by Jeremy Corbyn, under the name "Jeremy Corbyn", in tomorrow's Guardian.
    He was present at the writing of the article but not involved.
    True of most articles by a top politician I have no doubt!
    TGOHF said:
    Can the party really not have even consulted with the Jewish Labour Movement? That seems such a bizarre open goal.
    It's just bullshit. If the country stopped for every sabbath and shabbat and every Jewish and other denominational holiday we would be a third world country by now. It's time somene stopped these people with an agenda spewing there crap for the delectation of everyone's ignorance
    The country doesn't have to stop, it just has to not hold a debate on whether hating Jews is a bad thing within a particular movement at a time observant Jews can't turn up and say "it's a bad thing".
    Would an observant Jew find somewhere suitable to have Friday night in Brighton? And if you cancelled Friday and Saturday and Sunday for the observant Christians and the Tuesday for the leaders speech you are only left with Monday. Assuming the devout are likely to be about one in ten I don't think it's unreasonable to go ahead on Saturday
    There's more to Shabbat than dinner, there's what you can't do as well as what you can do.

    You really don't see that having a debate on what to do about people who hate Jews, and having at a time that excludes observant Jews, is a bigger problem than having a debate on what to do about people who hate Jews, and having it at a time that excludes (very religious by UK standards) Christians?

    It's not 1 in 10, anyway. Based on the last study, 18% of UK Jews observe Shabbat sufficiently strictly that they won't turn lights on or off. So that's the minimum.
  • Roger said:

    rpjs said:

    ab195 said:

    If the Saudis and Iranians end up in open conflict then even we in the U.K. are going to have to stop what else we’re doing and worry about it. Thank Christ at least Bolton isn’t involved any more.


    The Saudis don’t have the balls to attack Iran without the US fully on board. And even then they’d be wondering if Trump would change his mind at the last minute when he sees the US casualty estimates.
    Without the help of the US Iran would cause Saudi Arabia great difficulties. They have a large immigrant population who are treated as second class citizens and have no loyalty whatever towards the Saudis. There would be every chance of a civil war in the Kingdom. It was described to me about 10 years ago by a Lebanese friend who works there regularly as a tinderbox waiting for a spark
    One of the first acts of the restored Kuwaiti Government at the end of the first Gulf War was to expel about half of the total population of the country as they were Palestinian workers who the Kuwaiti's believed were sympathetic to the invasion. Most of the Gulf states have vast numbers of immigrants from the larger Arab and SE Asian countries working in them. They treat them like dirt but pay well enough that it is worth doing the job.

    One day there will be a reckoning in many of the countries and it can't come too soon.
This discussion has been closed.