I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
You can't both attack the historical foundations on which those values are based and also vociferously defend them today - the former gravely undermines the latter.
On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?
Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.
It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.
The bills are still live. The Labour front bench have been arguing for changes. When those don't happen, Labour will vote against at 3rd reading. And the bills will still pass with a margin of 80 votes.
At that point, the Tories will still try and advance arguments that Labour failed to support "our boys" in the forces and all that crap. But those arguments won't have the same traction because Labour tried first to amend the bills rather than vote against in principle from the outset. Indeed but for a small minority of political obsessives (including you and I) the bills have already fallen under the radar. That's contrary to what the Tories hoped when they brought them forward this parliamentary session, giving them prominence over other potential legislation for political reasons in the hope that Starmer wouldn't be adroit enough to avoid their elephant trap.
Good header but I view things differently. Lots of people with different agendas would like Starmer on their side. Civil libertarians want him opposing the spy bill. Remainers want him kicking up a fuss about Brexit. Freedom fretters want him to oppose lockdowns whilst others wish him to champion another big one. And of course for Corbynites any failure to oppose anything from Johnson is a craven betrayal of the class struggle.
So it has no doubt disappointed various people that he has not done these things. But the point is it doesn't matter right now. The next election is almost 4 years away. We don't need Labour policies or even the shape of the offering at this point. There are 2 unfolding disasters (our shambles of a Covid response and a sad looking Brexit outcome) which are owned lock stock & barrel by this Tory government. The catastrophic ramifications of these failures mean Labour should win the next election and Starmer is one lucky man to be leading Labour into it. PM is there for the taking.
There is one thing above all that he has to do to capitalize on his good fortune. He has to establish himself in the eyes of the public as a credible person to be PM. People have to look at him and go, "Yeah, I can imagine him at number 10. He'd be ok." That's all. Nothing to do with policy and little to do with left/right. The swing voters who decide elections don't get onto your policies unless that bar is cleared. You might think it’s a low bar but for a Labour leader it isn’t. The last 2 did not manage it. So I think this is the focus for Starmer and it’s the right one. If he succeeds, the rest will be a slam dunk.
I agree with David. It will be difficult to imagine him in No.10 if he is incapable of displaying leadership. He need to pick his battles with the government, but he can’t avoid them all. Mere criticism isn’t leadership.
Indeed and the Tories have figured him out too. Showing him as a ditherer with no leadership and only hindsight which his own actions are reinforcing. It will take a while for that to filter into a public view of him but already more and more people do seem to be seeing his issues.
Fuck it, the market is on a "Trump good jag" and given that I think this is Biden high point of his polling I have cashed out enough to make my GOP liability zero. I will go back in on election night where I presume Trump will be odds on or something stupid.
You are probably correct. But I'm going to hang in there will old Joe.
Through skilful trading I've managed to take my above evens bet on the Dems to a below evens bet on the Dems.
By 'skilful' I of course mean idiotic.
So I am almost certainly wrong again.
The irony is in 2016 I played the market roller-coaster like a boss and on the day of the election I was sitting on an above evens bet on Clinton with here price at 1.16 ish. So I could have cashed out for a stonking risk free profit and failed to do so due to my arrogance and hubris.
On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?
Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.
It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.
OTOH, A bill which puts govts beyond the law will, one day in the future, be useful to a Labour govt.
He is a politician and he wants power. This bill adds more power to the govt of the day be it Blue or Red.
Do not make the mistake of believing that he is fighting for our liberties.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Starmer earned a six figure salary at the DPP, in asset terms he is a millionaire, even if he did not earn a million a year as some city firm partners and commercial QCs do
According to the 'Senior officials 'high earners' salaries 2010' website, Starmer was on just under £200,000 as DPP. Obviously there would be pension rights associated with that, but he wasn't in the job that long, so there wouldn't be a lot there. He didn't qualify as a barrister until he was 25 or so, and he probably didn't earn much in his first few years at the bar; as has been pointed. out he wasn't in a high-paying area of practice and he did a lot of pro-bono work as well. His wife doesn't appear to be a high earner, either.
Depending on which variant of the civil service pension scheme he was on, and assuming he didn't simply opt out, then that would be of the order of 5 years x 1/80 of his salary - something like 12.5K annually plus a lump sum of 37K. Of course annuity/interest rates would hgave been much better then.
Mr. (Miss?) Rose, we're a densely populated island nation. New Zealand is sparsely populated. We're within swimming distance of the nearest continent. They are thousands of miles away.
Pointing out facts regarding the wildly different demographics and location of the United Kingdom and New Zealand is not bleating. It's useful and relevant information.
Unless you're using an a posteriori approach and have already determined the conclusion you desire.
Look at the video feeds or news coverage of the New Zealand election. No masks, no social distancing. Labour landslide. It looks like Britain in 1997.
New Zealand is one of the most isolated nations and least densely populated nations on earth, basically Wales stuck thousands of miles from anywhere in the south Pacific.
It is a totally different case from the UK which is one of the most densely populated nations on earth and of course Ardern effectively banned all tourism to New Zealand during lockdown making it even more isolated, it has also gone into recession now though clearly New Zealanders overall feel Arden did a good enough job containing Covid to be re elected and given a chance to continue for a second term
Ardern (or New Zealand) eliminated Covid-19, not just "did a good job". We could seek to learn from New Zealand (or from Japan, South Korea or even Germany) or we could simply dismiss them as irrelevant. New Zealand may be sparsely populated (a nebulous concept in itself, as averaging over urban and rural parts can be misleading). South Korea and Japan are populated by mindless automatons who wear masks at the drop of a hat and positively welcome government surveillance, unlike Britons who rose up against the tyranny of having more cctv cameras than anywhere else.
Britain has nothing to learn about masks, contact tracing, restricting flights and monitoring new arrivals. That's what's landed us here.
Back on-topic. Jacinda Ardern is a cautious, middle-of-the-road politician who does still have time for experts. Ardern, Biden, Starmer: is there a trend?
Ardern has charisma after a succession of boring New Zealand Labour leaders who lost, that is a key factor, neither Biden nor Starmer have a great deal of charisma.
Yes, we can learn something from New Zealand but South Korea is a better example as closer to the UK and has contained Covid cases like New Zealand with less economic damage
"South Korea is a better example as closer to the UK" but is not close at all. In fact every country except for a few very small islands is close to the UK than New Zealand. Brazil is closer than NZ to the UK, but not many people are claiming that we should be using Brazil as a guiding example to the Covid Pandemic.
South Korea is a fairly good comparison in terms of size and population - and has an even larger capital city than we do.
Those I know have done so already, because a long time ago she worked in Blair's office. (Admittedly, it's not a great look nowadays.) Actually changing peoples' lives for the better by achieving and holding on to office matters nowt.
Good header but I view things differently. Lots of people with different agendas would like Starmer on their side. Civil libertarians want him opposing the spy bill. Remainers want him kicking up a fuss about Brexit. Freedom fretters want him to oppose lockdowns whilst others wish him to champion another big one. And of course for Corbynites any failure to oppose anything from Johnson is a craven betrayal of the class struggle.
So it has no doubt disappointed various people that he has not done these things. But the point is it doesn't matter right now. The next election is almost 4 years away. We don't need Labour policies or even the shape of the offering at this point. There are 2 unfolding disasters (our shambles of a Covid response and a sad looking Brexit outcome) which are owned lock stock & barrel by this Tory government. The catastrophic ramifications of these failures mean Labour should win the next election and Starmer is one lucky man to be leading Labour into it. PM is there for the taking.
There is one thing above all that he has to do to capitalize on his good fortune. He has to establish himself in the eyes of the public as a credible person to be PM. People have to look at him and go, "Yeah, I can imagine him at number 10. He'd be ok." That's all. Nothing to do with policy and little to do with left/right. The swing voters who decide elections don't get onto your policies unless that bar is cleared. You might think it’s a low bar but for a Labour leader it isn’t. The last 2 did not manage it. So I think this is the focus for Starmer and it’s the right one. If he succeeds, the rest will be a slam dunk.
I agree with David. It will be difficult to imagine him in No.10 if he is incapable of displaying leadership. He need to pick his battles with the government, but he can’t avoid them all. Mere criticism isn’t leadership.
Indeed and the Tories have figured him out too. Showing him as a ditherer with no leadership and only hindsight which his own actions are reinforcing. It will take a while for that to filter into a public view of him but already more and more people do seem to be seeing his issues.
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
Well, I have set out what I would like to do pretty extensively on here back in 2015 when the Charlie Hebdo killings happened.
But three things we should do:-
1. We should not make the upholding of free speech something which only brave individuals do - at the cost of threats and, sometimes, their lives. When those cartoonists were killed or the Danish cartoonist attacked every paper in the country, in Europe, in free liberal societies should have published them. Solidarity in numbers. Instead we cravenly self-censored ourselves and are still doing it. Look at how much effort it took to defend those Birmingham schools, for instance. (See also http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/21/rendering-unto-caesar/.) 2. The Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be withdrawn and rewritten. As of now, it effectively permits censorship by religions by effectively deeming criticism of a religion a hate crime. 3. Those who incite the sort of thinking and behaviour carried out by this terrorist should be prosecuted.
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
There isn't much to say though, is there? No one defends the attacker, any more than they do the Lee Rigby murderers. The French police seem to have responded robustly, and the French Republic continues to advocate secularism. Macrons speech on this a day before is worth a read.
Standing up for secular liberal values in the face of cults of violent suppression of difference and diversity, including freedom of expression is a perpetual battle.
Last week I saw the new French film at our re-opened arts cinema* "Les Miserables", which references the Victor Hugo novel, but is really about policing the baniliue. Well worth seeking out, and a nuanced dissection of the tensions in French immigrant societies, including the role of Islamists in regulating youths when the law has lost authority.
* reasonably attended, well socially distanced, and great to be back watching a big screen again.
On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?
Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.
It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.
OTOH, A bill which puts govts beyond the law will, one day in the future, be useful to a Labour govt.
He is a politician and he wants power. This bill adds more power to the govt of the day be it Blue or Red.
Do not make the mistake of believing that he is fighting for our liberties.
Is anyone? The Lib Dems, for instance.....hello, hello.....
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Fuck it, the market is on a "Trump good jag" and given that I think this is Biden high point of his polling I have cashed out enough to make my GOP liability zero. I will go back in on election night where I presume Trump will be odds on or something stupid.
You are probably correct. But I'm going to hang in there will old Joe.
Through skilful trading I've managed to take my above evens bet on the Dems to a below evens bet on the Dems.
By 'skilful' I of course mean idiotic.
So I am almost certainly wrong again.
The irony is in 2016 I played the market roller-coaster like a boss and on the day of the election I was sitting on an above evens bet on Clinton with here price at 1.16 ish. So I could have cashed out for a stonking risk free profit and failed to do so due to my arrogance and hubris.
Chill. While no one can say Biden is a certainty to win, saying you’re almost certainly wrong is hyperbolic in the extreme.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Nobody could be that stupid giving the moron party money to be more moronic.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?
Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.
It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.
OTOH, A bill which puts govts beyond the law will, one day in the future, be useful to a Labour govt.
He is a politician and he wants power. This bill adds more power to the govt of the day be it Blue or Red.
Do not make the mistake of believing that he is fighting for our liberties.
Is anyone? The Lib Dem’s, for instance.....hello, hello.....
No. They have forgotten what their proper job is. Westminster is filled with self-serving apparatchiks in sufficient numbers that charismatic leaders can do what they want.
The only way to "drain the swamp" is to let them fail (successively) and hope that whilst they are in the wilderness, the loonies associated with the madder projects will be booted out, but it might be 10 or 15 years before that happens.
In terms of the UK, 10 or 15 years is not long, a mere blip in its history. For people, with hopes and dreams it is way, way too long.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.
I will change my mind when I see him actually do something and that being something for ordinary people. Abstaining on every vote is not showing leadership.
I will judge him on his record in office after 2024, when he's actually in a position to do something for ordinary people.
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
You can't both attack the historical foundations on which those values are based and also vociferously defend them today - the former gravely undermines the latter.
This is the fundamental problem with Woke.
Liberal secularism arises from the Enlightenment, so a response to violent, absolutist, theocratic authority. Nothing wrong with defending those values against both Nativist and Islamic reactionaries.
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
There isn't much to say though, is there? No one defends the attacker, any more than they do the Lee Rigby murderers. The French police seem to have responded robustly, and the French Republic continues to advocate secularism. Macrons speech on this a day before is worth a read.
Standing up for secular liberal values in the face of cults of violent suppression of difference and diversity, including freedom of expression is a perpetual battle.
Last week I saw the new French film at our re-opened arts cinema* "Les Miserables", which references the Victor Hugo novel, but is really about policing the baniliue. Well worth seeking out, and a nuanced dissection of the tensions in French immigrant societies, including the role of Islamists in regulating youths when the law has lost authority.
* reasonably attended, well socially distanced, and great to be back watching a big screen again.
Macron defending secularism is great. How do we defend those who practise secularism every day, in schools for instance, by teaching about free speech? Because if defending secularism and liberal values are to mean something in reality we cannot leave it to a few brave individuals to take risks with their lives.
It is amusing that after all the psychodrama of the past five years that the UK government saying trade talks are over and we are going to WTO (even if not entirely believed by everyone) is now the secondary minor news to this weekend.
Fuck it, the market is on a "Trump good jag" and given that I think this is Biden high point of his polling I have cashed out enough to make my GOP liability zero. I will go back in on election night where I presume Trump will be odds on or something stupid.
You are probably correct. But I'm going to hang in there will old Joe.
Through skilful trading I've managed to take my above evens bet on the Dems to a below evens bet on the Dems.
By 'skilful' I of course mean idiotic.
So I am almost certainly wrong again.
The irony is in 2016 I played the market roller-coaster like a boss and on the day of the election I was sitting on an above evens bet on Clinton with here price at 1.16 ish. So I could have cashed out for a stonking risk free profit and failed to do so due to my arrogance and hubris.
I think Biden has enough margin to overcome the ratfuckery in the rustbelt. Dems seem to be returning at a higher rate than republicans.
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
Well, I have set out what I would like to do pretty extensively on here back in 2015 when the Charlie Hebdo killings happened.
But three things we should do:-
1. We should not make the upholding of free speech something which only brave individuals do - at the cost of threats and, sometimes, their lives. When those cartoonists were killed or the Danish cartoonist attacked every paper in the country, in Europe, in free liberal societies should have published them. Solidarity in numbers. Instead we cravenly self-censored ourselves and are still doing it. Look at how much effort it took to defend those Birmingham schools, for instance. (See also http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/21/rendering-unto-caesar/.) 2. The Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be withdrawn and rewritten. As of now, it effectively permits censorship by religions by effectively deeming criticism of a religion a hate crime. 3. Those who incite the sort of thinking and behaviour carried out by this terrorist should be prosecuted.
Has the question been asked directly as to whether publishing the Hebdo cartoons would have been illegal under the Scottish bill ?
It is amusing that after all the psychodrama of the past five years that the UK government saying trade talks are over and we are going to WTO (even if not entirely believed by everyone) is now the secondary minor news to this weekend.
It’s not news watching the idiot continue to be an idiot.
On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?
Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.
It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.
OTOH, A bill which puts govts beyond the law will, one day in the future, be useful to a Labour govt.
He is a politician and/ he wants power. This bill adds more power to the govt of the day be it Blue or Red.
Do not make the mistake of believing that he is fighting for our liberties.
My initial reaction was downright horror. This is a reasonably balanced piece from the beeb
Could this be to do with that disastrous infiltration of greeney groups including the fathering of children by the undercover operative? The people responsible for that have a lot to answer for.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
For those who think Boris said this before inevitably backing down, there is no way. The membership would kill him. Brady's postbox would get it's letters.
Backing down now would be more damaging to Boris than No Deal would be. So either the EU needs to back down heavily (and can they after that Council) or Australia style is nailed on.
On the New Zealand election, Labour has benefited strongly from being seen in the centre as it has allowed them to win votes in all sorts of places you wouldn't expect a Labour party to win. For example, they are going to win Otaki which is full of retirement communities and in Waitaki a massive rural electorate they have a 5k lead on the party vote (National are still winning on the electorate vote). The question now is whether Jacinda stays in the centre or starts moving to the left.
She doesn't need a partner but there is speculation she could bring the one Maori party MP on board.
The polls were not bad on individual shares but massively understated the Labour lead with Lab ahead of their polling and National behind
On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?
Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.
It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.
OTOH, A bill which puts govts beyond the law will, one day in the future, be useful to a Labour govt.
He is a politician and he wants power. This bill adds more power to the govt of the day be it Blue or Red.
Do not make the mistake of believing that he is fighting for our liberties.
Is anyone? The Lib Dems, for instance.....hello, hello.....
There has been dismayingly little mainstream opposition. The ‘Parliament is sovereign so it can do what it likes’ attitude seems to have taken over.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Well lets just agree to disagree and say , I bet you he has a lot more cash than you or I and will have assets in millions, pension in millions and unlimited £320 (index linked ) a day and subsidised food "for life" in the HOL. Not too bad for a poor legal aid lawyer methinks.
You have no evidence for that assertion. In the overworn, hackneyed, phrase, you're not entitled to your own facts. In his five years as DPP Starmer probably made a million before tax - tax he would have had deducted at source under PAYE as it is a salaried post. So, net, he took home £500,000. Hardly millionaire stuff.
Also, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. I'm a partner in a City Law Firm, and I promise you that I don't have assets in millions,
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
I agree and think that there is no answer that is possible in a liberal and tolerant society.
Demographics in France mean that eventually retribution for crimes against Islam won't be carried out by rogue terrorists, but by the state itself.
David Herdson article is very partisan. The early days of Blair the tories called him Bambi, how wrong they were. To get Labour to level pegging after their worst result since 1935 is encouraging. Especially during a pandemic when people rightly so give the government of the day some slack. He looks like a possible PM in the way John Smith did in opposition. In comparison to Johnson and Corbyn it is a vast improvement. Hopefully the tide will turn this November with a Biden win, which will indicate a change from the alternative right.
On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?
Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.
It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.
The bills are still live. The Labour front bench have been arguing for changes. When those don't happen, Labour will vote against at 3rd reading. And the bills will still pass with a margin of 80 votes.
At that point, the Tories will still try and advance arguments that Labour failed to support "our boys" in the forces and all that crap. But those arguments won't have the same traction because Labour tried first to amend the bills rather than vote against in principle from the outset. Indeed but for a small minority of political obsessives (including you and I) the bills have already fallen under the radar. That's contrary to what the Tories hoped when they brought them forward this parliamentary session, giving them prominence over other potential legislation for political reasons in the hope that Starmer wouldn't be adroit enough to avoid their elephant trap.
It obviously doesn't help that only a tiny minority of the population actually understands how Parliament works, and the actual purposes of the different stages of bills passing through the legislative process, and why parties may vote differently at different stages (we saw this most obviously with the Withdrawal Agreement Bill last year). They don't teach this stuff in schools any more (did they once?) and the media never has an interest in explaining it (as i suspect they probably would have done once upon a time - the serious press, anyway).
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia and the EU trade on the basis of the 2008 EU-Australian Partnership Framework. If there is no deal between Britain and the EU we will not be defaulting to the 2008 EU-Australian Partnership Framework. We will be treated by the EU like a third country with no agreements at all with the EU, other than the Withdrawal Agreement which the British government has just said it will break.
Meanwhile my local weekly rag has a Dept of Health full page advert telling us what level we are at and what the concomitant restrictions are. Unfortunately it's the wrong level...we aren't alone either apparently.
Fuck it, the market is on a "Trump good jag" and given that I think this is Biden high point of his polling I have cashed out enough to make my GOP liability zero. I will go back in on election night where I presume Trump will be odds on or something stupid.
You are probably correct. But I'm going to hang in there will old Joe.
Through skilful trading I've managed to take my above evens bet on the Dems to a below evens bet on the Dems.
By 'skilful' I of course mean idiotic.
So I am almost certainly wrong again.
The irony is in 2016 I played the market roller-coaster like a boss and on the day of the election I was sitting on an above evens bet on Clinton with here price at 1.16 ish. So I could have cashed out for a stonking risk free profit and failed to do so due to my arrogance and hubris.
Chill. While no one can say Biden is a certainty to win, saying you’re almost certainly wrong is hyperbolic in the extreme.
Oh, Biden is going to crush Trump. I'm talking about me predicting how the Betfair market will move.
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
I agree and think that there is no answer that is possible in a liberal and tolerant society.
Demographics in France mean that eventually retribution for crimes against Islam won't be carried out by rogue terrorists, but by the state itself.
Bollocks. Like in the UK, most French Muslims are not religiously observant, let alone fundamentalist. Certainly there is an Islamist threat there, as in many other countries, but very much a small minority, opposed by many secular Muslims.
On the New Zealand election, Labour has benefited strongly from being seen in the centre as it has allowed them to win votes in all sorts of places you wouldn't expect a Labour party to win. For example, they are going to win Otaki which is full of retirement communities and in Waitaki a massive rural electorate they have a 5k lead on the party vote (National are still winning on the electorate vote). The question now is whether Jacinda stays in the centre or starts moving to the left.
She doesn't need a partner but there is speculation she could bring the one Maori party MP on board.
The polls were not bad on individual shares but massively understated the Labour lead with Lab ahead of their polling and National behind
Called it last night. The right/wrong direction polls were the clue. Consistently around 71-19. Cant remember such figures.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There's not even any point in calling the whole thing embarrassing any more. Everything coming down to whether we are "Canada", or "Australia", or "Afghanistan". When actually we are, er, the United Kingdom. With our own unique circumstances and relationship with the EU. We just have to wait for the whole thing to happen and utterly discredit the Government to the point of no return. In the hope that somehow from the ashes there might be some reappraisal of our governing arrangements and a new generation of politicians/leaders actually committed to do things better. Although I believe the problems go far deeper than the Government (which are obviously disastrous, but still to some extent a symptom not a cause), but encompass our entire political and media elite (covering all parties) it's not obvious who is out there to lead this renewal.
Good header but I view things differently. Lots of people with different agendas would like Starmer on their side. Civil libertarians want him opposing the spy bill. Remainers want him kicking up a fuss about Brexit. Freedom fretters want him to oppose lockdowns whilst others wish him to champion another big one. And of course for Corbynites any failure to oppose anything from Johnson is a craven betrayal of the class struggle.
So it has no doubt disappointed various people that he has not done these things. But the point is it doesn't matter right now. The next election is almost 4 years away. We don't need Labour policies or even the shape of the offering at this point. There are 2 unfolding disasters (our shambles of a Covid response and a sad looking Brexit outcome) which are owned lock stock & barrel by this Tory government. The catastrophic ramifications of these failures mean Labour should win the next election and Starmer is one lucky man to be leading Labour into it. PM is there for the taking.
There is one thing above all that he has to do to capitalize on his good fortune. He has to establish himself in the eyes of the public as a credible person to be PM. People have to look at him and go, "Yeah, I can imagine him at number 10. He'd be ok." That's all. Nothing to do with policy and little to do with left/right. The swing voters who decide elections don't get onto your policies unless that bar is cleared. You might think it’s a low bar but for a Labour leader it isn’t. The last 2 did not manage it. So I think this is the focus for Starmer and it’s the right one. If he succeeds, the rest will be a slam dunk.
I agree with David. It will be difficult to imagine him in No.10 if he is incapable of displaying leadership. He need to pick his battles with the government, but he can’t avoid them all. Mere criticism isn’t leadership.
That's true and I think he will become more defined and combative in time. I personally would like to see him tearing into this dreadful government on all fronts 24/7 but this imo is not what he needs to do at this juncture to maximize his chances of winning the next election. For now, given the trauma of Dec 12th, I think it's about establishing a vague but general air of competence and steadiness together with "decent bloke" and "doesn't hate Britain" and "likes a good statue". And I reckon he's doing ok so far on that front. I think he'll emerge and take more risks in due course. Correction, I hope he will. Not 100% sure about him - I voted for Nandy - but I'm onboard atm.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
Well, I have set out what I would like to do pretty extensively on here back in 2015 when the Charlie Hebdo killings happened.
But three things we should do:-
1. We should not make the upholding of free speech something which only brave individuals do - at the cost of threats and, sometimes, their lives. When those cartoonists were killed or the Danish cartoonist attacked every paper in the country, in Europe, in free liberal societies should have published them. Solidarity in numbers. Instead we cravenly self-censored ourselves and are still doing it. Look at how much effort it took to defend those Birmingham schools, for instance. (See also http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/21/rendering-unto-caesar/.) 2. The Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be withdrawn and rewritten. As of now, it effectively permits censorship by religions by effectively deeming criticism of a religion a hate crime. 3. Those who incite the sort of thinking and behaviour carried out by this terrorist should be prosecuted.
Has the question been asked directly as to whether publishing the Hebdo cartoons would have been illegal under the Scottish bill ?
Even in its amended form it is objectionable (making it a crime only if there is intent) because someone could certainly intend to criticise, for instance, a religion which thinks the penalty for apostasy or publication of images should be death. And it would be all too easy to say that they are thereby intending to stir up hate against the followers of such a religion, as indeed many such followers do, conveniently conflating hatred of an idea with hatred of people.
It’s a de facto blasphemy law by the back door. It will inevitably lead to self-censorship and it will involve the police in determining what is or is not legitimate criticism and debate. It is totally wrong in a free and liberal society.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
I had one of those too - two weeks after an email during their conference saying this was "my last chance" to become a member. All these missed opportunities!
But I do wonder at their social media operation if both Caroline Lucas and I are on their target list.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.
I will change my mind when I see him actually do something and that being something for ordinary people. Abstaining on every vote is not showing leadership.
For ordinary people? How about this. He defended the McLibel two, a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of £65 a week and an unemployed postman who was responsible for the day-to-day care of his son (then aged four) completely free of charge, when the multimillion pound conglomerate sued them for libel. He took the case all the way to the ECHR, again for free, forcing the UK Government to pay them £57,000, more than offsetting the £20,000 McDonalds had been awarded, and persuaded McDonalds not to enforce a costs award. For free he fought, and effectively won, the longest civil case in British (English or Scots law) history.
There is no point in Starmer picking a fight with Johnson given the 80 seat majority and 4 years left to run in this Parliament. It won't help ordinary people to do so - it just wastes time and energy. He's picking his battles as a good litigator does. Again, he is prepared for the long fight, and that's how he is fighting. He's Ali to Johnson's Foreman. Johnson has nothing to punch againt.
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
I agree and think that there is no answer that is possible in a liberal and tolerant society.
Demographics in France mean that eventually retribution for crimes against Islam won't be carried out by rogue terrorists, but by the state itself.
Meanwhile my local weekly rag has a Dept of Health full page advert telling us what level we are at and what the concomitant restrictions are. Unfortunately it's the wrong level...we aren't alone either apparently.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia and the EU trade on the basis of the 2008 EU-Australian Partnership Framework. If there is no deal between Britain and the EU we will not be defaulting to the 2008 EU-Australian Partnership Framework. We will be treated by the EU like a third country with no agreements at all with the EU, other than the Withdrawal Agreement which the British government has just said it will break.
Have we filled out the forms allowing us to even try to export food abroad yet?
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
I agree and think that there is no answer that is possible in a liberal and tolerant society.
Demographics in France mean that eventually retribution for crimes against Islam won't be carried out by rogue terrorists, but by the state itself.
Bollocks. Like in the UK, most French Muslims are not religiously observant, let alone fundamentalist. Certainly there is an Islamist threat there, as in many other countries, but very much a small minority, opposed by many secular Muslims.
I am sure the majority of Muslims in France are not even remotely extremist. Sadly it takes only a small % to be to have power over the whole group.
Talk to any young Iranians, the vast majority think the strict Islamic rules are a complete nonsense, but they have to go along with them anyway.
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
David Herdson article is very partisan. The early days of Blair the tories called him Bambi, how wrong they were. To get Labour to level pegging after their worst result since 1935 is encouraging. Especially during a pandemic when people rightly so give the government of the day some slack. He looks like a possible PM in the way John Smith did in opposition. In comparison to Johnson and Corbyn it is a vast improvement. Hopefully the tide will turn this November with a Biden win, which will indicate a change from the alternative right.
I disagree with this. I think David would be quite happy for Labour to win the next election with Starmer as leader. If anything I'd say that this piece is more like that of a Labour supporter who wants their leader to be more aggressive.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.
No, I didn't see that and will try to look it out. I believe that he is a decent bloke from modest beginnings, and that is indeed a contrast to the entitled chancer in power.
Quite what direction he wants to take on the big issues of the day, I do not know. I can't see myself voting for him, but Mrs Foxy is a fan to be fair.
My father a lifelong conservative voter, thinks SKS is better than Johnson. Do not know if many similar people feel the same, or if this indicates an eventual sea change.
It is amusing that after all the psychodrama of the past five years that the UK government saying trade talks are over and we are going to WTO (even if not entirely believed by everyone) is now the secondary minor news to this weekend.
The caveat is the point though, we've learned that Boris lies all the time, who cares what he says?
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Well lets just agree to disagree and say , I bet you he has a lot more cash than you or I and will have assets in millions, pension in millions and unlimited £320 (index linked ) a day and subsidised food "for life" in the HOL. Not too bad for a poor legal aid lawyer methinks.
You have no evidence for that assertion. In the overworn, hackneyed, phrase, you're not entitled to your own facts. In his five years as DPP Starmer probably made a million before tax - tax he would have had deducted at source under PAYE as it is a salaried post. So, net, he took home £500,000. Hardly millionaire stuff.
Also, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. I'm a partner in a City Law Firm, and I promise you that I don't have assets in millions,
Depending on your age , you should be in 7 figures with pensions, house and other cash or will certainly end up there , and he has his near 2 grand a week pension top up in the HOL as backup long as he can take a taxi and sign in.
Speaking personally, having never been near the city and started work on £9 a week and having also squandered plenty in my time it is far far from impossible. PS: Conversely you have no evidence that he is not well off, you are merely surmising. I suggest given his location , career etc it is likely to be nearer my opinion than yours.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia and the EU trade on the basis of the 2008 EU-Australian Partnership Framework. If there is no deal between Britain and the EU we will not be defaulting to the 2008 EU-Australian Partnership Framework. We will be treated by the EU like a third country with no agreements at all with the EU, other than the Withdrawal Agreement which the British government has just said it will break.
Do you mean that Tories are lying , who would have imagined that.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only double barely then.
"Only double barely" is pure sophistry and wholly disingenuous- 50% is two and a half times 20% and you know it - its as close to triple as it is double - and you don't state the comparative size of the Austrlaian services sector compared to ours. We don't have anything close to the huge natural resources of Australia to take up the slack either. Oh, and we're 22, as opposed to 10.000, miles away. The local farm shop here would have a stall at the market in Calais every couple of weeks, sold cider and Kentish beer, did quite well. All over. Are you suggesting they fly to Australia instead?
You've led the British people into a disaster and your side will reap the whirlwind of your empty promises.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
I had one of those too - two weeks after an email during their conference saying this was "my last chance" to become a member. All these missed opportunities!
But I do wonder at their social media operation if both Caroline Lucas and I are on their target list.
My brother in Edinburgh (in Ian Murray's constituency) has had one, no one I know in Glasgow though. At least their operation recognizes a lost cause...
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
Well, I have set out what I would like to do pretty extensively on here back in 2015 when the Charlie Hebdo killings happened.
But three things we should do:-
1. We should not make the upholding of free speech something which only brave individuals do - at the cost of threats and, sometimes, their lives. When those cartoonists were killed or the Danish cartoonist attacked every paper in the country, in Europe, in free liberal societies should have published them. Solidarity in numbers. Instead we cravenly self-censored ourselves and are still doing it. Look at how much effort it took to defend those Birmingham schools, for instance. (See also http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/21/rendering-unto-caesar/.) 2. The Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be withdrawn and rewritten. As of now, it effectively permits censorship by religions by effectively deeming criticism of a religion a hate crime. 3. Those who incite the sort of thinking and behaviour carried out by this terrorist should be prosecuted.
Has the question been asked directly as to whether publishing the Hebdo cartoons would have been illegal under the Scottish bill ?
Even in its amended form it is objectionable (making it a crime only if there is intent) because someone could certainly intend to criticise, for instance, a religion which thinks the penalty for apostasy or publication of images should be death. And it would be all too easy to say that they are thereby intending to stir up hate against the followers of such a religion, as indeed many such followers do, conveniently conflating hatred of an idea with hatred of people.
It’s a de facto blasphemy law by the back door. It will inevitably lead to self-censorship and it will involve the police in determining what is or is not legitimate criticism and debate. It is totally wrong in a free and liberal society.
It is indeed absolute crap and may cost the SNP dearly , good idea that is ill thought out and badly written by idiots. If not heavily amended it would be a disaster.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Well lets just agree to disagree and say , I bet you he has a lot more cash than you or I and will have assets in millions, pension in millions and unlimited £320 (index linked ) a day and subsidised food "for life" in the HOL. Not too bad for a poor legal aid lawyer methinks.
You have no evidence for that assertion. In the overworn, hackneyed, phrase, you're not entitled to your own facts. In his five years as DPP Starmer probably made a million before tax - tax he would have had deducted at source under PAYE as it is a salaried post. So, net, he took home £500,000. Hardly millionaire stuff.
Also, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. I'm a partner in a City Law Firm, and I promise you that I don't have assets in millions,
Depending on your age , you should be in 7 figures with pensions, house and other cash or will certainly end up there , and he has his near 2 grand a week pension top up in the HOL as backup long as he can take a taxi and sign in.
Speaking personally, having never been near the city and started work on £9 a week and having also squandered plenty in my time it is far far from impossible. PS: Conversely you have no evidence that he is not well off, you are merely surmising. I suggest given his location , career etc it is likely to be nearer my opinion than yours.
The Daily Mail tried to do a hatchet job on him from the money point of view, and ended up having to back down when it turned out a field had been acquited for his mum's donkeys ...
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.
No, I didn't see that and will try to look it out. I believe that he is a decent bloke from modest beginnings, and that is indeed a contrast to the entitled chancer in power.
Quite what direction he wants to take on the big issues of the day, I do not know. I can't see myself voting for him, but Mrs Foxy is a fan to be fair.
My father a lifelong conservative voter, thinks SKS is better than Johnson. Do not know if many similar people feel the same, or if this indicates an eventual sea change.
An exceedingly low bar , could there be anyone other than Hyfud, BigG and Philip T who could possibly think otherwise.
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
Well, I have set out what I would like to do pretty extensively on here back in 2015 when the Charlie Hebdo killings happened.
But three things we should do:-
1. We should not make the upholding of free speech something which only brave individuals do - at the cost of threats and, sometimes, their lives. When those cartoonists were killed or the Danish cartoonist attacked every paper in the country, in Europe, in free liberal societies should have published them. Solidarity in numbers. Instead we cravenly self-censored ourselves and are still doing it. Look at how much effort it took to defend those Birmingham schools, for instance. (See also http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/21/rendering-unto-caesar/.) 2. The Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be withdrawn and rewritten. As of now, it effectively permits censorship by religions by effectively deeming criticism of a religion a hate crime. 3. Those who incite the sort of thinking and behaviour carried out by this terrorist should be prosecuted.
Thanks for this comment. Some responses:
1) I believe in free speech, but personally I prefer to respect the religious sensibilities of others, on the 'do unto others' principle - and I strongly object to some forms of mocking and distortion of my own religious beliefs even though people are free to do so, I prefer it if they refrain. Media editors may feel the same.
2) In a liberal society you can't tell the media what to do. It is a self evident contradiction.
3) You are of course right about the Scottish Hate Crime Bill
4) Incitement. Easier to say than to define. Freedom of belief is what it is. I am not entitled to murder someone but I am entitled to stand for parliament on a manifesto saying that murder should be made lawful. It would not be difficult for illiberal people (as well as many liberals) to see that as incitement. Which would be the thin end of that Scottish wedge.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only double barely then.
"Only double barely" is pure sophistry and wholly disingenuous- 50% is two and a half times 20% and you know it - its as close to triple as it is double - and you don't state the comparative size of the Austrlaian services sector compared to ours. We don't have anything close to the huge natural resources of Australia to take up the slack either. Oh, and we're 22, as opposed to 12,0000, miles away. The local farm shop here would have a stall at the market in Calais every couple of weeks, sold cider and Kentish beer, did quite well. All over. Are you suggesting they fly to Australia instead?
You've led the British people into a disaster and your side will reap the whirlwind of your empty promises.
He originally wrote 2/5ths and corrected himself. And even that was selectively quoting "Services". Australian Goods exports to EU are 7-8% of goods exports. Hardly surprising a trade deal isn't much of a priority to them. And they are trading from a base position of... 7-8% of goods exports. And have all sorts of other trade deals with their major markets. We are going from non tariff trade on 43% of our exports to WTO tariffs OVERNIGHT.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.
No, I didn't see that and will try to look it out. I believe that he is a decent bloke from modest beginnings, and that is indeed a contrast to the entitled chancer in power.
Quite what direction he wants to take on the big issues of the day, I do not know. I can't see myself voting for him, but Mrs Foxy is a fan to be fair.
My father a lifelong conservative voter, thinks SKS is better than Johnson. Do not know if many similar people feel the same, or if this indicates an eventual sea change.
An exceedingly low bar , could there be anyone other than Hyfud, BigG and Philip T who could possibly think otherwise.
Yes about a third of the country according to polls.
This site being so anti Johnson (and it was before he won a landslide too) is out of touch on that.
On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?
Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.
It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.
OTOH, A bill which puts govts beyond the law will, one day in the future, be useful to a Labour govt.
He is a politician and he wants power. This bill adds more power to the govt of the day be it Blue or Red.
Do not make the mistake of believing that he is fighting for our liberties.
Is anyone? The Lib Dems, for instance.....hello, hello.....
It's kind of ironic, for those Lib Dems (not me) who warm to Starmer, that he disciplined his MPs who walked into the same lobby as the Lib Dems.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.
I will change my mind when I see him actually do something and that being something for ordinary people. Abstaining on every vote is not showing leadership.
For ordinary people? How about this. He defended the McLibel two, a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of £65 a week and an unemployed postman who was responsible for the day-to-day care of his son (then aged four) completely free of charge, when the multimillion pound conglomerate sued them for libel. He took the case all the way to the ECHR, again for free, forcing the UK Government to pay them £57,000, more than offsetting the £20,000 McDonalds had been awarded, and persuaded McDonalds not to enforce a costs award. For free he fought, and effectively won, the longest civil case in British (English or Scots law) history.
There is no point in Starmer picking a fight with Johnson given the 80 seat majority and 4 years left to run in this Parliament. It won't help ordinary people to do so - it just wastes time and energy. He's picking his battles as a good litigator does. Again, he is prepared for the long fight, and that's how he is fighting. He's Ali to Johnson's Foreman. Johnson has nothing to punch againt.
One can only hope and fact he is up against an absolutely useless donkey cannot be a handicap.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Well lets just agree to disagree and say , I bet you he has a lot more cash than you or I and will have assets in millions, pension in millions and unlimited £320 (index linked ) a day and subsidised food "for life" in the HOL. Not too bad for a poor legal aid lawyer methinks.
You have no evidence for that assertion. In the overworn, hackneyed, phrase, you're not entitled to your own facts. In his five years as DPP Starmer probably made a million before tax - tax he would have had deducted at source under PAYE as it is a salaried post. So, net, he took home £500,000. Hardly millionaire stuff.
Also, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. I'm a partner in a City Law Firm, and I promise you that I don't have assets in millions,
Depending on your age , you should be in 7 figures with pensions, house and other cash or will certainly end up there , and he has his near 2 grand a week pension top up in the HOL as backup long as he can take a taxi and sign in.
Speaking personally, having never been near the city and started work on £9 a week and having also squandered plenty in my time it is far far from impossible. PS: Conversely you have no evidence that he is not well off, you are merely surmising. I suggest given his location , career etc it is likely to be nearer my opinion than yours.
The Daily Mail tried to do a hatchet job on him from the money point of view, and ended up having to back down when it turned out a field had been acquited for his mum's donkeys ...
It was a good buy even if not intended to make money, and certainly good for the donkeys.
David Herdson article is very partisan. The early days of Blair the tories called him Bambi, how wrong they were. To get Labour to level pegging after their worst result since 1935 is encouraging. Especially during a pandemic when people rightly so give the government of the day some slack. He looks like a possible PM in the way John Smith did in opposition. In comparison to Johnson and Corbyn it is a vast improvement. Hopefully the tide will turn this November with a Biden win, which will indicate a change from the alternative right.
I disagree with this. I think David would be quite happy for Labour to win the next election with Starmer as leader. If anything I'd say that this piece is more like that of a Labour supporter who wants their leader to be more aggressive.
Give over no conservative ever wants a Labour government. Imo during the honeymoon of a new government and a world wide pandemic he has pitched it correctly since March. This week he called for a circuit breaker agreeing with sage. The government stated from day one it was following the science. Starmer has rightly now opposed.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
You think we have the capacity in our fishing fleet to pick up the slack from the sudden absence of the French fishing our Cod and selling it to us? I suspect that supply demands will mean they carry on as normal in the medium term.
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
The author of that a big fan of the Chinese approach I assume.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only double barely then.
"Only double barely" is pure sophistry and wholly disingenuous- 50% is two and a half times 20% and you know it - its as close to triple as it is double - and you don't state the comparative size of the Austrlaian services sector compared to ours. We don't have anything close to the huge natural resources of Australia to take up the slack either. Oh, and we're 22, as opposed to 10.000, miles away. The local farm shop here would have a stall at the market in Calais every couple of weeks, sold cider and Kentish beer, did quite well. All over. Are you suggesting they fly to Australia instead?
You've led the British people into a disaster and your side will reap the whirlwind of your empty promises.
*Edit - even Australia isn't as far as the moon.
I wasn't the one who used the word barely, that was a quotation. So 2.5x barely is tremendous is it?
And the UK does have natural resources too. A lot of fish for starters.
Besides trade won't end in January. Your local farm shop can continue to trade just as I can continue to drink Australian Shiraz, Chilean Merlot or Argentinian Malbec without being in a union with any of them.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only double barely then.
"Only double barely" is pure sophistry and wholly disingenuous- 50% is two and a half times 20% and you know it - its as close to triple as it is double - and you don't state the comparative size of the Austrlaian services sector compared to ours. We don't have anything close to the huge natural resources of Australia to take up the slack either. Oh, and we're 22, as opposed to 10.000, miles away. The local farm shop here would have a stall at the market in Calais every couple of weeks, sold cider and Kentish beer, did quite well. All over. Are you suggesting they fly to Australia instead?
You've led the British people into a disaster and your side will reap the whirlwind of your empty promises.
*Edit - even Australia isn't as far as the moon.
I wasn't the one who used the word barely, that was a quotation. So 2.5x barely is tremendous is it?
And the UK does have natural resources too. A lot of fish for starters.
Lol. And there was everyone else thinking the issue of fish was basically symbolic, it being such a small proportion of our economy and all.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only double barely then.
"Only double barely" is pure sophistry and wholly disingenuous- 50% is two and a half times 20% and you know it - its as close to triple as it is double - and you don't state the comparative size of the Austrlaian services sector compared to ours. We don't have anything close to the huge natural resources of Australia to take up the slack either. Oh, and we're 22, as opposed to 10.000, miles away. The local farm shop here would have a stall at the market in Calais every couple of weeks, sold cider and Kentish beer, did quite well. All over. Are you suggesting they fly to Australia instead?
You've led the British people into a disaster and your side will reap the whirlwind of your empty promises.
*Edit - even Australia isn't as far as the moon.
Unfortunately many of them will make fortunes out of it , some already have. Will be interesting to see how it goes when the suckers at the bottom realise they have been well and truly shafted whilst their heroes are filling wheelbarrows with their loot.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
You think we have the capacity in our fishing fleet to pick up the slack from the sudden absence of the French fishing our Cod and selling it to us? I suspect that supply demands will mean they carry on as normal in the medium term.
Yes I do since fishermen currently have to throw away a lot of their catch if they are over quota limits.
I love the notion that there might have to be growth and more jobs etc in the industry as a horrified reason not to do it.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Well lets just agree to disagree and say , I bet you he has a lot more cash than you or I and will have assets in millions, pension in millions and unlimited £320 (index linked ) a day and subsidised food "for life" in the HOL. Not too bad for a poor legal aid lawyer methinks.
You have no evidence for that assertion. In the overworn, hackneyed, phrase, you're not entitled to your own facts. In his five years as DPP Starmer probably made a million before tax - tax he would have had deducted at source under PAYE as it is a salaried post. So, net, he took home £500,000. Hardly millionaire stuff.
Also, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. I'm a partner in a City Law Firm, and I promise you that I don't have assets in millions,
Depending on your age , you should be in 7 figures with pensions, house and other cash or will certainly end up there , and he has his near 2 grand a week pension top up in the HOL as backup long as he can take a taxi and sign in.
Speaking personally, having never been near the city and started work on £9 a week and having also squandered plenty in my time it is far far from impossible. PS: Conversely you have no evidence that he is not well off, you are merely surmising. I suggest given his location , career etc it is likely to be nearer my opinion than yours.
You are assuming that Starmer will go to the Lords. He might not a) wish to b) be offered the chance or c) the Lords might not exist in it's current form. (so b would apply, of course.) On houses, two considerations apply; house prices can go down as well as up and a house is only worth anything when you actually sell it. Yes, I know about Equity Release, and suspect its the PPI of our time.
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
The author of that a big fan of the Chinese approach I assume.
The piece is really just identifying the problem, without coming up with any policy to combat it. There is not really anything that can be done about it in my opinion.
The Chinese can deal with it because they are not a liberal democracy, it could never happen like that here.
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
You think we have the capacity in our fishing fleet to pick up the slack from the sudden absence of the French fishing our Cod and selling it to us? I suspect that supply demands will mean they carry on as normal in the medium term.
Yes I do since fishermen currently have to throw away a lot of their catch if they are over quota limits.
I love the notion that there might have to be growth and more jobs etc in the industry as a horrified reason not to do it.
Bit like burning your 20 pound notes so you can save your 10p coins
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.
I will change my mind when I see him actually do something and that being something for ordinary people. Abstaining on every vote is not showing leadership.
For ordinary people? How about this. He defended the McLibel two, a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of £65 a week and an unemployed postman who was responsible for the day-to-day care of his son (then aged four) completely free of charge, when the multimillion pound conglomerate sued them for libel. He took the case all the way to the ECHR, again for free, forcing the UK Government to pay them £57,000, more than offsetting the £20,000 McDonalds had been awarded, and persuaded McDonalds not to enforce a costs award. For free he fought, and effectively won, the longest civil case in British (English or Scots law) history.
There is no point in Starmer picking a fight with Johnson given the 80 seat majority and 4 years left to run in this Parliament. It won't help ordinary people to do so - it just wastes time and energy. He's picking his battles as a good litigator does. Again, he is prepared for the long fight, and that's how he is fighting. He's Ali to Johnson's Foreman. Johnson has nothing to punch againt.
One can only hope and fact he is up against an absolutely useless donkey cannot be a handicap.
Malc, If I lived in Scotland I would vote SNP for an independent state. It is obvious to me Johnson is helping your cause. However I do not have that choice and SKS seems a more honest moral person to me than Johnson.
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms
Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.
About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU. About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Er... And the rest?
It's pretty inconsequential.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
You think we have the capacity in our fishing fleet to pick up the slack from the sudden absence of the French fishing our Cod and selling it to us? I suspect that supply demands will mean they carry on as normal in the medium term.
Yes I do since fishermen currently have to throw away a lot of their catch if they are over quota limits.
I love the notion that there might have to be growth and more jobs etc in the industry as a horrified reason not to do it.
Bit like burning your 20 pound notes so you can save your 10p coins
Your hypocrisy with regards to Scottish independence and Brexit remains breathtaking.
At least I'm consistent in applying the same principles to (and thus supporting) both.
I wasn't the one who used the word barely, that was a quotation. So 2.5x barely is tremendous is it?
And the UK does have natural resources too. A lot of fish for starters.
2.5 x, otherwise exemplified at 150%, is massive and is even more significant when you take into account how our economy differs from Australia. Is fish the best you can do? Everywhere has natural resources. Even the Vatican has solar power - which is harvested using a massive solar panel installation on at least one of the newer buildings there. But they have very few complared to larger countries. And, when Scotland leaves, largely as a result of Brexit, ours will be tiny in comparison. Most of the fish will go with them and, while oil is running out, what's left of it will leave with Scotland.
We are geographically 1/50th the size of Australia (less after seemingliy inevitable Scots Indy). As a result, compared to Australia we have hardly any natural resources. So comparing ourselves to them is insane. You're the one who is a poster boy for the fact we are "Like Australia" crowd. So tell me, how, leaving aside linguistic and cultural matters, how in our trade with Europe, our economic resources and our geographical resource, are we "like Australia".
Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?
I've been knocked the fuck out in MTB accidents at least twice since 2016 so it's possible I'm suffering from significant cognitive impairment but does anybody remember fish being mentioned much before the referendum? It's seems like it's all about fish now. 🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟
Comments
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1317405448681783296?s=20
This is the fundamental problem with Woke.
At that point, the Tories will still try and advance arguments that Labour failed to support "our boys" in the forces and all that crap. But those arguments won't have the same traction because Labour tried first to amend the bills rather than vote against in principle from the outset. Indeed but for a small minority of political obsessives (including you and I) the bills have already fallen under the radar. That's contrary to what the Tories hoped when they brought them forward this parliamentary session, giving them prominence over other potential legislation for political reasons in the hope that Starmer wouldn't be adroit enough to avoid their elephant trap.
By 'skilful' I of course mean idiotic.
So I am almost certainly wrong again.
The irony is in 2016 I played the market roller-coaster like a boss and on the day of the election I was sitting on an above evens bet on Clinton with here price at 1.16 ish. So I could have cashed out for a stonking risk free profit and failed to do so due to my arrogance and hubris.
He is a politician and he wants power. This bill adds more power to the govt of the day be it Blue or Red.
Do not make the mistake of believing that he is fighting for our liberties.
But it’s a good header.
But three things we should do:-
1. We should not make the upholding of free speech something which only brave individuals do - at the cost of threats and, sometimes, their lives. When those cartoonists were killed or the Danish cartoonist attacked every paper in the country, in Europe, in free liberal societies should have published them. Solidarity in numbers. Instead we cravenly self-censored ourselves and are still doing it. Look at how much effort it took to defend those Birmingham schools, for instance. (See also http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/21/rendering-unto-caesar/.)
2. The Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be withdrawn and rewritten. As of now, it effectively permits censorship by religions by effectively deeming criticism of a religion a hate crime.
3. Those who incite the sort of thinking and behaviour carried out by this terrorist should be prosecuted.
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1317096548292038658?s=19
Standing up for secular liberal values in the face of cults of violent suppression of difference and diversity, including freedom of expression is a perpetual battle.
Last week I saw the new French film at our re-opened arts cinema* "Les Miserables", which references the Victor Hugo novel, but is really about policing the baniliue. Well worth seeking out, and a nuanced dissection of the tensions in French immigrant societies, including the role of Islamists in regulating youths when the law has lost authority.
* reasonably attended, well socially distanced, and great to be back watching a big screen again.
Dear Barnesian,
Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.
One based on friendship and free trade.
But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.
Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.
Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.
And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>
Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.
So now is the time to prepare.
And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.
By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.
If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister
https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1317149204939218946?s=20
While no one can say Biden is a certainty to win, saying you’re almost certainly wrong is hyperbolic in the extreme.
And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.
We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.
The only way to "drain the swamp" is to let them fail (successively) and hope that whilst they are in the wilderness, the loonies associated with the madder projects will be booted out, but it might be 10 or 15 years before that happens.
In terms of the UK, 10 or 15 years is not long, a mere blip in its history. For people, with hopes and dreams it is way, way too long.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54552152
Could this be to do with that disastrous infiltration of greeney groups including the fathering of children by the undercover operative? The people responsible for that have a lot to answer for.
Backing down now would be more damaging to Boris than No Deal would be. So either the EU needs to back down heavily (and can they after that Council) or Australia style is nailed on.
She doesn't need a partner but there is speculation she could bring the one Maori party MP on board.
The polls were not bad on individual shares but massively understated the Labour lead with Lab ahead of their polling and National behind
The ‘Parliament is sovereign so it can do what it likes’ attitude seems to have taken over.
Also, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. I'm a partner in a City Law Firm, and I promise you that I don't have assets in millions,
Demographics in France mean that eventually retribution for crimes against Islam won't be carried out by rogue terrorists, but by the state itself.
The early days of Blair the tories called him Bambi, how wrong they were.
To get Labour to level pegging after their worst result since 1935 is encouraging.
Especially during a pandemic when people rightly so give the government of the day some slack.
He looks like a possible PM in the way John Smith did in opposition.
In comparison to Johnson and Corbyn it is a vast improvement.
Hopefully the tide will turn this November with a Biden win, which will indicate a change from the alternative right.
Later peeps!!!
Unfortunately it's the wrong level...we aren't alone either apparently.
https://www.hexham-courant.co.uk/news/18801305.hexham-courant-apologises-advert-error-local-covid-alert-level/
Consistently around 71-19. Cant remember such figures.
Even in its amended form it is objectionable (making it a crime only if there is intent) because someone could certainly intend to criticise, for instance, a religion which thinks the penalty for apostasy or publication of images should be death. And it would be all too easy to say that they are thereby intending to stir up hate against the followers of such a religion, as indeed many such followers do, conveniently conflating hatred of an idea with hatred of people.
It’s a de facto blasphemy law by the back door. It will inevitably lead to self-censorship and it will involve the police in determining what is or is not legitimate criticism and debate. It is totally wrong in a free and liberal society.
But I do wonder at their social media operation if both Caroline Lucas and I are on their target list.
There is no point in Starmer picking a fight with Johnson given the 80 seat majority and 4 years left to run in this Parliament. It won't help ordinary people to do so - it just wastes time and energy. He's picking his battles as a good litigator does. Again, he is prepared for the long fight, and that's how he is fighting. He's Ali to Johnson's Foreman. Johnson has nothing to punch againt.
Oh. It's literally just this moment updated!
About 1/2 of ours do.
So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.
Talk to any young Iranians, the vast majority think the strict Islamic rules are a complete nonsense, but they have to go along with them anyway.
Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.
Do not know if many similar people feel the same, or if this indicates an eventual sea change.
Speaking personally, having never been near the city and started work on £9 a week and having also squandered plenty in my time it is far far from impossible.
PS: Conversely you have no evidence that he is not well off, you are merely surmising. I suggest given his location , career etc it is likely to be nearer my opinion than yours.
You've led the British people into a disaster and your side will reap the whirlwind of your empty promises.
*Edit - even Australia isn't as far as the moon.
We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.
The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
1) I believe in free speech, but personally I prefer to respect the religious sensibilities of others, on the 'do unto others' principle - and I strongly object to some forms of mocking and distortion of my own religious beliefs even though people are free to do so, I prefer it if they refrain. Media editors may feel the same.
2) In a liberal society you can't tell the media what to do. It is a self evident contradiction.
3) You are of course right about the Scottish Hate Crime Bill
4) Incitement. Easier to say than to define. Freedom of belief is what it is. I am not entitled to murder someone but I am entitled to stand for parliament on a manifesto saying that murder should be made lawful. It would not be difficult for illiberal people (as well as many liberals) to see that as incitement. Which would be the thin end of that Scottish wedge.
This site being so anti Johnson (and it was before he won a landslide too) is out of touch on that.
Imo during the honeymoon of a new government and a world wide pandemic he has pitched it correctly since March.
This week he called for a circuit breaker agreeing with sage.
The government stated from day one it was following the science.
Starmer has rightly now opposed.
And the UK does have natural resources too. A lot of fish for starters.
Besides trade won't end in January. Your local farm shop can continue to trade just as I can continue to drink Australian Shiraz, Chilean Merlot or Argentinian Malbec without being in a union with any of them.
I love the notion that there might have to be growth and more jobs etc in the industry as a horrified reason not to do it.
On houses, two considerations apply; house prices can go down as well as up and a house is only worth anything when you actually sell it.
Yes, I know about Equity Release, and suspect its the PPI of our time.
The Chinese can deal with it because they are not a liberal democracy, it could never happen like that here.
'By January 2019, vessels weren't allowed to discard any species of fish for which quotas were used to limit the numbers caught.'
https://tinyurl.com/qk4kysb
It is obvious to me Johnson is helping your cause.
However I do not have that choice and SKS seems a more honest moral person to me than Johnson.
I`m having to restrain myself from betting the farm on the Dems at these odds.
At least I'm consistent in applying the same principles to (and thus supporting) both.
We are geographically 1/50th the size of Australia (less after seemingliy inevitable Scots Indy). As a result, compared to Australia we have hardly any natural resources. So comparing ourselves to them is insane. You're the one who is a poster boy for the fact we are "Like Australia" crowd. So tell me, how, leaving aside linguistic and cultural matters, how in our trade with Europe, our economic resources and our geographical resource, are we "like Australia".