PlatoSaid said:

As a couple of examples from the Wimmins Protest - dressing up as giant vaginas, carrying placards demanding all men should die and writing campaigning messages on sanitary pads is probably a good indicator of the distance between the two groups.

Is Trump on the record as being either for or against abortion ? He was misquoted by the US media about wanting to lock up people that had abortions, when he had actually said if abortion was unlawful then clearly people that broke the law should be locked up, not in itself a revolutionary statement. He has said that abortion rights should be returned to the states, and at this point everyone threw their arms up in horror, how could it be right to ask the people how they want their state to be run, democracy, whatever next ?

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Roger said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

John_M said:

I have to say that the comments by the lefties on here over the last few days, and particularly this morning, have enlightened me as to why they never elect women leaders; it's not just their ideas on government that are stuck in the 70s.

You pompous arse!!

so why dont you elect women ?

I'm not Labour anymore but without being sexist I'd always choose a woman over a man if an electable one was available. Yvette would have been a much better choice than Ed.

I think this US election has changed everything. I spent some hours reading about the six times bankrupt Donald Trump last night and he really is a piece of work . A genuine misogynist and racist. Check out his work on the 'birther' story.

Roger

even the neandertals of the DUP have a woman leader

fact is you lefties just wont elect a woman

I don't think it's a left-right thing though

Just a coincidence then that the only two major parties in the UK never to have had a female leader are Labour & the Lib Dems?

Imagine what you'd be writing if it was Labour who first had a female leader 40 years ago and the Tories still hadn't?

I think there's a view on the Left that women who support the Right are Uncle Toms, and that explains the sort of abuse that Esther McVey and Charlotte Leslie received.

And, at the same, that women within the Left should also Know Their Place.

AlsoIndigo said:

PlatoSaid said:

As a couple of examples from the Wimmins Protest - dressing up as giant vaginas, carrying placards demanding all men should die and writing campaigning messages on sanitary pads is probably a good indicator of the distance between the two groups.

Is Trump on the record as being either for or against abortion ? He was misquoted by the US media about wanting to lock up people that had abortions, when he had actually said if abortion was unlawful then clearly people that broke the law should be locked up, not in itself a revolutionary statement. He has said that abortion rights should be returned to the states, and at this point everyone threw their arms up in horror, how could it be right to ask the people how they want their state to be run, democracy, whatever next ?

Overturning Roe Vs Wade and returning abortion to the states = banning abortion, in the US abortion debate.

Prosecuting doctors etc for illegal abortions is essentially blocked in all countries that allow abortion.

The abortion debate has resulted in some strange positions - the ferocity of the emotions involved have twisted people like metal in a furnace.

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Dromedary said:

Politics is dirty. While accusing the left of hypocrisy, the right hypocritically avoids admitting that its real message is as follows:

"Everyone's an arsehole, and the biggest most committed arseholes will always win, so losers gonna lose, so it's our world not yours, so the hell with all you snowflakes who say you believe in right and wrong, you dirty whinging losers with your pathetic morality and feelings".

The least hypocritical among the rightwingers are those who say that openly.

What a lot of tosh. Its the left that scream about hatred of the right, the right just think the left are wrong. I am on the right to some extent, I am big, and committed and broke, clearly I am going wrong somewhere, perhaps I am letting my morals get in the way spending most of my time teaching poor kids for nothing, oh no, I forgot we righties dont have those.

A quick perusal of this website on any given day demonstrates that it is simply false to claim that "the right just think the left are wrong". Indeed, your very own post above demonstrates that you think that the left is morally deficient.

I dont think either side is any more morally deficient than the other, I just think the left is more hypocritical, it likes to believe nice things about itself, when mostly they are just as bad as anyone else. Most of the right dont feel the need to polish their virtue so vigorously, and are more prepared to take a practical view of life, flaws and all.

David_Evershed said:

Other than Mr Meek (briefly) , no one wants to talk about Bercow, the subject of the thread. Why is this?

Where is the coalition for Carswell coming from? A party of one. He is in the circa 1/3 of MPs that wanted to LEAVE the EU. Up to 2/3 of the Conservative MPs probably do not want him and amongst Labour it will be almost 8 in 10 MPs against. In the SNP MPs probably close to 100% against.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!

I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.

Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.

For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.

Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.

In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.

Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.

whereas Bill just executed them when convenient

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

TheScreamingEagles said:

We discussed this a few weeks ago, but there's an update, Cowley Tech further confirms its status as a dump

Oxford University faces a landmark trial over a claim for $1.6 million compensation from a student who alleges “boring” and “appallingly bad” tuition cost him a first-class degree and robbed him of the high-flying legal career he coveted.

Doesn't a 'contract' when you sign up for a place at a university state in effect that the final grades are at the sole discretion of the university to be award in any way and on any basis that they see fit. ?

PlatoSaid said:

This gives a flavour of the flame war the MSM vs Trump

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-has-been-a-really-bad-week-for-journalism/article/2612586?custom_click=rss

I noticed amongst all the photoshopping and before/after pix of the crowds - a shot taken during Trump's inauguration. The crowds go back a very long way. He's in the shot taken from behind him.

The daftness of this whole thing, along with feverish claims MLK had been removed, the archiving of White House website et al just demonstrates that hysterical confirmation bias has totally infected the media.

It's absurd from so called professional reporters.

The Trump White House lied. The live television pictures shows that they were well down on the ones for Obama's inauguration. That's not the MSM's fault.

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!

I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.

Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.

For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.

Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.

In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.

Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.

whereas Bill just executed them when convenient

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

I imagine the Evangelical Christian right had no problems with that either.

nor it appears do you

Scotland is a proud country, with a distinct culture and history. If we want Scotland to stay within our family of nations - we do all live on the same island and share much, after all- then it will need to be treated as a partner and with respect in the post Brexit world.

That will involve taking a very hard and long look at fundamental questions of governance within the UK, including its constitution, to develop a new settlement all can buy into.

I'm not sure goading Scots over another independence referendum is the best way to do it.

David_Evershed said:

Other than Mr Meek (briefly) , no one wants to talk about Bercow, the subject of the thread.

Why is this?

To Labour: he's a Tory MP
To the tories: He's a Labour stooge.
To the Lib Dems: who?

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!

I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.

Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.

For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.

Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.

In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.

Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.

whereas Bill just executed them when convenient

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

I imagine the Evangelical Christian right had no problems with that either.

nor it appears do you

I am totally opposed to capital punishment for whatever reason.

and yet there you are ramping predator Bill back in to the White House

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

OldKingCole said:

Barnesian said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

Alanbrooke said:

we should import lots of Chevys

we buy Chevy for £10k
they buy Jag for £40k

Who is the "we" in that statement. We, the British public, don't want to buy Chevy's for £10k. That's why we don't do it now. They're crap.

The one thing Trump's cabinet is stuffed with is businessmen, I'd expect trade deals to be good for the USA.

And bad for us. Poorer food standards. ISDS court for multinationals. One thing it won't deliver - Taking Back Control.

The US/EU tariffs are already relatively low. It is the regulations and standards that are the problem. US will insist for the UK that they are US standards. It might cause us problems exporting UK goods with US standard to the EU.

You mean we’d have to dumb down to the Septic standards?

Yes. I've wondered whether US obesity is caused in part by the growth hormone in their beef. Probably not, but who knows.

The US population are guinea pigs for the rest of us on food standards e.g. GM. The US approach is business led. You can use anything unless it is proven to be unsafe. The EU approach (and UK) is consumer led. You can use anything that is proven to be safe. There is a big gap in the middle. If we go for a US FTA we inevitably have to take the US approach.

The FDA (clue is in the name) might disagree with your assertion that good is unregulated in the US

Food is less regulated than drugs. Here is a quote from the FDA website.

"Under 21 CFR 170.30(c) and 170.3(f), general recognition of safety through experience based on common use in foods requires a substantial history of consumption for food use by a significant number of consumers."

The GRAS regulations are used in drugs as well ("generally recognised as safe"). It's not all molecules, but things like salt, pepper, basil, oregano, etc

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!

I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.

Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.

For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.

Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.

In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.

Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.

whereas Bill just executed them when convenient

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

I imagine the Evangelical Christian right had no problems with that either.

nor it appears do you

I am totally opposed to capital punishment for whatever reason.

and yet there you are ramping predator Bill back in to the White House

No, I'm not.

PlatoSaid said:

hysterical confirmation bias has totally infected the media

I know I'm not going to convince you of this but just to point out the logical possibility, it may actually be that it isn't the media that's suffering from confirmation bias, it's you.

Mr. Observer, almost as if we should have an English Parliament

Happy birthday malcolm.

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!

I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.

Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.

For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.

Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.

In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.

Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.

whereas Bill just executed them when convenient

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

I imagine the Evangelical Christian right had no problems with that either.

nor it appears do you

I am totally opposed to capital punishment for whatever reason.

and yet there you are ramping predator Bill back in to the White House

No, I'm not.

we could play pantomime all day, but the the reality is both the left and right have been wearing each others clothes for the last 20 years. DJT and HRC were both crap candidates unfortunately one of them had to win.

I'll happily look at DJT' based on what he does but on the personality front the alternative was no better.

SouthamObserver said:

David_Evershed said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!

I am sure they held their noses, but given the alternative was Hillary I doubt they hesitated for a second, from the perspective of their ideology Hillary was much worse.

Yep, much better to have a sexual predator who publicly mocks the disabled in the White House.

For the Christian right it was the SCOTUS pick(s) that drove turnout.

Yep - they wanted a sexual predator who mocks the disabled to make the picks.

In reality they didn't want Clinton and chose what they perceived to be the lesser evil.

Of course - they thought that a sexual predator who mocks the disabled was the more moral choice.

Is immitating the disabled the same as mocking the disabled for being disabled.

Can people not be mocked or their political views if they happen to be disabled?

Their views can be mocked, of course. I'd say their disability should be off-limits. But I am a venal leftie, so I am probably wrong ;-)

and yet it's ok to label Leave voters as thickos ?

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Dromedary said:

Politics is dirty. While accusing the left of hypocrisy, the right hypocritically avoids admitting that its real message is as follows:

"Everyone's an arsehole, and the biggest most committed arseholes will always win, so losers gonna lose, so it's our world not yours, so the hell with all you snowflakes who say you believe in right and wrong, you dirty whinging losers with your pathetic morality and feelings".

The least hypocritical among the rightwingers are those who say that openly.

What a lot of tosh. Its the left that scream about hatred of the right, the right just think the left are wrong. I am on the right to some extent, I am big, and committed and broke, clearly I am going wrong somewhere, perhaps I am letting my morals get in the way spending most of my time teaching poor kids for nothing, oh no, I forgot we righties dont have those.

A quick perusal of this website on any given day demonstrates that it is simply false to claim that "the right just think the left are wrong". Indeed, your very own post above demonstrates that you think that the left is morally deficient.

I dont think either side is any more morally deficient than the other, I just think the left is more hypocritical, it likes to believe nice things about itself, when mostly they are just as bad as anyone else. Most of the right dont feel the need to polish their virtue so vigorously, and are more prepared to take a practical view of life, flaws and all.

Of course - your side is better than the other side.

Well we all think our side is correct or at least better. However the refusal of part of the left to accept the results of elections and the criticism and implication of moral torpor aimed at those who oppose it is fairly unedifying. Of course the right aren't immune to this as some of the accusations levelled at those who opposed Leave in the referendum show.

PlatoSaid said:

This gives a flavour of the flame war the MSM vs Trump

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-has-been-a-really-bad-week-for-journalism/article/2612586?custom_click=rss

I noticed amongst all the photoshopping and before/after pix of the crowds - a shot taken during Trump's inauguration. The crowds go back a very long way. He's in the shot taken from behind him.

The daftness of this whole thing, along with feverish claims MLK had been removed, the archiving of White House website et al just demonstrates that hysterical confirmation bias has totally infected the media.

It's absurd from so called professional reporters.

Crowd pictures taken from the same spot and within half an hour of each other at Trump's and Obama's second inaugurations:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/comparison-withtime-1024x576.jpg

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, almost as if we should have an English Parliament

MD , you already have one it is called Westminster and has 80% plus of the MP's and a de facto dictatorship on what happens in the UK, ie it is always what England ( London elite ) wants nowadays, there is no sense of partnership or caring and as Casino etc say , it will indeed be only the England parliament in the near future.

Tykejohnno said:

Happy birthday malcolm.

Cheers Tyke

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Scotland is a proud country, with a distinct culture and history. If we want Scotland to stay within our family of nations - we do all live on the same island and share much, after all- then it will need to be treated as a partner and with respect in the post Brexit world.

That will involve taking a very hard and long look at fundamental questions of governance within the UK, including its constitution, to develop a new settlement all can buy into.

I'm not sure goading Scots over another independence referendum is the best way to do it.

Scotland and England are two countries drifting ever further apart. England itself is becoming increasingly more divided - London, for example (and as many on here have noted), is very different. A constitutional convention in which politicians at Westminster end up giving away a lot of their power is probably the only hope there is to save the UK in the medium term.

The ONS estimates for 2014 show that one in eight (13 percent) of the usual UK resident population were born overseas. It will be higher for London but lower for Scotland but each different to England ex London.

The_Apocalypse said:

And I just shook my head when I read that Trump's first action was to stop the FHA mortgage insurance cut.

It's a voter-pandering market-distorting bung, not to mention a concealed subsidy for real-estate developers, so if he were to carry on like he's started that would be seriously encouraging. Next step, nationwide federal VAT...

AlsoIndigo said:

PlatoSaid said:

As a couple of examples from the Wimmins Protest - dressing up as giant vaginas, carrying placards demanding all men should die and writing campaigning messages on sanitary pads is probably a good indicator of the distance between the two groups.

Is Trump on the record as being either for or against abortion ? He was misquoted by the US media about wanting to lock up people that had abortions, when he had actually said if abortion was unlawful then clearly people that broke the law should be locked up, not in itself a revolutionary statement. He has said that abortion rights should be returned to the states, and at this point everyone threw their arms up in horror, how could it be right to ask the people how they want their state to be run, democracy, whatever next ?

He was not misquoted at all. It was a standard question asked to anti abortion advocats and Trump flubbed by telling the truth as posed to the flim flam nonsense where anti abortionists pretend they won't prosecute women. The press accurately reported what trump said and the trump camp issued retraction and flip flop after flip flop

frpenkridge said:

"Other than Mr Meek (briefly) , no one wants to talk about Bercow, the subject of the thread. Why is this?"

It is now 9 months that the 24 hours a day, 7 days a week pb.com has spent 97% of its time discussing brexit and related issues. Officially, this makes it the longest continuous debate in history.

(ps. I made up all these figures)

Fake News...

The_Apocalypse said:

@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!

Not unbelievable at all. If you're an evangelical voter (or even a more secular conservative) choosing between a candidate and party who at least pay lip service to your values, and a candidate and party who are actively hostile is a choice that makes itself.

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Dromedary said:

Politics is dirty. While accusing the left of hypocrisy, the right hypocritically avoids admitting that its real message is as follows:

"Everyone's an arsehole, and the biggest most committed arseholes will always win, so losers gonna lose, so it's our world not yours, so the hell with all you snowflakes who say you believe in right and wrong, you dirty whinging losers with your pathetic morality and feelings".

The least hypocritical among the rightwingers are those who say that openly.

What a lot of tosh. Its the left that scream about hatred of the right, the right just think the left are wrong. I am on the right to some extent, I am big, and committed and broke, clearly I am going wrong somewhere, perhaps I am letting my morals get in the way spending most of my time teaching poor kids for nothing, oh no, I forgot we righties dont have those.

A quick perusal of this website on any given day demonstrates that it is simply false to claim that "the right just think the left are wrong". Indeed, your very own post above demonstrates that you think that the left is morally deficient.

I dont think either side is any more morally deficient than the other, I just think the left is more hypocritical, it likes to believe nice things about itself, when mostly they are just as bad as anyone else. Most of the right dont feel the need to polish their virtue so vigorously, and are more prepared to take a practical view of life, flaws and all.

Of course - your side is better than the other side.

Self evidently, otherwise I wouldnt be on it

AlsoIndigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Dromedary said:

Politics is dirty. While accusing the left of hypocrisy, the right hypocritically avoids admitting that its real message is as follows:

"Everyone's an arsehole, and the biggest most committed arseholes will always win, so losers gonna lose, so it's our world not yours, so the hell with all you snowflakes who say you believe in right and wrong, you dirty whinging losers with your pathetic morality and feelings".

The least hypocritical among the rightwingers are those who say that openly.

What a lot of tosh. Its the left that scream about hatred of the right, the right just think the left are wrong. I am on the right to some extent, I am big, and committed and broke, clearly I am going wrong somewhere, perhaps I am letting my morals get in the way spending most of my time teaching poor kids for nothing, oh no, I forgot we righties dont have those.

A quick perusal of this website on any given day demonstrates that it is simply false to claim that "the right just think the left are wrong". Indeed, your very own post above demonstrates that you think that the left is morally deficient.

I dont think either side is any more morally deficient than the other, I just think the left is more hypocritical, it likes to believe nice things about itself, when mostly they are just as bad as anyone else. Most of the right dont feel the need to polish their virtue so vigorously, and are more prepared to take a practical view of life, flaws and all.

If teaching poor children for nothing makes you feel good, I welcome that.

But what's the problem with people feeling good who get off their butts and go on protest demonstrations because they refuse to accept that Trump's election should legitimise a ramping-up of the objectification of women?

I think your use of the notion "just as bad as anyone else" shows that my summary of the right-wing attitude was pretty on the ball.

Other than having contempt for the left and hatred for any view that comes from the collectivity of the lower orders about what kind of society we should live in that doesn't feature the lower orders being grateful to the privileged (cue contempt towards "chips on shoulders") and accepting of dog-eat-dog - what does the right stand for? The haves keeping what they've got, getting more of it, and keeping the have-nots in their place. The least hypocritical don't dress that up as beneficial to all parts of society.

Such a pretence wears thin when the working class has to be portrayed as the lazy and parasitic class and the rich as hardworking even while they're on the internet boasting about their Rolexes.

The_Apocalypse said:

Trump is a divisive figure so I don't know why it would be a surprise that he didn't match Obama's numbers of 1.8m (2009) and 1m (2013).

Also... It's in DC where he got something like 4% of the vote...

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Barnesian said:

CornishBlue said:

Diane Abbot being eaten alive on BBC One just now. Without any difficult questions.

All the Tories, UKIP or indeed the Lib Dems have to do to win any argument about Brexit (v. Labour) is simply show that interview to the electorate.

Andrew Neil at his best. Diane Abbot almost lost her cool. You could hear the panic and anger rising in her voice.

In answer to his question "if your objective is to remain a member of the single market, you must accept freedom of movement. Is that not correct?", the answer she should have given is "No it is not correct. It hasn't been tested. The negotiation hasn't begun. But the PM has thrown her hand in and will not even test that. She threw her hand in to preserve the unity of her party, not to further the interests of the UK".

The four freedoms (goods, services, capital, labour) are to support the single market in furthering trade. Labour is jobs not citizenship. The extension to citizenship had a political motive (ever closer union) not a trade motive. So it is divisible. There are also fudges available e.g. taking up the seven year adjustment period rejected by Blair in 2004. There was plenty to negotiate (including a big sum of money to help balance the EU budget) but she didn't even try.

How do you know it's not a negotiating position.

"This is valuable. It will cost you a lot"

"Nah. Don't really want it"

"Well what will you give us for it anyway?"

Yes - that would be good! May will go up in my estimation if that is her strategy. I hope it is, and that it succeeds, but very much I doubt it. And I suspect you do too.

Hammond has been very clear on this topic, I don't think he could have put it any more lucidly than he did at the WEF.

I was part of a team (I was responsible for CAME/EMEA) negotiating high value, complex multi-country, muli-region commercial deals for around seven years (from '93 on). I can't fault May's opening negotiating stance. It takes a lot of the emotion out of the initial engagement.

I know some Brits think that we can negotiate over the T&Cs of FoM, but there's absolutely no evidence that any of our counterparties are prepared to do so, noises off from the Visigrad group notwithstanding.

PlatoSaid said:

Just for @SouthamObserver

@nytpolitics CNN just contradicted you with this picture...looks like more people for Trump than you show? https://t.co/DemnUhiFch

That is a fantastic high definition photo. You can zoom into great detail. I'm not sure it does contradict the other photo taken from behind because of the perspective. The other photo had a time stamp of 11.47. Perhaps a few hundred thousand people rushed in at the last minute for his speech? Even in the HD CNN photo, the furthest block seems to be empty unlike the Obama occasion.

Malmesbury said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@NewsTaker It's even more unbelievable that the same Christian Right voted in their droves for Trump!

Not unbelievable at all. If you're an evangelical voter (or even a more secular conservative) choosing between a candidate and party who at least pay lip service to your values, and a candidate and party who are actively hostile is a choice that makes itself.

More about Supreme Court justices IMHO.

Trump can nominate who he likes, but the only one who will get through the Senate and Congress easily are those with a very hard line against abortion - strike Roe vs Wade.

Hillary would have nominated pro-choice judges. She said so, clearly.

Only the Senate (the House has no say) and the Dems will fight to the bitter end.

Happy Birthday MrG – hope there’s still a dram left of the 55 to celebrate with.

Could the democrats filibuster a supreme court nomination for another 4 years?

Well done TSE for getting "nun" and "whorehouse" in the same sentence!

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Scotland is a proud country, with a distinct culture and history. If we want Scotland to stay within our family of nations - we do all live on the same island and share much, after all- then it will need to be treated as a partner and with respect in the post Brexit world.

That will involve taking a very hard and long look at fundamental questions of governance within the UK, including its constitution, to develop a new settlement all can buy into.

I'm not sure goading Scots over another independence referendum is the best way to do it.

Scotland and England are two countries drifting ever further apart. England itself is becoming increasingly more divided - London, for example (and as many on here have noted), is very different. A constitutional convention in which politicians at Westminster end up giving away a lot of their power is probably the only hope there is to save the UK in the medium term.

Scotland has its own Parliament, Wales, NI and London their own Assemblies, it is provincial England which lacks representation

Gallowgate said:

Could the democrats filibuster a supreme court nomination for another 4 years?

They certainly may try depending on whom Trump nominates. They are also mad that the GOP Senate leadership did not progress Obama's nominee on preposterously spurious grounds. Could become very nasty.

GIN1138 said:

Happy birthday Malc!

Won't be long before your celebrating your birthday in an independent Scotland!

On present polling it will!

David_Evershed said:

viewcode said:

David_Evershed said:

Other than Mr Meek (briefly) , no one wants to talk about Bercow, the subject of the thread. Why is this?

Reason 1: the below-the-line comments bear no resemblance to the header
Reason 2: the header relates to an event 18 months from now and the tip reduces to "this person can do the job and it would be in this person's interest if he got it". So it's not enough info to lock up money for that long

A knife through the heart of TSE.

No one can get on these bets in more than a couple of quid. Its not even worth the bother. I am sure they are put up just so they can mention that the prices has moved as it will when the bookie has more than a grand exposure

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

PlatoSaid said:

Just for @SouthamObserver

@nytpolitics CNN just contradicted you with this picture...looks like more people for Trump than you show? https://t.co/DemnUhiFch

Cheers - much smaller crowds than Obama got.

Why does Trump even care about this? And why on earth does he care to the extent of lying about it? Just bizarre.

He was just the same in the debates. Tiny things "triggered" him and diverted him from the main point. Remember how he reacted to the beauty queen thing.

I have no idea if it's calculated by him or not but everytime the media concentrates on his tantrums instead of policy is a win for him. Whilst everyone was screaming about this latest sideshow he signed a mandate to basically gut Obamacare.

Begining to think he will be re-elected now because the MSM have learnt no lessons.

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

PlatoSaid said:

Just for @SouthamObserver

@nytpolitics CNN just contradicted you with this picture...looks like more people for Trump than you show? https://t.co/DemnUhiFch

Cheers - much smaller crowds than Obama got.

Why does Trump even care about this? And why on earth does he care to the extent of lying about it? Just bizarre.

See: https://twitter.com/rascouet/status/823035518313267202

Yep, makes sense. But methods will be developed to counter it. Trump has first adopter advantage on this blatant and demonstrable lie strategy and it is undoubtedly very effective. But others will catch up and surpass.

nunu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

PlatoSaid said:

Just for @SouthamObserver

@nytpolitics CNN just contradicted you with this picture...looks like more people for Trump than you show? https://t.co/DemnUhiFch

Cheers - much smaller crowds than Obama got.

Why does Trump even care about this? And why on earth does he care to the extent of lying about it? Just bizarre.

He was just the same in the debates. Tiny things "triggered" him and diverted him from the main point. Remember how he reacted to the beauty queen thing.

I have no idea if it's calculated by him or not but everytime the media concentrates on his tantrums instead of policy is a win for him. Whilst everyone was screaming about this latest sideshow he signed a mandate to basically gut Obamacare.

Begining to think he will be re-elected now because the MSM have learnt no lessons.

Oh, I think they will learn. At the moment, they are reeling - trying to work it all out. But work it out they will. As the alt-right likes to point out, there are a lot of Democrats in the media and in Silicon Valley.

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Scotland is a proud country, with a distinct culture and history. If we want Scotland to stay within our family of nations - we do all live on the same island and share much, after all- then it will need to be treated as a partner and with respect in the post Brexit world.

That will involve taking a very hard and long look at fundamental questions of governance within the UK, including its constitution, to develop a new settlement all can buy into.

I'm not sure goading Scots over another independence referendum is the best way to do it.

Scotland and England are two countries drifting ever further apart. England itself is becoming increasingly more divided - London, for example (and as many on here have noted), is very different. A constitutional convention in which politicians at Westminster end up giving away a lot of their power is probably the only hope there is to save the UK in the medium term.

Scotland has its own Parliament, Wales, NI and London their own Assemblies, it is provincial England which lacks representation

It's the power of the Parliaments and their ability to raise cash that needs to be looked at. And provincial England and its other big cities do also need to be in the mix, of that there is no doubt. Brexit is actually a great opportunity to review this and come up with something that will work for the 21st century.

We shall see

The_Apocalypse said:

PlatoSaid said:

Awkward for some

International Spectator
UNITED STATES: Civil rights activist Jessie Jackson says Trump's inaugural speech was 'full of hope and inclusion'

This is the full context of what Jesse Jackson said: http://www.ajc.com/news/national-govt--politics/jesse-jackson-trump-inauguration-speech-was-full-hope-and-inclusion/0FKQENwVcJU00CK4mAMTKK/
“I’m hopeful. There’s an awful lot of damage done that needs to be cleaned up,” he said. “The campaign was very divisive and very painful… Referring to President Barack (Obama) as the founder of ISIS, Hillary (Clinton) as a nasty woman. He’ll have to have to clean that stuff up and then put forth some concrete plans.”

Jackson pointed to Trump’s low approval ratings and issued a challenge.

“What does a man with so much power do? Grace can expand your power. Arrogance can diminish it. I hope he’ll have the grace and commitment to put all of us under one big tent.”

A more clear eyed analysis of the inaugural:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/american-carnage-the-trump-era-begins/513971/

Takeaway conclusion - even Andrew Jackson made more of an effort.

MyBurningEars said:

malcolmg said:

Tykejohnno said:

Happy birthday malcolm.

Cheers Tyke

Best wishes Malc. Have a good one.

Your "eating frogs in Texas" anecdote is well up there in my PB All-Time Top 10. Given that SeanT posts here, that's quite the achievement.

Cheers MBE