politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Can we end this “snap election” speculation – TMay, like Dave
Comments
-
As mentioned to Sean, I count being a capitalist as having moved from being poor to being rich, so yes.Casino_Royale said:
Probably more they dislike the capitalist ones.TOPPING said:
The left fell out of love with Jews and Israel when they became strong.Casino_Royale said:
I didn't think Ken was a fan, and got the impression he rather admired Hitler's "solutions".SeanT said:
It's not hard to see why highly political people would become fascinated by the Jews, as so many modern political movements stem partly or wholly from "Jewish" ideas and thinkers, and so many prominent politicians and political writers are Jewish.Casino_Royale said:
Which begs another question.SeanT said:
I think it actually stems from an obsession with Israel and Jews, not necessarily anti-Semitism as such, but a definite and peculiar fascination, which can often be found in highly political people. So the Hitler thing is a product of that.Casino_Royale said:I'd love to understand the psychology behind Ken Livingstone's obsession with Hitler.
Does he admire him? Does he think he's misunderstood?
What is it?
If you're a Marxist, like Ken, you believe in a political and economic system devised by a Jew, Karl Marx, and first enacted in Russia, where Jews were very prominent in the early days (e.g. Trotsky).
Look at Britain's recent party leaders - David Cameron, partly Jewish. Nick Clegg, partly Jewish, Ed Miliband, Jewish.
etc etc
Poor, downtrodden Jews = people we should be helping to become strong; strong Jews = oppressors of the people.
Many of the early emigrants to Israel - as well as voters in the UK - were quite socialist.
That has now changed. The Reagan/Thatcher mutual admiration in the 80s probably didn't help either.
As for Israel, when it was a socialist paradise forming itself after WWII it attracted a lot of sympathy from global socialists. When the country then achieved success both economically and, especially, militarily, that sympathy evaporated.0 -
It would doubtless take Corbyn a few days to form a Government and by the time the House of Commons defeats him in an Affirmative Confidence Vote the 14 days may well have expired. A Dissolution would then follow automatically with perhaps Corbyn as effectively caretaker PM for the duration of the campaign. I cannot see May wanting to risk that!Wulfrun_Phil said:OT
How to explain a "contrived vote of no confidence" within the next two years?
Answer: For Theresa May to herself make a statement that she has no confidence that her government could definitely win a vote on the final Brexit deal, and that rather than jeopardise the UK's negotiating position she will resign and move a vote of no confidence in order to secure an increased majority.
At worse that's a minor embarrassment, no worse than all the other embarrassments that this government has suffered (e.g. u-turns on flagship proposals in successive Budgets) from which the Conservatives' polling has emerged unscathed. Nothing in that process should cause the Conservatives any fear.
Furthermore, it would be necessary to seek a contrived vote of no confidence only after Labour had failed to back a prior motion seeking an early election, which in itself would be just as embarrassing for an opposition that has hitherto called for an early election and is pretending that it is in a position to contend for power. And if Corbyn did become PM for a few days in the 14 day period of grace, before failing his own vote of confidence, the reminder to the electorate that that state could become permanent after a general election would not I suggest enhance Labour's chances given his lamentable personal polling.
So I agree that we may well not have an early election, but it'll be because the PM doesn't wish to force one, not because she doesn't have the means to.0 -
Would making an annual contribution really be that unacceptable? If May got a pretty good FTA with the EU, but there was a price tag of (say) £2bn/year contributions to the EU budget, I think she'd be mad to say no!stodge said:
I don't obviously know but that might well be the EU Commission's opening negotiating position - it makes sense for them particularly from a financial standpoint to have the UK continuing to contribute.Casino_Royale said:
Correct.
I just have a feeling the EU wants to try and force the UK into continuing to pay into the EU budget, plus following a lot of regulations, plus having the ECJ rule on it, without having any votes in the EU political institutions, plus allowing almost unchanged free migration, and stopping any trade deals for three years after, and drastically restricting the scope of those too.
And, I'm just not sure that will wash.
Obviously, that wouldn't be acceptable to us at all and that's the art of negotiation.
One thing the UK will need to have for Day 1 outside the EU is a clear immigration policy or, more precisely, a clear view on the status of EU nationals currently resident and any future migrants into the UK from the EU countries. Genuine refugees are already catered for under existing international treaties, I believe.
As we technically can't even begin to negotiate free trade deals with other countries until we've left the EU, we'll need some transitional arrangements until we agree some FTA arrangements (which with some countries will be quick and with others a lot slower).
The workload is therefore much greater than just the EU and a number of key areas will have to be ready for Day 1 post-EU even if a broader treaty with the EU hasn't been concluded.0 -
Mr. Topping, aye, the old Jurgen the German tourist line [I was going to type it out but given past incidents thought it best not to].0
-
Indeed they were. And were poor for the following 17 centuries.SeanT said:
Jews were powerful and influential in the Roman Empire, until the Romans turned on them.TOPPING said:
Well before they were rich capitalists they were poor Jews.SeanT said:
No. Leftwing anti-Semitism goes back much further than that (if you mean the rise of Israel). Lenin became somewhat anti-Semitic towards the end (after initially being pro-Jewish), Stalin was seriously anti-Semitic.TOPPING said:
The left fell out of love with Jews and Israel when they became strong.Casino_Royale said:
I didn't think Ken was a fan, and got the impression he rather admired Hitler's "solutions".SeanT said:
It's not hard to see why highly political people would become fascinated by the Jews, as so many modern political movements stem partly or wholly from "Jewish" ideas and thinkers, and so many prominent politicians and political writers are Jewish.Casino_Royale said:
Which begs another question.SeanT said:
I think it actually stems from an obsession with Israel and Jews, not necessarily anti-Semitism as such, but a definite and peculiar fascination, which can often be found in highly political people. So the Hitler thing is a product of that.Casino_Royale said:I'd love to understand the psychology behind Ken Livingstone's obsession with Hitler.
Does he admire him? Does he think he's misunderstood?
What is it?
If you're a Marxist, like Ken, you believe in a political and economic system devised by a Jew, Karl Marx, and first enacted in Russia, where Jews were very prominent in the early days (e.g. Trotsky).
Look at Britain's recent party leaders - David Cameron, partly Jewish. Nick Clegg, partly Jewish, Ed Miliband, Jewish.
etc etc
Poor, downtrodden Jews = people we should be helping to become strong; strong Jews = oppressors of the people.
And Jews = rich capitalists, for many lefties, from the start.0 -
That FTA would have to cover a decent deal for financial services for it to be worth anything. Otherwise, why not just go the CETA route? How much did Canada agree to pay towards the EU budget?RobD said:
Would making an annual contribution really be that unacceptable? If May got a pretty good FTA with the EU, but there was a price tag of (say) £2bn/year contributions to the EU budget, I think she'd be mad to say no!stodge said:
I don't obviously know but that might well be the EU Commission's opening negotiating position - it makes sense for them particularly from a financial standpoint to have the UK continuing to contribute.Casino_Royale said:
Correct.
I just have a feeling the EU wants to try and force the UK into continuing to pay into the EU budget, plus following a lot of regulations, plus having the ECJ rule on it, without having any votes in the EU political institutions, plus allowing almost unchanged free migration, and stopping any trade deals for three years after, and drastically restricting the scope of those too.
And, I'm just not sure that will wash.
Obviously, that wouldn't be acceptable to us at all and that's the art of negotiation.
One thing the UK will need to have for Day 1 outside the EU is a clear immigration policy or, more precisely, a clear view on the status of EU nationals currently resident and any future migrants into the UK from the EU countries. Genuine refugees are already catered for under existing international treaties, I believe.
As we technically can't even begin to negotiate free trade deals with other countries until we've left the EU, we'll need some transitional arrangements until we agree some FTA arrangements (which with some countries will be quick and with others a lot slower).
The workload is therefore much greater than just the EU and a number of key areas will have to be ready for Day 1 post-EU even if a broader treaty with the EU hasn't been concluded.0 -
In classic May style she used a lot of words to say not a lot and you can interpret the following section of her speech in multiple ways.RobD said:
She did?
In areas like agriculture, fisheries, and the environment, the devolution settlements in effect devolved to the legislatures in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast the power to implement EU directives in these areas, within a common EU framework.
The essential common standards which underpinthe operation of a single market were provided at the European level.
As we bring powers and control back to the United Kingdom, we must ensure that right powers sit at the right level to ensure our United Kingdom can operate effectively and in the interests of all of its citizens, including people in Scotland.
We must also ensure that the UK which emerges from the EU is able to strike the best possible trade deals internationally.
In short, we must avoid any unintended consequences for the coherence and integrity of a devolved United Kingdom as a result of our leaving the EU.
As I have made clear repeatedly, no decisions currently taken by the Scottish Parliament will be removed from them.
While the SNP propose that decision-making should remain in Brussels, we will use the opportunity of Brexit to ensure that more decisions are devolvedback into the hands of the Scottish people.
Our aim will be to achieve the most effective arrangements to maintain and strengthen the United Kingdom, while also respecting the devolution settlements, and we will work constructively with the devolved administrations on that basis.
But unlike any of the individual devolved administrations, the United Kingdom Parliament is elected by the whole UK, and the UK Government serves the whole UK.
That places on us a unique responsibility to preserve the integrity and future viability of the United Kingdom, which we will not shirk.0 -
We shall be flexible, yet firm.Alistair said:
In classic May style she used a lot of words to say not a lot and you can interpret the following section of her speech in multiple ways.RobD said:
She did?
In areas like agriculture, fisheries, and the environment, the devolution settlements in effect devolved to the legislatures in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast the power to implement EU directives in these areas, within a common EU framework.
The essential common standards which underpinthe operation of a single market were provided at the European level.
As we bring powers and control back to the United Kingdom, we must ensure that right powers sit at the right level to ensure our United Kingdom can operate effectively and in the interests of all of its citizens, including people in Scotland.
We must also ensure that the UK which emerges from the EU is able to strike the best possible trade deals internationally.
In short, we must avoid any unintended consequences for the coherence and integrity of a devolved United Kingdom as a result of our leaving the EU.
As I have made clear repeatedly, no decisions currently taken by the Scottish Parliament will be removed from them.
While the SNP propose that decision-making should remain in Brussels, we will use the opportunity of Brexit to ensure that more decisions are devolvedback into the hands of the Scottish people.
Our aim will be to achieve the most effective arrangements to maintain and strengthen the United Kingdom, while also respecting the devolution settlements, and we will work constructively with the devolved administrations on that basis.
But unlike any of the individual devolved administrations, the United Kingdom Parliament is elected by the whole UK, and the UK Government serves the whole UK.
That places on us a unique responsibility to preserve the integrity and future viability of the United Kingdom, which we will not shirk.0 -
Is this a story about George Osborne?
"Low-ability youngsters from wealthy families go on to earn more money than their more gifted, poorer counterparts, says the Education Secretary Justine Greening."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39444993
0 -
Nevertheless, I think we should plan for it.SeanT said:
I think quite a few members of the EP want that, and maybe some commissioners. I am sure most if not all national EU leaders do not, they know how much a Crash Brexit would damage the European economy as a whole, and therefore their own popularity.Casino_Royale said:
Correct.stodge said:
Not just Government, all organisations should be making similar plans.Casino_Royale said:
If I was HMG, I'd be undertaking full contingency planning for us leaving with no deal whatsoever in anything in (now just under) 2 years time. That would include emergency legislation, and mitigation measures, including tax/regulatory changes, and crash trade deals for the 18 months thereafter.
I can see the UK and EU misreading each other all the way down the line, and it actually happening.
Probably a 30-40% chance.
I just have a feeling the EU wants to try and force the UK into continuing to pay into the EU budget, plus following a lot of regulations, plus having the ECJ rule on it, without having any votes in the EU political institutions, plus allowing almost unchanged free migration, and stopping any trade deals for three years after, and drastically restricting the scope of those too.
And, I'm just not sure that will wash.
And it's the national leaders who will steer this, in the end.
It's far from impossible if they stay hyper-emotional. And that affects me too: I can feel my attitude hardening too.0 -
Today is the 30th March, so these sentiments (with global warming) are just about appropriate...............
"Life is not a highway strewn with flowers
Still it holds a goodly share of bliss
When the sun gives way to April showers
Here is the point you should never miss
Though April showers may come your way
They bring the flowers that bloom in May
So if it's raining have no regrets
Because it isn't raining rain you know, it's raining violets
And where you see clouds upon the hills
You soon will see crowds of daffodils
So keep on looking for a blue bird
And list'ning…0 -
What's the most feasible situation in which there's an early election?
There must be some chance that a GE gets called because TMay loses control of the Commons eg in the event of a mass backbench flounce-off to the European New Democrats: Negate Brexit party. The END-Brexit lot might be quite keen for a fresh set of elections to reverse the referendum result. Rump Labour might concur e.g. if they think that the Tories are most vulnerable in the immediate aftermath of a big MP revolt against what is now an unpopular Brexit position, while the new party is most dangerous if given the full parliamentary term to organise its mass movement.
This is very very hypothetical. But may be marginally more likely than TMay deliberately calling a GE, bearing in mind she doesn't seem to have the tools to do so.
The other thing to keep an eye on is the expenses issue, obviously.0 -
Well, they won't get any money if it happens and probably a semi-hostile UK on their doorstep not inclined to cooperate anymore than what is immediately and directly in their national interest, so there is some realpolitik driving the EU to a deal too.stodge said:
I don't obviously know but that might well be the EU Commission's opening negotiating position - it makes sense for them particularly from a financial standpoint to have the UK continuing to contribute.Casino_Royale said:
Correct.
I just have a feeling the EU wants to try and force the UK into continuing to pay into the EU budget, plus following a lot of regulations, plus having the ECJ rule on it, without having any votes in the EU political institutions, plus allowing almost unchanged free migration, and stopping any trade deals for three years after, and drastically restricting the scope of those too.
And, I'm just not sure that will wash.
Obviously, that wouldn't be acceptable to us at all and that's the art of negotiation.
One thing the UK will need to have for Day 1 outside the EU is a clear immigration policy or, more precisely, a clear view on the status of EU nationals currently resident and any future migrants into the UK from the EU countries. Genuine refugees are already catered for under existing international treaties, I believe.
As we technically can't even begin to negotiate free trade deals with other countries until we've left the EU, we'll need some transitional arrangements until we agree some FTA arrangements (which with some countries will be quick and with others a lot slower).
The workload is therefore much greater than just the EU and a number of key areas will have to be ready for Day 1 post-EU even if a broader treaty with the EU hasn't been concluded.0 -
Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course0 -
Fck me, not making it up as they go along at all.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/847462187471982592
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/8474631541665464320 -
Can your lot please put the UK out of its misery as soon as possible? This is embarrassing.Theuniondivvie said:Fck me, not making it up as they go along at all.
0 -
Surely the problem would be the labyrinthine Labour Leader election process? AIUI, Her Majesty invites the leader of the opposition to form a govt. and they have 2 weeks to come up with a credible format. If they attempt to depose Corbyn it would decapitate Labour for months and we might well wind up with Corbyn back in charge (just like last time) because his backers know that he (and thus they) will be running the show.david_herdson said:
Just to mention again,Beverley_C said:
He would have to be, if only for forms sake. He "leads" the next biggest grouping and in theory could form a minority govtRobD said:
Would he even be offered it? He can't command the confidence of his own party, let alone the commons.Beverley_C said:Mrs May knows how the spineless entity known as The Labour Party works. If she forced a no-confidence motion then Corbyn would accept the PMship and the supine Labourites would fall in behind him awaiting his patronage.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/03/11/next-prime-minister-gus-odonnell-at-2501/
I see absolutely no upside for Mrs May trying to circumvent the FTPA. To do so would be the act of political amateurs or swivel-eyed loons.0 -
Hannah Arendt also documents the historical roots of German (and French iirc) anti-jewish sentiment. I can't remember the exact arguments in 'The Origins of Totalitarianism' (a rather dense book I found), but jews got involved in things like newspapers because they didn't want to be full on capitalists (or weren't encouraged to be, I forget which) and own factories etc.MTimT said:
Hitler's Willing Executioners, although a tedious book, does document the centuries of anti-semitism in Germany that predisposed non-Jewish Germans to think of the generic Jew (as opposed to your urbane banker neighbour jew) as somehow sub-human.SeanT said:
Well, brave evolutionary psychologists would argue that we are programmed to fear, resent or reject social and economic competitors, or any racial outgroup that seems to have power over us. Hottentots don't run many large companies or own many media groups, to put it bluntly, nor do they have an average IQ one Standard Deviation above the mean.augustus_carp said:
Interesting. But why Jews, rather than, say, Hottentots or Cherokees?SeanT said:
There's a theory that anti-Semitism is literally genetic. Innate. A mad theory, but a theory nonetheless.augustus_carp said:
Apparently, there is an anti-Semitic movement in Japan, of all places. it's quite small, but nevertheless surprising for a country with virtually no experience of Jewish people before the late twentieth century.Ishmael_Z said:
Anti semitism is a common symptom of schizophrenia (more so than hostility to other racial groups).Casino_Royale said:I'd love to understand the psychology behind Ken Livingstone's obsession with Hitler.
Does he admire him? Does he think he's misunderstood?
What is it?
There's a great book on the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany (I forget the title, sorry) which is highly enlightening on the extent of Jewish power in pre-Nazi Germany. German Jews really did own and run an incredible array of businesses, newspapers, entire industries. Because they tend to be smart and industrious.
Hitler exploited resentment at this, he didn't create it.0 -
At least he didn't split his infinitives.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course0 -
I have just seen Junker on Sky...he has been drinking again....hard to tell who is more bonkers Red Ken or Junker.0
-
I think I could forgive a split infinitive, but 'controversialise'???TOPPING said:At least he didn't split his infinitives.
The whole article is astonishingly feeble. I clicked on the link in the hope of getting something interesting and well-informed, but it's completely vacuous.0 -
Lying about age - check
Previous criminal record - check
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/8474643415614095370 -
factories, etc, could be confiscated.rottenborough said:
Hannah Arendt also documents the historical roots of German (and French iirc) anti-jewish sentiment. I can't remember the exact arguments in 'The Origins of Totalitarianism' (a rather dense book I found), but jews got involved in things like newspapers because they didn't want to be full on capitalists (or weren't encouraged to be, I forget which) and own factories etc.MTimT said:
Hitler's Willing Executioners, although a tedious book, does document the centuries of anti-semitism in Germany that predisposed non-Jewish Germans to think of the generic Jew (as opposed to your urbane banker neighbour jew) as somehow sub-human.SeanT said:
Well, brave evolutionary psychologists would argue that we are programmed to fear, resent or reject social and economic competitors, or any racial outgroup that seems to have power over us. Hottentots don't run many large companies or own many media groups, to put it bluntly, nor do they have an average IQ one Standard Deviation above the mean.augustus_carp said:
Interesting. But why Jews, rather than, say, Hottentots or Cherokees?SeanT said:
There's a theory that anti-Semitism is literally genetic. Innate. A mad theory, but a theory nonetheless.augustus_carp said:
Apparently, there is an anti-Semitic movement in Japan, of all places. it's quite small, but nevertheless surprising for a country with virtually no experience of Jewish people before the late twentieth century.Ishmael_Z said:
Anti semitism is a common symptom of schizophrenia (more so than hostility to other racial groups).Casino_Royale said:I'd love to understand the psychology behind Ken Livingstone's obsession with Hitler.
Does he admire him? Does he think he's misunderstood?
What is it?
There's a great book on the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany (I forget the title, sorry) which is highly enlightening on the extent of Jewish power in pre-Nazi Germany. German Jews really did own and run an incredible array of businesses, newspapers, entire industries. Because they tend to be smart and industrious.
Hitler exploited resentment at this, he didn't create it.0 -
"Hallo, my name is Juergen. I feel I must apologise for my nation's conduct during ze war!"Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Topping, aye, the old Jurgen the German tourist line [I was going to type it out but given past incidents thought it best not to].
0 -
Actually, if decisions are 'controversialised', that is an attempt to materialise 'new norms', isn't it?Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course0 -
Not just any previous criminal record...like a nicking a Mars bar...isam said:Lying about age - check
Previous criminal record - check
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/847464341561409537
Stern magazine reported that Khavari had thrown a 20-year-old student off a cliff on Corfu, Greece, in May 2013. The woman was severely injured but 'miraculously' survived and was able to identify her attacker.
Greeks let him of a 10 year prison sentence after 2.0 -
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.pngfrpenkridge said:Today is the 30th March, so these sentiments (with global warming) are just about appropriate...............
"Life is not a highway strewn with flowers
Still it holds a goodly share of bliss
When the sun gives way to April showers
Here is the point you should never miss
Though April showers may come your way
They bring the flowers that bloom in May
So if it's raining have no regrets
Because it isn't raining rain you know, it's raining violets
And where you see clouds upon the hills
You soon will see crowds of daffodils
So keep on looking for a blue bird
And list'ning…0 -
You mean like the SNP EU policy?Theuniondivvie said:Fck me, not making it up as they go along at all.
0 -
Brexit has driven the establishment crazy - That's probably half the reason why most people went for LEAVE.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course0 -
It's really quite tough to maintain an anti-capital punishment stance when I see criminals such as these.isam said:Lying about age - check
Previous criminal record - check
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/8474643415614095370 -
Well he should have done, "We have vocally to oppose" for "We have to vocally oppose" is ridiculous. The rule was invented by a mad Latinist who thought that because "amare" was one word, so should "to love" be. English ain't Latin, and the rule is inconsistent anyway because amabo "I will love" is one word too and nobody goes around saying that "I will madly love" is a split future and it should be "I madly will love."TOPPING said:
At least he didn't split his infinitives.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course
I like to deliberately split infinitives just because I can; a moderately unique habit, I dare say.0 -
It's bullshit for pushing the arguments for things like Brexit out to the fringes again, so the centre politicians can reclaim the Centre, if you will.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think I could forgive a split infinitive, but 'controversialise'???TOPPING said:At least he didn't split his infinitives.
The whole article is astonishingly feeble. I clicked on the link in the hope of getting something interesting and well-informed, but it's completely vacuous.0 -
LOL 2nd prize in typo/auto-correct of the day.MaxPB said:
It's really quite tough to maintain an anti-capitalist punishment stance when I see criminals such as these.isam said:Lying about age - check
Previous criminal record - check
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/8474643415614095370 -
It may not be the primary reason to Leave, but it is a delicious side effect....GIN1138 said:
Brexit has driven the establishment crazy - That's probably half the reason why most people went for LEAVE.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course0 -
Lol, bloody auto correct!TOPPING said:
LOL 2nd prize in typo/auto-correct of the day.MaxPB said:
It's really quite tough to maintain an anti-capitalist punishment stance when I see criminals such as these.isam said:Lying about age - check
Previous criminal record - check
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/8474643415614095370 -
I want to see the sunshine after the rain,frpenkridge said:Today is the 30th March, so these sentiments (with global warming) are just about appropriate...............
"Life is not a highway strewn with flowers
Still it holds a goodly share of bliss
When the sun gives way to April showers
Here is the point you should never miss
Though April showers may come your way
They bring the flowers that bloom in May
So if it's raining have no regrets
Because it isn't raining rain you know, it's raining violets
And where you see clouds upon the hills
You soon will see crowds of daffodils
So keep on looking for a blue bird
And list'ning…
I want to see bluebirds flying over the mountains again.0 -
I totally agree about split infinitives although "moderately unique" is just wrong!Ishmael_Z said:
Well he should have done, "We have vocally to oppose" for "We have to vocally oppose" is ridiculous. The rule was invented by a mad Latinist who thought that because "amare" was one word, so should "to love" be. English ain't Latin, and the rule is inconsistent anyway because amabo "I will love" is one word too and nobody goes around saying that "I will madly love" is a split future and it should be "I madly will love."TOPPING said:
At least he didn't split his infinitives.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course
I like to deliberately split infinitives just because I can; a moderately unique habit, I dare say.0 -
Oh, and it is an exquisite spring day here in Mallorca too, so just maybe Brexit will work out OK for everyone affected.
0 -
Socialist mediaTOPPING said:
LOL 2nd prize in typo/auto-correct of the day.MaxPB said:
It's really quite tough to maintain an anti-capitalist punishment stance when I see criminals such as these.isam said:Lying about age - check
Previous criminal record - check
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/847464341561409537
0 -
"moderately unique" was to troll Mr Dancer.Carolus_Rex said:
I totally agree about split infinitives although "moderately unique" is just wrong!Ishmael_Z said:
Well he should have done, "We have vocally to oppose" for "We have to vocally oppose" is ridiculous. The rule was invented by a mad Latinist who thought that because "amare" was one word, so should "to love" be. English ain't Latin, and the rule is inconsistent anyway because amabo "I will love" is one word too and nobody goes around saying that "I will madly love" is a split future and it should be "I madly will love."TOPPING said:
At least he didn't split his infinitives.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course
I like to deliberately split infinitives just because I can; a moderately unique habit, I dare say.
0 -
Mr. Z, I do apologise for not only not being outraged, but failing to even notice
[I am doing some work and only flitting in and out].
*clears throat* Something cannot be moderately unique, any more than a woman can be moderately pregnant. Unique is singular, one of a kind, and those who qualify it as 'quite', 'very', or 'moderately' are deviant abusers of the English language.0 -
Oh, fair enough then.Ishmael_Z said:
"moderately unique" was to troll Mr Dancer.Carolus_Rex said:
I totally agree about split infinitives although "moderately unique" is just wrong!Ishmael_Z said:
Well he should have done, "We have vocally to oppose" for "We have to vocally oppose" is ridiculous. The rule was invented by a mad Latinist who thought that because "amare" was one word, so should "to love" be. English ain't Latin, and the rule is inconsistent anyway because amabo "I will love" is one word too and nobody goes around saying that "I will madly love" is a split future and it should be "I madly will love."TOPPING said:
At least he didn't split his infinitives.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course
I like to deliberately split infinitives just because I can; a moderately unique habit, I dare say.0 -
Yeah, but the Mandy of old wouldn't have been going on about pro-refugee demos or new newspapers, like some particularly wet-behind-the-ears Guardian columnist.Casino_Royale said:It's bullshit for pushing the arguments for things like Brexit out to the fringes again, so the centre politicians can reclaim the Centre, if you will.
0 -
How can you tell an smug arrogant idiot from the general population? A smug arrogant idiot will insist on prescriptive grammatical forms as if language is derived from grammar rather than the grammar of a language being derived from the living use of the language.Ishmael_Z said:
Well he should have done, "We have vocally to oppose" for "We have to vocally oppose" is ridiculous. The rule was invented by a mad Latinist who thought that because "amare" was one word, so should "to love" be. English ain't Latin, and the rule is inconsistent anyway because amabo "I will love" is one word too and nobody goes around saying that "I will madly love" is a split future and it should be "I madly will love."TOPPING said:
At least he didn't split his infinitives.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course
I like to deliberately split infinitives just because I can; a moderately unique habit, I dare say.
If Alfred the fucking Great can use 'less' rather than 'fewer' it's good enough for me.0 -
From the 2016 Pink Book:
"The most substantial bilateral deficit within the EU is with Germany, which increased by 46.6% in 2015 (£25 billion) relative to 2007. The UK trade balance with respect to Germany has been in deficit in the past decade with the largest record seen in 2015. In contrast, the UK’s trade balance with Ireland has been in surplus all through from 1999, while UK trade with the Netherlands has experienced both deficits and surpluses during this period. It is worth noting the impact that the “Rotterdam effect” can have on trade in goods, further details of which can be found in the background notes, section 5, understanding the data. The UK trade deficit with EU countries as a whole is currently valued at £69 billion, a 17.9% deterioration compared with 2014."
And the EU want us to pay them something in excess of £50bn for the privilege of continuing to allow them unfettered access to our domestic markets? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I think that Frau Merkel is overplaying her hand.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/unitedkingdombalanceofpaymentsthepinkbook/2016
0 -
obeying the rule that any post that comments on, or criticises someone else's grammar will contain a grammatical or typographic error.Alistair said:
How can you tell an smug arrogant idiot from the general population? A smug arrogant idiot will insist on prescriptive grammatical forms as if language is derived from grammar rather than the grammar of a language being derived from the living use of the language.Ishmael_Z said:
Well he should have done, "We have vocally to oppose" for "We have to vocally oppose" is ridiculous. The rule was invented by a mad Latinist who thought that because "amare" was one word, so should "to love" be. English ain't Latin, and the rule is inconsistent anyway because amabo "I will love" is one word too and nobody goes around saying that "I will madly love" is a split future and it should be "I madly will love."TOPPING said:
At least he didn't split his infinitives.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course
I like to deliberately split infinitives just because I can; a moderately unique habit, I dare say.
If Alfred the fucking Great can use 'less' rather than 'fewer' it's good enough for me.0 -
The Suppertime Standard tells of pessimism in Londinium
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/8474711075107389440 -
Mr. Alistair, I'm not sure using 9th century Anglo-Saxon as the basis of correct grammar is necessarily wise.0
-
They actually did quite well in many parts of the world outside Europe. I found out today there's a wealthy, centuries old Jewish community in Central China, for example.TOPPING said:
Well before they were rich capitalists they were poor Jews.SeanT said:
No. Leftwing anti-Semitism goes back much further than that (if you mean the rise of Israel). Lenin became somewhat anti-Semitic towards the end (after initially being pro-Jewish), Stalin was seriously anti-Semitic.TOPPING said:
The left fell out of love with Jews and Israel when they became strong.Casino_Royale said:
I didn't think Ken was a fan, and got the impression he rather admired Hitler's "solutions".SeanT said:
It's not hard to see why highly political people would become fascinated by the Jews, as so many modern political movements stem partly or wholly from "Jewish" ideas and thinkers, and so many prominent politicians and political writers are Jewish.Casino_Royale said:
Which begs another question.SeanT said:
I think it actually stems from an obsession with Israel and Jews, not necessarily anti-Semitism as such, but a definite and peculiar fascination, which can often be found in highly political people. So the Hitler thing is a product of that.Casino_Royale said:I'd love to understand the psychology behind Ken Livingstone's obsession with Hitler.
Does he admire him? Does he think he's misunderstood?
What is it?
If you're a Marxist, like Ken, you believe in a political and economic system devised by a Jew, Karl Marx, and first enacted in Russia, where Jews were very prominent in the early days (e.g. Trotsky).
Look at Britain's recent party leaders - David Cameron, partly Jewish. Nick Clegg, partly Jewish, Ed Miliband, Jewish.
etc etc
Poor, downtrodden Jews = people we should be helping to become strong; strong Jews = oppressors of the people.
And Jews = rich capitalists, for many lefties, from the start.
Edit - just Googled. They're being persecuted now.
0 -
The gospel according to St Gideonisam said:The Suppertime Standard tells of pessimism in Londinium
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/847471107510738944
0 -
Venezuela as well according to a Venezuelan we met in Manila.SouthamObserver said:
They actually did quite well in many parts of the world outside Europe. I found out today there's a wealthy, centuries old Jewish community in Western China, for example.TOPPING said:
Well before they were rich capitalists they were poor Jews.SeanT said:
No. Leftwing anti-Semitism goes back much further than that (if you mean the rise of Israel). Lenin became somewhat anti-Semitic towards the end (after initially being pro-Jewish), Stalin was seriously anti-Semitic.TOPPING said:
The left fell out of love with Jews and Israel when they became strong.Casino_Royale said:
I didn't think Ken was a fan, and got the impression he rather admired Hitler's "solutions".SeanT said:
It's not hard to see why highly political people would become fascinated by the Jews, as so many modern political movements stem partly or wholly from "Jewish" ideas and thinkers, and so many prominent politicians and political writers are Jewish.Casino_Royale said:
Which begs another question.SeanT said:
I think it actually stems from an obsession with Israel and Jews, not necessarily anti-Semitism as such, but a definite and peculiar fascination, which can often be found in highly political people. So the Hitler thing is a product of that.Casino_Royale said:I'd love to understand the psychology behind Ken Livingstone's obsession with Hitler.
Does he admire him? Does he think he's misunderstood?
What is it?
If you're a Marxist, like Ken, you believe in a political and economic system devised by a Jew, Karl Marx, and first enacted in Russia, where Jews were very prominent in the early days (e.g. Trotsky).
Look at Britain's recent party leaders - David Cameron, partly Jewish. Nick Clegg, partly Jewish, Ed Miliband, Jewish.
etc etc
Poor, downtrodden Jews = people we should be helping to become strong; strong Jews = oppressors of the people.
And Jews = rich capitalists, for many lefties, from the start.0 -
Is it now not known as the Gideon Bible?isam said:The Suppertime Standard tells of pessimism in Londinium
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/8474711075107389440 -
Mr. Pulpstar, indeed.
Better to actually comment on facts and put forward proposals rather than wail and gnash teeth, but I'm just a poor writer and not a millionaire with half a dozen jobs, so what do I know?
Edited extra bit: that, said: George*.0 -
Wouldn't he? He and Blair have always loved the EU and immigration.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, but the Mandy of old wouldn't have been going on about pro-refugee demos or new newspapers, like some particularly wet-behind-the-ears Guardian columnist.Casino_Royale said:It's bullshit for pushing the arguments for things like Brexit out to the fringes again, so the centre politicians can reclaim the Centre, if you will.
It's the capitalist bit and money-making where their Labour was all new-ish.0 -
Not yet, surely.Pulpstar said:
The gospel according to St Gideonisam said:The Suppertime Standard tells of pessimism in Londinium
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/8474711075107389440 -
Wasn't Christ crucified by the Romans?TOPPING said:
Plus of course the original sin of killing JChrist. When all else fails that is the fallback anti-semitic reason for the West.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, I'd guess it's for historical reasons. Jews have usually been a minority wherever they've lived. They also were involved early on in banking, when usury (charging interest) was still banned to Christians. So, Christians ended up requiring the services of Jews, who did something that enriched the Jewish doing something that was 'bad' enough that Christians weren't permitted to do it.
Avarice and sin, all in one (of course, it was hugely economically beneficial to not only the Jews but the cities in which they dwelt...).
Couple that with being a minority, and you've got a rich community, few in number, whose wealth comes from something the majority are forbidden from doing.
Sadly, the Jews have taken such a kicking over the years (Edward I didn't cover himself in glory when he threw them out of England) that it's become ingrained in some cultures to dislike them. When I was at school, a surprising and disturbing moment was when several classmates suddenly started using 'Jew/Jewish' as a pejorative term for the people they were killing on the... N64, I think it was.0 -
It's a bit like sitting up for a particularly irrelevant by election result - waiting for news to break about Ken Livingstone's hearing with the Labour NEC. Michael Mansfield QC can't still be talking, can he? When can we expect a result, so that we can watch the fun on Twitter?
0 -
I meant they wouldn't have bothered advocating such completely feeble means.Casino_Royale said:Wouldn't he? He and Blair have always loved the EU and immigration.
It's the capitalist bit and money-making where their Labour was all new-ish.0 -
Yes - but because the Jews asked them to. Pilate wasn't keen, but gave in to a Referendum Result.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Wasn't Christ crucified by the Romans?TOPPING said:
Plus of course the original sin of killing JChrist. When all else fails that is the fallback anti-semitic reason for the West.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, I'd guess it's for historical reasons. Jews have usually been a minority wherever they've lived. They also were involved early on in banking, when usury (charging interest) was still banned to Christians. So, Christians ended up requiring the services of Jews, who did something that enriched the Jewish doing something that was 'bad' enough that Christians weren't permitted to do it.
Avarice and sin, all in one (of course, it was hugely economically beneficial to not only the Jews but the cities in which they dwelt...).
Couple that with being a minority, and you've got a rich community, few in number, whose wealth comes from something the majority are forbidden from doing.
Sadly, the Jews have taken such a kicking over the years (Edward I didn't cover himself in glory when he threw them out of England) that it's become ingrained in some cultures to dislike them. When I was at school, a surprising and disturbing moment was when several classmates suddenly started using 'Jew/Jewish' as a pejorative term for the people they were killing on the... N64, I think it was.0 -
Mr. Carp, point of order: Christ is a title. Only Christians believe Jesus was Christ.0
-
Even as a remainer I can't overlook the obvious angle the Standard has now. It isn't an impartial source :>Richard_Nabavi said:
Not yet, surely.Pulpstar said:
The gospel according to St Gideonisam said:The Suppertime Standard tells of pessimism in Londinium
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/8474711075107389440 -
But crucifixion wasn't a Jewish punishment?augustus_carp said:
Yes - but because the Jews asked them to. Pilate wasn't keen, but gave in to a Referendum Result.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Wasn't Christ crucified by the Romans?TOPPING said:
Plus of course the original sin of killing JChrist. When all else fails that is the fallback anti-semitic reason for the West.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, I'd guess it's for historical reasons. Jews have usually been a minority wherever they've lived. They also were involved early on in banking, when usury (charging interest) was still banned to Christians. So, Christians ended up requiring the services of Jews, who did something that enriched the Jewish doing something that was 'bad' enough that Christians weren't permitted to do it.
Avarice and sin, all in one (of course, it was hugely economically beneficial to not only the Jews but the cities in which they dwelt...).
Couple that with being a minority, and you've got a rich community, few in number, whose wealth comes from something the majority are forbidden from doing.
Sadly, the Jews have taken such a kicking over the years (Edward I didn't cover himself in glory when he threw them out of England) that it's become ingrained in some cultures to dislike them. When I was at school, a surprising and disturbing moment was when several classmates suddenly started using 'Jew/Jewish' as a pejorative term for the people they were killing on the... N64, I think it was.
Also:
Pilate's reluctance to execute Jesus in the gospels has been seen by Anchor Bible Dictionary and critical scholars as reflecting the authors' agenda.[30][31] It has thus been argued that gospel accounts place the blame on the Jews, not on Rome, in line with the authors' alleged goal of making peace with the Roman Empire and vilifying the Jews.[30][31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate0 -
Are you Richard Roper?MarqueeMark said:Oh, and it is an exquisite spring day here in Mallorca too, so just maybe Brexit will work out OK for everyone affected.
0 -
Sorry, I thought Sunil was asking a historical question, not a Christological one.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Carp, point of order: Christ is a title. Only Christians believe Jesus was Christ.
0 -
It sounds like they are trying to make sure we pay for things we have already promised to pay for rather than continued access. The CER have a go at deciphering it all.Wulfrun_Phil said:From the 2016 Pink Book:
"The most substantial bilateral deficit within the EU is with Germany, which increased by 46.6% in 2015 (£25 billion) relative to 2007. The UK trade balance with respect to Germany has been in deficit in the past decade with the largest record seen in 2015. In contrast, the UK’s trade balance with Ireland has been in surplus all through from 1999, while UK trade with the Netherlands has experienced both deficits and surpluses during this period. It is worth noting the impact that the “Rotterdam effect” can have on trade in goods, further details of which can be found in the background notes, section 5, understanding the data. The UK trade deficit with EU countries as a whole is currently valued at £69 billion, a 17.9% deterioration compared with 2014."
And the EU want us to pay them something in excess of £50bn for the privilege of continuing to allow them unfettered access to our domestic markets? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I think that Frau Merkel is overplaying her hand.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/unitedkingdombalanceofpaymentsthepinkbook/2016
https://www.cer.org.uk/publications/archive/policy-brief/2017/€60-billion-brexit-bill-how-disentangle-britain-eu-budget
We already give away €30bn a year in aid/EU payments so a little bit of creativity with these budgets, and some others, would address whatever the 'bill' is.
It is more a presentational problem than a financial one as far as I can see.0 -
Mr. Carp, I'm just being finickity
It is a genuine point, though. Jews think he wasn't Christ, Christians think he was, and Muslims think he was a prophet.0 -
Currently reading The Hare With Amber Eyes, strongly recommended by friends (it's a bit heavy going unless you can be enticed into an interest in netsuke collection, but well written). The author goes into some detail about the bonkers anti-semitism in France in the 19th century, including lots of well-known artists like Degas: essentially they were marginalised and then resented for prospering at the margin. John Buchan's books show it in England too. I think it was only the Nazi mass murder of ordinary people that really turned opinion decisively against it.MTimT said:
Hitler's Willing Executioners, although a tedious book, does document the centuries of anti-semitism in Germany that predisposed non-Jewish Germans to think of the generic Jew (as opposed to your urbane banker neighbour jew) as somehow sub-human.
0 -
Alfred the Great, yes.Alistair said:
How can you tell an smug arrogant idiot from the general population? A smug arrogant idiot will insist on prescriptive grammatical forms as if language is derived from grammar rather than the grammar of a language being derived from the living use of the language.Ishmael_Z said:
Well he should have done, "We have vocally to oppose" for "We have to vocally oppose" is ridiculous. The rule was invented by a mad Latinist who thought that because "amare" was one word, so should "to love" be. English ain't Latin, and the rule is inconsistent anyway because amabo "I will love" is one word too and nobody goes around saying that "I will madly love" is a split future and it should be "I madly will love."TOPPING said:
At least he didn't split his infinitives.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course
I like to deliberately split infinitives just because I can; a moderately unique habit, I dare say.
If Alfred the fucking Great can use 'less' rather than 'fewer' it's good enough for me.
Alfred the Grammarian, no.0 -
The headline is surely plain wrong? The poll reveals that Londoners think they will be made poorer by Brexit, not that they will be. As London voted remain by quite a margin, that's hardly surprising. It seems opinion hasn't shifted either way since Independence DayPulpstar said:
Even as a remainer I can't overlook the obvious angle the Standard has now. It isn't an impartial source :>Richard_Nabavi said:
Not yet, surely.Pulpstar said:
The gospel according to St Gideonisam said:The Suppertime Standard tells of pessimism in Londinium
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/8474711075107389440 -
Crucifixion was definitely a Roman punishment. Can't help with the other points, though, sorry.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But crucifixion wasn't a Jewish punishment?augustus_carp said:
Yes - but because the Jews asked them to. Pilate wasn't keen, but gave in to a Referendum Result.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Wasn't Christ crucified by the Romans?TOPPING said:
Plus of course the original sin of killing JChrist. When all else fails that is the fallback anti-semitic reason for the West.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, I'd guess it's for historical reasons. Jews have usually been a minority wherever they've lived. They also were involved early on in banking, when usury (charging interest) was still banned to Christians. So, Christians ended up requiring the services of Jews, who did something that enriched the Jewish doing something that was 'bad' enough that Christians weren't permitted to do it.
Avarice and sin, all in one (of course, it was hugely economically beneficial to not only the Jews but the cities in which they dwelt...).
Couple that with being a minority, and you've got a rich community, few in number, whose wealth comes from something the majority are forbidden from doing.
Sadly, the Jews have taken such a kicking over the years (Edward I didn't cover himself in glory when he threw them out of England) that it's become ingrained in some cultures to dislike them. When I was at school, a surprising and disturbing moment was when several classmates suddenly started using 'Jew/Jewish' as a pejorative term for the people they were killing on the... N64, I think it was.
Also:
Pilate's reluctance to execute Jesus in the gospels has been seen by Anchor Bible Dictionary and critical scholars as reflecting the authors' agenda.[30][31] It has thus been argued that gospel accounts place the blame on the Jews, not on Rome, in line with the authors' alleged goal of making peace with the Roman Empire and vilifying the Jews.[30][31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate0 -
As there were 4 candidates, they should have used AV or exhaustive ballot. Jesus died thanks to First Past the Post!augustus_carp said:
Yes - but because the Jews asked them to. Pilate wasn't keen, but gave in to a Referendum Result.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Wasn't Christ crucified by the Romans?TOPPING said:
Plus of course the original sin of killing JChrist. When all else fails that is the fallback anti-semitic reason for the West.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, I'd guess it's for historical reasons. Jews have usually been a minority wherever they've lived. They also were involved early on in banking, when usury (charging interest) was still banned to Christians. So, Christians ended up requiring the services of Jews, who did something that enriched the Jewish doing something that was 'bad' enough that Christians weren't permitted to do it.
Avarice and sin, all in one (of course, it was hugely economically beneficial to not only the Jews but the cities in which they dwelt...).
Couple that with being a minority, and you've got a rich community, few in number, whose wealth comes from something the majority are forbidden from doing.
Sadly, the Jews have taken such a kicking over the years (Edward I didn't cover himself in glory when he threw them out of England) that it's become ingrained in some cultures to dislike them. When I was at school, a surprising and disturbing moment was when several classmates suddenly started using 'Jew/Jewish' as a pejorative term for the people they were killing on the... N64, I think it was.0 -
Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey.williamglenn said:
Can your lot please put the UK out of its misery as soon as possible? This is embarrassing.Theuniondivvie said:Fck me, not making it up as they go along at all.
Even three particularly stupid ones.0 -
Trump has been tweeting again....
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/847435163143454723
Not too sure if this attitude towards the HFC is exactly a wise move from Trump.0 -
Surely, only Pilate could authorise capital punishment.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But crucifixion wasn't a Jewish punishment?augustus_carp said:
Yes - but because the Jews asked them to. Pilate wasn't keen, but gave in to a Referendum Result.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Wasn't Christ crucified by the Romans?TOPPING said:
Plus of course the original sin of killing JChrist. When all else fails that is the fallback anti-semitic reason for the West.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, I'd guess it's for historical reasons. Jews have usually been a minority wherever they've lived. They also were involved early on in banking, when usury (charging interest) was still banned to Christians. So, Christians ended up requiring the services of Jews, who did something that enriched the Jewish doing something that was 'bad' enough that Christians weren't permitted to do it.
Avarice and sin, all in one (of course, it was hugely economically beneficial to not only the Jews but the cities in which they dwelt...).
Couple that with being a minority, and you've got a rich community, few in number, whose wealth comes from something the majority are forbidden from doing.
Sadly, the Jews have taken such a kicking over the years (Edward I didn't cover himself in glory when he threw them out of England) that it's become ingrained in some cultures to dislike them. When I was at school, a surprising and disturbing moment was when several classmates suddenly started using 'Jew/Jewish' as a pejorative term for the people they were killing on the... N64, I think it was.
Also:
Pilate's reluctance to execute Jesus in the gospels has been seen by Anchor Bible Dictionary and critical scholars as reflecting the authors' agenda.[30][31] It has thus been argued that gospel accounts place the blame on the Jews, not on Rome, in line with the authors' alleged goal of making peace with the Roman Empire and vilifying the Jews.[30][31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate0 -
A very good point indeed, which I will convey to our Vicar (a reactionary Labour type) on Sunday morning.SandyRentool said:
As there were 4 candidates, they should have used AV or exhaustive ballot. Jesus died thanks to First Past the Post!augustus_carp said:
Yes - but because the Jews asked them to. Pilate wasn't keen, but gave in to a Referendum Result.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Wasn't Christ crucified by the Romans?TOPPING said:
Plus of course the original sin of killing JChrist. When all else fails that is the fallback anti-semitic reason for the West.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, I'd guess it's for historical reasons. Jews have usually been a minority wherever they've lived. They also were involved early on in banking, when usury (charging interest) was still banned to Christians. So, Christians ended up requiring the services of Jews, who did something that enriched the Jewish doing something that was 'bad' enough that Christians weren't permitted to do it.
Avarice and sin, all in one (of course, it was hugely economically beneficial to not only the Jews but the cities in which they dwelt...).
Couple that with being a minority, and you've got a rich community, few in number, whose wealth comes from something the majority are forbidden from doing.
Sadly, the Jews have taken such a kicking over the years (Edward I didn't cover himself in glory when he threw them out of England) that it's become ingrained in some cultures to dislike them. When I was at school, a surprising and disturbing moment was when several classmates suddenly started using 'Jew/Jewish' as a pejorative term for the people they were killing on the... N64, I think it was.0 -
I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.0
-
Can you name names?justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
0 -
If the Jews wanted him dead they would have stoned him! Crucifixion shows that the Romans were definitely calling the shots in Judaea.augustus_carp said:
Crucifixion was definitely a Roman punishment. Can't help with the other points, though, sorry.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But crucifixion wasn't a Jewish punishment?augustus_carp said:
Yes - but because the Jews asked them to. Pilate wasn't keen, but gave in to a Referendum Result.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Wasn't Christ crucified by the Romans?TOPPING said:
Plus of course the original sin of killing JChrist. When all else fails that is the fallback anti-semitic reason for the West.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, I'd guess it's for historical reasons. Jews have usually been a minority wherever they've lived. They also were involved early on in banking, when usury (charging interest) was still banned to Christians. So, Christians ended up requiring the services of Jews, who did something that enriched the Jewish doing something that was 'bad' enough that Christians weren't permitted to do it.
Avarice and sin, all in one (of course, it was hugely economically beneficial to not only the Jews but the cities in which they dwelt...).
Couple that with being a minority, and you've got a rich community, few in number, whose wealth comes from something the majority are forbidden from doing.
Sadly, the Jews have taken such a kicking over the years (Edward I didn't cover himself in glory when he threw them out of England) that it's become ingrained in some cultures to dislike them. When I was at school, a surprising and disturbing moment was when several classmates suddenly started using 'Jew/Jewish' as a pejorative term for the people they were killing on the... N64, I think it was.
Also:
Pilate's reluctance to execute Jesus in the gospels has been seen by Anchor Bible Dictionary and critical scholars as reflecting the authors' agenda.[30][31] It has thus been argued that gospel accounts place the blame on the Jews, not on Rome, in line with the authors' alleged goal of making peace with the Roman Empire and vilifying the Jews.[30][31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate0 -
There would be plenty of new MPs after each GE if all of the adulterers were deselected.justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
0 -
Andrea Jenkyns and Jack Lopresti.augustus_carp said:
Can you name names?justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
0 -
He's very important in Islam, far less so in most interpretations of Judaism.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Carp, I'm just being finickity
It is a genuine point, though. Jews think he wasn't Christ, Christians think he was, and Muslims think he was a prophet.0 -
A "bastard". Do you also call gay people "poofters"?justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
0 -
Heavy going? You're kidding, right? It is the most exquisite, delicate book.NickPalmer said:
Currently reading The Hare With Amber Eyes, strongly recommended by friends (it's a bit heavy going unless you can be enticed into an interest in netsuke collection, but well written). The author goes into some detail about the bonkers anti-semitism in France in the 19th century, including lots of well-known artists like Degas: essentially they were marginalised and then resented for prospering at the margin. John Buchan's books show it in England too. I think it was only the Nazi mass murder of ordinary people that really turned opinion decisively against it.MTimT said:
Hitler's Willing Executioners, although a tedious book, does document the centuries of anti-semitism in Germany that predisposed non-Jewish Germans to think of the generic Jew (as opposed to your urbane banker neighbour jew) as somehow sub-human.0 -
Are you being serious? Don't you think this is a tad harsh?justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
0 -
Is that "wrong" now? It's so hard to keep up with these things.Ishmael_Z said:
A "bastard". Do you also call gay people "poofters"?justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
0 -
A child born out of wedlock is by legal definition a bastard.Ishmael_Z said:
A "bastard". Do you also call gay people "poofters"?justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
0 -
And who's the bastard? IDS?justin124 said:
Andrea Jenkyns and Jack Lopresti.augustus_carp said:
Can you name names?justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
Not sure Chingford Conservative Association are ready to deselect him, though.0 -
And they'd all be new if all the bastards were deselected.SandyRentool said:
There would be plenty of new MPs after each GE if all of the adulterers were deselected.justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
0 -
Nah.Casino_Royale said:
Are you Richard Roper?MarqueeMark said:Oh, and it is an exquisite spring day here in Mallorca too, so just maybe Brexit will work out OK for everyone affected.
Just Corky.0 -
He is MP for Filton & Bradley Stoke.Casino_Royale said:
And who's the bastard? IDS?justin124 said:
Andrea Jenkyns and Jack Lopresti.augustus_carp said:
Can you name names?justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
Not sure Chingford Conservative Association are ready to deselect him, though.0 -
Corrrky!!MarqueeMark said:
Nah.Casino_Royale said:
Are you Richard Roper?MarqueeMark said:Oh, and it is an exquisite spring day here in Mallorca too, so just maybe Brexit will work out OK for everyone affected.
Just Corky.0 -
Sure, and no bad thing, in itself.justin124 said:
A child born out of wedlock is by legal definition a bastard.Ishmael_Z said:
A "bastard". Do you also call gay people "poofters"?justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
0 -
My spelling is awful and autocorrect makes it worse.TOPPING said:
obeying the rule that any post that comments on, or criticises someone else's grammar will contain a grammatical or typographic error.Alistair said:
How can you tell an smug arrogant idiot from the general population? A smug arrogant idiot will insist on prescriptive grammatical forms as if language is derived from grammar rather than the grammar of a language being derived from the living use of the language.Ishmael_Z said:
Well he should have done, "We have vocally to oppose" for "We have to vocally oppose" is ridiculous. The rule was invented by a mad Latinist who thought that because "amare" was one word, so should "to love" be. English ain't Latin, and the rule is inconsistent anyway because amabo "I will love" is one word too and nobody goes around saying that "I will madly love" is a split future and it should be "I madly will love."TOPPING said:
At least he didn't split his infinitives.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course
I like to deliberately split infinitives just because I can; a moderately unique habit, I dare say.
If Alfred the fucking Great can use 'less' rather than 'fewer' it's good enough for me.0 -
Today you have to outperform strongly to beat the two front runners in the auto-correct stakes.Alistair said:
My spelling is awful and autocorrect makes it worse.TOPPING said:
obeying the rule that any post that comments on, or criticises someone else's grammar will contain a grammatical or typographic error.Alistair said:
How can you tell an smug arrogant idiot from the general population? A smug arrogant idiot will insist on prescriptive grammatical forms as if language is derived from grammar rather than the grammar of a language being derived from the living use of the language.Ishmael_Z said:
Well he should have done, "We have vocally to oppose" for "We have to vocally oppose" is ridiculous. The rule was invented by a mad Latinist who thought that because "amare" was one word, so should "to love" be. English ain't Latin, and the rule is inconsistent anyway because amabo "I will love" is one word too and nobody goes around saying that "I will madly love" is a split future and it should be "I madly will love."TOPPING said:
At least he didn't split his infinitives.Richard_Nabavi said:Dear me, even Lord Mandelson - one of the two* most talented UK politicians of the last quarter-century - seems to have lost the plot and become enfeebled:
Resist: We have vocally to oppose what we don't agree with – we have to challenge and controversialise [sic] decisions so ‘new norms’ don't materialise. That is why pro-refugee, anti-Trump demos, the Gina Miller case, new newspapers or campaigns against hard Brexit are so important.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/peter-mandelson-slams-jeremy-corbyn-and-keir-starmer-not-acting-national
* The other being Osborne, of course
I like to deliberately split infinitives just because I can; a moderately unique habit, I dare say.
If Alfred the fucking Great can use 'less' rather than 'fewer' it's good enough for me.0 -
I am being serious actually. Would Theresa May or Thatcher have become PM had they had children born out of wedlock?The_Apocalypse said:
Are you being serious? Don't you think this is a tad harsh?justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
I am not making a party political point here at all. A decade ago I was appalled when David Blunkett was so disappointed to find that he had NOT fathered a bastatrd by his lover! To think that this guy had once aspired to be a Methodist Minister!0 -
Occasionally, a classmate of mine was ribbed for being a bastard. He took it in good humour.0
-
I'm trying really hard to resist quoting the Life of Brian here.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Carp, I'm just being finickity
It is a genuine point, though. Jews think he wasn't Christ, Christians think he was, and Muslims think he was a prophet.0 -
The route to the PM calling an election is first to have primary legislation to cancel the fixed term parliament act. Only a simple majority is needed to do this.
Then we will be back to where we were and the leader of the party in power deciding when to have an election.0 -
Not any more. Bastardy was abolished as a legal concept by the Family Law Reform Act 1987.justin124 said:
A child born out of wedlock is by legal definition a bastard.Ishmael_Z said:
A "bastard". Do you also call gay people "poofters"?justin124 said:I see that standards have really collapsed in the House of Commons. Fancy openly announcing yesterday that two Tory MPs have had a bastard together - one of the MPs being an adulterer. It would be good to see his Association deselect him.
0
