politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there were a Newton Abbot by election this year, the Tories

CD13 said:

Mr g,

Thanks for the explanation. Strange how it came to mean a complication rather than anything sinister.

In those people were scared and had been told they would be raped and pillaged etc , bit like the witch hunts here many years ago.

JosiasJessop said:

That's an interesting view. As it happens, it's a phase I have to on rare occasions, stop myself from using. I was 'exposed' to it as a child and teenager whilst on building and demo sites - it, and other non-PC phrases, were frequently used. Good parenting - and a very multiracial school - quickly taught me it was unacceptable and I introduced a filter. I still occasionally think of it though, and I mentally wince whenever I do.

Such phraseology might well be learnt decades ago, and be nothing to do with current company. It's not a phrase you can forget and unlearn.

I have some sympathy with the MP, although she's been very silly.

What gets me is that this wasn't some "Jeremy C*nt" slip of the tongue - she'd clearly thought about her point and decided using the phrase was OK before she opened her mouth.

As for anti-Semitism in Labour, I have exactly the same thoughts. Naz Shah and her ilk should not be MPs.

The 'Jeremy C*nt' stuff was obviously deliberate, and wasn't a slip of the tongue.

"decided using the phrase was OK"

That might not be the case, and that was the point of my post. It's a phrase with a certain meaning ("to hide in plain sight") that I knew from a youngster that's sadly ingrained in my head. I manage to filter it out before it's said.

One of my fears is that, when I'm concentrating too hard on another part of what I'm saying, or thinking about something else, that the filter would get bypassed and the phrase would slip out. If it did, I'd be mortified. But it doesn't necessarily make me a racist, as I'd be using it in the context of 'hiding in plain sight'.

Fortunately the phrase is slowly slipping out of my conciousness, but it's taken decades.

I actually had bigger problems with anti-Irish sayings and phraseology: which is odd considering that many of my dad's workmen were Irish, and they were often the ones saying them!

(Almost all my dad's workmen were genuinely nice people. Rough, and many were relatively uneducated, and often terrible with money, but nice nonetheless. I don't want to make them out to be horrid people).

NickPalmer said:

CD13 said:

As a matter of interest, black people are allowed to use the 'n-word' word, although I'm not sure about black politicians, Can someone enlighten me?

Are there words that white people can use but not black people? This is just curiosity, I've not yet turned into Uncle Bob from the nursing home, but I feel like it sometimes.

I remember the furore when Alan Hansen used the world 'coloured' when criticising racism in football. So is 'coloured' a naughty word even when used in context?

I don't think the white/black comparison should need explanation again, but here goes. Generally groups of people who have been subjected to discrimination, torture, slavery or murder because of their identity are seen as needing more protection from the words used by their past oppressors than other kinds of abuse. So the n* word is offensive because it was in regular use by lynch mobs and slave-owners, and sneers about Jews because they echo the Nazis. Nobody is much bothered by insults to, say, Yorkshiremen or Frenchmen (although I think they're in bad taste too), because of the absence of comparable atrocities. If people in a group use an insulting word about themselves, it's obviously meant ironically so isn't offensive. The context is relevant for a word like "coloured" because it hasn't always been used pejoratively, as n* always is when used by white people.

I doubt if she'll resign, though, and expect she'll be quietly readmitted to the whip after a period, like the Tory MP a while back after she cheerfully joked about dead Chinese cockle-pickers. Howard suspended her at once, then let her back in after a while.

I agree ,also naz shah (labour)was suspended and let back in after a while.

Newton Abbott would be more likely to go Lib-Dem than Labour I'd have thought?

not_on_fire said:

Norm said:

Sean_F said:

Freggles said:

WOW Tories will literally defend anything.
First piggate and now this

I don't think many of us object to suspending the whip.

But, we don't see using this offensive phrase as a hanging offence, either.

The point needed to be made by T May but I would hope rather than resigning her seat the whip would be restored to her after a suitable period of penance.

The MP concerned is only a couple of years older than me and the expression would have been used by her parents generation. The sea change occurred rather rapidly in the 1970's - Hot Chocolate's 1973 single Brother Louie, controversial at the time, referred to a white father wanting no spook in his family and the black father's reverse racism of wanting no honky marrying his daughter.

So the year we joined the EU was the turning point in our behaviour towards other cultures? :-D

Well it is fair to say you'd be shocked by the casual racism in some early 1970's TV comedy that by 1979 would have been unacceptable.

TonyE said:

TOPPING said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

rcs1000 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Couldn't believe that Tory MP really used the n-word *rollseyes* Glad to see that May has suspended her.

FPT:

Good morning.

Macron is getting a lot of flack on Twitter (again) for comments he made about Africa. First I saw was a video clip, though it turns out that was edited.

This is the full quote:

https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/884490993319464963

Personally, I don't see what's so awful about what he's just said there. On my timeline last night, I saw my Corbynista friends calling Macron a racist for this....yet they were silent when it came to anti-Semitism in Labour party *rolleyes*.

https://twitter.com/jkirchick/status/884534595466784770

As with the famous Rumsfeld "Know knowns and known unknowns" speech, it turns out that said politician was actually making good sense.

Macron is saying there are too many black African babies. That's pretty bold, I'm not sure if it is sensible.

Mrs Gates said the same thing on the radio this morning.

I think the point he was making was that many babies are born due to the lack of progress in African economic and social development. Families have many babies because they expect some not to reach adulthood, (and possibly for other cultural reasons). He seems to cite it as an indicator - European progress saw birthrates fall with infant mortality

Yes it is a very basic and obvious issue in developing economies; families have a large number of children both because infant mortality is high, and also as a pension provider. Lower infant mortality would mean less need to have many children.

As Macron states, it is a symptom not a cause. He is also right in decrying a western-imposed Marshall-type plan, or the spending of billions of dollars.

Mosquito nets are the usual example given to illustrate this. We have from time to time been told "a mosquito net only costs $2, with your help, we can eradicate malaria..." When of course if that was the case then malaria would have been eradicated fifty years ago (there are many complex issues surrounding the distribution of free mosquito nets including crowding out local manufacturers, and the values and usage associated with a free good). Easterly gets this, Sachs doesn't, Collier says he does but doesn't really (all pale, male and stale, note).

Macron looks like he is genuinely trying to change the aid paradigm.

Good for him.

not_on_fire said:

If you were a black person living in Anne Marie Morris's constituency, how much confidence would you have in her to represent you and legislate on your behalf?

Not that it makes it in anyway acceptable, but according to the last Census there were fewer than 200 people in Newton Abbot who ticked a black category on the form.

Well, that's us told:

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/884685325955682304

TOPPING said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

TOPPING said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

rcs1000 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Couldn't believe that Tory MP really used the n-word *rollseyes* Glad to see that May has suspended her.

FPT:

Good morning.

Macron is getting a lot of flack on Twitter (again) for comments he made about Africa. First I saw was a video clip, though it turns out that was edited.

This is the full quote:

https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/884490993319464963

Personally, I don't see what's so awful about what he's just said there. On my timeline last night, I saw my Corbynista friends calling Macron a racist for this....yet they were silent when it came to anti-Semitism in Labour party *rolleyes*.

https://twitter.com/jkirchick/status/884534595466784770

As with the famous Rumsfeld "Know knowns and known unknowns" speech, it turns out that said politician was actually making good sense.

Macron is saying there are too many black African babies. That's pretty bold, I'm not sure if it is sensible.

Mrs Gates said the same thing on the radio this morning.

What does she want ? A Maoist one child policy for African women ?

The area is of course troubling and hence her explanation that it was a locally-driven initiative that they were supporting.

A one child policy causes problems of it's own.

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

TOPPING said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

rcs1000 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Couldn't believe that Tory MP really used the n-word *rollseyes* Glad to see that May has suspended her.

FPT:

Good morning.

Macron is getting a lot of flack on Twitter (again) for comments he made about Africa. First I saw was a video clip, though it turns out that was edited.

This is the full quote:

https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/884490993319464963

Personally, I don't see what's so awful about what he's just said there. On my timeline last night, I saw my Corbynista friends calling Macron a racist for this....yet they were silent when it came to anti-Semitism in Labour party *rolleyes*.

https://twitter.com/jkirchick/status/884534595466784770

As with the famous Rumsfeld "Know knowns and known unknowns" speech, it turns out that said politician was actually making good sense.

Macron is saying there are too many black African babies. That's pretty bold, I'm not sure if it is sensible.

Mrs Gates said the same thing on the radio this morning.

What does she want ? A Maoist one child policy for African women ?

The area is of course troubling and hence her explanation that it was a locally-driven initiative that they were supporting.

A one child policy causes problems of it's own.

Yes it does. But we are talking multiple births here, not just wanting to have a boy and a girl, etc as we saw in China.

not_on_fire said:

If you were a black person living in Anne Marie Morris's constituency, how much confidence would you have in her to represent you and legislate on your behalf?

You really are a topper for sure

CarlottaVance said:

But he cautioned against assuming May’s leadership was over, citing the example of long-serving conservative Australian prime minister, John Howard, who was once labelled “Mr 14%” for his poor performance in the polls. “I’m not in the business of writing anyone off,” Crosby said

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sir Lynton speaks.

Speaking at a business lunch in Sydney on Tuesday, Crosby attempted to explain the phenomenon of Jeremy Corbyn.

“On polling day, over 70% of voters thought the Conservatives were going to win,” Crosby said.

“So they thought we’ll reward [Corbyn] for being prepared to talk about interesting things and shake the system up, but we’ll still have the comfort of having Theresa May as prime minister at the end of the day,” he said.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/11/tory-pollster-lynton-crosby-says-theresa-may-right-to-call-early-general-election

There's a man who will never admit that he's wrong. And with gullible fools willing to credit him for victories and pin blame elsewhere for defeat, why the hell would he?

I'm not sure the Telegraph is aimed at the likes of me...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fantasy-sports/daily-fantasy-sports/fantasy-polo/

Ishmael_Z said:

NickPalmer said:

CD13 said:

As a matter of interest, black people are allowed to use the 'n-word' word, although I'm not sure about black politicians, Can someone enlighten me?

Are there words that white people can use but not black people? This is just curiosity, I've not yet turned into Uncle Bob from the nursing home, but I feel like it sometimes.

I remember the furore when Alan Hansen used the world 'coloured' when criticising racism in football. So is 'coloured' a naughty word even when used in context?

I don't think the white/black comparison should need explanation again, but here goes. Generally groups of people who have been subjected to discrimination, torture, slavery or murder because of their identity are seen as needing more protection from the words used by their past oppressors than other kinds of abuse. So the n* word is offensive because it was in regular use by lynch mobs and slave-owners, and sneers about Jews because they echo the Nazis. Nobody is much bothered by insults to, say, Yorkshiremen or Frenchmen (although I think they're in bad taste too), because of the absence of comparable atrocities. If people in a group use an insulting word about themselves, it's obviously meant ironically so isn't offensive. The context is relevant for a word like "coloured" because it hasn't always been used pejoratively, as n* always is when used by white people.

I doubt if she'll resign, though, and expect she'll be quietly readmitted to the whip after a period, like the Tory MP a while back after she cheerfully joked about dead Chinese cockle-pickers. Howard suspended her at once, then let her back in after a while.

"“[Hitler] didn’t just sign the deal,” Livingstone said. “The SS set up training camps so that German Jews who were going to go there could be trained to cope with a very different sort of country when they got there [Palestine].”"

Livingstone was suspended, not expelled, for saying this.

Tick tock.

Nope - he was not suspended from the Labour party, he was suspended from holding elected office. May has done exactly the right thing with this MP. The same cannot be said of the Labour party and its anti-semites.

Mr. Stodge, I did comment on it below. I'm dubious of desires to reduce the use of cash as a general principle.

stodge said:

Morning all

Much more interested in Macron's comments than anything some backbench Conservative MP has said.

I've read through the whole answer and while it's close to my own position, I don't feel comfortable with it. It smacks of an interesting moral and cultural nuance relating to money, aid and governance which seems peculiar to the West.

I'm finding it hard to explain in words but I'll have a try. It is in the interests of the West (and indeed the whole world) for Africa to be peaceful and prosperous and helping them achieve that is an entirely laudable aim on that basis but the reluctance of the West seems to relate to the governance structures (or lack of them) in much of Africa which means the perception is the aid doesn't go to the people but lines the pockets of bureaucrats and despots.

The comparison with post-WW2 Marshall seems predicated on that notion - America was happy to help the recovery of democratic, stable western European countries with accountable and relatively corruption-free governments but the modern West is wary of backing African countries where venality is or appears to be the norm.

This seems less of a problem to the Chinese who have opted for a different form of investment in parts of Africa via industrial and transport infrastructure (the new railway from Nairobi to Mombasa and the proposed East African railway extension is an example).

Is it for us to tell other parts of the countries how they should be governed ? No, but it is our money in the end though the human consequences of failed states seem to end up on Europe's doorstep almost as if to say that if you don't help the Africans in Africa they'll come and help themselves in Europe.

Corrupt rulers are a product of failed states. China is in the fortunate position of not having to deal with the practical consequences of that. For all kinds of reasons, the West (and Europe, in particular) is not.

Ishmael_Z said:

Freggles said:

WOW Tories will literally defend anything.
First piggate and now this

Brilliant. After a clean sweep of condemnation from every single tory here or elsewhere who has discussed the issue, and the suspension of this woman without benefit of a Chakrabarti whitewash, the best you can come up with is the suggestion that she is being "defended". The intelligence deficit on the left is approaching crisis point.

What was "piggate"?

The comments on the ConHome article don't support your assertion, sadly.

JosiasJessop said:

OldKingCole said:

I’d always assumed, perhaps lazily, that the mosquito nets were manufactured locally.

One of the biggest contributors to economic advance in rural Thailand was the introduction of the cheap two-stroke motor vehicle. Another has been a rural scholarship programme, whereby, as IUI, bright lads (usually) at school were sent to agricultural college, and then back to their villages where they were given ‘royal’ land on the condition that they grew experimental crops and, if successful, encouraged their neighbours to do the same, thus diversifying a rice-dominated economy.

IMV the way to raise people out of poverty is, to misrepresent a phrase, 'education, education, education'. Education has all sorts of benefits, both direct and indirect.

The next most important way is to give them access to finance to start new ventures. In this manner, microfinancing / microcredit is great.

History has shown that the best way to raise the wretched out of poverty is for them to be governed and administered by Anglo-Saxons.

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

There is quite a lot of literature on this.

This is a good place to start, by Easterly.

For Rwanda, Linda Polman was very good on the dynamic.

Don't particularly like giving out reading lists, it's pretty arrogant, but a lot of this is established discourse.
ot of the blame.

Oh and, "armed"?? What, with machetes from Northrop Grumman?

"As the French left, years of anger among Rwanda's Tutsis spilled out over the price they believe they have paid for Paris's unique view of its place in post-colonial Africa - a role critics say is shaped by an obsession with the influence of its language and culture that led Paris to support a murderous regime because its opponents spoke English. France went on backing the killers even as the bodies piled up in the streets, churches and football stadiums. "France wants to blame us, the ones whose families were murdered, the ones who put a stop to the murderers; they want to blame us for the genocide because they cannot face their own guilt," says Rwanda's foreign minister, Charles Murigande. "The French armed the killers and they trained them even when they were saying they were going to kill the Tutsis, and France supported the genocide regime right up until the end, even helping the killers to escape." Why? "Because they have this obsession with Anglo-Saxons.""

Your remark about Northrop Grumman is revealing. Even machetes have to be paid for, and for the average African who owns a machete it is probably one of the most expensive things he owns.

edit: source for that https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/11/rwanda.insideafrica

I made the point that the French were instrumental in the whole episode. But at the end of the day it was the Rwandans who were responsible for the massacre. As was famously said about availability of weapons (I paraphrase from memory): you could buy them as easily and cheaply as bananas at the local market.

As for Murigande's view, the analogy is one we deal with every day on here about terrorists, where some people try to blame their circumstances, poverty, etc, rather than blaming the terrorist or indeed common criminal themselves.

Edit: and another thing...blaming France for their undeniable culpability in some of the circumstances which Rwanda found itself in leads the way pretty clearly to blaming eg. the UK for its past colonial history and justifying some of the acts, by ISIS for example in opposition to Sykes-Picot, that are taking place now.

It all makes sense now.

I said you'd have to be really dense to use the n in a woodpile phrase and now I learn Ann Marie Morris went to Oxford University.

MonikerDiCanio said:

JosiasJessop said:

OldKingCole said:

I’d always assumed, perhaps lazily, that the mosquito nets were manufactured locally.

One of the biggest contributors to economic advance in rural Thailand was the introduction of the cheap two-stroke motor vehicle. Another has been a rural scholarship programme, whereby, as IUI, bright lads (usually) at school were sent to agricultural college, and then back to their villages where they were given ‘royal’ land on the condition that they grew experimental crops and, if successful, encouraged their neighbours to do the same, thus diversifying a rice-dominated economy.

IMV the way to raise people out of poverty is, to misrepresent a phrase, 'education, education, education'. Education has all sorts of benefits, both direct and indirect.

The next most important way is to give them access to finance to start new ventures. In this manner, microfinancing / microcredit is great.

History has shown that the best way to raise the wretched out of poverty is for them to be governed and administered by Anglo-Saxons.

The history of India, China, Korea, Thailand etc would seem to contradict that. The history of Anglophone vs Francophone or Lusophone Africa isn't exactly a triumph either!

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It all makes sense now.

I said you'd have to be really dense to use the n in a woodpile phrase and now I learn Ann Marie Morris went to Oxford University.

And studied law. Case closed.

As we've discussed before law isn't taught very well at Oxford, cf Tony Blair and Sir Keir Starmer.

stodge said:

Strange not to see much comment on the Taylor Report being published today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40561807

It's a brave attempt and certainly outlines the scale of the issue in terms of the numbers of people involved and the amount of tax not being collected. The balance between a Government interested in missing tax revenue and a Government genuinely interested in improving the lot of people in "low quality" jobs is going to be an interesting one.

I suspect there's no solution and there never will be. Those needing the work will work and those wanting (for whatever reason) to evade paying tax and NI will continue to do so. The extent to which some individuals are being exploited isn't clear but I'd be surprised if there weren't some instances.

As with so many complex issues confronting Governments of all stripes, the absence of an easy answer makes it tempting to ignore the whole issue. I do think May will be long on platitudes, generalities and cheap anti-Labour jibes but short on specifics.

One could argue a powerful Trade Union movement could be well placed to support exploited workers by encouraging such workers to organise and seek proper terms and conditions but I can't imagine that finding much favour in some quarters.

I'd like to read the report in full.

The only impression I got from the BBC is that Taylor wants cash in hand work to be taxed, which will never happen unless cash goes because it's in the interests of neither party.

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It all makes sense now.

I said you'd have to be really dense to use the n in a woodpile phrase and now I learn Ann Marie Morris went to Oxford University.

And studied law. Case closed.

As we've discussed before law isn't taught very well at Oxford, cf Tony Blair and Sir Keir Starmer.

Generally considered one of the most prestigious in the world, Oxford's law school is currently ranked second in the 2017 QS World University Rankings, behind only Harvard Law School.

TOPPING said:

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

There is quite a lot of literature on this.

This is a good place to start, by Easterly.

For Rwanda, Linda Polman was very good on the dynamic.

Don't particularly like giving out reading lists, it's pretty arrogant, but a lot of this is established discourse.
ot of the blame.

Oh and, "armed"?? What, with machetes from Northrop Grumman?

"As t

Your remark about Northrop Grumman is revealing. Even machetes have to be paid for, and for the average African who owns a machete it is probably one of the most expensive things he owns.

edit: source for that https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/11/rwanda.insideafrica

I made the point that the French were instrumental in the whole episode. But at the end of the day it was the Rwandans who were responsible for the massacre. As was famously said about availability of weapons (I paraphrase from memory): you could buy them as easily and cheaply as bananas at the local market.

As for Murigande's view, the analogy is one we deal with every day on here about terrorists, where some people try to blame their circumstances, poverty, etc, rather than blaming the terrorist or indeed common criminal themselves.

Edit: and another thing...blaming France for their undeniable culpability in some of the circumstances which Rwanda found itself in leads the way pretty clearly to blaming eg. the UK for its past colonial history and justifying some of the acts, by ISIS for example in opposition to Sykes-Picot, that are taking place now.

Also worth noting is that Rwanda was never a French Colony, it was part of German East Africa, who found the Tutsi usuful as a ruling class, then a Belgian mandate until independence, who continued this policy.

In Africa, no one is innocent.

Incidentally, machetes are very cheap in tropical Africa, just a couple of quid and sold in every market as agricultural tools.

@nigel4england - I think Man Utd are a sell at 77, but spread betting isn't for me.

Mr. England, whilst not really an area of interest for me, those are intriguing suggestions. Bit wary of short odds, especially with a long time frame, though.

DecrepitJohnL said:

AndyJS said:

"Using Uber is not 'morally acceptable', says Labour's business spokeswoman Rebecca Long-Bailey"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/11/theresa-may-speech-taylor-review-gig-economy-david-davis-uber-is-not-morally-acceptable-says-labours-business-spokeswoman-rebecca-long-bailey-politics-live

Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.

I was quoting the headline.

Richard_Tyndall said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

JosiasJessop said:

OldKingCole said:

I’d always assumed, perhaps lazily, that the mosquito nets were manufactured locally.

One of the biggest contributors to economic advance in rural Thailand was the introduction of the cheap two-stroke motor vehicle. Another has been a rural scholarship programme, whereby, as IUI, bright lads (usually) at school were sent to agricultural college, and then back to their villages where they were given ‘royal’ land on the condition that they grew experimental crops and, if successful, encouraged their neighbours to do the same, thus diversifying a rice-dominated economy.

IMV the way to raise people out of poverty is, to misrepresent a phrase, 'education, education, education'. Education has all sorts of benefits, both direct and indirect.

The next most important way is to give them access to finance to start new ventures. In this manner, microfinancing / microcredit is great.

History has shown that the best way to raise the wretched out of poverty is for them to be governed and administered by Anglo-Saxons.

The history of India, China, Korea, Thailand etc would seem to contradict that. The history of Anglophone vs Francophone or Lusophone Africa isn't exactly a triumph either!

We. As a rule Anglophone countries in Africa have come out of the Imperial age in a far better state than those of other former imperial holdings.

Some have done well. Botswana is perhaps the most successful. Democracy from day one and 50 years of uninterrupted growth. Ghana is doing well now.

But there is also Zimbabwe, Uganda, Sudan, Somaliland, Sierra Leone etc as a few examples of where things did not go well.

Belgian decolonisation was catastrophically done, and the Portuguese collapse in 1975 too, though destabilisation by Anglophone countries didn't help these.

The Francophone countries generally decolonised well initially, in part because of a Francophone elite and French continuing support, but more recently the rot has set in.

MonikerDiCanio said:

JosiasJessop said:

OldKingCole said:

I’d always assumed, perhaps lazily, that the mosquito nets were manufactured locally.

One of the biggest contributors to economic advance in rural Thailand was the introduction of the cheap two-stroke motor vehicle. Another has been a rural scholarship programme, whereby, as IUI, bright lads (usually) at school were sent to agricultural college, and then back to their villages where they were given ‘royal’ land on the condition that they grew experimental crops and, if successful, encouraged their neighbours to do the same, thus diversifying a rice-dominated economy.

IMV the way to raise people out of poverty is, to misrepresent a phrase, 'education, education, education'. Education has all sorts of benefits, both direct and indirect.

The next most important way is to give them access to finance to start new ventures. In this manner, microfinancing / microcredit is great.

History has shown that the best way to raise the wretched out of poverty is for them to be governed and administered by Anglo-Saxons.

Preferably in red coats

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

then a Belgian mandate until independence

OK That explains it, the Belgians were shocking colonists.

Which is why we should all be wary of Verhofstadht.

Mr. Fire, those redcoats put Boney in his place

AndyJS said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

AndyJS said:

"Using Uber is not 'morally acceptable', says Labour's business spokeswoman Rebecca Long-Bailey"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/11/theresa-may-speech-taylor-review-gig-economy-david-davis-uber-is-not-morally-acceptable-says-labours-business-spokeswoman-rebecca-long-bailey-politics-live

Or did she? Your Guardian link has that headline but the body text suggests she did not say that -- rather that Uber's treatment of its drivers is morally wrong, and that is why she does not use Uber.

I was quoting the headline.

She is merely saying what she personally does, not demanding that everyone else agrees - it's a sidebar to her main point that they should improve their employment practices.

I think they'll need to - they've been effectively banned altogether in Denmark and I think one or two other places.

SouthamObserver said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

JosiasJessop said:

OldKingCole said:

I’d always assumed, perhaps lazily, that the mosquito nets were manufactured locally.

One of the biggest contributors to economic advance in rural Thailand was the introduction of the cheap two-stroke motor vehicle. Another has been a rural scholarship programme, whereby, as IUI, bright lads (usually) at school were sent to agricultural college, and then back to their villages where they were given ‘royal’ land on the condition that they grew experimental crops and, if successful, encouraged their neighbours to do the same, thus diversifying a rice-dominated economy.

IMV the way to raise people out of poverty is, to misrepresent a phrase, 'education, education, education'. Education has all sorts of benefits, both direct and indirect.

The next most important way is to give them access to finance to start new ventures. In this manner, microfinancing / microcredit is great.

History has shown that the best way to raise the wretched out of poverty is for them to be governed and administered by Anglo-Saxons.

But maybe not by Normans.

Or Vikings.

Mr. England, I'd hoped to pay attention to the F1 points spread betting this year, with a view to dipping in my toe next, but they don't have it. Instead, there's a rubbish ranking market. Humbug!

I'm not happy with all this dissing of Belgium, how can anyone hate or say anything negative about a country that created to annoy the French.

foxinsoxuk said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

JosiasJessop said:

OldKingCole said:

I’d always assumed, perhaps lazily, that the mosquito nets were manufactured locally.

One of the biggest contributors to economic advance in rural Thailand was the introduction of the cheap two-stroke motor vehicle. Another has been a rural scholarship programme, whereby, as IUI, bright lads (usually) at school were sent to agricultural college, and then back to their villages where they were given ‘royal’ land on the condition that they grew experimental crops and, if successful, encouraged their neighbours to do the same, thus diversifying a rice-dominated economy.

IMV the way to raise people out of poverty is, to misrepresent a phrase, 'education, education, education'. Education has all sorts of benefits, both direct and indirect.

The next most important way is to give them access to finance to start new ventures. In this manner, microfinancing / microcredit is great.

History has shown that the best way to raise the wretched out of poverty is for them to be governed and administered by Anglo-Saxons.

The history of India, China, Korea, Thailand etc would seem to contradict that. The history of Anglophone vs Francophone or Lusophone Africa isn't exactly a triumph either!

India is the world's largest democracy, and has a significant amount of civil and physical infrastructure that dates to colonial times.

Hong Kong is a beacon that shows up mainland China's rhetoric that the Chinese aren't suited and don't want free speech or democracy for the nonsense it really is.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fire, those redcoats put Boney in his place

Slightly selective historical analysis there, Mr Dancer.

The Russian efforts in the 1812 Campaign and the alliance that defeated the French at Leipzig were clearly of no importance.

It's also accepted that even if Napoleon had beaten Wellington at Waterloo, significant Prussian and Russian forces would have been on the French in a few days.

We shouldn't also forget the role of Blucher at Waterloo who undoubtedly ensured French victory whereas a bloody draw looked the most likely outcome had the Prussians not arrived.

As a historian, I'm happy to acknowledge the influential role Britain has played - in WW2 the period 1940-41 was pivotal to the outcome but it can't be forgotten that ultimate victory was mainly down to the Russians and the sheer logistical superiority of the Americans which overcame the superiority, in my view, of the Germans in technology in many areas. Yes, we played a significant role but ours wasn't the only role and in the end probably not the most significant except from keeping the struggle going alone after the fall of France.

Dura_Ace said:

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

then a Belgian mandate until independence

OK That explains it, the Belgians were shocking colonists.

Who were the good colonists? Let me guess...

The Norman French?

PS Or the Anglo Saxons?

FF43 said:

Dura_Ace said:

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

then a Belgian mandate until independence

OK That explains it, the Belgians were shocking colonists.

Who were the good colonists? Let me guess...

The Norman French?

PS Or the Anglo Saxons?

The Romans tamed and civilised the savages living here I think.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, Belgium also has a splendid F1 circuit.

Not to mention hilarious borders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Nassau

Someone's got a sensible judiciary:

https://twitter.com/IrishTimes/status/884502448366333952

Mr. Anorak, it is a silly place.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Anorak, it is a silly place.

In times of yore publicans would have to close half their establishment as the licensing hours were different on each side of the building.

Mr. Anorak, I've heard of such things, and half the chairs in a restaurant being piled on tables because that half was shut.