politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A week after Helsinki and Trump’s ratings remain solid
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A week after Helsinki and Trump’s ratings remain solid
RCP
0
Comments
-
FPT
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worsegrabcocque said:I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
0 -
Wasn't it supposed to have been a diabolically bad week for him?
0 -
-
May's punting the ISIS case into the legal long grass.
By the time extradition hearings, appeals and supreme court rulings are made, May will be far off into the sunset on the good ship Maybot.0 -
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worsegrabcocque said:I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
0 -
fpt
You are describing it in terms which are not relevant to the situation.Mortimer said:
We know they have a duff hand, and that they've been overbetting like mad on flop, turn and river. Therefore we call it.TOPPING said:
We cannot. Because we simply cannot take the chance that they actually mean it.Mortimer said:
Err. What?TOPPING said:
It's good cop bad cop.kle4 said:
Border in the bay of biscay? No. But while I've doubt most Irish anger will be reserved for us for provoking this situation, much like our own torturous desperations over Brexit ultimately whoevers fault it was is secondary to dealing with it, and Ireland looks like taking the biggest hit of any EU country. The EU woukd be wise to make sure the rest support Ireland a great deal.TGOHF said:Merkel henchman tells Dublin to build aand maintain any hard border.
This sounds expensive for Dublin. Could there end up being a border across the Bay of Biscay instead ?
https://amp.independent.ie/business/brexit/ireland-will-have-hardest-border-in-europe-if-uk-doesnt-reach-brexit-deal-ally-of-merkel-warns-37142875.html?__twitter_impression=true
Joachim Pfeiffer – a key ally of Chancellor Merkel – painted a dire picture of the outcome.
Mr Pfeiffer said Ireland would “have a border like we have a border with Ukraine, or Belarus” as there would no longer be treaties in place with the UK that would ensure the rules and standards of the EU would be respected.
Mr Pfeiffer said it will be Ireland’s responsibility to erect and manage the Border on the EU side, and the UK’s task to manage the territory of Northern Ireland.
If, say, Germany pushes for a border then the UK has no option but to agree to anything that means there won't be a border. It is exquisitely clever.
We, or at least the sensible PBers have noted how the EU, Ireland, and the UK all don't want a border so it was crazy and illogical that anyone was suggesting it.
Now someone is suggesting it. It is a bluff we can't call.
If you know someone has a duff hand, you call it.
At the end of the day what does Germany know or care about the last 500 years of Irish history? Fuck all. Just like most PB Leavers on here.
If they mean it, how it is implemented is secondary because it would be so appallingly unpopular on both sides of the border. It might be enough to tip Ireland into leaving, too.
To say it's "appallingly unpopular" is not even wrong.0 -
Possibly a functioning government, and failing that, at least the proper national debate about what the fuck Brexit means that we should have had during the referendum campaign.kle4 said:
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worsegrabcocque said:I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
0 -
Yet the two party's positions on Brexit are very similar. We'd just end up exactly where we were.grabcocque said:
Possibly a functioning government, and failing that, at least the proper national debate about what the fuck Brexit means that we should have had during the referendum campaign.kle4 said:
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worsegrabcocque said:I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
0 -
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
0 -
It seems notable to me the late night politicos still haven't come to grips with Trump winning. Granted, it was tight in some key states and so he could lose with nt much change, but gasping boggled eyed at every distasteful thing he does, and his utterly crude and obnoxious mannerisms, seems like it should be over now. They, and by extention much of their audience, doesn't seem like it is in the planning stage to beat him, they're still in the mourning phase for having lost.SeanT said:The US economy is thriving under Trump.
He could easily be re-elected.
Are the Democrats being wiser about things?0 -
I don't think so, we never made it beyond BREXIT MEANS BREXIT last year.RobD said:
Yet the two party's positions on Brexit are very similar. We'd just end up exactly where we were.
This kind of bullshit would never work again. May and Corbyn would be forced to spell out at least in some kind of detail what Brexit means Brexit means.
0 -
The argument is that there is no point in an extension if no deal can be reached with this government, if they've had years to reach a deal and failed.kle4 said:
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worsegrabcocque said:I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
However if there was a GE then it means that they can stop the clock in order to try and negotiate with the next government.0 -
Not even wrong?TOPPING said:fpt
You are describing it in terms which are not relevant to the situation.Mortimer said:We know they have a duff hand, and that they've been overbetting like mad on flop, turn and river. Therefore we call it.
If they mean it, how it is implemented is secondary because it would be so appallingly unpopular on both sides of the border. It might be enough to tip Ireland into leaving, too.
To say it's "appallingly unpopular" is not even wrong.
Is that a bizarre way of saying that Mortimer is right?0 -
But a ge has no guarantee it woukd not return the same government (though in those circumstances it woukd seem unlikely), so as pretexts go it it is flimsy and transparent.Philip_Thompson said:
The argument is that there is no point in an extension if no deal can be reached with this government, if they've had years to reach a deal and failed.kle4 said:
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worsegrabcocque said:I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
However if there was a GE then it means that they can stop the clock in order to try and negotiate with the next government.0 -
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-320618220 -
There's no guarantee but there's at least a chance it will change whereas nothing changes by having an extension alone with the same government.kle4 said:
But a ge has no guarantee it woukd not return the same government (though in those circumstances it woukd seem unlikely), so as pretexts go it it is flimsy and transparent.Philip_Thompson said:
The argument is that there is no point in an extension if no deal can be reached with this government, if they've had years to reach a deal and failed.kle4 said:
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worsegrabcocque said:I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
However if there was a GE then it means that they can stop the clock in order to try and negotiate with the next government.0 -
And judging by Labour's current policy, the demands in the negotiations will be the same.kle4 said:
But a ge has no guarantee it woukd not return the same government (though in those circumstances it woukd seem unlikely), so as pretexts go it it is flimsy and transparent.Philip_Thompson said:
The argument is that there is no point in an extension if no deal can be reached with this government, if they've had years to reach a deal and failed.kle4 said:
What does demanding a ge from us achieve for them though? Theyd also need a pretext for demanding one.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
They have the power to intervene in any way they want. In fact all 27 nations have the power to intervene in any way they want as it takes unanimity to get an extension.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have no power to intervene in that way. It would makes things worse, much worsegrabcocque said:I'd have thought that, in exchange for suspending article 50, the EU27 will demand a price that consists of precisely one thing: a new general election.
However if there was a GE then it means that they can stop the clock in order to try and negotiate with the next government.0 -
I'm happy to stick to that wank, generally. However I know plenty of the country already supports the death penalty outside war zones like Syria, and even fewer will care a great deal given the people involved.SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.0 -
It is not going to happengrabcocque said:
I don't think so, we never made it beyond BREXIT MEANS BREXIT last year.RobD said:
Yet the two party's positions on Brexit are very similar. We'd just end up exactly where we were.
This kind of bullshit would never work again. May and Corbyn would be forced to spell out at least in some kind of detail what Brexit means Brexit means.0 -
I suspect a lot opposed to the death penalty in general will be perfectly fine with it in this instance. I am.Polruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-320618220 -
Liberals hated Blair. Just saying...SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.0 -
I suspect they’re betting the farm on the Mueller investigation, as the Tories, Michael Howard in particular, did with the Hutton Inquiry all those years agokle4 said:
It seems notable to me the late night politicos still haven't come to grips with Trump winning. Granted, it was tight in some key states and so he could lose with nt much change, but gasping boggled eyed at every distasteful thing he does, and his utterly crude and obnoxious mannerisms, seems like it should be over now. They, and by extention much of their audience, doesn't seem like it is in the planning stage to beat him, they're still in the mourning phase for having lost.SeanT said:The US economy is thriving under Trump.
He could easily be re-elected.
Are the Democrats being wiser about things?
0 -
It's a paraphrase of Pauli's epithet on badly written Physics papers.Philip_Thompson said:
Not even wrong?TOPPING said:fpt
You are describing it in terms which are not relevant to the situation.Mortimer said:We know they have a duff hand, and that they've been overbetting like mad on flop, turn and river. Therefore we call it.
If they mean it, how it is implemented is secondary because it would be so appallingly unpopular on both sides of the border. It might be enough to tip Ireland into leaving, too.
To say it's "appallingly unpopular" is not even wrong.
Is that a bizarre way of saying that Mortimer is right?0 -
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.0 -
80% is clearly too high, but that it was majority support, for not just use on terrorists I assume, until less than 3 years ago, still rather makes the point that although I don't support it, this is unlikely to be a story which outrages a great many.Polruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-320618220 -
But in this instance? I'm guessing support will be a touch higher.Polruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-320618220 -
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-320618220 -
All this on the day The Times publishes an op ed in praise of “strong man” leaders like Erdogan and Duterte.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
That Overton window keeps sliding right.0 -
Not in 1997.PClipp said:
Liberals hated Blair. Just saying...SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.0 -
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.0 -
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.0 -
Duterte!Gardenwalker said:
All this on the day The Times publishes an op ed in praise of “strong man” leaders like Erdogan and Duterte.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
That Overton window keeps sliding right.
That said I understand him to very popular at home? Which generally gets left out of the stories on his latest, er, controversies, on the bbc.0 -
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.Gardenwalker said:
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.0 -
I thought Corbyn was pulling it left?Gardenwalker said:
All this on the day The Times publishes an op ed in praise of “strong man” leaders like Erdogan and Duterte.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:twitter.com/thetimes/status/1021506244358615040
That Overton window keeps sliding right. 0 -
Yes, I think that's probably all correct. But I also agree with Blunkett (I know, it surprised me too) who made the reasonable point on WATO yesterday that if they are British citizens we can't set a precedent of the Home Secretary of the day deciding who is and isn't protected from the death penalty - this was a subject of a lot of debate in 2003 when the US-UK extradition arrangements changed - and if they aren't British citizens any more, we don't have any business expressing an opinion in the first place. All of which suggests it's evidence of Javid on manoeuvres, and a bit of a dangerous subject to play games with.SeanT said:
I think you'd find support for the death penalty for ISIS members who gloatingly burned people alive, dissolved them in acid, threw them off cliffs, etc etc, all live on camera - like these guys did - would be considerably higher than 48%.Polruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
Especially when it wouldn't be us doing the hanging. They got caught by Americans, they are facing American justice. Which includes the death penalty. I care not a jot if they die, thereby.0 -
Liberals, or Liberal Democrats?PClipp said:
Liberals hated Blair. Just saying...SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.0 -
Well saidPhilip_Thompson said:
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.Gardenwalker said:
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.0 -
They're not British citizens though.Polruan said:
Yes, I think that's probably all correct. But I also agree with Blunkett (I know, it surprised me too) who made the reasonable point on WATO yesterday that if they are British citizens we can't set a precedent of the Home Secretary of the day deciding who is and isn't protected from the death penalty - this was a subject of a lot of debate in 2003 when the US-UK extradition arrangements changed - and if they aren't British citizens any more, we don't have any business expressing an opinion in the first place. All of which suggests it's evidence of Javid on manoeuvres, and a bit of a dangerous subject to play games with.SeanT said:
I think you'd find support for the death penalty for ISIS members who gloatingly burned people alive, dissolved them in acid, threw them off cliffs, etc etc, all live on camera - like these guys did - would be considerably higher than 48%.Polruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
Especially when it wouldn't be us doing the hanging. They got caught by Americans, they are facing American justice. Which includes the death penalty. I care not a jot if they die, thereby.
We do have business expressing an opinion because they murdered Brits so could have faced justice here.-1 -
It's a very wide window.RobD said:
I thought Corbyn was pulling it left?Gardenwalker said:
All this on the day The Times publishes an op ed in praise of “strong man” leaders like Erdogan and Duterte.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:twitter.com/thetimes/status/1021506244358615040
That Overton window keeps sliding right.0 -
I think the issue is that the British have evidence which will be used to secure the death penalty, so whether or not they provide this evidence will likely decide whether or not they live. They aren't in a position to stay out of it on this one.Polruan said:
Yes, I think that's probably all correct. But I also agree with Blunkett (I know, it surprised me too) who made the reasonable point on WATO yesterday that if they are British citizens we can't set a precedent of the Home Secretary of the day deciding who is and isn't protected from the death penalty - this was a subject of a lot of debate in 2003 when the US-UK extradition arrangements changed - and if they aren't British citizens any more, we don't have any business expressing an opinion in the first place. All of which suggests it's evidence of Javid on manoeuvres, and a bit of a dangerous subject to play games with.SeanT said:
I think you'd find support for the death penalty for ISIS members who gloatingly burned people alive, dissolved them in acid, threw them off cliffs, etc etc, all live on camera - like these guys did - would be considerably higher than 48%.Polruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
Especially when it wouldn't be us doing the hanging. They got caught by Americans, they are facing American justice. Which includes the death penalty. I care not a jot if they die, thereby.0 -
I understand that it is about evidence, isn't it?Polruan said:
Yes, I think that's probably all correct. But I also agree with Blunkett (I know, it surprised me too) who made the reasonable point on WATO yesterday that if they are British citizens we can't set a precedent of the Home Secretary of the day deciding who is and isn't protected from the death penalty - this was a subject of a lot of debate in 2003 when the US-UK extradition arrangements changed - and if they aren't British citizens any more, we don't have any business expressing an opinion in the first place. All of which suggests it's evidence of Javid on manoeuvres, and a bit of a dangerous subject to play games with.SeanT said:
I think you'd find support for the death penalty for ISIS members who gloatingly burned people alive, dissolved them in acid, threw them off cliffs, etc etc, all live on camera - like these guys did - would be considerably higher than 48%.Polruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
Especially when it wouldn't be us doing the hanging. They got caught by Americans, they are facing American justice. Which includes the death penalty. I care not a jot if they die, thereby.
0 -
Both, I think...kle4 said:
Liberals, or Liberal Democrats?PClipp said:
Liberals hated Blair. Just saying...SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
0 -
Do you think Corbyn is populist? I do...Big_G_NorthWales said:
Well saidPhilip_Thompson said:
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.Gardenwalker said:
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
Populism by definition is offering things to the voters to appeal without the hard graft of thinking how you can deliver what you promise...Brexit and Corbyn are perfect examples
0 -
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Well saidPhilip_Thompson said:
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.Gardenwalker said:
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.0 -
I would imagine 'illiberal elite' would do, though I think you're doing Johnson a disservice. He's just self-serving.Benpointer said:
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Well saidPhilip_Thompson said:
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.Gardenwalker said:
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.0 -
Yes - BrexiteersBenpointer said:
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Well saidPhilip_Thompson said:
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.Gardenwalker said:
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.0 -
Yes he is Tysontyson said:
Do you think Corbyn is populist? I do...Big_G_NorthWales said:
Well saidPhilip_Thompson said:
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.Gardenwalker said:
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
Populism by definition is offering things to the voters to appeal without the hard graft of thinking how you can deliver what you promise...Brexit and Corbyn are perfect examples0 -
I think just "elite" would cover it.John_M said:
I would imagine 'illiberal elite' would do, though I think you're doing Johnson a disservice. He's just self-serving.Benpointer said:
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Well saidPhilip_Thompson said:
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.Gardenwalker said:
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.0 -
Just 'the elite'. Liberal elite I woukd think enables inclusion of those not traditionally 'establishment' but who are noteworthy and influential eg celebs and media figures.Benpointer said:
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Well saidPhilip_Thompson said:
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.Gardenwalker said:
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
But I'm sure a Corbynite website would turn up a reference to elite factions which dont include their own political and media supporters, so maybe there's another term.0 -
Indeed. Not much sympathy here. Isn't the real story though that the Home Secretary clearly feels able to make populist...and possibly popular policy on the hoof?SeanT said:
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.Philip_Thompson said:
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
Has this been through Cabinet?
Who will be next to launch out on their own?
Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.0 -
Mate...I wish you'd stopping using the phrase liberal elite.....it's stupid, crass and is spiralling our politics into the gutter.......and maybe you personally are better than just banding around inane phrases exploited by the likes of Farage....Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
0 -
God's damn it - I was just in the finishing of a 75 hour game, and my pc has crapped out and won't start (I'm guessing processor overheating). More infuriating than any Brexit flip flop.0
-
So, it wasn't like the Shawshank Redemption then? Where the common refrain is: 'what am I in for? Me? I'm innocent!"SeanT said:
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.Philip_Thompson said:
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.0 -
My Mac blew up today. Totally went zap and appeared to be fried.kle4 said:God's damn it - I was just in the finishing of a 75 hour game, and my pc has crapped out and won't start (I'm guessing processor overheating). More infuriating than any Brexit flip flop.
The heat also???0 -
No evidence these jihadis are whining - the sobs are coming from handwringing bedwetters like Yvette and sympathisers like Diane Abbott.SeanT said:
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.Philip_Thompson said:
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.0 -
"Liberal bigots"?tyson said:
Mate...I wish you'd stopping using the phrase liberal elite.....it's stupid, crass and is spiralling our politics into the gutter.......and maybe you personally are better than just banding around inane phrases exploited by the likes of Farage....Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-320618220 -
The cynical, reactionary, exploitative, destructive elite............or possibly better the populist, elite..people who pretend that they understand the concerns of the poor to further their own ends. The elite devoid of conscience, the elite without moral compass, the narcissistic elite..the elite that think just about themselves, the lying elite who do not care they lie, the elite who abuse the concept liberal elite, the nativist elite, the elite that just talk bollox...Benpointer said:
The 'liberal elite' term interests me - is there a similar term for that large part of the elite which is not very liberal, as exemplified by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage, etc.?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Well saidPhilip_Thompson said:
While using the term "pure populism" in a derogatory manner is part of being the liberal elite.Gardenwalker said:
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.
Populism being the concerns of ordinary people is not a bad thing. Unless you only care about an elite and look down on normal people.
there are plenty of different descriptions to describe the Trumps, Farage, Johnson's, Le Pen's, Farages of the world....but they are elite, that is for sure...
0 -
Not to get all overly serious on common jargon, albeit insulting jargon, but I've never been clear on where bedwetting as an insult got started in that context. I assume it's to imply childishness not any relation to adult incontinence, but it's always struck me as an odd one.TGOHF said:
No evidence these jihadis are whining - the sobs are coming from handwringing bedwetters like Yvette and sympathisers like Diane Abbott.SeanT said:
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.Philip_Thompson said:
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.0 -
Tarriffs are just another form of tax, so the taxes on imported Chinese, Canadian, EU and British goods gets paid by Average Joe in America. It could be quite expensive for many of them, even before the knock on economic effects.rpjs said:
There are clouds gathering. Gas prices here in the US and A are rocketing, the stock markets are becoming more volatile, and the impact of the trade wars will be biting just ahead of the midterms.SeanT said:The US economy is thriving under Trump.
He could easily be re-elected.
0 -
Corbyn is pulling it left with a segment of voters. Metropolitan, university towns, millennials, renters, public sector managerial etc etc. Whether it is enough to win power is another thing.kle4 said:
It's a very wide window.RobD said:
I thought Corbyn was pulling it left?Gardenwalker said:
All this on the day The Times publishes an op ed in praise of “strong man” leaders like Erdogan and Duterte.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:twitter.com/thetimes/status/1021506244358615040
That Overton window keeps sliding right.0 -
I think that is baked in now.dixiedean said:
Indeed. Not much sympathy here. Isn't the real story though that the Home Secretary clearly feels able to make populist...and possibly popular policy on the hoof?SeanT said:
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.Philip_Thompson said:
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
Has this been through Cabinet?
Who will be next to launch out on their own?
Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.
Anyway having watched the Moray Open today here in Lossiemouth with the most beautiful of days, a bone dry links golf course with traditional clubhouse adjoining the lovely west beach towards Covesea lighthouse and fabulous views over the Firth towards Caithness, we have indeed been blessed.
And all day the Typhoons from the RAF Lossiemouth have been landing and taking off patrolling our skys.0 -
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.0 -
I think the Jihadi's would love it to make some proper martyr's.......TGOHF said:
No evidence these jihadis are whining - the sobs are coming from handwringing bedwetters like Yvette and sympathisers like Diane Abbott.SeanT said:
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.Philip_Thompson said:
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
0 -
But they might suffer more by being put in solitary confinement for 30 years. As members of a death cult, death is glory etc etc...SeanT said:
I think you'd find support for the death penalty for ISIS members who gloatingly burned people alive, dissolved them in acid, threw them off cliffs, etc etc, all live on camera - like these guys did - would be considerably higher than 48%.Polruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
Especially when it wouldn't be us doing the hanging. They got caught by Americans, they are facing American justice. Which includes the death penalty. I care not a jot if they die, thereby.0 -
Seems odd after so much hear the last few months, but hopefully a cheap fix - I've spent more on that pc than every car I've ever owned put together.rottenborough said:
My Mac blew up today. Totally went zap and appeared to be fried.kle4 said:God's damn it - I was just in the finishing of a 75 hour game, and my pc has crapped out and won't start (I'm guessing processor overheating). More infuriating than any Brexit flip flop.
The heat also???
(4 cars that is - for some reason I don't like spending much on those! )0 -
The US economy is thriving and Trump happens to be president.SeanT said:The US economy is thriving under Trump.
He could easily be re-elected.
Actually, that's not quite being fair. He's sponsored big tax cuts, which are inevitably inflationary and growth-inducing. They've also buggered up the US government deficit - which will be around $800-850bn this fiscal year: an immense amount at this time in the economic cycle and - as far as I can see - the worst in the entire OECD as a % of GDP.
Of course, that won't stop him being re-elected - it's all tomorrow's money. Not unless something hits the fan before November 2020 anyway,0 -
What does the extradition of two non-British nationals from one country which isn't Britain, to another country that isn't Britain have to do with HMG anyway?grabcocque said:May's punting the ISIS case into the legal long grass.
By the time extradition hearings, appeals and supreme court rulings are made, May will be far off into the sunset on the good ship Maybot.
Edit - just seen the comment downthread about British intelligence. Fair enough, we do have an interest.
Best to pass the intelligence on. It's what we'd do if they were still at large in Syria, with death a likely result and no judicial process in that case.0 -
On the economy: 'Beware exuberant consensus' - Irwin Stelzer ( Sunday Times).SeanT said:
The anti-Trump handbag-clutchers remind of the most insane Remainers. They still don't get it.kle4 said:
It seems notable to me the late night politicos still haven't come to grips with Trump winning. Granted, it was tight in some key states and so he could lose with nt much change, but gasping boggled eyed at every distasteful thing he does, and his utterly crude and obnoxious mannerisms, seems like it should be over now. They, and by extention much of their audience, doesn't seem like it is in the planning stage to beat him, they're still in the mourning phase for having lost.SeanT said:The US economy is thriving under Trump.
He could easily be re-elected.
Are the Democrats being wiser about things?
Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
Add that to a so far successful boost to the American economy, thanks to tax cuts, and he could win again. If he doesn't go down in a sea of scandal first.0 -
Apparently the loophole has been in the policy for years, so he's not making new policy as such.dixiedean said:
Indeed. Not much sympathy here. Isn't the real story though that the Home Secretary clearly feels able to make populist...and possibly popular policy on the hoof?SeanT said:
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.Philip_Thompson said:
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
Has this been through Cabinet?
Who will be next to launch out on their own?
Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.0 -
I find it very hard to believe that we have evidence that the Americans don’t on these scum. I find it even harder to believe that such evidence as we do have was not shared with the US long before they were captured and I can’t really see why they would need our permission to use it now.
In short the more we learn the more this sounds like some entirely artificial moral dilemma game that has been contrived for the benefit of the chattering classes. We should stay out and watch the bastards fry. They are not our problem and absolutely no loss.0 -
I agree with you....solitary confinement is a worse outcome, and there is no moral equivalence bullshit going on about state murder...SeanT said:
That's why the Israelis have the punishment I describe below. A fate worse than death.tyson said:
I think the Jihadi's would love it to make some proper martyr's.......TGOHF said:
No evidence these jihadis are whining - the sobs are coming from handwringing bedwetters like Yvette and sympathisers like Diane Abbott.SeanT said:
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.Philip_Thompson said:
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
0 -
They probably have it, but need permission to use it in court? At least that would by my naive guess.DavidL said:I find it very hard to believe that we have evidence that the Americans don’t on these scum. I find it even harder to believe that such evidence as we do have was not shared with the US long before they were captured and I can’t really see why they would need our permission to use it now.
In short the more we learn the more this sounds like some entirely artificial moral dilemma game that has been contrived for the benefit of the chattering classes. We should stay out and watch the bastards fry. They are not our problem and absolutely no loss.0 -
I think we can all agree they are no loss...it is just how best do we lose them without losing the battle....DavidL said:I find it very hard to believe that we have evidence that the Americans don’t on these scum. I find it even harder to believe that such evidence as we do have was not shared with the US long before they were captured and I can’t really see why they would need our permission to use it now.
In short the more we learn the more this sounds like some entirely artificial moral dilemma game that has been contrived for the benefit of the chattering classes. We should stay out and watch the bastards fry. They are not our problem and absolutely no loss.
0 -
As I say they would choose death. It's a suicide cult.SeanT said:
If you ever tried to protest your innocence (as a con, rather than a remandee, like me) you'd be met with the riposte, "Mate, everyone in here is innocent, now shut up and do your bird"rottenborough said:
So, it wasn't like the Shawshank Redemption then? Where the common refrain is: 'what am I in for? Me? I'm innocent!"SeanT said:
I was iPhilip_Thompson said:
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
Incidentally, if we really can't bring ourselves to execute these Islamofascist scum, we could offer them the Israeli alternative for hardcore terrorists: permanent solitary confinement, in an underground cell without windows, for the rest of your natural life, with no human contact or interaction - and deprived of the means of suicide (and force-fed if you try to starve yourself to death).
That is clearly worse than execution, I think.
Let them choose.
OK, and relatedly, I'm now going to watch the Israeli drama Fauda, which has rave reviews on Netflix.0 -
Setting a precedent then.david_herdson said:
Apparently the loophole has been in the policy for years, so he's not making new policy as such.dixiedean said:
Indeed. Not much sympathy here. Isn't the real story though that the Home Secretary clearly feels able to make populist...and possibly popular policy on the hoof?SeanT said:
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.Philip_Thompson said:
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
Has this been through Cabinet?
Who will be next to launch out on their own?
Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.0 -
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.dixiedean said:If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.0 -
One problem is that people who use populist as an insult do often seem to use it to mean popular. If not majority popular then the most popular option available. And they can dismiss the popular by claiming it is merely populist, even if it is not. The EU excelled at that, and it's why they never seemed sincere when talking of change, as they only say it when there's trouble, then it's back to moaning about populists.Foxy said:
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.dixiedean said:If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.0 -
Perhaps so. But as far as government decision-making goes, that's a different thing and not something to be much bothered about.dixiedean said:
Setting a precedent then.david_herdson said:
Apparently the loophole has been in the policy for years, so he's not making new policy as such.dixiedean said:
Indeed. Not much sympathy here. Isn't the real story though that the Home Secretary clearly feels able to make populist...and possibly popular policy on the hoof?SeanT said:
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me.Philip_Thompson said:
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans.asjohnstone said:
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?SeanT said:
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
I am sanguine about allowing them to face US justice, in America, if they are caught by, and tried in, our most important, entirely democratic ally.
Liberal fastidiousness about the death penalty is just a load of wank. Blair was happy to bomb innocent babies in Iraq. Pfff.
It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. The phrase was, "do the crime, do the time". i.e. shut up and deal with it, you got caught, and you knew what you were doing, and what the consequences would be.
I think that applies here, to the jihadi beheaders. They knew what they were doing, killing Americans in the cruellest, vilest way possible (and gays, and Iraqis, and Shia, and anyone they didn't like). They got caught by America. Oh dear, what a pity. Ideally they should have been caught by Sweden, but no.
Now they will face the legal consequences.
Has this been through Cabinet?
Who will be next to launch out on their own?
Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.0 -
I honestly don't get this.SeanT said:Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
If I look at Reddit and the other cesspools of the internet (not including this hallowed ground in that category, of course) it's full of Americans saying that Sweden and the Low Countries - but particularly Sweden, for some reason - have been made a living hell by Muslim immigration. And increasingly that argument is picked up over here.
I grew up near Leicester. Leicester is 50% non-white. 19% Muslim.
It is absolutely fine. It is, in fact, a lovely city.
You do not switch on the radio and hear stories of Muslim riots or Muslim stabbings or sharia law in Leicester or whatever other masturbatory fantasies Paul Joseph Watson might conjure up. Leicester is just fine. And if you want a vision of integration, go to Foxton Locks at a weekend - what could be more English than a black-and-white-painted flight of canal locks, two real ale pubs and a country walk? - and do a demographic survey.
So why say that "Muslim immigration into liberal democracies" is by its nature "severely problematic"? It clearly doesn't have to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.0 -
Yes, as was demonstrated by the waves of violence after the NI Hunger Strikes.tyson said:
I think we can all agree they are no loss...it is just how best do we lose them without losing the battle....DavidL said:I find it very hard to believe that we have evidence that the Americans don’t on these scum. I find it even harder to believe that such evidence as we do have was not shared with the US long before they were captured and I can’t really see why they would need our permission to use it now.
In short the more we learn the more this sounds like some entirely artificial moral dilemma game that has been contrived for the benefit of the chattering classes. We should stay out and watch the bastards fry. They are not our problem and absolutely no loss.
Islamism is in retreat, across most of the world outside the Sahel. Keeping these guys in solitary and leaking that they are providing very useful intelligence may well be a better move.0 -
Very good post Fox....Foxy said:
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.dixiedean said:If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
0 -
If populism means things like everyone on Question Time talking at the same time, instead of taking it in turns to speak like they used to do, I'm against it.Gardenwalker said:
The people, or the mob?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
And “liberal elite” is pure populism.0 -
No, sorry, but populism is the idea that the everyone, or the vast majority, has one settled view/position, that such a position is always against a mythical elite who are stitching up the world for themselves and that one person or party is the only vehicle or voice for this vast majority. Its key element is to deny plurality of views and debate - a fundamental part of democracy.The logic conclusion is that we don't need to vote or have a free press etc etc.dixiedean said:If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
It is profoundly undemocratic.
It is the denial of an alternative that is key. See Trump and his endless moaning about fake news.0 -
English-speaking countries have arguably been the most successful at integrating minorities, probably because it's possible for them to set up businesses without too much bureaucracy or interference. In Sweden there's huge unemployment because they can't get work visas. Similar situation in France.El_Capitano said:
I honestly don't get this.SeanT said:Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
If I look at Reddit and the other cesspools of the internet (not including this hallowed ground in that category, of course) it's full of Americans saying that Sweden and the Low Countries - but particularly Sweden, for some reason - have been made a living hell by Muslim immigration. And increasingly that argument is picked up over here.
I grew up near Leicester. Leicester is 50% non-white. 19% Muslim.
It is absolutely fine. It is, in fact, a lovely city.
You do not switch on the radio and hear stories of Muslim riots or Muslim stabbings or sharia law in Leicester or whatever other masturbatory fantasies Paul Joseph Watson might conjure up. Leicester is just fine. And if you want a vision of integration, go to Foxton Locks at a weekend - what could be more English than a black-and-white-painted flight of canal locks, two real ale pubs and a country walk? - and do a demographic survey.
So why say that "Muslim immigration into liberal democracies" is by its nature "severely problematic"? It clearly doesn't have to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.0 -
Another good post for one night...El_Capitano said:
I honestly don't get this.SeanT said:Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
If I look at Reddit and the other cesspools of the internet (not including this hallowed ground in that category, of course) it's full of Americans saying that Sweden and the Low Countries - but particularly Sweden, for some reason - have been made a living hell by Muslim immigration. And increasingly that argument is picked up over here.
I grew up near Leicester. Leicester is 50% non-white. 19% Muslim.
It is absolutely fine. It is, in fact, a lovely city.
You do not switch on the radio and hear stories of Muslim riots or Muslim stabbings or sharia law in Leicester or whatever other masturbatory fantasies Paul Joseph Watson might conjure up. Leicester is just fine. And if you want a vision of integration, go to Foxton Locks at a weekend - what could be more English than a black-and-white-painted flight of canal locks, two real ale pubs and a country walk? - and do a demographic survey.
So why say that "Muslim immigration into liberal democracies" is by its nature "severely problematic"? It clearly doesn't have to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.
0 -
Foxy said:
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.dixiedean said:If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.0 -
Yes, a majority of his public were entirely happy with mass extra-judicial killings and general loopy authoritarianism.kle4 said:
Duterte!Gardenwalker said:
All this on the day The Times publishes an op ed in praise of “strong man” leaders like Erdogan and Duterte.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
That Overton window keeps sliding right.
That said I understand him to very popular at home? Which generally gets left out of the stories on his latest, er, controversies, on the bbc.
Then he mentioned he might be an atheist, and his ratings dropped like a stone:
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/2155197/ratings-plummeting-how-long-can-philippine-president-duterte-last0 -
What happened in Rotherham is not the fault of innocent Muslims in Leicester.SeanT said:
Tell that to the 1500 white girls, victims of Muslim racist pedophile gangrape in Rotherham, you blinkered fool. And then move on to the estimated 100,000-200,000 other victims. And then move on...El_Capitano said:
I honestly don't get this.SeanT said:Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
If I look at Reddit and the other cesspools of the internet (not including this hallowed ground in that category, of course) it's full of Americans saying that Sweden and the Low Countries - but particularly Sweden, for some reason - have been made a living hell by Muslim immigration. And increasingly that argument is picked up over here.
I grew up near Leicester. Leicester is 50% non-white. 19% Muslim.
It is absolutely fine. It is, in fact, a lovely city.
You do not switch on the radio and hear stories of Muslim riots or Muslim stabbings or sharia law in Leicester or whatever other masturbatory fantasies Paul Joseph Watson might conjure up. Leicester is just fine. And if you want a vision of integration, go to Foxton Locks at a weekend - what could be more English than a black-and-white-painted flight of canal locks, two real ale pubs and a country walk? - and do a demographic survey.
So why say that "Muslim immigration into liberal democracies" is by its nature "severely problematic"? It clearly doesn't have to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.
Oh what's the point, with people like you.
What happened in Rotherham is the fault of guilty paedophiles in Rotherham.
What happened in Rotherham is the fault of those authorities who ignored the evidence of what was happening.
Blame the real culprits.0 -
I think that one needs to be more nuanced. Leicesters Muslims are majority Gujerati, and also much more middle class, than Muslims in Bradford or Birmingham. They also have often had origins in East Africa, where they had generations of living as a minority in another culture. Some others are more recent arrivals including the Somalis, but these have been influenced by the prevailing Leicester Muslim norms.El_Capitano said:
I honestly don't get this.SeanT said:Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
If I look at Reddit and the other cesspools of the internet (not including this hallowed ground in that category, of course) it's full of Americans saying that Sweden and the Low Countries - but particularly Sweden, for some reason - have been made a living hell by Muslim immigration. And increasingly that argument is picked up over here.
I grew up near Leicester. Leicester is 50% non-white. 19% Muslim.
It is absolutely fine. It is, in fact, a lovely city.
You do not switch on the radio and hear stories of Muslim riots or Muslim stabbings or sharia law in Leicester or whatever other masturbatory fantasies Paul Joseph Watson might conjure up. Leicester is just fine. And if you want a vision of integration, go to Foxton Locks at a weekend - what could be more English than a black-and-white-painted flight of canal locks, two real ale pubs and a country walk? - and do a demographic survey.
So why say that "Muslim immigration into liberal democracies" is by its nature "severely problematic"? It clearly doesn't have to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.
Muslim communities are as diverse, or more so, than Christian communities. They are also ultimately individuals, and branding them as an amorphous threatening mass is missing out on the opportunity to deviate more from orthodoxies.
I quite recommend this book on Generation M to give a more balanced view of young Muslims today, and how their ideas are changing our society. It reflects the experience of the Muslims that I work with rather better than some of the stereotypes that we see. It makes sense of the teenagers that I saw the other day on the Humberstone Rd, in miniskirts and yogapants, but also headscarves, playing on their phones and giggling with the teenage boys.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/03/meet-generation-m-the-young-affluent-muslims-changing-the-world0 -
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.rottenborough said:Foxy said:
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.dixiedean said:If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.0 -
Thus far, wholesale capitulation.david_herdson said:
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.rottenborough said:Foxy said:
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.dixiedean said:If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
0 -
Indeed. That is the traditional definition.rottenborough said:
No, sorry, but populism is the idea that the everyone, or the vast majority, has one settled view/position, that such a position is always against a mythical elite who are stitching up the world for themselves and that one person or party is the only vehicle or voice for this vast majority. Its key element is to deny plurality of views and debate - a fundamental part of democracy.The logic conclusion is that we don't need to vote or have a free press etc etc.dixiedean said:If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
It is profoundly undemocratic.
It is the denial of an alternative that is key. See Trump and his endless moaning about fake news.
However, language always changes with use.
Thus, the Labour manifesto was more popular than the Tory one. To those for whom that was an assault on common sense, Corbyn becomes a Populist. (Which means proposes popular policies, such as tuition fees, which I don't like).
When Trump proposes tariffs (he is far from the first), and people agree, it is also derided as populist.
The term has become so ubiquitous as to have become meaningless.
Both Left and Right have abused the term beyond its old meaning and any usefulness.
The new definition should be "position which commands widespread support which I can't get my head around."0 -
Fight, fight and fight again.david_herdson said:
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.rottenborough said:Foxy said:
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.dixiedean said:If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.0 -
Fair point, the term is being abused.dixiedean said:
Indeed. That is the traditional definition.rottenborough said:
No, sorry, but populism is the idea that the everyone, or the vast majority, has one settled view/position, that such a position is always against a mythical elite who are stitching up the world for themselves and that one person or party is the only vehicle or voice for this vast majority. Its key element is to deny plurality of views and debate - a fundamental part of democracy.The logic conclusion is that we don't need to vote or have a free press etc etc.dixiedean said:If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
It is profoundly undemocratic.
It is the denial of an alternative that is key. See Trump and his endless moaning about fake news.
However, language always changes with use.
Thus, the Labour manifesto was more popular than the Tory one. To those for whom that was an assault on common sense, Corbyn becomes a Populist. (Which means proposes popular policies, such as tuition fees, which I don't like).
When Trump proposes tariffs (he is far from the first), and people agree, it is also derided as populist.
The term has become so ubiquitous as to have become meaningless.
Both Left and Right have abused the term beyond its old meaning and any usefulness.
The new definition should be "position which commands widespread support which I can't get my head around."0 -
Sure, it is a term that is abused, but that does not make it a useless adjective.dixiedean said:
Indeed. That is the traditional definition.rottenborough said:
No, sorry, but populism is the idea that the everyone, or the vast majority, has one settled view/position, that such a position is always against a mythical elite who are stitching up the world for themselves and that one person or party is the only vehicle or voice for this vast majority. Its key element is to deny plurality of views and debate - a fundamental part of democracy.The logic conclusion is that we don't need to vote or have a free press etc etc.dixiedean said:If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0.
Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with?
I reckon the latter.
Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right.
Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left.
Effectively it is meaningless.
It is profoundly undemocratic.
It is the denial of an alternative that is key. See Trump and his endless moaning about fake news.
However, language always changes with use.
Thus, the Labour manifesto was more popular than the Tory one. To those for whom that was an assault on common sense, Corbyn becomes a Populist. (Which means proposes popular policies, such as tuition fees, which I don't like).
When Trump proposes tariffs (he is far from the first), and people agree, it is also derided as populist.
The term has become so ubiquitous as to have become meaningless.
Both Left and Right have abused the term beyond its old meaning and any usefulness.
The new definition should be "position which commands widespread support which I can't get my head around."
0 -
A well used phrase for us fellow alumni of us.politics.miscSunil_Prasannan said:
"Liberal bigots"?tyson said:
Mate...I wish you'd stopping using the phrase liberal elite.....it's stupid, crass and is spiralling our politics into the gutter.......and maybe you personally are better than just banding around inane phrases exploited by the likes of Farage....Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elitePolruan said:
Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.thecommissioner said:
Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.Scott_P said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
0
This discussion has been closed.