While having lunch in my local café in the Barking Road, I was musing on the malevolent power of democracy. BBC News was showing pictures from the Indo-Pakistan border with the release of the captured Indian pilot apparently underway.
Yet speaking to correspondents in both Delhi and Islamabad it almost sounded as though the public in both countries had been disappointed by events. In Pakistan initial praise for Imran Khan's gesture toward Delhi had been replaced by disappointment the apparent military advantage had not been pressed home while Modi faced criticism he had allowed Pakistan to get away with their violations of the LoC.
In democracies, the mob sometimes rules and can push sensible politicians into dangerous places as said politicians feel obliged to follow the public mood. In a democracy, the mood of an angry and resentful people can take you down some dangerous paths.
That's not to praise dictatorship per se. Dictators are capable of doing stupid things and there are no checks or balances to stop them. When I think of how countries have been transformed, on the one hand you have Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia or Mao's China where millions suffered as the State forcibly imposed an ideology on the economic, social and cultural profile of the people and the country.
Yet it happens in democracies too - the two World Wars changed British society irrevocably but so did Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher as their Governments brought in radical changes backed by large Parliamentary majorities.
It's not a faultless analogy - I'd argue the 1950s saw great economic and social changes but the cultural changes came later.
"It combines, inter alia, all the political benefits of focus on the NHS, helping domestic technology companies, incentivising global investment, doing something that shows the world that Britain is (contra the May/Hammond outlook) open to science and high skilled immigrants, it is based on intrinsic advantages that Europe and America will find hard to overcome over a decade, it supplies (NB. MPs/spads) a never-ending string of heart-wrenching good news stories, and, very rarely in SW1, those pushing it would be seen as leading something of global importance. It will, therefore, obviously be rejected by a section of Conservative MPs who much prefer to live in a parallel world, who hate anything to do with science and who are ignorant about how new industries and wealth are really created. "
Oh and @Harris_Tweed while Farage would be able to claim [with some basis] inheritance of UKIP's past electoral performance, Chukka couldn't as the current Labour Leader is still the same as the Labour Leader at the last General Election so Miliband is irrelevant.
TIG is not aiming to be Labour 2 though but SDP2, after all 3/12 of its MPs are ex Tories.
The Brexit Party though is aiming to be UKIP2 and almost all its leadership are ex UKIP
Farage is box office and will get the BBC airtime advantage over UKIP.
The problem with seeing any EU Parliament elections as a mini-referendum is Labour. Their official policy headline will still be formally for Brexit (albeit a Labour unicorn Brexit) but many of their members and voters will see their support as being for voting Remain in another referendum.
Yes Farage interviews very well, and has [mostly] avoided the taint of the completely bonkers people remaining in UKIP. UKIP are two steps from using banners and large gold eagles, IMO.
That'll be a difficult editorial policy question for Ofcom and the BBC in assessing "demonstrable electoral support". From past experience, UKIP would get the nod and a great deal of airtime on the basis of the last EU election (probably tempered by somewhat quieter GE's since). But there'd be a counter-argument from Farage that UKIP's moved a long way since then, and he's the continuity act.
If you accepted that, though, you'd have the same argument from Chukka that he's the true inheritor of the Miliband dynasty!
Yes, there’s going to be an almighty bunfight between the parties, the Electoral Commission and the broadcasters over rights to airtime if the EU elections go ahead.
The TIG group don’t even have a registered party, which in an election based on party lists is somewhat sub-optimal.
Well it's fixable by leaving it open for a month finding out which other CLP's agree with them and kicking the entire CLP out of the party.
Other than that yep - the Labour party clearly has a antisemitism issue that has taken hold of the body and is going to be utterly impossible to remove.
It is even worse than that (terrible though the jew-hating is). The root of this is belief in mad conspiracy theories about how the world works and also defending the Leader and the Party in all circumstances no matter how terrible the morals involved are. No personal compromise is too great in order to show support of the leader and his power to revolutionise the UK.
This is Leninism. Pure and simple.
Who knows who the next target will be, especially if they are in government? But whichever group gets targeted (I'd guess journalists, then academics), then all the CLPs will support whatever is being done by these kinds of numbers.
Yes - if they get in it will be ugly, very ugly.
Short of a big majority or a big clearout of moderate MPs, the left won't have control of Parliament and the right will have the same potential leverage that the ERG has achieved over Tory governments.
Well it's fixable by leaving it open for a month finding out which other CLP's agree with them and kicking the entire CLP out of the party.
Other than that yep - the Labour party clearly has a antisemitism issue that has taken hold of the body and is going to be utterly impossible to remove.
It is even worse than that (terrible though the jew-hating is). The root of this is belief in mad conspiracy theories about how the world works and also defending the Leader and the Party in all circumstances no matter how terrible the morals involved are. No personal compromise is too great in order to show support of the leader and his power to revolutionise the UK.
This is Leninism. Pure and simple.
Who knows who the next target will be, especially if they are in government? But whichever group gets targeted (I'd guess journalists, then academics), then all the CLPs will support whatever is being done by these kinds of numbers.
Yes - if they get in it will be ugly, very ugly.
Short of a big majority or a big clearout of moderate MPs, the left won't have control of Parliament and the right will have the same potential leverage that the ERG has achieved over Tory governments.
Chris Grayling's time at justice should be a black mark against David Cameron.
Fixed that for you.
Is there a department Grayling has ever done well at? Why on Earth he has gotten to the Cabinet and stayed there is beyond me.
Contrast with people like Gove at Justice and the difference is remarkable.
Grayling is utterly useless and in any ordinary cabinet he would have been fired ages ago
He benefits from May's patronage, but even here patience must be at its end by now. Surely?
Loyalty is valued particularly highly at this time and Brexit means that political attention moves on from a Minister in trouble. Amber Rudd was only forced to leave the Home Office because otherwise the responsibility for the failings would have fallen at May's door, but as long as May has not been personally involved in Grayling's failures at Justice or Transport he will remain in place.
What do you mean - "not personally involved"? She's the PM. The buck stops with her.
I suspect, Ms Cyclefree, that the days of 'taking responsibility' when things go wrong are lost in the mists of time. Sadly.
Not if I have anything to do with it. Taking responsibility is the essence of leadership. If you don’t do, if you are not prepared to do that, if your team cannot trust you to do that, you are not a leader.
No amount of management bollocks can make up for this lack.
May I direct you to this modest reflection - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/2018/08/ - and a politician who understood this lesson instinctively.
Well it's fixable by leaving it open for a month finding out which other CLP's agree with them and kicking the entire CLP out of the party.
Other than that yep - the Labour party clearly has a antisemitism issue that has taken hold of the body and is going to be utterly impossible to remove.
It is even worse than that (terrible though the jew-hating is). The root of this is belief in mad conspiracy theories about how the world works and also defending the Leader and the Party in all circumstances no matter how terrible the morals involved are. No personal compromise is too great in order to show support of the leader and his power to revolutionise the UK.
This is Leninism. Pure and simple.
Who knows who the next target will be, especially if they are in government? But whichever group gets targeted (I'd guess journalists, then academics), then all the CLPs will support whatever is being done by these kinds of numbers.
Yes - if they get in it will be ugly, very ugly.
Short of a big majority or a big clearout of moderate MPs, the left won't have control of Parliament and the right will have the same potential leverage that the ERG has achieved over Tory governments.
Good job they aren't talking about deselections then.
Oh and @Harris_Tweed while Farage would be able to claim [with some basis] inheritance of UKIP's past electoral performance, Chukka couldn't as the current Labour Leader is still the same as the Labour Leader at the last General Election so Miliband is irrelevant.
TIG is not aiming to be Labour 2 though but SDP2, after all 3/12 of its MPs are ex Tories.
The Brexit Party though is aiming to be UKIP2 and almost all its leadership are ex UKIP
Leadership set up as a company rather than a democratic political party.
To come back to a discussion from last night, which is on topic for this thread:
What chance that the EU force us to partake in the elections anyway, as condition of a three-month extension until the end of June?
The new Parliament meets on 2nd July, and if for any reason we are still members on that date it creates an almighty problem for them if it's not constituted correctly. There's also the issue that a number of the UK seats have been re-allocated elsewhere, so the elections elsewhere will take those new seats into account.
This may cause the EU side to only offer a longer extention, or to offer a shorter one as a strictly one-time offer, on condition that the Treaty was formally ratified (not just a single 'meaningful' vote in the Commons) by the UK before 29th March.
Well it's fixable by leaving it open for a month finding out which other CLP's agree with them and kicking the entire CLP out of the party.
Other than that yep - the Labour party clearly has a antisemitism issue that has taken hold of the body and is going to be utterly impossible to remove.
It is even worse than that (terrible though the jew-hating is). The root of this is belief in mad conspiracy theories about how the world works and also defending the Leader and the Party in all circumstances no matter how terrible the morals involved are. No personal compromise is too great in order to show support of the leader and his power to revolutionise the UK.
This is Leninism. Pure and simple.
Who knows who the next target will be, especially if they are in government? But whichever group gets targeted (I'd guess journalists, then academics), then all the CLPs will support whatever is being done by these kinds of numbers.
Yes - if they get in it will be ugly, very ugly.
Short of a big majority or a big clearout of moderate MPs, the left won't have control of Parliament and the right will have the same potential leverage that the ERG has achieved over Tory governments.
What, enabling extension of Article 50 and a delay to Brexit?
The US has outlined its objectives for a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK, demanding greater access to the food markets where products such as chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef are banned under EU rules.
The US laid out its aims for a trade deal to cut tariff and non-tariff barriers for US industrial and agricultural goods and reduce regulatory differences.
The Trump administration is seeking to eliminate or reduce barriers for US agricultural products and secure duty-free access for industrial goods.
TIG is not aiming to be Labour 2 though but SDP2, after all 3/12 of its MPs are ex Tories.
The Brexit Party though is aiming to be UKIP2 and almost all its leadership are ex UKIP
I don't think TIG is clear as to what it wants to be as yet - calling it SDP 2 may be a slightly pejorative term but it's also inaccurate. I'd like to see what ideas and policies it has beyond Brexit and whether they can agree on something that isn't either existing LAB, CON or LD policy or is a re-hash of Blair-ism.
The US has outlined its objectives for a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK, demanding greater access to the food markets where products such as chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef are banned under EU rules.
The US laid out its aims for a trade deal to cut tariff and non-tariff barriers for US industrial and agricultural goods and reduce regulatory differences.
The Trump administration is seeking to eliminate or reduce barriers for US agricultural products and secure duty-free access for industrial goods.
TIG is not aiming to be Labour 2 though but SDP2, after all 3/12 of its MPs are ex Tories.
The Brexit Party though is aiming to be UKIP2 and almost all its leadership are ex UKIP
I don't think TIG is clear as to what it wants to be as yet - calling it SDP 2 may be a slightly pejorative term but it's also inaccurate. I'd like to see what ideas and policies it has beyond Brexit and whether they can agree on something that isn't either existing LAB, CON or LD policy or is a re-hash of Blair-ism.
SDP2, New Labour 2 or Cameroons2 all in the same place ideologically and TIG's target market
Apropos of nothing, who is the worst human being out of: 1. George Galloway 2. Piers Morgan 3. Andrew Bridgen 4. Christopher Chope 5. Chris Williamson
I rank them 1,3,5,4,2 (first being worst). But open to persuasion.
6. Mark Francois
The answer is always David Lammy
Beg to disagree. Christopher Chope and David Lammy are utterly decent human beings. I often disagree with them, and no doubt they disagree with each other. Incidentally, speaking from a centre right traditionalist position in many ways I think David Lammy is about correct in his recent controversy.
Christopher Chope a decent human being? Given that his private member bill policy is to object to all bills except those from his mates you really can't call him decent....
Frankly he is about the biggest embarrassment in the Tory party and that has a lot of competition.
I think you will find that Messrs Chope, and indeed Lammy, are more interesting and complicated than this.
Farage is box office and will get the BBC airtime advantage over UKIP.
The problem with seeing any EU Parliament elections as a mini-referendum is Labour. Their official policy headline will still be formally for Brexit (albeit a Labour unicorn Brexit) but many of their members and voters will see their support as being for voting Remain in another referendum.
Yes Farage interviews very well, and has [mostly] avoided the taint of the completely bonkers people remaining in UKIP. UKIP are two steps from using banners and large gold eagles, IMO.
That'll be a difficult editorial policy question for Ofcom and the BBC in assessing "demonstrable electoral support". From past experience, UKIP would get the nod and a great deal of airtime on the basis of the last EU election (probably tempered by somewhat quieter GE's since). But there'd be a counter-argument from Farage that UKIP's moved a long way since then, and he's the continuity act.
If you accepted that, though, you'd have the same argument from Chukka that he's the true inheritor of the Miliband dynasty!
Yes, there’s going to be an almighty bunfight between the parties, the Electoral Commission and the broadcasters over rights to airtime if the EU elections go ahead.
The TIG group don’t even have a registered party, which in an election based on party lists is somewhat sub-optimal.
Indeed so. It is far from clear that the Brexit Party and the Tiggers would have any more entitlement to coverage from the Broadcasters than - say - the Literal Democrats.
Apropos of nothing, who is the worst human being out of: 1. George Galloway 2. Piers Morgan 3. Andrew Bridgen 4. Christopher Chope 5. Chris Williamson
I rank them 1,3,5,4,2 (first being worst). But open to persuasion.
6. Mark Francois
The answer is always David Lammy
Beg to disagree. Christopher Chope and David Lammy are utterly decent human beings. I often disagree with them, and no doubt they disagree with each other. Incidentally, speaking from a centre right traditionalist position in many ways I think David Lammy is about correct in his recent controversy.
Christopher Chope a decent human being? Given that his private member bill policy is to object to all bills except those from his mates you really can't call him decent....
Frankly he is about the biggest embarrassment in the Tory party and that has a lot of competition.
I think you will find that Messrs Chope, and indeed Lammy, are more interesting and complicated than this.
You could make that argument for Chope if he yelled "Object" to his mates backbench bills as well.
I haven't updated you on my ongoing project to build a bigger LEGO Bucket Wheel Excavator: it currently has eight tracks (of the same size as the two of the original), and the bucket arm is a metre long - and fully functions...
It's just waiting for me to get a running or walking injury so I have time to work on it (and the fact the little 'un keeps on adding pieces that jam the mechanism).
Chris Grayling's time at justice should be a black mark against David Cameron.
Fixed that for you.
Is there a department Grayling has ever done well at? Why on Earth he has gotten to the Cabinet and stayed there is beyond me.
Contrast with people like Gove at Justice and the difference is remarkable.
Why Grayling has ever been a Minister is a mystery? Why?? He shouldn't be let out of the house without a carer to guide him across the road. Incompetent is too kind a word for him.
One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent - he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will only ever cause mischief
The US has outlined its objectives for a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK, demanding greater access to the food markets where products such as chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef are banned under EU rules.
The US laid out its aims for a trade deal to cut tariff and non-tariff barriers for US industrial and agricultural goods and reduce regulatory differences.
The Trump administration is seeking to eliminate or reduce barriers for US agricultural products and secure duty-free access for industrial goods.
That doesn't seem an unreasonable starting point from their point of view, although IMO there's never going to be a grand trade deal with the USA, far too many red lines on both sides.
What's much more likely in practice is a number of win-win sectoral agreements, such as on high-tech manufactured and capital goods (cars, machinery), pharmacuticals, financial services and a number of other areas where regulatory equivalence could possibly be made to work.
On agriculture we could remove tariffs but insist on standards, so to allow e.g. USDA beef to be imported but not the mass-market GM crap they feed themselves on.
The USA also have a habit of insisting on one-sided dispute resolution systems, which we're never going to agree to either.
In the short term, being out of the EU (and out of Trump's trade war with them) could be almost the equivalent of a good trade deal.
The US has outlined its objectives for a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK, demanding greater access to the food markets where products such as chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef are banned under EU rules.
The US laid out its aims for a trade deal to cut tariff and non-tariff barriers for US industrial and agricultural goods and reduce regulatory differences.
The Trump administration is seeking to eliminate or reduce barriers for US agricultural products and secure duty-free access for industrial goods.
That doesn't seem an unreasonable starting point from their point of view, although IMO there's never going to be a grand trade deal with the USA, far too many red lines on both sides.
What's much more likely in practice is a number of win-win sectoral agreements, such as on high-tech manufactured and capital goods (cars, machinery), pharmacuticals, financial services and a number of other areas where regulatory equivalence could possibly be made to work.
On agriculture we could remove tariffs but insist on standards, so to allow e.g. USDA beef to be imported but not the mass-market GM crap they feed themselves on.
The USA also have a habit of insisting on one-sided dispute resolution systems, which we're never going to agree to either.
In the short term, being out of the EU (and out of Trump's trade war with them) could be almost the equivalent of a good trade deal.
It is a great idea. Let us leave one trading arrangement where we are an equal partner to one where we have to suck it up from the senior partner, the US. Take back control? No just give it to Donald Trump.
Chris Grayling's time at justice should be a black mark against David Cameron.
Fixed that for you.
Is there a department Grayling has ever done well at? Why on Earth he has gotten to the Cabinet and stayed there is beyond me.
Contrast with people like Gove at Justice and the difference is remarkable.
Why Grayling has ever been a Minister is a mystery? Why?? He shouldn't be let out of the house without a carer to guide him across the road. Incompetent is too kind a word for him.
One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent - he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will only ever cause mischief
Apropos of nothing, who is the worst human being out of: 1. George Galloway 2. Piers Morgan 3. Andrew Bridgen 4. Christopher Chope 5. Chris Williamson
I rank them 1,3,5,4,2 (first being worst). But open to persuasion.
6. Mark Francois
The answer is always David Lammy
Beg to disagree. Christopher Chope and David Lammy are utterly decent human beings. I often disagree with them, and no doubt they disagree with each other. Incidentally, speaking from a centre right traditionalist position in many ways I think David Lammy is about correct in his recent controversy.
Christopher Chope a decent human being? Given that his private member bill policy is to object to all bills except those from his mates you really can't call him decent....
Frankly he is about the biggest embarrassment in the Tory party and that has a lot of competition.
Apropos of nothing, who is the worst human being out of: 1. George Galloway 2. Piers Morgan 3. Andrew Bridgen 4. Christopher Chope 5. Chris Williamson
I rank them 1,3,5,4,2 (first being worst). But open to persuasion.
6. Mark Francois
The answer is always David Lammy
Beg to disagree. Christopher Chope and David Lammy are utterly decent human beings. I often disagree with them, and no doubt they disagree with each other. Incidentally, speaking from a centre right traditionalist position in many ways I think David Lammy is about correct in his recent controversy.
Christopher Chope a decent human being? Given that his private member bill policy is to object to all bills except those from his mates you really can't call him decent....
Frankly he is about the biggest embarrassment in the Tory party and that has a lot of competition.
I think you will find that Messrs Chope, and indeed Lammy, are more interesting and complicated than this.
You could make that argument for Chope if he yelled "Object" to his mates backbench bills as well.
TIG is not aiming to be Labour 2 though but SDP2, after all 3/12 of its MPs are ex Tories.
The Brexit Party though is aiming to be UKIP2 and almost all its leadership are ex UKIP
I don't think TIG is clear as to what it wants to be as yet - calling it SDP 2 may be a slightly pejorative term but it's also inaccurate. I'd like to see what ideas and policies it has beyond Brexit and whether they can agree on something that isn't either existing LAB, CON or LD policy or is a re-hash of Blair-ism.
SDP2, New Labour 2 or Cameroons2 all in the same place ideologically and TIG's target market
You are right there Mr. HYUFD. Otherwise known as the sensible centre. Whether they can persuade those right of centre to take the risk of a Corbyn government will be the challenge with our antiquated electoral system.
Chris Grayling's time at justice should be a black mark against David Cameron.
Fixed that for you.
Is there a department Grayling has ever done well at? Why on Earth he has gotten to the Cabinet and stayed there is beyond me.
Contrast with people like Gove at Justice and the difference is remarkable.
Why Grayling has ever been a Minister is a mystery? Why?? He shouldn't be let out of the house without a carer to guide him across the road. Incompetent is too kind a word for him.
One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent - he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will only ever cause mischief
The problem with that is the definition of 'stupid': most of us, however intelligent, are stupid at when it comes to one thing or another: and I'd argue the more highly qualified someone is, they more generally stupid they become.
For instance, in Hammerstein-Equord's role, you might have someone who couldn't devise a military attack strategy that wouldn't get the army slaughtered, but might be exceptionally able at logistics, or at deciphering codes.
IMO 'Stupidity', especially amongst the intelligent, is often a sign they are in the wrong role - or have misjudged their capabilities. The real stupidity comes in not recognising it - and that's a human failing m,any of us have.
I haven't updated you on my ongoing project to build a bigger LEGO Bucket Wheel Excavator: it currently has eight tracks (of the same size as the two of the original), and the bucket arm is a metre long - and fully functions...
It's just waiting for me to get a running or walking injury so I have time to work on it (and the fact the little 'un keeps on adding pieces that jam the mechanism).
I figured I should do it before July this year, for obvious reasons. Your large bucket wheel sounds like a good project too, have fun
Chris Grayling's time at justice should be a black mark against David Cameron.
Fixed that for you.
Is there a department Grayling has ever done well at? Why on Earth he has gotten to the Cabinet and stayed there is beyond me.
Contrast with people like Gove at Justice and the difference is remarkable.
Why Grayling has ever been a Minister is a mystery? Why?? He shouldn't be let out of the house without a carer to guide him across the road. Incompetent is too kind a word for him.
One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent - he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will only ever cause mischief
Chris Grayling's time at justice should be a black mark against David Cameron.
Fixed that for you.
Is there a department Grayling has ever done well at? Why on Earth he has gotten to the Cabinet and stayed there is beyond me.
Contrast with people like Gove at Justice and the difference is remarkable.
Why Grayling has ever been a Minister is a mystery? Why?? He shouldn't be let out of the house without a carer to guide him across the road. Incompetent is too kind a word for him.
One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent - he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will only ever cause mischief
That doesn't seem an unreasonable starting point from their point of view, although IMO there's never going to be a grand trade deal with the USA, far too many red lines on both sides.
What's much more likely in practice is a number of win-win sectoral agreements, such as on high-tech manufactured and capital goods (cars, machinery), pharmacuticals, financial services and a number of other areas where regulatory equivalence could possibly be made to work.
On agriculture we could remove tariffs but insist on standards, so to allow e.g. USDA beef to be imported but not the mass-market GM crap they feed themselves on.
The USA also have a habit of insisting on one-sided dispute resolution systems, which we're never going to agree to either.
In the short term, being out of the EU (and out of Trump's trade war with them) could be almost the equivalent of a good trade deal.
It is a great idea. Let us leave one trading arrangement where we are an equal partner to one where we have to suck it up from the senior partner, the US. Take back control? No just give it to Donald Trump.
That's not what I said at all. I said that there's little chance of a comprehensive trade deal that doesn't make us Trump's bitch, so what we should do in practice is look at agreements in sectors where it's relatively straightforward to allow regulatory equivalence in practice.
Including free movement from Africa to Europe Guy?
Italy, Hungary and Poland will all definitely veto this.
Why? it is an FTA he is advocating on his presentation, not membership of the Single Market. We already have tariff free deals with 56 mostly African LDCs via Everything But Arms.
Apropos of nothing, who is the worst human being out of: 1. George Galloway 2. Piers Morgan 3. Andrew Bridgen 4. Christopher Chope 5. Chris Williamson
I rank them 1,3,5,4,2 (first being worst). But open to persuasion.
6. Mark Francois
The answer is always David Lammy
Beg to disagree. Christopher Chope and David Lammy are utterly decent human beings. I often disagree with them, and no doubt they disagree with each other. Incidentally, speaking from a centre right traditionalist position in many ways I think David Lammy is about correct in his recent controversy.
Christopher Chope a decent human being? Given that his private member bill policy is to object to all bills except those from his mates you really can't call him decent....
Frankly he is about the biggest embarrassment in the Tory party and that has a lot of competition.
I think you will find that Messrs Chope, and indeed Lammy, are more interesting and complicated than this.
You could make that argument for Chope if he yelled "Object" to his mates backbench bills as well.
Well it's fixable by leaving it open for a month finding out which other CLP's agree with them and kicking the entire CLP out of the party.
Other than that yep - the Labour party clearly has a antisemitism issue that has taken hold of the body and is going to be utterly impossible to remove.
It is even worse than that (terrible though the jew-hating is). The root of this is belief in mad conspiracy theories about how the world works and also defending the Leader and the Party in all circumstances no matter how terrible the morals involved are. No personal compromise is too great in order to show support of the leader and his power to revolutionise the UK.
This is Leninism. Pure and simple.
Who knows who the next target will be, especially if they are in government? But whichever group gets targeted (I'd guess journalists, then academics), then all the CLPs will support whatever is being done by these kinds of numbers.
Yes - if they get in it will be ugly, very ugly.
Short of a big majority or a big clearout of moderate MPs, the left won't have control of Parliament and the right will have the same potential leverage that the ERG has achieved over Tory governments.
What, enabling extension of Article 50 and a delay to Brexit?
Apologies if this has already been floated on here - it is such an obvious suggestion that I bet it has - but why not treat the Euro elections, if they happen, as a proxy for REF2?
Run them between just 2 parties, one called 'Leave Means Leave!' and the other called 'Storrrp Brexit!' and see who comes out on top.
Landslide for either settles the matter. If it's close, ok back in the doo doo, but nothing lost.
The US has outlined its objectives for a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK, demanding greater access to the food markets where products such as chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef are banned under EU rules.
The US laid out its aims for a trade deal to cut tariff and non-tariff barriers for US industrial and agricultural goods and reduce regulatory differences.
The Trump administration is seeking to eliminate or reduce barriers for US agricultural products and secure duty-free access for industrial goods.
That doesn't seem an unreasonable starting point from their point of view, although IMO there's never going to be a grand trade deal with the USA, far too many red lines on both sides.
What's much more likely in practice is a number of win-win sectoral agreements, such as on high-tech manufactured and capital goods (cars, machinery), pharmacuticals, financial services and a number of other areas where regulatory equivalence could possibly be made to work.
On agriculture we could remove tariffs but insist on standards, so to allow e.g. USDA beef to be imported but not the mass-market GM crap they feed themselves on.
The USA also have a habit of insisting on one-sided dispute resolution systems, which we're never going to agree to either.
In the short term, being out of the EU (and out of Trump's trade war with them) could be almost the equivalent of a good trade deal.
It is a great idea. Let us leave one trading arrangement where we are an equal partner to one where we have to suck it up from the senior partner, the US. Take back control? No just give it to Donald Trump.
There's no reason to sign up to a trade deal with the USA. We run a hefty trade surplus without one.
The only way of leaving is by accepting it's worse than Remaining, which is what I think Lilico intended to write. That's why a bunch of the more aware voted Remain. It's better than Leave.
The US has outlined its objectives for a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK, demanding greater access to the food markets where products such as chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef are banned under EU rules.
The US laid out its aims for a trade deal to cut tariff and non-tariff barriers for US industrial and agricultural goods and reduce regulatory differences.
The Trump administration is seeking to eliminate or reduce barriers for US agricultural products and secure duty-free access for industrial goods.
That doesn't seem an unreasonable starting point from their point of view, although IMO there's never going to be a grand trade deal with the USA, far too many red lines on both sides.
What's much more likely in practice is a number of win-win sectoral agreements, such as on high-tech manufactured and capital goods (cars, machinery), pharmacuticals, financial services and a number of other areas where regulatory equivalence could possibly be made to work.
On agriculture we could remove tariffs but insist on standards, so to allow e.g. USDA beef to be imported but not the mass-market GM crap they feed themselves on.
The USA also have a habit of insisting on one-sided dispute resolution systems, which we're never going to agree to either.
In the short term, being out of the EU (and out of Trump's trade war with them) could be almost the equivalent of a good trade deal.
It is a great idea. Let us leave one trading arrangement where we are an equal partner to one where we have to suck it up from the senior partner, the US. Take back control? No just give it to Donald Trump.
There's no reason to sign up to a trade deal with the USA. We run a hefty trade surplus without one.
Apropos of nothing, who is the worst human being out of: 1. George Galloway 2. Piers Morgan 3. Andrew Bridgen 4. Christopher Chope 5. Chris Williamson
I rank them 1,3,5,4,2 (first being worst). But open to persuasion.
6. Mark Francois
Steve Baker needs to be on the list. And Seamus Milne.
I nearly put Seamus on there. But he just didn't meet the 'skin crawl' test, however unpleasant he is.
I think I would have to put Chope at the top. Whilst the others are all vile because of what they say, only Chope has made use of his position to actually cause material harm to people through his actions.
Not that I particularly trust Buzzfeed as a source, but it's quite clear from this week that Watson is trying to work out whether the disease is actually curable or if it's time to split the party in two.
Apropos of nothing, who is the worst human being out of: 1. George Galloway 2. Piers Morgan 3. Andrew Bridgen 4. Christopher Chope 5. Chris Williamson
I rank them 1,3,5,4,2 (first being worst). But open to persuasion.
6. Mark Francois
Steve Baker needs to be on the list. And Seamus Milne.
I nearly put Seamus on there. But he just didn't meet the 'skin crawl' test, however unpleasant he is.
I think I would have to put Chope at the top. Whilst the others are all vile because of what they say, only Chope has made use of his position to actually cause material harm to people through his actions.
The thing is that Chope's supposed principles are fine. The willingness of an MP to stand up for his principles while others in his party pressure him not to is also fine.
What isn't ok is the fact Chope is a flaming hypocrite. He hasn't objected to his mates bills so he has no principle.
Pathetic morons. They are no better than Momentum.
I thought Fallon was a Brexit hardliner.
I suppose any local activist with a grudge can now shout 'Remainer' and Leave.EU will pile in screaming for deselection, regardless of what the MP's actual views are. It's all a bit like the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials.
Pathetic morons. They are no better than Momentum.
I thought Fallon was a Brexit hardliner.
I suppose any local activist with a grudge can now shout 'Remainer' and Leave.EU will pile in screaming for deselection, regardless of what the MP's actual views are. It's all a bit like the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials.
Rees-Mogg had better watch out he's not next on the list.
Apropos of nothing, who is the worst human being out of: 1. George Galloway 2. Piers Morgan 3. Andrew Bridgen 4. Christopher Chope 5. Chris Williamson
I rank them 1,3,5,4,2 (first being worst). But open to persuasion.
6. Mark Francois
Steve Baker needs to be on the list. And Seamus Milne.
I nearly put Seamus on there. But he just didn't meet the 'skin crawl' test, however unpleasant he is.
I think I would have to put Chope at the top. Whilst the others are all vile because of what they say, only Chope has made use of his position to actually cause material harm to people through his actions.
Corbyn should be top. He is the Poisonous Puppet Master. He gives strength to the idiots doing His work.
The US has outlined its objectives for a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK, demanding greater access to the food markets where products such as chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef are banned under EU rules.
The US laid out its aims for a trade deal to cut tariff and non-tariff barriers for US industrial and agricultural goods and reduce regulatory differences.
The Trump administration is seeking to eliminate or reduce barriers for US agricultural products and secure duty-free access for industrial goods.
That doesn't seem an unreasonable starting point from their point of view, although IMO there's never going to be a grand trade deal with the USA, far too many red lines on both sides.
What's much more likely in practice is a number of win-win sectoral agreements, such as on high-tech manufactured and capital goods (cars, machinery), pharmacuticals, financial services and a number of other areas where regulatory equivalence could possibly be made to work.
On agriculture we could remove tariffs but insist on standards, so to allow e.g. USDA beef to be imported but not the mass-market GM crap they feed themselves on.
The USA also have a habit of insisting on one-sided dispute resolution systems, which we're never going to agree to either.
In the short term, being out of the EU (and out of Trump's trade war with them) could be almost the equivalent of a good trade deal.
It is a great idea. Let us leave one trading arrangement where we are an equal partner to one where we have to suck it up from the senior partner, the US. Take back control? No just give it to Donald Trump.
There's no reason to sign up to a trade deal with the USA. We run a hefty trade surplus without one.
Funnily enough, I think UK and US stats disagree with each other on this. Although the EU doesn't have an overarching FTA with the US, it does have a number of bilateral agreements. We should expect the US to push hard when we try to roll them over for a separate UK. We will be squashed between the US the the EU.
Apologies if this has already been floated on here - it is such an obvious suggestion that I bet it has - but why not treat the Euro elections, if they happen, as a proxy for REF2?
Run them between just 2 parties, one called 'Leave Means Leave!' and the other called 'Storrrp Brexit!' and see who comes out on top.
Landslide for either settles the matter. If it's close, ok back in the doo doo, but nothing lost.
Not that I particularly trust Buzzfeed as a source, but it's quite clear from this week that Watson is trying to work out whether the disease is actually curable or if it's time to split the party in two.
If he believes the latter it might still be best for him to try to achieve the former in order to bring as many people with him as possible.
Apropos of nothing, who is the worst human being out of: 1. George Galloway 2. Piers Morgan 3. Andrew Bridgen 4. Christopher Chope 5. Chris Williamson
I rank them 1,3,5,4,2 (first being worst). But open to persuasion.
6. Mark Francois
Steve Baker needs to be on the list. And Seamus Milne.
I nearly put Seamus on there. But he just didn't meet the 'skin crawl' test, however unpleasant he is.
I think I would have to put Chope at the top. Whilst the others are all vile because of what they say, only Chope has made use of his position to actually cause material harm to people through his actions.
Chope was an excellent council leader who has transformed himself into a prat.
The only way of leaving is by accepting it's worse than Remaining, which is what I think Lilico intended to write. That's why a bunch of the more aware voted Remain. It's better than Leave.
Remain Now may be better than Leave Now. But what about the future?
We have no crystal ball. What we can see is that the EU has many fundamental problems as they try to forge an ever closer union. They may be able to pull together amicably or they may require force (economic or military) to build it. Human history strongly suggests the latter - either to forge it (as per the US Civil War) or prevent its breakup (Yugoslavia). Personally I want no part of that.
Mr. Max, I am quite tempted by the 2.5, Ladbrokes, on a deal passing the Commons at the next time of asking. Was 3.5 a few days ago.
I still don't see a deal passing - Labour are against as are enough hard core ERG members for it to not go ahead. What I do see (as suggested earlier today) is a referendum being added and the labour then abstaining on the basis that the deal would go ahead if the deal won the Deal or Remain referendum.
In the latter half of WWII, the Germans came up with phenomenal tank designs but (for various different reasons) could not make them reliable nor in sufficient numbers. As a result there were not many Tigers, King Tigers, Panthers et al. This means that individual tanks can be identified.
Your tank is Tiger 812 (nicknamed "Tiki") of the 8/SSPzRgt 2, a regiment better known as "Das Reich". This bunch of murderous bastards were immortalised in Max Hastings' book also called "Das Reich", which detailed their attempts to make it from their posting to the Normandy beaches to help repel D-Day. Their route was crucially delayed by Allied bombing, British special forces, and the French Resistance, some of whom died hideous deaths in their efforts to halt the German advance, including the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre.
Apologies if this has already been floated on here - it is such an obvious suggestion that I bet it has - but why not treat the Euro elections, if they happen, as a proxy for REF2?
Run them between just 2 parties, one called 'Leave Means Leave!' and the other called 'Storrrp Brexit!' and see who comes out on top.
Landslide for either settles the matter. If it's close, ok back in the doo doo, but nothing lost.
It's something I was talking about last night. If the euro elections go ahead, there won't be a second referendum. Because if its a strong remain turnout the leavers in Parliament will take whatever they can get. And if its a strong leave turnout I suspect the fervour for a "people's" vote will die out pretty fast, once its clear what the "people" will actually say. And of course if its close, we know that another referendum will solve nothing.
The only way of leaving is by accepting it's worse than Remaining, which is what I think Lilico intended to write. That's why a bunch of the more aware voted Remain. It's better than Leave.
Remain Now may be better than Leave Now. But what about the future?
We have no crystal ball. What we can see is that the EU has many fundamental problems as they try to forge an ever closer union. They may be able to pull together amicably or they may require force (economic or military) to build it. Human history strongly suggests the latter - either to forge it (as per the US Civil War) or prevent its breakup (Yugoslavia). Personally I want no part of that.
Don't forget our own history of forming a union. Which makes it more amusing to me that Nationalists are so pro-EU.
Apologies if this has already been floated on here - it is such an obvious suggestion that I bet it has - but why not treat the Euro elections, if they happen, as a proxy for REF2?
Run them between just 2 parties, one called 'Leave Means Leave!' and the other called 'Storrrp Brexit!' and see who comes out on top.
Landslide for either settles the matter. If it's close, ok back in the doo doo, but nothing lost.
It's something I was talking about last night. If the euro elections go ahead, there won't be a second referendum. Because if its a strong remain turnout the leavers in Parliament will take whatever they can get. And if its a strong leave turnout I suspect the fervour for a "people's" vote will die out pretty fast, once its clear what the "people" will actually say. And of course if its close, we know that another referendum will solve nothing.
If there's a strong Remain turnout, the Leavers in parliament won't have the numbers to "take" any Brexit.
Apropos of nothing, who is the worst human being out of: 1. George Galloway 2. Piers Morgan 3. Andrew Bridgen 4. Christopher Chope 5. Chris Williamson
I rank them 1,3,5,4,2 (first being worst). But open to persuasion.
6. Mark Francois
The answer is always David Lammy
Beg to disagree. Christopher Chope and David Lammy are utterly decent human beings. I often disagree with them, and no doubt they disagree with each other. Incidentally, speaking from a centre right traditionalist position in many ways I think David Lammy is about correct in his recent controversy.
Christopher Chope a decent human being? Given that his private member bill policy is to object to all bills except those from his mates you really can't call him decent....
Frankly he is about the biggest embarrassment in the Tory party and that has a lot of competition.
He’s a douche. But not the “worst human being”
As a point of order, it was posed as "worst human being out of...", so a relative rather than absolute ranking.
The only way of leaving is by accepting it's worse than Remaining, which is what I think Lilico intended to write. That's why a bunch of the more aware voted Remain. It's better than Leave.
Remain Now may be better than Leave Now. But what about the future?
We have no crystal ball. What we can see is that the EU has many fundamental problems as they try to forge an ever closer union. They may be able to pull together amicably or they may require force (economic or military) to build it. Human history strongly suggests the latter - either to forge it (as per the US Civil War) or prevent its breakup (Yugoslavia). Personally I want no part of that.
Don't forget our own history of forming a union. Which makes it more amusing to me that Nationalists are so pro-EU.
Yes. I strongly approve of devolution as much as possible. Decisions should be made as close to the people as possible, subject to efficiencies and value for money - but the fact that the last military action on British soil against a hostile power was either Culloden or Fishguard depending on where you look - certainly over 220 years ago - makes us blessed compared to most parts of the World.
Every time May's team leaks signs of hope the EU or the DUP or whoever are quick to respond. If all the EU are doing is giving a straight no to all the demands on the backstop what the hell is taking so long? Getting in games of backgammon?
The only way of leaving is by accepting it's worse than Remaining, which is what I think Lilico intended to write. That's why a bunch of the more aware voted Remain. It's better than Leave.
Remain Now may be better than Leave Now. But what about the future?
We have no crystal ball. What we can see is that the EU has many fundamental problems as they try to forge an ever closer union. They may be able to pull together amicably or they may require force (economic or military) to build it. Human history strongly suggests the latter - either to forge it (as per the US Civil War) or prevent its breakup (Yugoslavia). Personally I want no part of that.
Don't forget our own history of forming a union. Which makes it more amusing to me that Nationalists are so pro-EU.
It's a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend. When the UK was negotiating to join the EU, Scottish and Irish nationalists were opposed.
The only way of leaving is by accepting it's worse than Remaining, which is what I think Lilico intended to write. That's why a bunch of the more aware voted Remain. It's better than Leave.
Remain Now may be better than Leave Now. But what about the future?
We have no crystal ball. What we can see is that the EU has many fundamental problems as they try to forge an ever closer union. They may be able to pull together amicably or they may require force (economic or military) to build it. Human history strongly suggests the latter - either to forge it (as per the US Civil War) or prevent its breakup (Yugoslavia). Personally I want no part of that.
Absolutely. There has been far too little focus on where the EU is going (on its way to oblivion?).
Every time May's team leaks signs of hope the EU or the DUP or whoever are quick to respond. If all the EU are doing is giving a straight no to all the demands on the backstop what the hell is taking so long? Getting in games of backgammon?
The Commission has probably had time to develop a whole syllabus to help educate visiting British ministers on the backstop. Cox is currently up to Module 5 - "Sanitary and phytosanitary measures" and hoping to become a Certified Backstop Expert in time for the March deadline.
Not that I particularly trust Buzzfeed as a source, but it's quite clear from this week that Watson is trying to work out whether the disease is actually curable or if it's time to split the party in two.
If he believes the latter it might still be best for him to try to achieve the former in order to bring as many people with him as possible.
And there's no way on earth Watson didn't want that meeting known about.
Not that I particularly trust Buzzfeed as a source, but it's quite clear from this week that Watson is trying to work out whether the disease is actually curable or if it's time to split the party in two.
If he believes the latter it might still be best for him to try to achieve the former in order to bring as many people with him as possible.
And there's no way on earth Watson didn't want that meeting known about.
I'd guess Alex Wickham's source for the news is most likely err... Tom Watson.
Comments
While having lunch in my local café in the Barking Road, I was musing on the malevolent power of democracy. BBC News was showing pictures from the Indo-Pakistan border with the release of the captured Indian pilot apparently underway.
Yet speaking to correspondents in both Delhi and Islamabad it almost sounded as though the public in both countries had been disappointed by events. In Pakistan initial praise for Imran Khan's gesture toward Delhi had been replaced by disappointment the apparent military advantage had not been pressed home while Modi faced criticism he had allowed Pakistan to get away with their violations of the LoC.
In democracies, the mob sometimes rules and can push sensible politicians into dangerous places as said politicians feel obliged to follow the public mood. In a democracy, the mood of an angry and resentful people can take you down some dangerous paths.
That's not to praise dictatorship per se. Dictators are capable of doing stupid things and there are no checks or balances to stop them. When I think of how countries have been transformed, on the one hand you have Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia or Mao's China where millions suffered as the State forcibly imposed an ideology on the economic, social and cultural profile of the people and the country.
Yet it happens in democracies too - the two World Wars changed British society irrevocably but so did Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher as their Governments brought in radical changes backed by large Parliamentary majorities.
It's not a faultless analogy - I'd argue the 1950s saw great economic and social changes but the cultural changes came later.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1101433384117698561
https://dominiccummings.com/2019/02/21/on-the-referendum-29-genetics-genomics-predictions-the-gretzky-game-a-chance-for-britain-to-help-the-world/
"It combines, inter alia, all the political benefits of focus on the NHS, helping domestic technology companies, incentivising global investment, doing something that shows the world that Britain is (contra the May/Hammond outlook) open to science and high skilled immigrants, it is based on intrinsic advantages that Europe and America will find hard to overcome over a decade, it supplies (NB. MPs/spads) a never-ending string of heart-wrenching good news stories, and, very rarely in SW1, those pushing it would be seen as leading something of global importance. It will, therefore, obviously be rejected by a section of Conservative MPs who much prefer to live in a parallel world, who hate anything to do with science and who are ignorant about how new industries and wealth are really created. "
The Brexit Party though is aiming to be UKIP2 and almost all its leadership are ex UKIP
The TIG group don’t even have a registered party, which in an election based on party lists is somewhat sub-optimal.
No amount of management bollocks can make up for this lack.
May I direct you to this modest reflection - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/2018/08/ - and a politician who understood this lesson instinctively.
Including free movement from Africa to Europe Guy?
What chance that the EU force us to partake in the elections anyway, as condition of a three-month extension until the end of June?
The new Parliament meets on 2nd July, and if for any reason we are still members on that date it creates an almighty problem for them if it's not constituted correctly. There's also the issue that a number of the UK seats have been re-allocated elsewhere, so the elections elsewhere will take those new seats into account.
This may cause the EU side to only offer a longer extention, or to offer a shorter one as a strictly one-time offer, on condition that the Treaty was formally ratified (not just a single 'meaningful' vote in the Commons) by the UK before 29th March.
EU source for discussion:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180607IPR05241/number-of-meps-to-be-reduced-after-eu-elections-in-2019
What's missing is what happens if at the time of the election in May, there is some uncertainty as to whether or not the UK will still be a member in July.
The US laid out its aims for a trade deal to cut tariff and non-tariff barriers for US industrial and agricultural goods and reduce regulatory differences.
The Trump administration is seeking to eliminate or reduce barriers for US agricultural products and secure duty-free access for industrial goods.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/01/us-seeks-greater-access-to-uk-food-markets-after-brexit-trade-deal
Freedom of movement from Libya and Somalia, what could possibly go wrong.
https://shop.lego.com/en-US/product/LEGO-NASA-Apollo-Saturn-V-21309
I haven't updated you on my ongoing project to build a bigger LEGO Bucket Wheel Excavator: it currently has eight tracks (of the same size as the two of the original), and the bucket arm is a metre long - and fully functions...
It's just waiting for me to get a running or walking injury so I have time to work on it (and the fact the little 'un keeps on adding pieces that jam the mechanism).
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord
What's much more likely in practice is a number of win-win sectoral agreements, such as on high-tech manufactured and capital goods (cars, machinery), pharmacuticals, financial services and a number of other areas where regulatory equivalence could possibly be made to work.
On agriculture we could remove tariffs but insist on standards, so to allow e.g. USDA beef to be imported but not the mass-market GM crap they feed themselves on.
The USA also have a habit of insisting on one-sided dispute resolution systems, which we're never going to agree to either.
In the short term, being out of the EU (and out of Trump's trade war with them) could be almost the equivalent of a good trade deal.
For instance, in Hammerstein-Equord's role, you might have someone who couldn't devise a military attack strategy that wouldn't get the army slaughtered, but might be exceptionally able at logistics, or at deciphering codes.
IMO 'Stupidity', especially amongst the intelligent, is often a sign they are in the wrong role - or have misjudged their capabilities. The real stupidity comes in not recognising it - and that's a human failing m,any of us have.
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1101472096893497344?s=21
Why don't his mates bills deserve it?
Run them between just 2 parties, one called 'Leave Means Leave!' and the other called 'Storrrp Brexit!' and see who comes out on top.
Landslide for either settles the matter. If it's close, ok back in the doo doo, but nothing lost.
What isn't ok is the fact Chope is a flaming hypocrite. He hasn't objected to his mates bills so he has no principle.
Mr. Max, I am quite tempted by the 2.5, Ladbrokes, on a deal passing the Commons at the next time of asking. Was 3.5 a few days ago.
We have no crystal ball. What we can see is that the EU has many fundamental problems as they try to forge an ever closer union. They may be able to pull together amicably or they may require force (economic or military) to build it. Human history strongly suggests the latter - either to forge it (as per the US Civil War) or prevent its breakup (Yugoslavia). Personally I want no part of that.
Your tank is Tiger 812 (nicknamed "Tiki") of the 8/SSPzRgt 2, a regiment better known as "Das Reich". This bunch of murderous bastards were immortalised in Max Hastings' book also called "Das Reich", which detailed their attempts to make it from their posting to the Normandy beaches to help repel D-Day. Their route was crucially delayed by Allied bombing, British special forces, and the French Resistance, some of whom died hideous deaths in their efforts to halt the German advance, including the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre.
http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/185157-tiger-812-tiki/
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16115490-das-reich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre
https://twitter.com/wooferendum/status/1101246641477160961
*Might just be a big fluffy dog.