The great vacillator: Starmer needs to find some backbone – politicalbetting.com

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1317404866646626304?s=20
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1317405448681783296?s=20

CarlottaVance said:

twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1317404866646626304?s=20
twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1317405448681783296?s=20

I'm old enough to remember this being "the easiest deal in the world". Halcyon days.

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Good header but I view things differently. Lots of people with different agendas would like Starmer on their side. Civil libertarians want him opposing the spy bill. Remainers want him kicking up a fuss about Brexit. Freedom fretters want him to oppose lockdowns whilst others wish him to champion another big one. And of course for Corbynites any failure to oppose anything from Johnson is a craven betrayal of the class struggle.

So it has no doubt disappointed various people that he has not done these things. But the point is it doesn't matter right now. The next election is almost 4 years away. We don't need Labour policies or even the shape of the offering at this point. There are 2 unfolding disasters (our shambles of a Covid response and a sad looking Brexit outcome) which are owned lock stock & barrel by this Tory government. The catastrophic ramifications of these failures mean Labour should win the next election and Starmer is one lucky man to be leading Labour into it. PM is there for the taking.

There is one thing above all that he has to do to capitalize on his good fortune. He has to establish himself in the eyes of the public as a credible person to be PM. People have to look at him and go, "Yeah, I can imagine him at number 10. He'd be ok." That's all. Nothing to do with policy and little to do with left/right. The swing voters who decide elections don't get onto your policies unless that bar is cleared. You might think it’s a low bar but for a Labour leader it isn’t. The last 2 did not manage it. So I think this is the focus for Starmer and it’s the right one. If he succeeds, the rest will be a slam dunk.

I agree with David. It will be difficult to imagine him in No.10 if he is incapable of displaying leadership.
He need to pick his battles with the government, but he can’t avoid them all. Mere criticism isn’t leadership.

Indeed and the Tories have figured him out too. Showing him as a ditherer with no leadership and only hindsight which his own actions are reinforcing. It will take a while for that to filter into a public view of him but already more and more people do seem to be seeing his issues.

Cyclefree said:

On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?

Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.

It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.

OTOH, A bill which puts govts beyond the law will, one day in the future, be useful to a Labour govt.

He is a politician and he wants power. This bill adds more power to the govt of the day be it Blue or Red.

Do not make the mistake of believing that he is fighting for our liberties.

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. (Miss?) Rose, we're a densely populated island nation. New Zealand is sparsely populated. We're within swimming distance of the nearest continent. They are thousands of miles away.

Pointing out facts regarding the wildly different demographics and location of the United Kingdom and New Zealand is not bleating. It's useful and relevant information.

Unless you're using an a posteriori approach and have already determined the conclusion you desire.

Look at the video feeds or news coverage of the New Zealand election. No masks, no social distancing. Labour landslide. It looks like Britain in 1997.

New Zealand is one of the most isolated nations and least densely populated nations on earth, basically Wales stuck thousands of miles from anywhere in the south Pacific.

It is a totally different case from the UK which is one of the most densely populated nations on earth and of course Ardern effectively banned all tourism to New Zealand during lockdown making it even more isolated, it has also gone into recession now though clearly New Zealanders overall feel Arden did a good enough job containing Covid to be re elected and given a chance to continue for a second term

Ardern (or New Zealand) eliminated Covid-19, not just "did a good job". We could seek to learn from New Zealand (or from Japan, South Korea or even Germany) or we could simply dismiss them as irrelevant. New Zealand may be sparsely populated (a nebulous concept in itself, as averaging over urban and rural parts can be misleading). South Korea and Japan are populated by mindless automatons who wear masks at the drop of a hat and positively welcome government surveillance, unlike Britons who rose up against the tyranny of having more cctv cameras than anywhere else.

Britain has nothing to learn about masks, contact tracing, restricting flights and monitoring new arrivals. That's what's landed us here.

Back on-topic. Jacinda Ardern is a cautious, middle-of-the-road politician who does still have time for experts. Ardern, Biden, Starmer: is there a trend?

Ardern has charisma after a succession of boring New Zealand Labour leaders who lost, that is a key factor, neither Biden nor Starmer have a great deal of charisma.

Yes, we can learn something from New Zealand but South Korea is a better example as closer to the UK and has contained Covid cases like New Zealand with less economic damage

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/new-zealand-in-covid-recession-after-worst-quarterly-gdp-fall-on-record

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-economy-oecd/oecd-sees-south-korea-growth-to-outperform-all-others-this-year-idUKKCN2570NH

"South Korea is a better example as closer to the UK" but is not close at all. In fact every country except for a few very small islands is close to the UK than New Zealand.
Brazil is closer than NZ to the UK, but not many people are claiming that we should be using Brazil as a guiding example to the Covid Pandemic.

South Korea is a fairly good comparison in terms of size and population - and has an even larger capital city than we do.

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Good header but I view things differently. Lots of people with different agendas would like Starmer on their side. Civil libertarians want him opposing the spy bill. Remainers want him kicking up a fuss about Brexit. Freedom fretters want him to oppose lockdowns whilst others wish him to champion another big one. And of course for Corbynites any failure to oppose anything from Johnson is a craven betrayal of the class struggle.

So it has no doubt disappointed various people that he has not done these things. But the point is it doesn't matter right now. The next election is almost 4 years away. We don't need Labour policies or even the shape of the offering at this point. There are 2 unfolding disasters (our shambles of a Covid response and a sad looking Brexit outcome) which are owned lock stock & barrel by this Tory government. The catastrophic ramifications of these failures mean Labour should win the next election and Starmer is one lucky man to be leading Labour into it. PM is there for the taking.

There is one thing above all that he has to do to capitalize on his good fortune. He has to establish himself in the eyes of the public as a credible person to be PM. People have to look at him and go, "Yeah, I can imagine him at number 10. He'd be ok." That's all. Nothing to do with policy and little to do with left/right. The swing voters who decide elections don't get onto your policies unless that bar is cleared. You might think it’s a low bar but for a Labour leader it isn’t. The last 2 did not manage it. So I think this is the focus for Starmer and it’s the right one. If he succeeds, the rest will be a slam dunk.

I agree with David. It will be difficult to imagine him in No.10 if he is incapable of displaying leadership.
He need to pick his battles with the government, but he can’t avoid them all. Mere criticism isn’t leadership.

Indeed and the Tories have figured him out too. Showing him as a ditherer with no leadership and only hindsight which his own actions are reinforcing. It will take a while for that to filter into a public view of him but already more and more people do seem to be seeing his issues.

Too early to make that judgment.

But it’s a good header.

Cyclefree said:

I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.

Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?

If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.

There isn't much to say though, is there? No one defends the attacker, any more than they do the Lee Rigby murderers. The French police seem to have responded robustly, and the French Republic continues to advocate secularism. Macrons speech on this a day before is worth a read.

https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1317096548292038658?s=19

Standing up for secular liberal values in the face of cults of violent suppression of difference and diversity, including freedom of expression is a perpetual battle.

Last week I saw the new French film at our re-opened arts cinema* "Les Miserables", which references the Victor Hugo novel, but is really about policing the baniliue. Well worth seeking out, and a nuanced dissection of the tensions in French immigrant societies, including the role of Islamists in regulating youths when the law has lost authority.

* reasonably attended, well socially distanced, and great to be back watching a big screen again.

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Alistair said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

Fuck it, the market is on a "Trump good jag" and given that I think this is Biden high point of his polling I have cashed out enough to make my GOP liability zero. I will go back in on election night where I presume Trump will be odds on or something stupid.

You are probably correct. But I'm going to hang in there will old Joe.

Through skilful trading I've managed to take my above evens bet on the Dems to a below evens bet on the Dems.

By 'skilful' I of course mean idiotic.

So I am almost certainly wrong again.

The irony is in 2016 I played the market roller-coaster like a boss and on the day of the election I was sitting on an above evens bet on Clinton with here price at 1.16 ish. So I could have cashed out for a stonking risk free profit and failed to do so due to my arrogance and hubris.

Chill.
While no one can say Biden is a certainty to win, saying you’re almost certainly wrong is hyperbolic in the extreme.

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Nobody could be that stupid giving the moron party money to be more moronic.

Cyclefree said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Cyclefree said:

On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?

Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.

It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.

OTOH, A bill which puts govts beyond the law will, one day in the future, be useful to a Labour govt.

He is a politician and he wants power. This bill adds more power to the govt of the day be it Blue or Red.

Do not make the mistake of believing that he is fighting for our liberties.

Is anyone? The Lib Dem’s, for instance.....hello, hello.....

No. They have forgotten what their proper job is. Westminster is filled with self-serving apparatchiks in sufficient numbers that charismatic leaders can do what they want.

The only way to "drain the swamp" is to let them fail (successively) and hope that whilst they are in the wilderness, the loonies associated with the madder projects will be booted out, but it might be 10 or 15 years before that happens.

In terms of the UK, 10 or 15 years is not long, a mere blip in its history. For people, with hopes and dreams it is way, way too long.

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Casino_Royale said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.

Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?

If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.

I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.

Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.

You can't both attack the historical foundations on which those values are based and also vociferously defend them today - the former gravely undermines the latter.

This is the fundamental problem with Woke.

Liberal secularism arises from the Enlightenment, so a response to violent, absolutist, theocratic authority. Nothing wrong with defending those values against both Nativist and Islamic reactionaries.

It is amusing that after all the psychodrama of the past five years that the UK government saying trade talks are over and we are going to WTO (even if not entirely believed by everyone) is now the secondary minor news to this weekend.

Cyclefree said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.

Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?

If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.

I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.

Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.

Well, I have set out what I would like to do pretty extensively on here back in 2015 when the Charlie Hebdo killings happened.

But three things we should do:-

1. We should not make the upholding of free speech something which only brave individuals do - at the cost of threats and, sometimes, their lives. When those cartoonists were killed or the Danish cartoonist attacked every paper in the country, in Europe, in free liberal societies should have published them. Solidarity in numbers. Instead we cravenly self-censored ourselves and are still doing it. Look at how much effort it took to defend those Birmingham schools, for instance. (See also http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/21/rendering-unto-caesar/.)
2. The Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be withdrawn and rewritten. As of now, it effectively permits censorship by religions by effectively deeming criticism of a religion a hate crime.
3. Those who incite the sort of thinking and behaviour carried out by this terrorist should be prosecuted.

Has the question been asked directly as to whether publishing the Hebdo cartoons would have been illegal under the Scottish bill ?

Beibheirli_C said:

Cyclefree said:

On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?

Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.

It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.

OTOH, A bill which puts govts beyond the law will, one day in the future, be useful to a Labour govt.

He is a politician and/ he wants power. This bill adds more power to the govt of the day be it Blue or Red.

Do not make the mistake of believing that he is fighting for our liberties.

My initial reaction was downright horror. This is a reasonably balanced piece from the beeb

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54552152

Could this be to do with that disastrous infiltration of greeney groups including the fathering of children by the undercover operative? The people responsible for that have a lot to answer for.

On the New Zealand election, Labour has benefited strongly from being seen in the centre as it has allowed them to win votes in all sorts of places you wouldn't expect a Labour party to win. For example, they are going to win Otaki which is full of retirement communities and in Waitaki a massive rural electorate they have a 5k lead on the party vote (National are still winning on the electorate vote). The question now is whether Jacinda stays in the centre or starts moving to the left.

She doesn't need a partner but there is speculation she could bring the one Maori party MP on board.

The polls were not bad on individual shares but massively understated the Labour lead with Lab ahead of their polling and National behind

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.

Starmer led all three this week.

And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.

I do hope so.

I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.

He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.

That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.

Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.

I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.

You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards.
A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.

Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?

Well lets just agree to disagree and say , I bet you he has a lot more cash than you or I and will have assets in millions, pension in millions and unlimited £320 (index linked ) a day and subsidised food "for life" in the HOL.
Not too bad for a poor legal aid lawyer methinks.

You have no evidence for that assertion. In the overworn, hackneyed, phrase, you're not entitled to your own facts. In his five years as DPP Starmer probably made a million before tax - tax he would have had deducted at source under PAYE as it is a salaried post. So, net, he took home £500,000. Hardly millionaire stuff.

Also, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. I'm a partner in a City Law Firm, and I promise you that I don't have assets in millions,

David Herdson article is very partisan.
The early days of Blair the tories called him Bambi, how wrong they were.
To get Labour to level pegging after their worst result since 1935 is encouraging.
Especially during a pandemic when people rightly so give the government of the day some slack.
He looks like a possible PM in the way John Smith did in opposition.
In comparison to Johnson and Corbyn it is a vast improvement.
Hopefully the tide will turn this November with a Biden win, which will indicate a change from the alternative right.

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.

And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.

We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.

There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms

Australia and the EU trade on the basis of the 2008 EU-Australian Partnership Framework. If there is no deal between Britain and the EU we will not be defaulting to the 2008 EU-Australian Partnership Framework. We will be treated by the EU like a third country with no agreements at all with the EU, other than the Withdrawal Agreement which the British government has just said it will break.

Meanwhile my local weekly rag has a Dept of Health full page advert telling us what level we are at and what the concomitant restrictions are.
Unfortunately it's the wrong level...we aren't alone either apparently.

https://www.hexham-courant.co.uk/news/18801305.hexham-courant-apologises-advert-error-local-covid-alert-level/

DAlexander said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.

Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?

If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.

I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.

Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.

I agree and think that there is no answer that is possible in a liberal and tolerant society.

Demographics in France mean that eventually retribution for crimes against Islam won't be carried out by rogue terrorists, but by the state itself.

Bollocks. Like in the UK, most French Muslims are not religiously observant, let alone fundamentalist. Certainly there is an Islamist threat there, as in many other countries, but very much a small minority, opposed by many secular Muslims.

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.

And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.

We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.

There's not even any point in calling the whole thing embarrassing any more. Everything coming down to whether we are "Canada", or "Australia", or "Afghanistan". When actually we are, er, the United Kingdom. With our own unique circumstances and relationship with the EU. We just have to wait for the whole thing to happen and utterly discredit the Government to the point of no return. In the hope that somehow from the ashes there might be some reappraisal of our governing arrangements and a new generation of politicians/leaders actually committed to do things better. Although I believe the problems go far deeper than the Government (which are obviously disastrous, but still to some extent a symptom not a cause), but encompass our entire political and media elite (covering all parties) it's not obvious who is out there to lead this renewal.

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Did you barf all over it, mawkish puerile mince.

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.

And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.

We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.

There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms

Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.

malcolmg said:

Roger said:

Foxy said:

malcolmg said:

Roger said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.

Starmer led all three this week.

And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.

I do hope so.

I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.

He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.

You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit

Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.

I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?

I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.

I will change my mind when I see him actually do something and that being something for ordinary people. Abstaining on every vote is not showing leadership.

For ordinary people? How about this. He defended the McLibel two, a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of £65 a week and an unemployed postman who was responsible for the day-to-day care of his son (then aged four) completely free of charge, when the multimillion pound conglomerate sued them for libel. He took the case all the way to the ECHR, again for free, forcing the UK Government to pay them £57,000, more than offsetting the £20,000 McDonalds had been awarded, and persuaded McDonalds not to enforce a costs award. For free he fought, and effectively won, the longest civil case in British (English or Scots law) history.

There is no point in Starmer picking a fight with Johnson given the 80 seat majority and 4 years left to run in this Parliament. It won't help ordinary people to do so - it just wastes time and energy. He's picking his battles as a good litigator does. Again, he is prepared for the long fight, and that's how he is fighting. He's Ali to Johnson's Foreman. Johnson has nothing to punch againt.

dixiedean said:

Meanwhile my local weekly rag has a Dept of Health full page advert telling us what level we are at and what the concomitant restrictions are.
Unfortunately it's the wrong level...we aren't alone either apparently.

https://www.hexham-courant.co.uk/news/18801305.hexham-courant-apologises-advert-error-local-covid-alert-level/

My Covid app is still telling me i'm at "Medium". In London. Isn't i...

Oh. It's literally just this moment updated!

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.

And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.

We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.

There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms

Australia and the EU trade on the basis of the 2008 EU-Australian Partnership Framework. If there is no deal between Britain and the EU we will not be defaulting to the 2008 EU-Australian Partnership Framework. We will be treated by the EU like a third country with no agreements at all with the EU, other than the Withdrawal Agreement which the British government has just said it will break.

Have we filled out the forms allowing us to even try to export food abroad yet?

Yorkcity said:

David Herdson article is very partisan.
The early days of Blair the tories called him Bambi, how wrong they were.
To get Labour to level pegging after their worst result since 1935 is encouraging.
Especially during a pandemic when people rightly so give the government of the day some slack.
He looks like a possible PM in the way John Smith did in opposition.
In comparison to Johnson and Corbyn it is a vast improvement.
Hopefully the tide will turn this November with a Biden win, which will indicate a change from the alternative right.

I disagree with this. I think David would be quite happy for Labour to win the next election with Starmer as leader. If anything I'd say that this piece is more like that of a Labour supporter who wants their leader to be more aggressive.

Philip_Thompson said:

It is amusing that after all the psychodrama of the past five years that the UK government saying trade talks are over and we are going to WTO (even if not entirely believed by everyone) is now the secondary minor news to this weekend.

The caveat is the point though, we've learned that Boris lies all the time, who cares what he says?

DougSeal said:

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.

Starmer led all three this week.

And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.

I do hope so.

I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.

He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.

That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.

Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.

I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.

You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards.
A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.

Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?

Well lets just agree to disagree and say , I bet you he has a lot more cash than you or I and will have assets in millions, pension in millions and unlimited £320 (index linked ) a day and subsidised food "for life" in the HOL.
Not too bad for a poor legal aid lawyer methinks.

You have no evidence for that assertion. In the overworn, hackneyed, phrase, you're not entitled to your own facts. In his five years as DPP Starmer probably made a million before tax - tax he would have had deducted at source under PAYE as it is a salaried post. So, net, he took home £500,000. Hardly millionaire stuff.

Also, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. I'm a partner in a City Law Firm, and I promise you that I don't have assets in millions,

Depending on your age , you should be in 7 figures with pensions, house and other cash or will certainly end up there , and he has his near 2 grand a week pension top up in the HOL as backup long as he can take a taxi and sign in.

Speaking personally, having never been near the city and started work on £9 a week and having also squandered plenty in my time it is far far from impossible.
PS: Conversely you have no evidence that he is not well off, you are merely surmising. I suggest given his location , career etc it is likely to be nearer my opinion than yours.

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.

And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.

We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.

There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms

Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.

About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU.
About 1/2 of ours do.

So we are talking about only double barely then.

"Only double barely" is pure sophistry and wholly disingenuous- 50% is two and a half times 20% and you know it - its as close to triple as it is double - and you don't state the comparative size of the Austrlaian services sector compared to ours. We don't have anything close to the huge natural resources of Australia to take up the slack either. Oh, and we're 22, as opposed to 10.000, miles away. The local farm shop here would have a stall at the market in Calais every couple of weeks, sold cider and Kentish beer, did quite well. All over. Are you suggesting they fly to Australia instead?

You've led the British people into a disaster and your side will reap the whirlwind of your empty promises.

*Edit - even Australia isn't as far as the moon.

NickPalmer said:

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

I had one of those too - two weeks after an email during their conference saying this was "my last chance" to become a member. All these missed opportunities!

But I do wonder at their social media operation if both Caroline Lucas and I are on their target list.

My brother in Edinburgh (in Ian Murray's constituency) has had one, no one I know in Glasgow though. At least their operation recognizes a lost cause...

alex_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.

And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.

We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.

There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms

Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.

About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU.
About 1/2 of ours do.

So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.

Er... And the rest?

It's pretty inconsequential.

We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.

The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.

So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.

DAlexander said:

Foxy said:

DAlexander said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.

This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.

“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’

We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."

Cyclefree said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.

Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?

If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.

I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.

Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.

Well, I have set out what I would like to do pretty extensively on here back in 2015 when the Charlie Hebdo killings happened.

But three things we should do:-

1. We should not make the upholding of free speech something which only brave individuals do - at the cost of threats and, sometimes, their lives. When those cartoonists were killed or the Danish cartoonist attacked every paper in the country, in Europe, in free liberal societies should have published them. Solidarity in numbers. Instead we cravenly self-censored ourselves and are still doing it. Look at how much effort it took to defend those Birmingham schools, for instance. (See also http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/21/rendering-unto-caesar/.)
2. The Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be withdrawn and rewritten. As of now, it effectively permits censorship by religions by effectively deeming criticism of a religion a hate crime.
3. Those who incite the sort of thinking and behaviour carried out by this terrorist should be prosecuted.

Thanks for this comment. Some responses:

1) I believe in free speech, but personally I prefer to respect the religious sensibilities of others, on the 'do unto others' principle - and I strongly object to some forms of mocking and distortion of my own religious beliefs even though people are free to do so, I prefer it if they refrain. Media editors may feel the same.

2) In a liberal society you can't tell the media what to do. It is a self evident contradiction.

3) You are of course right about the Scottish Hate Crime Bill

4) Incitement. Easier to say than to define. Freedom of belief is what it is. I am not entitled to murder someone but I am entitled to stand for parliament on a manifesto saying that murder should be made lawful. It would not be difficult for illiberal people (as well as many liberals) to see that as incitement. Which would be the thin end of that Scottish wedge.

malcolmg said:

Yorkcity said:

Foxy said:

Roger said:

Foxy said:

malcolmg said:

Roger said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.

Starmer led all three this week.

And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.

I do hope so.

I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.

He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.

You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit

Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.

I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?

I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.

No, I didn't see that and will try to look it out. I believe that he is a decent bloke from modest beginnings, and that is indeed a contrast to the entitled chancer in power.

Quite what direction he wants to take on the big issues of the day, I do not know. I can't see myself voting for him, but Mrs Foxy is a fan to be fair.

My father a lifelong conservative voter, thinks SKS is better than Johnson.
Do not know if many similar people feel the same, or if this indicates an eventual sea change.

An exceedingly low bar , could there be anyone other than Hyfud, BigG and Philip T who could possibly think otherwise.

Yes about a third of the country according to polls.

This site being so anti Johnson (and it was before he won a landslide too) is out of touch on that.

DougSeal said:

malcolmg said:

Roger said:

Foxy said:

malcolmg said:

Roger said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.

Starmer led all three this week.

And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.

I do hope so.

I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.

He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.

You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit

Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.

I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?

I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.

I will change my mind when I see him actually do something and that being something for ordinary people. Abstaining on every vote is not showing leadership.

For ordinary people? How about this. He defended the McLibel two, a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of £65 a week and an unemployed postman who was responsible for the day-to-day care of his son (then aged four) completely free of charge, when the multimillion pound conglomerate sued them for libel. He took the case all the way to the ECHR, again for free, forcing the UK Government to pay them £57,000, more than offsetting the £20,000 McDonalds had been awarded, and persuaded McDonalds not to enforce a costs award. For free he fought, and effectively won, the longest civil case in British (English or Scots law) history.

There is no point in Starmer picking a fight with Johnson given the 80 seat majority and 4 years left to run in this Parliament. It won't help ordinary people to do so - it just wastes time and energy. He's picking his battles as a good litigator does. Again, he is prepared for the long fight, and that's how he is fighting. He's Ali to Johnson's Foreman. Johnson has nothing to punch againt.

One can only hope and fact he is up against an absolutely useless donkey cannot be a handicap.

tlg86 said:

Yorkcity said:

David Herdson article is very partisan.
The early days of Blair the tories called him Bambi, how wrong they were.
To get Labour to level pegging after their worst result since 1935 is encouraging.
Especially during a pandemic when people rightly so give the government of the day some slack.
He looks like a possible PM in the way John Smith did in opposition.
In comparison to Johnson and Corbyn it is a vast improvement.
Hopefully the tide will turn this November with a Biden win, which will indicate a change from the alternative right.

I disagree with this. I think David would be quite happy for Labour to win the next election with Starmer as leader. If anything I'd say that this piece is more like that of a Labour supporter who wants their leader to be more aggressive.

Give over no conservative ever wants a Labour government.
Imo during the honeymoon of a new government and a world wide pandemic he has pitched it correctly since March.
This week he called for a circuit breaker agreeing with sage.
The government stated from day one it was following the science.
Starmer has rightly now opposed.

Cyclefree said:

DAlexander said:

Foxy said:

DAlexander said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.

This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.

“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’

We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."

The author of that a big fan of the Chinese approach I assume.

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.

And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.

We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.

There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms

Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.

About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU.
About 1/2 of ours do.

So we are talking about only double barely then.

"Only double barely" is pure sophistry and wholly disingenuous- 50% is two and a half times 20% and you know it - its as close to triple as it is double - and you don't state the comparative size of the Austrlaian services sector compared to ours. We don't have anything close to the huge natural resources of Australia to take up the slack either. Oh, and we're 22, as opposed to 10.000, miles away. The local farm shop here would have a stall at the market in Calais every couple of weeks, sold cider and Kentish beer, did quite well. All over. Are you suggesting they fly to Australia instead?

You've led the British people into a disaster and your side will reap the whirlwind of your empty promises.

*Edit - even Australia isn't as far as the moon.

I wasn't the one who used the word barely, that was a quotation. So 2.5x barely is tremendous is it?

And the UK does have natural resources too. A lot of fish for starters.

Lol. And there was everyone else thinking the issue of fish was basically symbolic, it being such a small proportion of our economy and all.

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1317407321400762368?s=20

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Miserable failure!

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.

Starmer led all three this week.

And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.

I do hope so.

I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.

He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.

That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.

Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.

I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.

You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards.
A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.

Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?

Well lets just agree to disagree and say , I bet you he has a lot more cash than you or I and will have assets in millions, pension in millions and unlimited £320 (index linked ) a day and subsidised food "for life" in the HOL.
Not too bad for a poor legal aid lawyer methinks.

You have no evidence for that assertion. In the overworn, hackneyed, phrase, you're not entitled to your own facts. In his five years as DPP Starmer probably made a million before tax - tax he would have had deducted at source under PAYE as it is a salaried post. So, net, he took home £500,000. Hardly millionaire stuff.

Also, I think you're talking to the wrong person here. I'm a partner in a City Law Firm, and I promise you that I don't have assets in millions,

Depending on your age , you should be in 7 figures with pensions, house and other cash or will certainly end up there , and he has his near 2 grand a week pension top up in the HOL as backup long as he can take a taxi and sign in.

Speaking personally, having never been near the city and started work on £9 a week and having also squandered plenty in my time it is far far from impossible.
PS: Conversely you have no evidence that he is not well off, you are merely surmising. I suggest given his location , career etc it is likely to be nearer my opinion than yours.

You are assuming that Starmer will go to the Lords. He might not a) wish to b) be offered the chance or c) the Lords might not exist in it's current form. (so b would apply, of course.)
On houses, two considerations apply; house prices can go down as well as up and a house is only worth anything when you actually sell it.
Yes, I know about Equity Release, and suspect its the PPI of our time.

Theuniondivvie said:

Cyclefree said:

DAlexander said:

Foxy said:

DAlexander said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

Think about it, it just took one man to ensure that no teachers or any other public figures will dare show pictures of Muhammad from now on in France or else have a good chance of being killed for doing so.

This is a key point. A small minority can have an effect regardless of what the majority think if the majority stay silent or look the other way.

“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’

We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."

The author of that a big fan of the Chinese approach I assume.

The piece is really just identifying the problem, without coming up with any policy to combat it. There is not really anything that can be done about it in my opinion.

The Chinese can deal with it because they are not a liberal democracy, it could never happen like that here.

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.

And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.

We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.

There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms

Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.

About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU.
About 1/2 of ours do.

So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.

Er... And the rest?

It's pretty inconsequential.

We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.

The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.

So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.

You think we have the capacity in our fishing fleet to pick up the slack from the sudden absence of the French fishing our Cod and selling it to us? I suspect that supply demands will mean they carry on as normal in the medium term.

Yes I do since fishermen currently have to throw away a lot of their catch if they are over quota limits.

I love the notion that there might have to be growth and more jobs etc in the industry as a horrified reason not to do it.

Bit like burning your 20 pound notes so you can save your 10p coins

Philip_Thompson said:

Yes I do since fishermen currently have to throw away a lot of their catch if they are over quota limits.

Get up to date grandad, otherwise I might thing that fishing is a myth-laden symbol that you cling to for reasons Brexity.

'By January 2019, vessels weren't allowed to discard any species of fish for which quotas were used to limit the numbers caught.'

https://tinyurl.com/qk4kysb

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

malcolmg said:

Roger said:

Foxy said:

malcolmg said:

Roger said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.

Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.

Starmer led all three this week.

And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.

I do hope so.

I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.

That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.

He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.

You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit

Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.

I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?

I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.

I will change my mind when I see him actually do something and that being something for ordinary people. Abstaining on every vote is not showing leadership.

For ordinary people? How about this. He defended the McLibel two, a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of £65 a week and an unemployed postman who was responsible for the day-to-day care of his son (then aged four) completely free of charge, when the multimillion pound conglomerate sued them for libel. He took the case all the way to the ECHR, again for free, forcing the UK Government to pay them £57,000, more than offsetting the £20,000 McDonalds had been awarded, and persuaded McDonalds not to enforce a costs award. For free he fought, and effectively won, the longest civil case in British (English or Scots law) history.

There is no point in Starmer picking a fight with Johnson given the 80 seat majority and 4 years left to run in this Parliament. It won't help ordinary people to do so - it just wastes time and energy. He's picking his battles as a good litigator does. Again, he is prepared for the long fight, and that's how he is fighting. He's Ali to Johnson's Foreman. Johnson has nothing to punch againt.

One can only hope and fact he is up against an absolutely useless donkey cannot be a handicap.

Malc, If I lived in Scotland I would vote SNP for an independent state.
It is obvious to me Johnson is helping your cause.
However I do not have that choice and SKS seems a more honest moral person to me than Johnson.

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Barnesian said:

The Conservative Party
Dear Barnesian,

Since the outset of our negotiations we were totally clear that we wanted nothing more complicated than the relationship the EU has with Canada.

One based on friendship and free trade.

But for much of the last few months the EU have refused to negotiate seriously.

Demanding the continued ability to control our legislative freedom and our fisheries in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.

Which is why yesterday I decided that we should get ready for the end of the transition period on January 1st with arrangements based on the simple principles of global free trade, like Australia’s relationship.

And why I’m asking you to join me today as we embark on that new journey >>

Become a Member
For whatever reason the EU are not willing to offer this country, after 45 years of membership, the same terms as they did to Canada.

So now is the time to prepare.

And with you by our side we can do that with high hearts and complete confidence.

By embracing this alternative path we will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation, controlling our own borders, our own fisheries and setting our own laws.

If you’ve thought about joining our Party before, today is the day to >>

Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
Yours sincerely, 

Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister

Still lying about Australia’s relationship with the EU, I see. How often does it need saying that this is on the basis of a deal between Australia and the EU.

And if we have no deal with the EU, we will not have a relationship with them which is like Australia’s.

We will have a relationship like the one Afghanistan has.

There is no trade deal between Australia and the EU they essentially trade on WTO terms

Australia barely trades with the EU at all. It's really not particularly important to them.

About 1/5th of their Services exports go to the EU.
About 1/2 of ours do.

So we are talking about only a bit over double barely then.

Er... And the rest?

It's pretty inconsequential.

We are going to continue trading with Europe whether we are EU members, have an FTA or on WTO terms.

The primary difference between an FTA and no FTA is merely tariffs and tariffs are only about 3%. The currency fluctuates by more than 3%.

So even if we have no FTA we will adapt just fine. It just isn't that important. It would be nice to have but we can negotiate a better one in the future after we have adjusted to WTO and the French fishermen etc have adjusted to having zero of our stock.

You think we have the capacity in our fishing fleet to pick up the slack from the sudden absence of the French fishing our Cod and selling it to us? I suspect that supply demands will mean they carry on as normal in the medium term.

Yes I do since fishermen currently have to throw away a lot of their catch if they are over quota limits.

I love the notion that there might have to be growth and more jobs etc in the industry as a horrified reason not to do it.

Bit like burning your 20 pound notes so you can save your 10p coins

Your hypocrisy with regards to Scottish independence and Brexit remains breathtaking.

At least I'm consistent in applying the same principles to (and thus supporting) both.

Stocky said:

Just been listening to Tony Connelly (RTE) who is great on all things EU. He said that Macron is relaxed about a No Deal because it protects the French fishing industry. Is this correct? I thought that No Deal meant no fishing rights. Can anyone clarify?

I've been knocked the fuck out in MTB accidents at least twice since 2016 so it's possible I'm suffering from significant cognitive impairment but does anybody remember fish being mentioned much before the referendum? It's seems like it's all about fish now. 🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟