Is Polly Toynbee really a 'moderate'? I've never really known what to think of her.
@Charles I'm usually a Friday, rather than Saturday person regarding night-out. Though I don't go out on Friday nights that often - I'm not really into the whole clubbing scene (which makes me very unusual for me age). And believe it or not, I go on other sites too (Facebook + Tumblr mainly) while on PB.
Probably bandwagoning. A lot of her articles I feel are just baiting people to get responses.
Yes. She's Mistress of the art. Her male counterpart, Owen Jones, is good at it also.
In fact, you might say that Owen is a Master baiter.
Polly has basically written the same article for the Guardian, give or take to odd tweak, for a decade or more and been handsomely rewarded for it. - OJ appears to be imitating her polemic style of writing, with equal measures of hyperbole and dodgy stats.
He's the heir to Polly and will probably replace her at the Guardian when she falls off the perch.
@Charles: You asked me last night about the LIBOR sentencing. The Judge gave different sentences for the offences committed when Hayes was at UBS and when he was at Citigroup and made these sentences run consecutively. 14 years is long but right in my view. He will be out after 7 and, frankly, sentences for fraud in this country are far too low.
Fraud is deeply corrosive of trust, which is essential to banking - and much else besides. It's right that it should be taken seriously. And not before time.
Too many people have calculated that their chances of getting caught are low and the consequences, if they do get caught, not that great. The authorities are right to change that calculation. It's as much about sending a message to those who are doing the right thing as to the bad guys. Otherwise the good guys think they are being mugs.
It's an odd situation - the Conservatives are seen by most as credible but not likeable and the centre-left is seen as more likeable but less credible. This delivered a small Tory election win in 2015 (since people value credibility most if push comes to shove) but it's an essentially unstable situation, vulnerable to populist challengers from any quarter - hence UKIP's failure to collapse as expected. Whether Corbyn can fill that role remains to be seen - if he gets the chance - but it's too complacent for the Tories to assume he won't. Being sceptical about the Ukraine and polite about Hamas or homeopathy don't make up the killer arguments that they suppose.
Really Nick? The Labour Party may be about to elect as leader someone who has chosen to be friends with terrorist organizations with explicitly anit-semitic and genocidal goals and who do not believe in democracy but in the establishment of a theocracy with no room for minorities of any kind.
I would expect Labour to be against fascism, anti-semitism and the use of violence to get your political aims not to call them "friends". That you think this is something of no moment suggests, to be polite, some complacency on your part.
How do you think such links will look when the next Islamist atrocity happens in the UK or to British citizens?
Considerably less bad than our current Government's links with the world's biggest sponsor of terror Saudi Arabia?
I dislike intensely Saudi Arabia and would very much prefer if our government dealt with it with a very long spoon indeed. I have said as much before on this forum.
But this is not an either / or situation. If Islamist extremism and terror are bad things - and they are - and if Labour claims to be progressive and liberal, which it likes to claim, what the hell is it doing cosying up to such people?
Corbyn has a long record of supporting anti-Western groups and governments. And it appears that a lot of Labour people think he is the right person to lead them. It is baffling and saddening.
I think we agree about Corbyn's policies, where it seems we differ is the tory response. If he wins at PMQs he'll get some great soundbites that will motivate backbenchers and please the BBC, Cameron shouldn't underestimate his appeal.
Quite
I don't think the LDs should join the Tories in kicking Corbyn.
They need to find some common ground with him which I think is possible on some aspects of foreign policy (negotiation not war) and economic policy (balance the budget on current spending over a cycle but borrow to invest; allow the public sector to bid for rail franchises as they come up for renewal and so on). Some policies they'll have to agree to disagree on.
But the main thing is for them to remain polite and respectful not nasty and vindictive like the Tories.
In this way I think we could see centre left LD and more left Labour forming an effective anti-Tory "alliance" joined by the Greens and SNP where it matters. I have put "alliance" in inverted commas as it wouldn't be formal. It would simply be cooperation in their mutual interest to get the Tories out.
Grow up. You are the bigot. The tories have not said anything about Corbyn. But your left wing slip is showing.
Hopefully TTIP will be killed stone dead when and if it comes before Parliament by a combination of Lab, LD, Green and 1 UKIP plus quite a few Tory MPs, - if it gets that far given German resistance to it.
If TTIP is killed on this side of the Atlantic, proponents of the EU will no longer be able to claim that the EU is a force for free trade in the world, given that the UK could clearly sign a trade deal with North America independently.
The problem with TTIP is not the free trade aspect. Tariffs hardly feature in it as they are already so low or non-existent.
The two contentious issues are;
a) common standards on food. This means the lowest common denominator in standards so we would have to accept US standards such as beef with growth hormones and so on.
b) The ISDS Investor State Dispute Settlement. This part of the agreement has been boiler plated into many previous trade agreements particularly with the developing world because it protects investors from having their assets seized or their interests unfairly damaged by national government. National courts were not trusted to treat multi-nationals fairly.
It is now in the draft TTIP. Any claim for damages by a MNC against our government (eg for plain cigarette packaging) would not be heard by our courts but by a specially appointed international court. The fear is that the threat of litigation would inhibit our government from following popular policies that MNCs might not like. Why not leave it to our national courts like all other contractual issues? We are not an untrustworthy developing country.
The Austalians refused to allow ISDS in their similar trade agreement.
I mentioned cigarette packaging:
"Philip Morris is suing Uruguay for increasing the size of the health warnings on cigarette packs, and for clamping down on tobacco companies’ use of sub-brands like Malboro Red, Gold, Blue or Green which could give the impression some cigarettes are safe to smoke.
The tobacco behemoth is taking its legal action under the terms of a bilateral trade agreement between Switzerland – where it relatively recently moved from the US – and Uruguay."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33769486 "The last surviving Dambusters pilot, Les Munro, has died at the age of 96, the New Zealand Bomber Command Association has said." "There are now only two surviving crew members of the Dambusters missions.
Out of 133 crew, only 77 returned. "
"Earlier this year, he put his medals up for auction to help pay for the upkeep of the Bomber Command Memorial in London.
A day before the auction, they were bought by British peer Lord Ashcroft for £75,000 ($117,000). He donated them to the Museum of Transport and Technology in Auckland."
If anyone had written a story before the war that bouncing bombs would be used to destroy German dams, no publisher would have entertained the idea of publishing it.
I think we agree about Corbyn's policies, where it seems we differ is the tory response. If he wins at PMQs he'll get some great soundbites that will motivate backbenchers and please the BBC, Cameron shouldn't underestimate his appeal.
Quite
I don't think the LDs should join the Tories in kicking Corbyn.
They need to find some common ground with him which I think is possible on some aspects of foreign policy (negotiation not war) and economic policy (balance the budget on current spending over a cycle but borrow to invest; allow the public sector to bid for rail franchises as they come up for renewal and so on). Some policies they'll have to agree to disagree on.
But the main thing is for them to remain polite and respectful not nasty and vindictive like the Tories.
In this way I think we could see centre left LD and more left Labour forming an effective anti-Tory "alliance" joined by the Greens and SNP where it matters. I have put "alliance" in inverted commas as it wouldn't be formal. It would simply be cooperation in their mutual interest to get the Tories out.
Grow up. You are the bigot. The tories have not said anything about Corbyn. But your left wing slip is showing.
I am commenting on Antifrank's proposed strategy for the Tories re Corbyn which is nasty is it not?
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Jezza, for lack of a better word, is good. Jezza is right, Jezza works. Jezza clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the (R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.
Hopefully TTIP will be killed stone dead when and if it comes before Parliament by a combination of Lab, LD, Green and 1 UKIP plus quite a few Tory MPs, - if it gets that far given German resistance to it.
If TTIP is killed on this side of the Atlantic, proponents of the EU will no longer be able to claim that the EU is a force for free trade in the world, given that the UK could clearly sign a trade deal with North America independently.
The problem with TTIP is not the free trade aspect. Tariffs hardly feature in it as they are already so low or non-existent.
The two contentious issues are;
a) common standards on food. This means the lowest common denominator in standards so we would have to accept US standards such as beef with growth hormones and so on.
b) The ISDS Investor State Dispute Settlement. This part of the agreement has been boiler plated into many previous trade agreements particularly with the developing world because it protects investors from having their assets seized or their interests unfairly damaged by national government. National courts were not trusted to treat multi-nationals fairly.
It is now in the draft TTIP. Any claim for damages by a MNC against our government (eg for plain cigarette packaging) would not be heard by our courts but by a specially appointed international court. The fear is that the threat of litigation would inhibit our government from following popular policies that MNCs might not like. Why not leave it to our national courts like all other contractual issues? We are not an untrustworthy developing country.
The Austalians refused to allow ISDS in their similar trade agreement.
I mentioned cigarette packaging:
"Philip Morris is suing Uruguay for increasing the size of the health warnings on cigarette packs, and for clamping down on tobacco companies’ use of sub-brands like Malboro Red, Gold, Blue or Green which could give the impression some cigarettes are safe to smoke.
The tobacco behemoth is taking its legal action under the terms of a bilateral trade agreement between Switzerland – where it relatively recently moved from the US – and Uruguay."
Hopefully TTIP will be killed stone dead when and if it comes before Parliament by a combination of Lab, LD, Green and 1 UKIP plus quite a few Tory MPs, - if it gets that far given German resistance to it.
If TTIP is killed on this side of the Atlantic, proponents of the EU will no longer be able to claim that the EU is a force for free trade in the world, given that the UK could clearly sign a trade deal with North America independently.
The problem with TTIP is not the free trade aspect. Tariffs hardly feature in it as they are already so low or non-existent.
The two contentious issues are;
a) common standards on food. This means the lowest common denominator in standards so we would have to accept US standards such as beef with growth hormones and so on.
b) The ISDS Investor State Dispute Settlement. This part of the agreement has been boiler plated into many previous trade agreements particularly with the developing world because it protects investors from having their assets seized or their interests unfairly damaged by national government. National courts were not trusted to treat multi-nationals fairly.
It is now in the draft TTIP. Any claim for damages by a MNC against our government (eg for plain cigarette packaging) would not be heard by our courts but by a specially appointed international court. The fear is that the threat of litigation would inhibit our government from following popular policies that MNCs might not like. Why not leave it to our national courts like all other contractual issues? We are not an untrustworthy developing country.
The Austalians refused to allow ISDS in their similar trade agreement.
I mentioned cigarette packaging:
"Philip Morris is suing Uruguay for increasing the size of the health warnings on cigarette packs, and for clamping down on tobacco companies’ use of sub-brands like Malboro Red, Gold, Blue or Green which could give the impression some cigarettes are safe to smoke.
The tobacco behemoth is taking its legal action under the terms of a bilateral trade agreement between Switzerland – where it relatively recently moved from the US – and Uruguay."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33769486 "The last surviving Dambusters pilot, Les Munro, has died at the age of 96, the New Zealand Bomber Command Association has said." "There are now only two surviving crew members of the Dambusters missions.
Out of 133 crew, only 77 returned. "
"Earlier this year, he put his medals up for auction to help pay for the upkeep of the Bomber Command Memorial in London.
A day before the auction, they were bought by British peer Lord Ashcroft for £75,000 ($117,000). He donated them to the Museum of Transport and Technology in Auckland."
If anyone had written a story before the war that bouncing bombs would be used to destroy German dams, no publisher would have entertained the idea of publishing it.
The same could be said about a lot of the engineering/technological feats of WW2
for example: D-Day (amphibious landings as well as their sheer scale) Pearl Harbor (planes sinking battleships) Atom bombs (single bombs destroying entire cities)
That's a couple of times you have shown that chart,again,when asylum was at its highest level some years back in this country,how did it compare with the rest of the EU ?
This country as done it's bit on asylum over the years and the chart is meaningless if the asylum goes up and down in other countries,next year,Sweden and Germany might have the lowest intake of asylum seeker's.
What do you want,illegal immigration to win the day ?
Corbyn just well full retard all over BBC news. Calling for RBS renationalisation and asking for an apology to the miners harmed under Thatcher. He is from the past.
Well if he does get elected as leader of the Labour Party we certainly wont be short of things to talk about on a daily basis....
On Polly Toynbee, I found the most amusing bit in her article when she argues for a windfall wealth tax to eliminate the deficit. Is the premier columnist really not bright enough to realise the deficit needs to be paid every year
I always love catching out the economically and fiscally illiterate. Ive had arguments (from seemingly intelligent people) that because Trident is going to cost a £100 billion, we can cancel trident and close the deficit 'simples'.
"Watching Jeremy Corbyn I was reminded of those times I’ve seen Nigel Farage. Not because they are in any way alike politically. But because strip away the aura – an aura that they themselves have not actually generated, but that has been projected onto them by others – and there is nothing there. Nothing except the sort of meaningless slogans and sound-bites and homilies that were they produced by a mainstream politician would invite ridicule and contempt."
Hopefully TTIP will be killed stone dead when and if it comes before Parliament by a combination of Lab, LD, Green and 1 UKIP plus quite a few Tory MPs, - if it gets that far given German resistance to it.
If TTIP is killed on this side of the Atlantic, proponents of the EU will no longer be able to claim that the EU is a force for free trade in the world, given that the UK could clearly sign a trade deal with North America independently.
The problem with TTIP is not the free trade aspect. Tariffs hardly feature in it as they are already so low or non-existent.
The two contentious issues are;
y appointed international court. The fear is that the threat of litigation would inhibit our government from following popular policies that MNCs might not like. Why not leave it to our national courts like all other contractual issues? We are not an untrustworthy developing country.
The Austalians refused to allow ISDS in their similar trade agreement.
The more people learn about this deal the more unhappy they will be. Corbyn (and Zac Goldsmith) are on the right side of the argument.
It would seem unlikely that the US would sign up to scheme that transferred jurisdiction outside of its own borders. It's just not what it does...
The ISDS courts are essentially American
'Essentially'? Is the agreement unequal in that sense? Are both parties not signing up to an agreement that binds them both equally? Why would we agree to a treaty that enforces international independent arbitration, but exempt another partner from having to do the same thing?
It would be like us being a part of the EU, and subject to the european court of justice, but allowing Germany to not be.
"Watching Jeremy Corbyn I was reminded of those times I’ve seen Nigel Farage. Not because they are in any way alike politically. But because strip away the aura – an aura that they themselves have not actually generated, but that has been projected onto them by others – and there is nothing there. Nothing except the sort of meaningless slogans and sound-bites and homilies that were they produced by a mainstream politician would invite ridicule and contempt."
Corbyn just well full retard all over BBC news. Calling for RBS renationalisation and asking for an apology to the miners harmed under Thatcher. He is from the past.
Well if he does get elected as leader of the Labour Party we certainly wont be short of things to talk about on a daily basis....
Isn't RBS already mainly nationalised? I suppose by the time he wins power in 2020 it will have been returned to the market.
@Disraeli I'm actually not convinced Owen Jones is her heir....for the single reason that he actually appears to believe what he is saying.
I fully agree with you, but @SimonStClare (upthread) thinks that he is, and I rate Simon's thoughts very highly so I may have to think seriously about that one.
"Watching Jeremy Corbyn I was reminded of those times I’ve seen Nigel Farage. Not because they are in any way alike politically. But because strip away the aura – an aura that they themselves have not actually generated, but that has been projected onto them by others – and there is nothing there. Nothing except the sort of meaningless slogans and sound-bites and homilies that were they produced by a mainstream politician would invite ridicule and contempt."
A thorough savaging.
Corbyn's offering a form of escapism for those unable to face reality.
Free owls, moon on a sticks, whatever, all paid for by the Bank of Money Tree.
People are underestimating that a lot of Corbyn`s appeal is to activists who identify with him.Precisely because he is a man with no charisma and no obvious talent but years campaigning on no-hope causes - just like them.The establishment are stupid though to think that because it is unlikely that labour could win an election it is not impossible because govts can lose elections and I think there is every chance of a deep recession before 2020 and people realising they have been conned by the gesture politics of Cameron/Osborne
"Watching Jeremy Corbyn I was reminded of those times I’ve seen Nigel Farage. Not because they are in any way alike politically. But because strip away the aura – an aura that they themselves have not actually generated, but that has been projected onto them by others – and there is nothing there. Nothing except the sort of meaningless slogans and sound-bites and homilies that were they produced by a mainstream politician would invite ridicule and contempt."
A thorough savaging.
See the Cleggasm and Milifandom for future reference.
"Watching Jeremy Corbyn I was reminded of those times I’ve seen Nigel Farage. Not because they are in any way alike politically. But because strip away the aura – an aura that they themselves have not actually generated, but that has been projected onto them by others – and there is nothing there. Nothing except the sort of meaningless slogans and sound-bites and homilies that were they produced by a mainstream politician would invite ridicule and contempt."
See the Cleggasm and Milifandom for future reference.
People are underestimating that a lot of Corbyn`s appeal is to activists who identify with him.Precisely because he is a man with no charisma and no obvious talent but years campaigning on no-hope causes - just like them.The establishment are stupid though to think that because it is unlikely that labour could win an election it is not impossible because govts can lose elections and I think there is every chance of a deep recession before 2020 and people realising they have been conned by the gesture politics of Cameron/Osborne
Vote for Corbo - he's been crap and wrong and lost before so he wont get flustered if it happens again.
Mr. Barnesian, people criticised attacks on Miliband (particularly the campaign quote from Fallon raising the spectre of David Miliband), but in the end the Conservatives won more seats than in 2010, and Labour made precious little progress in England and went backwards dramatically in Scotland.
I don't think the Fallon quote helped the SNP defeat Labour in Scotland, - do you?
I don't think it had much impact at all. It was a one-off and was quickly dropped.
With Labour apparently gaining momentum, Miliband’s team prepared to unveil one of its big pre-election announcements, its pledge to scrap the loophole that allowed “non-domiciled” residents of the UK to pay no tax on foreign income. Beales had first proposed the idea in an internal memo two years earlier, but Miliband decided to hold it back until 8 April, a month before election day – despite his team’s terror that Osborne might outflank Labour by unveiling the same policy in his final budget in April.
Labour believed they could dominate two full days of the campaign with the non-dom proposal, but the Conservative campaign director, Lynton Crosby, countered with a trademark “dead cat” strategy – a tactic best summarised by Boris Johnson as follows: “There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”
This time, the dead cat was supplied by the defence secretary Michael Fallon. The day after Labour’s non-dom announcement, Fallon launched a deliberately excessive attack on Miliband, suggesting he would betray the country by surrendering the Trident nuclear deterrent in order to reach a deal with the Scottish National party: “Miliband stabbed his own brother in the back to become Labour leader. Now he is willing to stab the United Kingdom in the back to become prime minister.” Miliband’s team seethed at the tactic, though several confessed a lingering admiration for its effectiveness.
One question on RBS - why are 'large institutions' getting a discount to market rate - sounds like a bit of a corporate bung at the taxpayer's expense to me...
Why not just dripfeed sell into the market at errm market ?
One question on RBS - why are 'large institutions' getting a discount to market rate - sounds like a bit of a corporate bung at the taxpayer's expense to me...
Why not just dripfeed sell into the market at errm market ?
Placings of big blocks of shares always go at a discount, because dribbling the shares out would cause their price to fall.
One question on RBS - why are 'large institutions' getting a discount to market rate - sounds like a bit of a corporate bung at the taxpayer's expense to me...
Why not just dripfeed sell into the market at errm market ?
Placings of big blocks of shares always go at a discount, because dribbling the shares out would cause their price to fall.
Hopefully TTIP will be killed stone dead when and if it comes before Parliament by a combination of Lab, LD, Green and 1 UKIP plus quite a few Tory MPs, - if it gets that far given German resistance to it.
If TTIP is killed on this side of the Atlantic, proponents of the EU will no longer be able to claim that the EU is a force for free trade in the world, given that the UK could clearly sign a trade deal with North America independently.
The problem with TTIP is not the free trade aspect. Tariffs hardly feature in it as they are already so low or non-existent.
The two contentious issues are;
a) common standards on food. This means the lowest common denominator in standards so we would have to accept US standards such as beef with growth hormones and so on.
b) The ISDS Investor State Dispute Settlement. This part of the agreement has been boiler plated into many previous trade agreements particularly with the developing world because it protects investors from having their assets seized or their interests unfairly damaged by national government. National courts were not trusted to treat multi-nationals fairly.
It's simply not true that the common standards will be the lowest common denominator. The whole point of the negotiation is to agree standards that will be somewhere in between the two sets. For something like agriculture, where the EU is particularly stringent - to the point of ridiculousness - on regulation, and the agricultural lobby is particularly strong, it is simply not conceivable that the American standards would be the ones that that won the day.
On ISDS, you again are being very misleading. The existence of a law suit by Philip Morris does not show that they will win. ISDS does not prevent tighter regulation - it just requires that the government does not do it in a way that discriminates against foreign producers. And even if a policy is shown to be discriminatory, the international arbitration courts can not change government policy, but merely require damages to be paid. The UK currently has nine treaties with ISDS in them and has only had two cases brought against it to date. Both failed.
"Watching Jeremy Corbyn I was reminded of those times I’ve seen Nigel Farage. Not because they are in any way alike politically. But because strip away the aura – an aura that they themselves have not actually generated, but that has been projected onto them by others – and there is nothing there. Nothing except the sort of meaningless slogans and sound-bites and homilies that were they produced by a mainstream politician would invite ridicule and contempt."
A thorough savaging.
Corbyn's offering a form of escapism for those unable to face reality.
Free owls, moon on a sticks, whatever, all paid for by the Bank of Money Tree.
Has he offered free owls? I thought this was all about moving on from Ed Miliband's Labour party.
One question on RBS - why are 'large institutions' getting a discount to market rate - sounds like a bit of a corporate bung at the taxpayer's expense to me...
Why not just dripfeed sell into the market at errm market ?
It's a good question: no doubt others are better placed to provide a definite answer but my guess would be that it's not practical to dripfeed £3bn worth of shares into the market without crashing the price. Getting institutions to buy big chunks at slightly below the current price may be better overall.
The market rate - of anything (cf. betfair) - is only the market rate for a given quantity.
That said, the sale of Royal Mail was distinctly unimpressive.
What genuinely amazed me was the staggeringly simplistic – at times almost childish – level of Corbyn’s analysis. So his policy of unilateralism was presented like this. “Does a nuclear explosion anywhere in the world bring about peace? I met the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands who as a child witnessed a nuclear test. He saw his islands and his country used as a bombing range for testing nuclear weapons, and they’re still paying the price. They’re paying the price with destruction. They’re paying the price with cancers”.
Nuclear weapons give you cancer. The geopolitical complexities of nuclear proliferation boiled down to a Daily Express headline.
"Watching Jeremy Corbyn I was reminded of those times I’ve seen Nigel Farage. Not because they are in any way alike politically. But because strip away the aura – an aura that they themselves have not actually generated, but that has been projected onto them by others – and there is nothing there. Nothing except the sort of meaningless slogans and sound-bites and homilies that were they produced by a mainstream politician would invite ridicule and contempt."
"Watching Jeremy Corbyn I was reminded of those times I’ve seen Nigel Farage. Not because they are in any way alike politically. But because strip away the aura – an aura that they themselves have not actually generated, but that has been projected onto them by others – and there is nothing there. Nothing except the sort of meaningless slogans and sound-bites and homilies that were they produced by a mainstream politician would invite ridicule and contempt."
I like Farage as a speaker, and wish UKIP success, and I haven't a personal view of Corbyn, but this sort of thing had occurred to me. People who wish to stress how different they are from 'mainstream' politicians/media etc, I find are rarely as divergent as they present or their supporters believe, be they UKIP, SNP or the Labour left.
That doesn't necessarily undermine any points or policies they make, but it takes away some of the specialness which they appear to regard as so vital.
What genuinely amazed me was the staggeringly simplistic – at times almost childish – level of Corbyn’s analysis. So his policy of unilateralism was presented like this. “Does a nuclear explosion anywhere in the world bring about peace? I met the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands who as a child witnessed a nuclear test. He saw his islands and his country used as a bombing range for testing nuclear weapons, and they’re still paying the price. They’re paying the price with destruction. They’re paying the price with cancers”.
Nuclear weapons give you cancer. The geopolitical complexities of nuclear proliferation boiled down to a Daily Express headline.
"Watching Jeremy Corbyn I was reminded of those times I’ve seen Nigel Farage. Not because they are in any way alike politically. But because strip away the aura – an aura that they themselves have not actually generated, but that has been projected onto them by others – and there is nothing there. Nothing except the sort of meaningless slogans and sound-bites and homilies that were they produced by a mainstream politician would invite ridicule and contempt."
A thorough savaging.
The answer to 'Does a nuclear explosion anywhere in the world bring about peace?' is Yes. WWII - Japan. Surrender within days.
OJ - “We are reborn as a movement! We are a political force once again! Across this nation, in every village, in every town, in every city you can see this movement emerging!” he proclaimed."
Really - has any of this seriously resonated outside of Camden and Islington?
The problem with TTIP is not the free trade aspect. Tariffs hardly feature in it as they are already so low or non-existent.
The two contentious issues are;
a) common standards on food. This means the lowest common denominator in standards so we would have to accept US standards such as beef with growth hormones and so on.
b) The ISDS Investor State Dispute Settlement. This part of the agreement has been boiler plated into many previous trade agreements particularly with the developing world because it protects investors from having their assets seized or their interests unfairly damaged by national government. National courts were not trusted to treat multi-nationals fairly.
It's simply not true that the common standards will be the lowest common denominator. The whole point of the negotiation is to agree standards that will be somewhere in between the two sets. For something like agriculture, where the EU is particularly stringent - to the point of ridiculousness - on regulation, and the agricultural lobby is particularly strong, it is simply not conceivable that the American standards would be the ones that that won the day.
On ISDS, you again are being very misleading. The existence of a law suit by Philip Morris does not show that they will win. ISDS does not prevent tighter regulation - it just requires that the government does not do it in a way that discriminates against foreign producers. And even if a policy is shown to be discriminatory, the international arbitration courts can not change government policy, but merely require damages to be paid. The UK currently has nine treaties with ISDS in them and has only had two cases brought against it to date. Both failed.
There is a good summary of TTIP in the House of Commons library:
On food standards - the EU approach is to protect people. Businesses can use chemicals and processes that are shown to be safe. It is the precautionary principle. The US approach is to protect business. Businesses can use chemicals and processes unless they are shown to be unsafe. The result of TTIP may be in between the two - but it will still mean a lowering of EU food standards.
On ISDS, the problem is the threat or possibility of litigation inhibiting the pursuit of democratically supported policies by national governments that may be disadvanteous to MNCs. If you are worried about the EU undermining national democracy you should be very worried about ISDS.
People are underestimating that a lot of Corbyn`s appeal is to activists who identify with him.Precisely because he is a man with no charisma and no obvious talent but years campaigning on no-hope causes - just like them.The establishment are stupid though to think that because it is unlikely that labour could win an election it is not impossible because govts can lose elections and I think there is every chance of a deep recession before 2020 and people realising they have been conned by the gesture politics of Cameron/Osborne
I think there is every chance of a recession before 2020, but I imagine that disillusioned Conservative voters from 2015 would be far more likely to switch to UKIP than to switch to Labour under Corbyn.
More people have come forward and named Ted Heath in Wilts and London says NSPCC and police, according to Sky
|The cynic in me says "they were always going to....". Whether what they have to say would be enough to pass even the balance of probabilities test is unknown at this point.
OJ - “We are reborn as a movement! We are a political force once again! Across this nation, in every village, in every town, in every city you can see this movement emerging!” he proclaimed."
Really - has any of this seriously resonated outside of Camden and Islington?
Only amongst similarly inclined trendy Lefties.
These people need to get out of their groupthink bubble.
It's an odd situation - the Conservatives are seen by most as credible but not likeable and the centre-left is seen as more likeable but less credible. This delivered a small Tory election win in 2015 (since people value credibility most if push comes to shove) but it's an essentially unstable situation, vulnerable to populist challengers from any quarter - hence UKIP's failure to collapse as expected. Whether Corbyn can fill that role remains to be seen - if he gets the chance - but it's too complacent for the Tories to assume he won't. Being sceptical about the Ukraine and polite about Hamas or homeopathy don't make up the killer arguments that they suppose.
Really Nick? The Labour Party may be about to elect as leader someone who has chosen to be friends with terrorist organizations with explicitly anit-semitic and genocidal goals and who do not believe in democracy but in the establishment of a theocracy with no room for minorities of any kind.
I would expect Labour to be against fascism, anti-semitism and the use of violence to get your political aims not to call them "friends". That you think this is something of no moment suggests, to be polite, some complacency on your part.
How do you think such links will look when the next Islamist atrocity happens in the UK or to British citizens?
Considerably less bad than our current Government's links with the world's biggest sponsor of terror Saudi Arabia?
I dislike intensely Saudi Arabia and would very much prefer if our government dealt with it with a very long spoon indeed. I have said as much before on this forum.
But this is not an either / or situation. If Islamist extremism and terror are bad things - and they are - and if Labour claims to be progressive and liberal, which it likes to claim, what the hell is it doing cosying up to such people?
Corbyn has a long record of supporting anti-Western groups and governments. And it appears that a lot of Labour people think he is the right person to lead them. It is baffling and saddening.
Everybody has links with Saudi, because however repellent the current regime is, any alternative would be worse.
The problem with TTIP is not the free trade aspect. Tariffs hardly feature in it as they are already so low or non-existent.
The two contentious issues are;
a) common standards on food. This means the lowest common denominator in standards so we would have to accept US standards such as beef with growth hormones and so on.
b) The ISDS Investor State Dispute Settlement. This part of the agreement has been boiler plated into many previous trade agreements particularly with the developing world because it protects investors from having their assets seized or their interests unfairly damaged by national government. National courts were not trusted to treat multi-nationals fairly.
It's simply not true that the common standards will be the lowest common denominator. The whole point of the negotiation is to agree standards that will be somewhere in between the two sets. For something like agriculture, where the EU is particularly stringent - to the point of ridiculousness - on regulation, and the agricultural lobby is particularly strong, it is simply not conceivable that the American standards would be the ones that that won the day.
On ISDS, you again are being very misleading. The existence of a law suit by Philip Morris does not show that they will win. ISDS does not prevent tighter regulation - it just requires that the government does not do it in a has nine treaties with ISDS in them and has only had two cases brought against it to date. Both failed.
There is a good summary of TTIP in the House of Commons library:
On food standards - the EU approach is to protect people. Businesses can use chemicals and processes that are shown to be safe. It is the precautionary principle. The US approach is to protect business. Businesses can use chemicals and processes unless they are shown to be unsafe. The result of TTIP may be in between the two - but it will still mean a lowering of EU food standards.
On ISDS, the problem is the threat or possibility of litigation inhibiting the pursuit of democratically supported policies by national governments that may be disadvanteous to MNCs. If you are worried about the EU undermining national democracy you should be very worried about ISDS.
ISDS is the big objection that I have to the proposed treaty. I don't want to create another European Court of Justice.
OJ - “We are reborn as a movement! We are a political force once again! Across this nation, in every village, in every town, in every city you can see this movement emerging!” he proclaimed."
Really - has any of this seriously resonated outside of Camden and Islington?
Only amongst similarly inclined trendy Lefties.
These people need to get out of their groupthink bubble.
I liked the bit about 'even if we lose, we have won'.
OJ - “We are reborn as a movement! We are a political force once again! Across this nation, in every village, in every town, in every city you can see this movement emerging!” he proclaimed."
Really - has any of this seriously resonated outside of Camden and Islington?
I think that sort of talk would provoke cringes of embarrassment in most villages and small towns - not generally fertile ground for that religious type fervour for the Labour party admittedly. Even the Labour folks in my area seem a bit Blue.
OJ - “We are reborn as a movement! We are a political force once again! Across this nation, in every village, in every town, in every city you can see this movement emerging!” he proclaimed."
Really - has any of this seriously resonated outside of Camden and Islington?
Only amongst similarly inclined trendy Lefties.
These people need to get out of their groupthink bubble.
I liked the bit about 'even if we lose, we have won'.
I think the argument for Corbyn is that even if they can't win an election, they can drag the political centre ground leftwards. Hence, the Conservatives would have to shift left to remain competitive. I'm not convinced, but it's not without merit as an argument.
OJ - “We are reborn as a movement! We are a political force once again! Across this nation, in every village, in every town, in every city you can see this movement emerging!” he proclaimed."
Really - has any of this seriously resonated outside of Camden and Islington?
I think that sort of talk would provoke cringes of embarrassment in most villages and small towns - not generally fertile ground for that religious type fervour for the Labour party admittedly. Even the Labour folks in my area seem a bit Blue.
What genuinely amazed me was the staggeringly simplistic – at times almost childish – level of Corbyn’s analysis. So his policy of unilateralism was presented like this. “Does a nuclear explosion anywhere in the world bring about peace? I met the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands who as a child witnessed a nuclear test. He saw his islands and his country used as a bombing range for testing nuclear weapons, and they’re still paying the price. They’re paying the price with destruction. They’re paying the price with cancers”.
Nuclear weapons give you cancer. The geopolitical complexities of nuclear proliferation boiled down to a Daily Express headline.
"Watching Jeremy Corbyn I was reminded of those times I’ve seen Nigel Farage. Not because they are in any way alike politically. But because strip away the aura – an aura that they themselves have not actually generated, but that has been projected onto them by others – and there is nothing there. Nothing except the sort of meaningless slogans and sound-bites and homilies that were they produced by a mainstream politician would invite ridicule and contempt."
A thorough savaging.
It has not been a valid argument against nuclear weapons for 35 years. - not even North Korea undertakes atmospheric tests.
"Atmospheric testing was banned by the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty. Negotiations had largely responded to the international community’s grave concern over the radioactive fallout resulting from atmospheric tests. The United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom became Parties to the Treaty; France and China did not. France conducted its last atmospheric test in 1974, China in 1980."
ISDS is the big objection that I have to the proposed treaty. I don't want to create another European Court of Justice.
We already have ISDS mechanisms with nine different countries. We had something similar all the way back in the Jay Treaty with America in 1794. It will only be involved in compensation claims, it can not inflict policy changes, it is limited to case involving a double standard between different nationality companies, and it is not staffed with people ideologically committed to an Atlantic Union.
It is important this sets the basis for trade agreements, given we will need them in future agreements with China, who will do everything they can to prefer domestic companies and nationalise the assets of foreign companies after a deal.
OJ - “We are reborn as a movement! We are a political force once again! Across this nation, in every village, in every town, in every city you can see this movement emerging!” he proclaimed."
Really - has any of this seriously resonated outside of Camden and Islington?
I think that sort of talk would provoke cringes of embarrassment in most villages and small towns - not generally fertile ground for that religious type fervour for the Labour party admittedly. Even the Labour folks in my area seem a bit Blue.
I don't think they appreciate how anti-left wing England is in small cities, medium-sized towns, and rural areas.
ISDS is the big objection that I have to the proposed treaty. I don't want to create another European Court of Justice.
There are few things more amusing than Europhiles complaining that TTIP would enable big businesses to frustrate the policies of the national legislatures and governments. That is the whole purpose of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and all the major doctrines of EU constitutional law, including supremacy, direct effect and state liability. It is as if they have forgotten the fate of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988...
I think we agree about Corbyn's policies, where it seems we differ is the tory response. If he wins at PMQs he'll get some great soundbites that will motivate backbenchers and please the BBC, Cameron shouldn't underestimate his appeal.
Quite
I don't think the LDs should join the Tories in kicking Corbyn.
They need to find some common ground with him which I think is possible on some aspects of foreign policy (negotiation not war) and economic policy (balance the budget on current spending over a cycle but borrow to invest; allow the public sector to bid for rail franchises as they come up for renewal and so on). Some policies they'll have to agree to disagree on.
But the main thing is for them to remain polite and respectful not nasty and vindictive like the Tories.
In this way I think we could see centre left LD and more left Labour forming an effective anti-Tory "alliance" joined by the Greens and SNP where it matters. I have put "alliance" in inverted commas as it wouldn't be formal. It would simply be cooperation in their mutual interest to get the Tories out.
Grow up. You are the bigot. The tories have not said anything about Corbyn. But your left wing slip is showing.
I am commenting on Antifrank's proposed strategy for the Tories re Corbyn which is nasty is it not?
People are underestimating that a lot of Corbyn`s appeal is to activists who identify with him.Precisely because he is a man with no charisma and no obvious talent but years campaigning on no-hope causes - just like them.The establishment are stupid though to think that because it is unlikely that labour could win an election it is not impossible because govts can lose elections and I think there is every chance of a deep recession before 2020 and people realising they have been conned by the gesture politics of Cameron/Osborne
I think there is every chance of a recession before 2020, but I imagine that disillusioned Conservative voters from 2015 would be far more likely to switch to UKIP than to switch to Labour under Corbyn.
Or that you get a 1992 result, where voters don't switch because no matter how much of a hash of it the Conservatives have made, all the alternatives are worse - but the memory of it will be held against them as soon as it is safe to do so.
It's common to blame the ERM, sleaze and tiredness for the 1997 rout - and these were indeed all factors - but I'd also be inclined to throw in a delayed effect of the 1990-2 recession and poll tax too. It's just that the public couldn't do it at the time due to Kinnock.
ISDS is the big objection that I have to the proposed treaty. I don't want to create another European Court of Justice.
We already have ISDS mechanisms with nine different countries. We had something similar all the way back in the Jay Treaty with America in 1794. It will only be involved in compensation claims, it can not inflict policy changes, it is limited to case involving a double standard between different nationality companies, and it is not staffed with people ideologically committed to an Atlantic Union.
It is important this sets the basis for trade agreements, given we will need them in future agreements with China, who will do everything they can to prefer domestic companies and nationalise the assets of foreign companies after a deal.
I see nothing wrong with the principle of enforcing the terms of the Treaty in national courts. Supranational courts have a record of mission creep.
WTF results in Scottish exams up 18% in a year??!?!
Scotland's exams body has admitted the new Higher Maths exam was too hard.
Thousands of students complained the exam in May was more difficult than they had expected.
Changes to the grading system in maths mean that candidates should still get the mark they deserve.
The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) admission comes as students across Scotland receive their results. Overall there were a record 156,000 Higher passes - up 5.5% on last year.
OJ - “We are reborn as a movement! We are a political force once again! Across this nation, in every village, in every town, in every city you can see this movement emerging!” he proclaimed."
Really - has any of this seriously resonated outside of Camden and Islington?
Only amongst similarly inclined trendy Lefties.
These people need to get out of their groupthink bubble.
I liked the bit about 'even if we lose, we have won'.
They're rapidly heading into cult territory.
Don't drink any orange squash from the punch bowl, in case it's laced with a good dose of tranquillisers.
People are underestimating that a lot of Corbyn`s appeal is to activists who identify with him.Precisely because he is a man with no charisma and no obvious talent but years campaigning on no-hope causes - just like them.The establishment are stupid though to think that because it is unlikely that labour could win an election it is not impossible because govts can lose elections and I think there is every chance of a deep recession before 2020 and people realising they have been conned by the gesture politics of Cameron/Osborne
I think there is every chance of a recession before 2020, but I imagine that disillusioned Conservative voters from 2015 would be far more likely to switch to UKIP than to switch to Labour under Corbyn.
Or that you get a 1992 result, where voters don't switch because no matter how much of a hash of it the Conservatives have made, all the alternatives are worse - but the memory of it will be held against them as soon as it is safe to do so.
It's common to blame the ERM, sleaze and tiredness for the 1997 rout - and these were indeed all factors - but I'd also be inclined to throw in a delayed effect of the 1990-2 recession and poll tax too. It's just that the public couldn't do it at the time due to Kinnock.
I think it bears out my view that people can keep voting for a party, long after they've become pretty hostile to that party, because the alternative seems worse, but then turn very suddenly against the party they voted for. We saw it with Scottish Labour.
But, the results in North London in 1997 are another good example, I think. The Conservatives were losing seats on swings of 16, 17, 18, 19%. That doesn't happen unless there is very deep-rooted anger.
People are underestimating that a lot of Corbyn`s appeal is to activists who identify with him.Precisely because he is a man with no charisma and no obvious talent but years campaigning on no-hope causes - just like them.The establishment are stupid though to think that because it is unlikely that labour could win an election it is not impossible because govts can lose elections and I think there is every chance of a deep recession before 2020 and people realising they have been conned by the gesture politics of Cameron/Osborne
I think there is every chance of a recession before 2020, but I imagine that disillusioned Conservative voters from 2015 would be far more likely to switch to UKIP than to switch to Labour under Corbyn.
Or that you get a 1992 result, where voters don't switch because no matter how much of a hash of it the Conservatives have made, all the alternatives are worse - but the memory of it will be held against them as soon as it is safe to do so.
It's common to blame the ERM, sleaze and tiredness for the 1997 rout - and these were indeed all factors - but I'd also be inclined to throw in a delayed effect of the 1990-2 recession and poll tax too. It's just that the public couldn't do it at the time due to Kinnock.
I think it bears out my view that people can keep voting for a party, long after they've become pretty hostile to that party, because the alternative seems worse, but then turn very suddenly against the party they voted for. We saw it with Scottish Labour.
But, the results in North London in 1997 are another good example, I think. The Conservatives were losing seats on swings of 16, 17, 18, 19%. That doesn't happen unless there is very deep-rooted anger.
That's a couple of times you have shown that chart,again,when asylum was at its highest level some years back in this country,how did it compare with the rest of the EU ?
This country as done it's bit on asylum over the years and the chart is meaningless if the asylum goes up and down in other countries,next year,Sweden and Germany might have the lowest intake of asylum seeker's.
What do you want,illegal immigration to win the day ?
Here are the EU stats for 2014 - we are indeed punching well below our weight on the asylum front - Sweden in particular puts us to shame:
Illegal immigration and genuine asylum seekers are separate issues. I'd welcome stringent controls on illegal immigration - there's nothing to stop the Tory government from bringing in proper penalties for employing illegal immigrants.
WTF results in Scottish exams up 18% in a year??!?!
Scotland's exams body has admitted the new Higher Maths exam was too hard.
Thousands of students complained the exam in May was more difficult than they had expected.
Changes to the grading system in maths mean that candidates should still get the mark they deserve.
The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) admission comes as students across Scotland receive their results. Overall there were a record 156,000 Higher passes - up 5.5% on last year.
"PUPILS sitting the new Higher maths exam had the pass mark lowered to 33.8 per cent, it has emerged.
Data released by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) revealed the percentage required to achieve a C grade at the new Higher maths was almost 10 per cent lower than the 43 per cent required to pass the old version this year"
More people have come forward and named Ted Heath in Wilts and London says NSPCC and police, according to Sky
|The cynic in me says "they were always going to....". Whether what they have to say would be enough to pass even the balance of probabilities test is unknown at this point.
Same happened w Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris et al
OJ - “We are reborn as a movement! We are a political force once again! Across this nation, in every village, in every town, in every city you can see this movement emerging!” he proclaimed."
Really - has any of this seriously resonated outside of Camden and Islington?
Only amongst similarly inclined trendy Lefties.
These people need to get out of their groupthink bubble.
I liked the bit about 'even if we lose, we have won'.
That's a couple of times you have shown that chart,again,when asylum was at its highest level some years back in this country,how did it compare with the rest of the EU ?
This country as done it's bit on asylum over the years and the chart is meaningless if the asylum goes up and down in other countries,next year,Sweden and Germany might have the lowest intake of asylum seeker's.
What do you want,illegal immigration to win the day ?
Here are the EU stats for 2014 - we are indeed punching well below our weight on the asylum front - Sweden in particular puts us to shame:
Illegal immigration and genuine asylum seekers are separate issues. I'd welcome stringent controls on illegal immigration - there's nothing to stop the Tory government from bringing in proper penalties for employing illegal immigrants.
There have been a number of things posted today regarding the ISDS courts that are simply inaccurate. It's almost like people are suffering from cognitive dissonance and are attempting to alter reality to suit their prejudices.
Not all ISDS agreements are created equally. Most have very limited scope (including the 94 that the UK has signed in the last 40 years). Others (notably those created under NAFTA, and to a lesser extent those in the TPP) have much greater force. Similarly, some ISDS enforcement is done in private courts, and others have hearings that are open to examination. While the TTIP ISDS is slightly less all encompassing than the TPP one, it does propose arbitration in private, it has almost unlimited power to fine governments, and covers a far greater range of goods and services than any other agreement (other than the EU, obviously) that we are party to.
This does not mean that we should not be signatories to the TTIP, and I would hope that were we to leave the EU we would sign a free trade deal with the US. But it does mean that we should be very aware that - by empowering a foreign entity to judge and fine us - that we undoubtedly diminishing our sovereignty. The single most important change I would suggest to the TTIP treaty would be to allow ISDS arbitration to happen in a public forum, rather than a private one.
People are underestimating that a lot of Corbyn`s appeal is to activists who identify with him.Precisely because he is a man with no charisma and no obvious talent but years campaigning on no-hope causes - just like them.The establishment are stupid though to think that because it is unlikely that labour could win an election it is not impossible because govts can lose elections and I think there is every chance of a deep recession before 2020 and people realising they have been conned by the gesture politics of Cameron/Osborne
I think there is every chance of a recession before 2020, but I imagine that disillusioned Conservative voters from 2015 would be far more likely to switch to UKIP than to switch to Labour under Corbyn.
Or that you get a 1992 result, where voters don't switch because no matter how much of a hash of it the Conservatives have made, all the alternatives are worse - but the memory of it will be held against them as soon as it is safe to do so.
It's common to blame the ERM, sleaze and tiredness for the 1997 rout - and these were indeed all factors - but I'd also be inclined to throw in a delayed effect of the 1990-2 recession and poll tax too. It's just that the public couldn't do it at the time due to Kinnock.
I think it bears out my view that people can keep voting for a party, long after they've become pretty hostile to that party, because the alternative seems worse, but then turn very suddenly against the party they voted for. We saw it with Scottish Labour.
But, the results in North London in 1997 are another good example, I think. The Conservatives were losing seats on swings of 16, 17, 18, 19%. That doesn't happen unless there is very deep-rooted anger.
First past the post doesn't have an early warning mechanism. Under PR, you might get the sense that your popularity is slipping sooner, and take steps to address that,
If you're a North London Tory MP or a Glasgow Labour MP sitting on a majority of 18,000, in a seat that's voted for your party for decades, you think you have nothing to worry about, however much your constituents may grumble, because they've grumbled for years and still returned you with five-figure majorities. And, then suddenly, you're out on your ear.
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Jezza, for lack of a better word, is good. Jezza is right, Jezza works. Jezza clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the (R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.
That's a couple of times you have shown that chart,again,when asylum was at its highest level some years back in this country,how did it compare with the rest of the EU ?
This country as done it's bit on asylum over the years and the chart is meaningless if the asylum goes up and down in other countries,next year,Sweden and Germany might have the lowest intake of asylum seeker's.
What do you want,illegal immigration to win the day ?
Here are the EU stats for 2014 - we are indeed punching well below our weight on the asylum front - Sweden in particular puts us to shame:
Illegal immigration and genuine asylum seekers are separate issues. I'd welcome stringent controls on illegal immigration - there's nothing to stop the Tory government from bringing in proper penalties for employing illegal immigrants.
Sweden is the last country I'd want to emulate. Socrates once put it well when he said that if Tumblr was a country it would be Sweden.
That's a couple of times you have shown that chart,again,when asylum was at its highest level some years back in this country,how did it compare with the rest of the EU ?
This country as done it's bit on asylum over the years and the chart is meaningless if the asylum goes up and down in other countries,next year,Sweden and Germany might have the lowest intake of asylum seeker's.
What do you want,illegal immigration to win the day ?
Here are the EU stats for 2014 - we are indeed punching well below our weight on the asylum front - Sweden in particular puts us to shame:
Illegal immigration and genuine asylum seekers are separate issues. I'd welcome stringent controls on illegal immigration - there's nothing to stop the Tory government from bringing in proper penalties for employing illegal immigrants.
You lot are a sad bunch sometimes - lose the argument - throw muck at Scotland.
If the UK wants to be seen as one of the world's more enlightened countries should it not be seen to be taking a lead here?
More people have come forward and named Ted Heath in Wilts and London says NSPCC and police, according to Sky
I always assumed that Ted Heath was completely uninterested in sex.
Tbf, how many men are completely uninterested in sex? Probably 0.000000000000000000000000001%. He was most likely uninterested in relationships (if these allegations are false and it's not something more sinister) which is becoming true for a lot of people out there.
That's a couple of times you have shown that chart,again,when asylum was at its highest level some years back in this country,how did it compare with the rest of the EU ?
This country as done it's bit on asylum over the years and the chart is meaningless if the asylum goes up and down in other countries,next year,Sweden and Germany might have the lowest intake of asylum seeker's.
What do you want,illegal immigration to win the day ?
Here are the EU stats for 2014 - we are indeed punching well below our weight on the asylum front - Sweden in particular puts us to shame:
Illegal immigration and genuine asylum seekers are separate issues. I'd welcome stringent controls on illegal immigration - there's nothing to stop the Tory government from bringing in proper penalties for employing illegal immigrants.
You lot are a sad bunch sometimes - lose the argument - throw muck at Scotland.
If the UK wants to be seen as one of the world's more enlightened countries should it not be seen to be taking a lead here?
Despite some misgivings, I'm sympathetic to that view.
What I'm not sympathetic toward is an implication that muck throwing, of which there is so much in all directions, can be pinpointed to have started from one side eg - one side loses argument, throws muck in x direction, the implication being the reverse does not happen.
That's a couple of times you have shown that chart,again,when asylum was at its highest level some years back in this country,how did it compare with the rest of the EU ?
This country as done it's bit on asylum over the years and the chart is meaningless if the asylum goes up and down in other countries,next year,Sweden and Germany might have the lowest intake of asylum seeker's.
What do you want,illegal immigration to win the day ?
Here are the EU stats for 2014 - we are indeed punching well below our weight on the asylum front - Sweden in particular puts us to shame:
Illegal immigration and genuine asylum seekers are separate issues. I'd welcome stringent controls on illegal immigration - there's nothing to stop the Tory government from bringing in proper penalties for employing illegal immigrants.
You lot are a sad bunch sometimes - lose the argument - throw muck at Scotland.
If the UK wants to be seen as one of the world's more enlightened countries should it not be seen to be taking a lead here?
Aren't we? The muck we throw at Scotland is much like the muck that's been thrown at us, only our muck largely reflects the truth.
More people have come forward and named Ted Heath in Wilts and London says NSPCC and police, according to Sky
I always assumed that Ted Heath was completely uninterested in sex.
Tbf, how many men are completely uninterested in sex? Probably 0.000000000000000000000000001%. He was most likely uninterested in relationships (if these allegations are false and it's not something more sinister) which is becoming true for a lot of people out there.
Yesterday, my wife said to me: "So, when you were 17 years old, how much did you think about sex?"
I replied "Well, I guess... three or four times a day... I'd think about something else.."
More people have come forward and named Ted Heath in Wilts and London says NSPCC and police, according to Sky
I always assumed that Ted Heath was completely uninterested in sex.
Tbf, how many men are completely uninterested in sex? Probably 0.000000000000000000000000001%. He was most likely uninterested in relationships (if these allegations are false and it's not something more sinister) which is becoming true for a lot of people out there.
More people have come forward and named Ted Heath in Wilts and London says NSPCC and police, according to Sky
I always assumed that Ted Heath was completely uninterested in sex.
Tbf, how many men are completely uninterested in sex? Probably 0.000000000000000000000000001%. He was most likely uninterested in relationships (if these allegations are false and it's not something more sinister) which is becoming true for a lot of people out there.
Yesterday, my wife said to me: "So, when you were 17 years old, how much did you think about sex?"
I replied "Well, I guess... three or four times a day... I'd think about something else.."
LOL
I don't think it's the same for girls, at least in experience. Women think about sex, but not really as much as men.
More people have come forward and named Ted Heath in Wilts and London says NSPCC and police, according to Sky
I always assumed that Ted Heath was completely uninterested in sex.
Tbf, how many men are completely uninterested in sex? Probably 0.000000000000000000000000001%. He was most likely uninterested in relationships (if these allegations are false and it's not something more sinister) which is becoming true for a lot of people out there.
I thought it was just code for being gay.
Oh, well I didn't realise that. If he was gay, it's a shame he felt he couldn't come out. Although given he was PM in the 70s, I'd imagine that people were less accepting of homosexuality,
Antifrank- if Corbyn loses the leadership election, even by the tiniest margin, the new leader (Cooper or Burnham) will get a huge boost just by winning and seeming to vanquish the left. This would provide them with a better starting platform than they could have dreamt of following a mundane contest, and a million times better than Ed had after defeating his brother. So there's some very big positives for Labour if Corbyn doesn't make it.
This is all of course playing beautifully for Burnham if he were to win because he would have lost the lefty label that he was being tarred with. Just by virtue of winning he will have had his clause 4 moment.
I doubt very much that Corbyn's new found supporters would be prepared (or could be arsed) to do the heavy lifting of constituency politics and divide the Labour party.
That's a couple of times you have shown that chart,again,when asylum was at its highest level some years back in this country,how did it compare with the rest of the EU ?
This country as done it's bit on asylum over the years and the chart is meaningless if the asylum goes up and down in other countries,next year,Sweden and Germany might have the lowest intake of asylum seeker's.
What do you want,illegal immigration to win the day ?
Here are the EU stats for 2014 - we are indeed punching well below our weight on the asylum front - Sweden in particular puts us to shame:
Illegal immigration and genuine asylum seekers are separate issues. I'd welcome stringent controls on illegal immigration - there's nothing to stop the Tory government from bringing in proper penalties for employing illegal immigrants.
You haven't answered the question on when Britain had record numbers of asylum seekers not to long back,how did it compare to the example you give Sweden ?
Asylum goes up and down every year in countries,Sweden might have lower numbers next year and the way things are going,Britains asylum cases will be rising.
The left have to learn that Britain has to be tough on all immigration or it leads to madness and anger if you have a soft view,look at Germany bringing they army out to deal with the economic /asylum migration of thousands.
@tyson Plays into Hodges' argument that Corbymania well....isn't anywhere near the 'mania' that it seems. Just a lot of people thinking they are trendy, cool and edgy by being hard left and a Corbyn supporter.
WTF results in Scottish exams up 18% in a year??!?!
Just imagine how good they would have been if we had voted Yes.
Well, with the price of oil so low, many schools would have closed to ensure that cash was still available for Nicola's spin doctors.
Yes but it is the job of the SQA to ensure that pupils get the results they deserve, apparently. So closed schools could be taken account of and adjustments can be made.
Antifrank- if Corbyn loses the leadership election, even by the tiniest margin, the new leader (Cooper or Burnham) will get a huge boost just by winning and seeming to vanquish the left. This would provide them with a better starting platform than they could have dreamt of following a mundane contest, and a million times better than Ed had after defeating his brother. So there's some very big positives for Labour if Corbyn doesn't make it.
This is all of course playing beautifully for Burnham if he were to win because he would have lost the lefty label that he was being tarred with. Just by virtue of winning he will have had his clause 4 moment.
I doubt very much that Corbyn's new found supporters would be prepared (or could be arsed) to do the heavy lifting of constituency politics and divide the Labour party.
WTF results in Scottish exams up 18% in a year??!?!
Just imagine how good they would have been if we had voted Yes.
Well, with the price of oil so low, many schools would have closed to ensure that cash was still available for Nicola's spin doctors.
Yes but it is the job of the SQA to ensure that pupils get the results they deserve, apparently. So closed schools could be taken account of and adjustments can be made.
1 hour 10 minutes sounds frightfully short to judge 2 years worth of Maths eduction on.
Are the papers held as pdfs anywhere, wouldn't mind a gander...
Comments
He's the heir to Polly and will probably replace her at the Guardian when she falls off the perch.
Fraud is deeply corrosive of trust, which is essential to banking - and much else besides. It's right that it should be taken seriously. And not before time.
Too many people have calculated that their chances of getting caught are low and the consequences, if they do get caught, not that great. The authorities are right to change that calculation. It's as much about sending a message to those who are doing the right thing as to the bad guys. Otherwise the good guys think they are being mugs.
But this is not an either / or situation. If Islamist extremism and terror are bad things - and they are - and if Labour claims to be progressive and liberal, which it likes to claim, what the hell is it doing cosying up to such people?
Corbyn has a long record of supporting anti-Western groups and governments. And it appears that a lot of Labour people think he is the right person to lead them. It is baffling and saddening.
The two contentious issues are;
a) common standards on food. This means the lowest common denominator in standards so we would have to accept US standards such as beef with growth hormones and so on.
b) The ISDS Investor State Dispute Settlement. This part of the agreement has been boiler plated into many previous trade agreements particularly with the developing world because it protects investors from having their assets seized or their interests unfairly damaged by national government. National courts were not trusted to treat multi-nationals fairly.
It is now in the draft TTIP. Any claim for damages by a MNC against our government (eg for plain cigarette packaging) would not be heard by our courts but by a specially appointed international court. The fear is that the threat of litigation would inhibit our government from following popular policies that MNCs might not like. Why not leave it to our national courts like all other contractual issues? We are not an untrustworthy developing country.
The Austalians refused to allow ISDS in their similar trade agreement.
I mentioned cigarette packaging:
"Philip Morris is suing Uruguay for increasing the size of the health warnings on cigarette packs, and for clamping down on tobacco companies’ use of sub-brands like Malboro Red, Gold, Blue or Green which could give the impression some cigarettes are safe to smoke.
The tobacco behemoth is taking its legal action under the terms of a bilateral trade agreement between Switzerland – where it relatively recently moved from the US – and Uruguay."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/big-tobacco-puts-countries-on-trial-as-concerns-over-ttip-deals-mount-9807478.html
The more people learn about this deal the more unhappy they will be. Corbyn (and Zac Goldsmith) are on the right side of the argument.
"The last surviving Dambusters pilot, Les Munro, has died at the age of 96, the New Zealand Bomber Command Association has said."
"There are now only two surviving crew members of the Dambusters missions.
Out of 133 crew, only 77 returned. "
"Earlier this year, he put his medals up for auction to help pay for the upkeep of the Bomber Command Memorial in London.
A day before the auction, they were bought by British peer Lord Ashcroft for £75,000 ($117,000). He donated them to the Museum of Transport and Technology in Auckland."
If anyone had written a story before the war that bouncing bombs would be used to destroy German dams, no publisher would have entertained the idea of publishing it.
(R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.
And wow regarding Dan Hodges. Can't wait to see that piece.
Re: TTIP
Sounds a bit like our extradition treaties with the planks.
"Watching JC I was reminded of those times I've seen Nigel Farage.."
for example:
D-Day (amphibious landings as well as their sheer scale)
Pearl Harbor (planes sinking battleships)
Atom bombs (single bombs destroying entire cities)
This country as done it's bit on asylum over the years and the chart is meaningless if the asylum goes up and down in other countries,next year,Sweden and Germany might have the lowest intake of asylum seeker's.
What do you want,illegal immigration to win the day ?
Yes, very simple.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11782467/Jeremy-Corbyn-spoke-to-the-masses-but-I-just-saw-a-false-prophet.html
"Watching Jeremy Corbyn I was reminded of those times I’ve seen Nigel Farage. Not because they are in any way alike politically. But because strip away the aura – an aura that they themselves have not actually generated, but that has been projected onto them by others – and there is nothing there. Nothing except the sort of meaningless slogans and sound-bites and homilies that were they produced by a mainstream politician would invite ridicule and contempt."
'Essentially'? Is the agreement unequal in that sense? Are both parties not signing up to an agreement that binds them both equally? Why would we agree to a treaty that enforces international independent arbitration, but exempt another partner from having to do the same thing?
It would be like us being a part of the EU, and subject to the european court of justice, but allowing Germany to not be.
Free owls, moon on a sticks, whatever, all paid for by the Bank of Money Tree.
"The rightwing smear against Ed Miliband angered me. But his bravery and integrity in the face of it was an inspiration"
I am amazed that Labour did not return to the non-dom issue a few days before Polling Day.
Why not just dripfeed sell into the market at errm market ?
On ISDS, you again are being very misleading. The existence of a law suit by Philip Morris does not show that they will win. ISDS does not prevent tighter regulation - it just requires that the government does not do it in a way that discriminates against foreign producers. And even if a policy is shown to be discriminatory, the international arbitration courts can not change government policy, but merely require damages to be paid. The UK currently has nine treaties with ISDS in them and has only had two cases brought against it to date. Both failed.
The market rate - of anything (cf. betfair) - is only the market rate for a given quantity.
That said, the sale of Royal Mail was distinctly unimpressive.
That doesn't necessarily undermine any points or policies they make, but it takes away some of the specialness which they appear to regard as so vital.
The answer to 'Does a nuclear explosion anywhere in the world bring about peace?' is Yes. WWII - Japan. Surrender within days.
Really - has any of this seriously resonated outside of Camden and Islington?
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06688
On food standards - the EU approach is to protect people. Businesses can use chemicals and processes that are shown to be safe. It is the precautionary principle. The US approach is to protect business. Businesses can use chemicals and processes unless they are shown to be unsafe. The result of TTIP may be in between the two - but it will still mean a lowering of EU food standards.
On ISDS, the problem is the threat or possibility of litigation inhibiting the pursuit of democratically supported policies by national governments that may be disadvanteous to MNCs. If you are worried about the EU undermining national democracy you should be very worried about ISDS.
These people need to get out of their groupthink bubble.
It has not been a valid argument against nuclear weapons for 35 years. - not even North Korea undertakes atmospheric tests.
"Atmospheric testing was banned by the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty. Negotiations had largely responded to the international community’s grave concern over the radioactive fallout resulting from atmospheric tests. The United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom became Parties to the Treaty; France and China did not. France conducted its last atmospheric test in 1974, China in 1980."
It is important this sets the basis for trade agreements, given we will need them in future agreements with China, who will do everything they can to prefer domestic companies and nationalise the assets of foreign companies after a deal.
It's common to blame the ERM, sleaze and tiredness for the 1997 rout - and these were indeed all factors - but I'd also be inclined to throw in a delayed effect of the 1990-2 recession and poll tax too. It's just that the public couldn't do it at the time due to Kinnock.
Thousands of students complained the exam in May was more difficult than they had expected.
Changes to the grading system in maths mean that candidates should still get the mark they deserve.
The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) admission comes as students across Scotland receive their results. Overall there were a record 156,000 Higher passes - up 5.5% on last year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-33760350
Don't drink any orange squash from the punch bowl, in case it's laced with a good dose of tranquillisers.
But, the results in North London in 1997 are another good example, I think. The Conservatives were losing seats on swings of 16, 17, 18, 19%. That doesn't happen unless there is very deep-rooted anger.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Five_main_citizenships_of_(non-EU)_asylum_applicants,_2014_(number,_rounded_figures)_YB15_III.png
Illegal immigration and genuine asylum seekers are separate issues. I'd welcome stringent controls on illegal immigration - there's nothing to stop the Tory government from bringing in proper penalties for employing illegal immigrants.
"PUPILS sitting the new Higher maths exam had the pass mark lowered to 33.8 per cent, it has emerged.
Data released by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) revealed the percentage required to achieve a C grade at the new Higher maths was almost 10 per cent lower than the 43 per cent required to pass the old version this year"
33.8 - about the same % that voted YES...
'How many online petitions make 45% a majority?
a)1,
b)Yes,
c)Westmonster'
Not all ISDS agreements are created equally. Most have very limited scope (including the 94 that the UK has signed in the last 40 years). Others (notably those created under NAFTA, and to a lesser extent those in the TPP) have much greater force. Similarly, some ISDS enforcement is done in private courts, and others have hearings that are open to examination. While the TTIP ISDS is slightly less all encompassing than the TPP one, it does propose arbitration in private, it has almost unlimited power to fine governments, and covers a far greater range of goods and services than any other agreement (other than the EU, obviously) that we are party to.
This does not mean that we should not be signatories to the TTIP, and I would hope that were we to leave the EU we would sign a free trade deal with the US. But it does mean that we should be very aware that - by empowering a foreign entity to judge and fine us - that we undoubtedly diminishing our sovereignty. The single most important change I would suggest to the TTIP treaty would be to allow ISDS arbitration to happen in a public forum, rather than a private one.
If you're a North London Tory MP or a Glasgow Labour MP sitting on a majority of 18,000, in a seat that's voted for your party for decades, you think you have nothing to worry about, however much your constituents may grumble, because they've grumbled for years and still returned you with five-figure majorities. And, then suddenly, you're out on your ear.
In fact, if you could work that out, you get a B
If the UK wants to be seen as one of the world's more enlightened countries should it not be seen to be taking a lead here?
What I'm not sympathetic toward is an implication that muck throwing, of which there is so much in all directions, can be pinpointed to have started from one side eg - one side loses argument, throws muck in x direction, the implication being the reverse does not happen.
I replied "Well, I guess... three or four times a day... I'd think about something else.."
I don't think it's the same for girls, at least in experience. Women think about sex, but not really as much as men.
'He was a bit funny' seems to be a phrase I heard from older people growing up in the 80s as a young'un.
This is all of course playing beautifully for Burnham if he were to win because he would have lost the lefty label that he was being tarred with. Just by virtue of winning he will have had his clause 4 moment.
I doubt very much that Corbyn's new found supporters would be prepared (or could be arsed) to do the heavy lifting of constituency politics and divide the Labour party.
Mrs Thatcher, of course, managed far better with both.
Asylum goes up and down every year in countries,Sweden might have lower numbers next year and the way things are going,Britains asylum cases will be rising.
The left have to learn that Britain has to be tough on all immigration or it leads to madness and anger if you have a soft view,look at Germany bringing they army out to deal with the economic /asylum migration of thousands.
Thought you were last time.
Are the papers held as pdfs anywhere, wouldn't mind a gander...