politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Iowa shock for Hillary Clinton as the state’s most accurate

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think since the service sector was the last to go, it's probably the easiest to get back in the short term. Call centres and similar should be brought back to the UK. I know someone who works for RBS - all his team are in India. They're constantly changing personnel, and he spends most of his working day shouting at people on the other side of the world. This cannot be the best solution for anyone. I also don't know anyone who finds customer service lines in India easy to deal with.

I have completely given up on Indian call centres and anytime I phone a company and here an indian accent on the other end I just hang up and look for another way to resolve whatever it is I am trying to do. Likewise when I answer the phone and hear an indian voice (something that happens several times every day) I just hang up.

I do feel sorry for the people at the other end. I am sure they are intelligent, well educated and doing their best but my time is too precious to me to spend talking to people who can only work to a script and with whom, through no fault on either side, I frequently have difficulty in understanding and getting them to understand.

Mind you, UK based call centres also have problems caused by penny-pinching management. "We are experiencing an unusually high volume of calls", is one message that seems to be on permanently in some organisations regardless of the time of day, so is clearly a lie. "Your call is important to us", no it isn't if it was you would provide sufficient staff to deal with it. And so on...

re the Blair letter and which highlights Brown & Kinnock agreeing with him.

Would this last intervention not have more chance of doing something if it was all 3 of them signing it or a redraft version of it rather than these individual inputs?

It would appear their own animosity even stops them putting on a united front against the peril they see in Corbyn.

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Feisty this morning. Feisty but enlightening: it is striking how quickly the thread has veered off-topic, no doubt because British and European politics is so much more interesting than American politics, at the moment. Hillary Clinton? Yawn.

This is a trend I've seen elsewhere. TV news is less interested in America than it was. The USA in general looms less large in our lives. At the same time China grows more prominent: cf the coverage of the Tianjin explosions.

Our worldview is slowly adapting to the economic facts.

US politics is interesting for the entertainment value and Trump and Sanders still add to that.

Of course China continues to loom large but the stock market collapse last week showed it is not infallible and there are limits to what the Communist Party can control, indeed one advantage India has over China is that it is a democracy with a younger population.

I don't think India really has any advantages over China. Look at the Commonwealth Games. All the resources of the world's second most populous country and they couldn't even produce a sanitary competitor's village and a swimming pool that didn't give people the squits. When the British left India they surveyed some of the villages to ask whether they were pleased the British had left - they weren't even aware they'd arrived. I see it more as a collection of peoples than a great power. It's a wonderful thing as well as a bad thing.

TBF, up to 30% of India's territory wasn't actually annexed by the Empire - it was run by local "Princes" - hence the term "Princely States".

Also China is 93% Han Chinese, India is 40% or so Hindi-speaking (although Hindi is part of a dialect continuum including Urdu spoken in Pakistan).

JEO said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. T, even Blair is splitting. He said he recognised his piece would backfire, but wrote it anyway.

He's more concerned with rescuing his legacy, being seen by posterity as being on the 'right' side rather than actually doing what is best for Labour.

A bit late for that - if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Corbynites get their way, the clock will be reset to zero and the ‘New Labour project’ erased from memory.

felix said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Voting down the bombing of Syria was probably the greatest service to the nation that Ed Milliband will ever perform.

Unintentionally, as that wasn't what he was trying to do.

The Tories and their LibDem hand-maidens - oops, I mean "partners" - had a majority in the Commons. Why couldn't they carry the vote?

Decisions to engage in military action traditionally require a large measure of all-party support. Miliband's actions were despicable and self-serving as was his resignation in May, as has been his silence re Corbyn. He wants a shadow cabinet post and will no doubt get it.

Comrade Felix!

Ancien Regime propaganda aside, how was his post-election resignation "despicable and self-serving"??

TCPoliticalBetting said:

MattW said:

DavidL said:

@Yorkcity

I think Philip may be right so I am starting again.

The UK has a tendency to higher levels of private debt because of our housing market. A large share of the debt is mortgage debt and well secured.

You are right that inflation is currently very low but real wages have grown faster than debt over the last year. More importantly, there has been a considerable reduction in the rate of increase in the cost of houses.

It is possible that the BTL tax changes in the budget will significantly increase the supply of housing and lead to continued price moderation which will help with debt. A lot more building would also help although a weak housing market does not help that.

They won't increase supply, because it will reduce reasons for more to be built and btls used to buy quite a lot of new property. Big developers have been hugely cautious since the recession, as they were badly burnt.
But I'm not aware of a shortage of property to buy except in the SE for existing demand. The issue seems to me to be as much credit availability and tight policy.
In the short term Osbo may free up the market in the SE. But the problem is that if it does work all those non-optional renters will have fewer places to live.
No idea how it will balance out.

Some BTLs will have to be sold due to the BTL tax changes of Osborne. At a time that new landlords with capital will be entering the market with pension money who would need no/little mortgages. Thus we are likely to see less demand for mortgages. Unless there is a big expansion in the supply of housing, something that looks very unlikely.

Where are these new LLs with capital coming from? And why would the put unleveraged capital into London property with less-than-the-bank returns while Osbo is tinkering with confidence? If prices are to be pressured by fiddling with the system then there is only a risky capital return.

Unlikely to be the institutions, as returns are just too low especially in. London. They need large projects like the Olympic village to be efficient enough with some pretty major tax breaks.

And never mind the rampaging regulation now happening in London to the PRS.

Where does that leave the personal buyers who do need mortgages?

Osbo imo is after letting prices fall in real terms while making sure the Treasury benefits most.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JEO, he's coming across as a jilted boyfriend who won't stop calling, but the girl has not only moved on, she's about to marry his arch-enemy.

She said listen Tony, I love you
But there's this bloke, I fancy
I don't want to two time you,
so it's the end for you and me

Who's this bloke I asked her
Je-e-ezza, she replied
Not THAT puff, I said dismayed
Yes but he's no puff she cried

and so on.

JEO said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. T, even Blair is splitting. He said he recognised his piece would backfire, but wrote it anyway.

He's more concerned with rescuing his legacy, being seen by posterity as being on the 'right' side rather than actually doing what is best for Labour.

If Tony Blair wanted a legacy, he should have told George Bush to fuck right off...

Mr. T, are they? I know the new president, whose name continually escapes me, is upping military expenditure, but I thought that was in relation to the land grab of the southern seas (which is in China's vicinity).

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think since the service sector was the last to go, it's probably the easiest to get back in the short term. Call centres and similar should be brought back to the UK. I know someone who works for RBS - all his team are in India. They're constantly changing personnel, and he spends most of his working day shouting at people on the other side of the world. This cannot be the best solution for anyone. I also don't know anyone who finds customer service lines in India easy to deal with.

After a particularly painful experience with my phone and broadband provider I have been looking for a provider with a UK call centre.

I have done the same with my mobile phone and have changed to Tesco. I have had to call them a couple of times and the service has been outstanding.

Going with a cheap provider who have offshored all of their support services is fine until you encounter a problem. It is usually easier to skip the offshored call centre and make a complaint which is dealt with in the UK.

MattW said:

Where are these new LLs with capital coming from? And why would the put unleveraged capital into London property with less-than-the-bank returns while Osbo is tinkering with confidence? If prices are to be pressured by fiddling with the system then there is only a risky capital return.

Unlikely to be the institutions, as returns are just too low especially in. London. They need large projects like the Olympic village to be efficient enough with some pretty major tax breaks.

And never mind the rampaging regulation now happening in London to the PRS.

Where does that leave the personal buyers who do need mortgages?

Osbo imo is after letting prices fall in real terms while making sure the Treasury benefits most.

Mr Brooke, up-thread, said correctly that the housing market in England is a mess. One of the main reasons for that mess is that governments keep trying to tinker with it and at the same time milk it for as much cash as they think they can get away with. One would have thought that Osborne as a Conservative chancellor in a Conservative administration would be trying to get HMG out of involvement in something it improperly understands and makes worse. However, Osborne has shown himself to be the political reincarnation of Brown and wants to meddle and control every aspect of national life.

Where action by HMG is essential he prevaricates and cuts where HMG should keep its great nose out he intervenes and in both cases he adds complexity and cost.

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It's not a lack of ambition, its a surplus of ambition. I find the desire to look back and never give up jobs to be the one lacking in ambition. It is Luddism. History, technology and Ricardian Economics have shown that certain jobs are either not worth doing or better done elsewhere.

Sure we can bring some jobs back. But the idea that every job lost is one we should regain as there's nothing better we can do instead is depressingly unambitious.

Some jobs go that's life. Productivity by it's nature kills jobs off.

But the bulk of jobs let go in the noughties are still the kind of jobs that can be more than adequately done in this country and fit in with high skill high productivity economy political parties used to espouse..

Currently the work platform we have isn't paying the bills and shows no sign of doing so in the foreseeable future.

I think we're talking cross-purposes and actually agree with each other then but are emphasising different things. I definitely agree we can (and should) be competitive and get some jobs back, but some people who were once doing other jobs are now doing new jobs and would have no interest in getting their old jobs back even if they were available again.

If a job has gone overseas as it can be effectively done for 50 cents an hour by a Chinese labourer then I see that as not the sort of income we should be making. Better to export that sort of menial labour and have more productive labour onshore. If the income is worth 50cents an hour then that's an income we can do without and should form part of our Balance of Payments.

The problem was previously that no distinction was always made between productive and unproductive work, while the tax, red tape and political environment was not conducive to what we needed. High value work absolutely we can and should be able to do on shore.

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Feisty this morning. Feisty but enlightening: it is striking how quickly the thread has veered off-topic, no doubt because British and European politics is so much more interesting than American politics, at the moment. Hillary Clinton? Yawn.

This is a trend I've seen elsewhere. TV news is less interested in America than it was. The USA in general looms less large in our lives. At the same time China grows more prominent: cf the coverage of the Tianjin explosions.

Our worldview is slowly adapting to the economic facts.

US politics is interesting for the entertainment value and Trump and Sanders still add to that.

The Chinese crash - which is coming, even if it doesn't happen now - actually proves my point. China is now vitally important to the global economy, arguably more important than America (China is a bigger trader, a bigger exporter, and contributes more to global growth).

Therefore when China stumbles we have to pay attention, whereas before we could happily remain indifferent.

The Wall Street Crash had a similar effect. By the 1920s the American economy was so important, in global terms, the depression which began in the USA spread quickly around the world.

And of course, following the Great Depression America continued its advance to global economic primacy, nonetheless.

China is of course a vital part of the global economy now, indeed you could say when China sneezes the world catches a cold as much as you could about the US. By 2050 China will be the largest economy on the planet overtaking the US much as the US overtook the British Empire at the dawn of the 20th century but that is in many ways a reflection of population, indeed China and India were the largest economies on the planet until the seventeenth century (on a gdp per capita basis the US will still probably be just ahead of China and certainly India). It was Maoism which really did for China over the last century. However, until China really takes an interest in international affairs outside the Pacific region in foreign policy terms the US will still lead the way

If the Chinese were sensible they'd let America do all the global policing (and shoulder all the costs) while quietly getting richer (and quietly overtaking America).

Indeed that is the policy China has smartly pursued up to now. But they are beginning to swagger, just a little. Perhaps inevitably.

Indeed, but China cannot ignore Muslim extremism either, indeed there are 23 million Muslims in China and it is the most popular religion with young Chinese

http://europe.newsweek.com/islam-most-popular-religion-young-chinese-329967

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Feisty this morning. Feisty but enlightening: it is striking how quickly the thread has veered off-topic, no doubt because British and European politics is so much more interesting than American politics, at the moment. Hillary Clinton? Yawn.

This is a trend I've seen elsewhere. TV news is less interested in America than it was. The USA in general looms less large in our lives. At the same time China grows more prominent: cf the coverage of the Tianjin explosions.

Our worldview is slowly adapting to the economic facts.

US politics is interesting for the entertainment value and Trump and Sanders still add to that.

Of course China continues to loom large but the stock market collapse last week showed it is not infallible and there are limits to what the Communist Party can control, indeed one advantage India has over China is that it is a democracy with a younger population.

I don't think India really has any advantages over China. Look at the Commonwealth Games. All the resources of the world's second most populous country and they couldn't even produce a sanitary competitor's village and a swimming pool that didn't give people the squits. When the British left India they surveyed some of the villages to ask whether they were pleased the British had left - they weren't even aware they'd arrived. I see it more as a collection of peoples than a great power. It's a wonderful thing as well as a bad thing.

By 2050 India will be the most populous nation on earth, overtaking China. Population size inevitably plays a key part in economy size as long as a country is not governed by Marxists which India certainly is not. There will still be poverty and chaos in India but it will be a superpower

Yes, the numbers will be there, I just think culture plays a huge part. I think India is a wonderful, family oriented culture, but an unlikely superpower. By contrast, the Chinese are determinedly planning their world takeover - not just the leadership, the man on the street too.

India is a nuclear power too, as well as the US, China and India will be the superpowers of the 21st century with Russia still pushing at the edge

JEO said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Feisty this morning. Feisty but enlightening: it is striking how quickly the thread has veered off-topic, no doubt because British and European politics is so much more interesting than American politics, at the moment. Hillary Clinton? Yawn.

This is a trend I've seen elsewhere. TV news is less interested in America than it was. The USA in general looms less large in our lives. At the same time China grows more prominent: cf the coverage of the Tianjin explosions.

Our worldview is slowly adapting to the economic facts.

US politics is interesting for the entertainment value and Trump and Sanders still add to that.

Of course China continues to loom large but the stock market collapse last week showed it is not infallible and there are limits to what the Communist Party can control, indeed one advantage India has over China is that it is a democracy with a younger population.

I don't think India really has any advantages over China. Look at the Commonwealth Games. All the resources of the world's second most populous country and they couldn't even produce a sanitary competitor's village and a swimming pool that didn't give people the squits. When the British left India they surveyed some of the villages to ask whether they were pleased the British had left - they weren't even aware they'd arrived. I see it more as a collection of peoples than a great power. It's a wonderful thing as well as a bad thing.

By 2050 India will be the most populous nation on earth, overtaking China. Population size inevitably plays a key part in economy size as long as a country is not governed by Marxists which India certainly is not. There will still be poverty and chaos in India but it will be a superpower

Yes, the numbers will be there, I just think culture plays a huge part. I think India is a wonderful, family oriented culture, but an unlikely superpower. By contrast, the Chinese are determinedly planning their world takeover - not just the leadership, the man on the street too.

The problem China has in its world takeover is that nobody likes them.

Given the numbers, does that matter?

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It's not a lack of ambition, its a surplus of ambition. I find the desire to look back and never give up jobs to be the one lacking in ambition. It is Luddism. History, technology and Ricardian Economics have shown that certain jobs are either not worth doing or better done elsewhere.

Sure we can bring some jobs back. But the idea that every job lost is one we should regain as there's nothing better we can do instead is depressingly unambitious.

Some jobs go that's life. Productivity by it's nature kills jobs off.

But the bulk of jobs let go in the noughties are still the kind of jobs that can be more than adequately done in this country and fit in with high skill high productivity economy political parties used to espouse..

Currently the work platform we have isn't paying the bills and shows no sign of doing so in the foreseeable future.

I think we're talking cross-purposes and actually agree with each other then but are emphasising different things. I definitely agree we can (and should) be competitive and get some jobs back, but some people who were once doing other jobs are now doing new jobs and would have no interest in getting their old jobs back even if they were available again.

If a job has gone overseas as it can be effectively done for 50 cents an hour by a Chinese labourer then I see that as not the sort of income we should be making. Better to export that sort of menial labour and have more productive labour onshore. If the income is worth 50cents an hour then that's an income we can do without and should form part of our Balance of Payments.

The problem was previously that no distinction was always made between productive and unproductive work, while the tax, red tape and political environment was not conducive to what we needed. High value work absolutely we can and should be able to do on shore.

I don't disagree with that, since productivity is a pretty dynamic process.

Where I object to some of the issues that were pushed in the noughties were they were fads and people who should have known better went along with accelerating the erosion of our economy for no reason.

Msany of these jobs could be had back if HMG put it;s mind to doing so. As I often point out our BOP problems are not so much with low cost countries with low tech products, but with high cost countries selling us medium tech products - european cars, fridges, Korean TVs etc.

MarqueeMark said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MarqueeMark said:

JEO said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. T, even Blair is splitting. He said he recognised his piece would backfire, but wrote it anyway.

He's more concerned with rescuing his legacy, being seen by posterity as being on the 'right' side rather than actually doing what is best for Labour.

If Tony Blair wanted a legacy, he should have told George Bush to fuck right off...

..and IDS.

IDS was a peripheral player in Iraq. A fascinating counter-factual is whether Blair would have gone against an anti-war Ken Clarke if he had been Tory leader? Would he have appealed to Tory MPs over Clarke's head - and would they have backed him?

If you think a Clarke Tory leadership might been a factor, then de facto an IDS one did. IDS was gung ho more than a year before any of the dodgy dossier and yellow cake uranium bollocks.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

felix said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Voting down the bombing of Syria was probably the greatest service to the nation that Ed Milliband will ever perform.

Unintentionally, as that wasn't what he was trying to do.

The Tories and their LibDem hand-maidens - oops, I mean "partners" - had a majority in the Commons. Why couldn't they carry the vote?

Decisions to engage in military action traditionally require a large measure of all-party support. Miliband's actions were despicable and self-serving as was his resignation in May, as has been his silence re Corbyn. He wants a shadow cabinet post and will no doubt get it.

Comrade Felix!

Ancien Regime propaganda aside, how was his post-election resignation "despicable and self-serving"??

Contrast with Nick Clegg's gracious resignation for a start. Also contrast with the way that Howard sucked up the post-election defeat in 2005 and stayed on for a few months giving the Conservatives time to have a mature reflection on what went wrong, ultimately resulting in the victory of the electable David Cameron rather than the initial favourites.

Miliband should have stayed in place for months while the election took place, giving Labour space to have a mature debate. If he'd stayed in place it would have been him rather than Harriet who responded to Osborne's budget and he would have done so as the outgoing leader, rather than the ludicrous situation we had of a caretaker trying to enforce abstentionism between leaders.

Hague resigned swiftly in 2001 and the Tories got IDS, also elected in September

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

felix said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Voting down the bombing of Syria was probably the greatest service to the nation that Ed Milliband will ever perform.

Unintentionally, as that wasn't what he was trying to do.

The Tories and their LibDem hand-maidens - oops, I mean "partners" - had a majority in the Commons. Why couldn't they carry the vote?

Decisions to engage in military action traditionally require a large measure of all-party support. Miliband's actions were despicable and self-serving as was his resignation in May, as has been his silence re Corbyn. He wants a shadow cabinet post and will no doubt get it.

Comrade Felix!

Ancien Regime propaganda aside, how was his post-election resignation "despicable and self-serving"??

Contrast with Nick Clegg's gracious resignation for a start. Also contrast with the way that Howard sucked up the post-election defeat in 2005 and stayed on for a few months giving the Conservatives time to have a mature reflection on what went wrong, ultimately resulting in the victory of the electable David Cameron rather than the initial favourites.

Miliband should have stayed in place for months while the election took place, giving Labour space to have a mature debate. If he'd stayed in place it would have been him rather than Harriet who responded to Osborne's budget and he would have done so as the outgoing leader, rather than the ludicrous situation we had of a caretaker trying to enforce abstentionism between leaders.

Hague resigned swiftly in 2001 and the Tories got IDS, also elected in September

Hague was wrong, Howard was right.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Feisty this morning. Feisty but enlightening: it is striking how quickly the thread has veered off-topic, no doubt because British and European politics is so much more interesting than American politics, at the moment. Hillary Clinton? Yawn.

This is a trend I've seen elsewhere. TV news is less interested in America than it was. The USA in general looms less large in our lives. At the same time China grows more prominent: cf the coverage of the Tianjin explosions.

Our worldview is slowly adapting to the economic facts.

US politics is interesting for the entertainment value and Trump and Sanders still add to that.

Of course China continues to loom large but the stock market collapse last week showed it is not infallible and there are limits to what the Communist Party can control, indeed one advantage India has over China is that it is a democracy with a younger population.

I don't think India really has any advantages over China. Look at the Commonwealth Games. All the resources of the world's second most populous country and they couldn't even produce a sanitary competitor's village and a swimming pool that didn't give people the squits. When the British left India they surveyed some of the villages to ask whether they were pleased the British had left - they weren't even aware they'd arrived. I see it more as a collection of peoples than a great power. It's a wonderful thing as well as a bad thing.

By 2050 India will be the most populous nation on earth, overtaking China. Population size inevitably plays a key part in economy size as long as a country is not governed by Marxists which India certainly is not. There will still be poverty and chaos in India but it will be a superpower

Yes, the numbers will be there, I just think culture plays a huge part. I think India is a wonderful, family oriented culture, but an unlikely superpower. By contrast, the Chinese are determinedly planning their world takeover - not just the leadership, the man on the street too.

India is a nuclear power too, as well as the US, China and India will be the superpowers of the 21st century with Russia still pushing at the edge

Russia is not going to be any more powerful than the UK. They are heading backwards fast.

Yes.

On certain population forecasts the UK could have a bigger population than Russia by 2050
something I'd never have thought possible.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4537989.ece

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Feisty this morning. Feisty but enlightening: it is striking how quickly the thread has veered off-topic, no doubt because British and European politics is so much more interesting than American politics, at the moment. Hillary Clinton? Yawn.

This is a trend I've seen elsewhere. TV news is less interested in America than it was. The USA in general looms less large in our lives. At the same time China grows more prominent: cf the coverage of the Tianjin explosions.

Our worldview is slowly adapting to the economic facts.

US politics is interesting for the entertainment value and Trump and Sanders still add to that.

Of course China continues to loom large but the stock market collapse last week showed it is not infallible and there are limits to what the Communist Party can control, indeed one advantage India has over China is that it is a democracy with a younger population.

I don't think India really has any advantages over China. Look at the Commonwealth Games. All the resources of the world's second most populous country and they couldn't even produce a sanitary competitor's village and a swimming pool that didn't give people the squits. When the British left India they surveyed some of the villages to ask whether they were pleased the British had left - they weren't even aware they'd arrived. I see it more as a collection of peoples than a great power. It's a wonderful thing as well as a bad thing.

By 2050 India will be the most populous nation on earth, overtaking China. Population size inevitably plays a key part in economy size as long as a country is not governed by Marxists which India certainly is not. There will still be poverty and chaos in India but it will be a superpower

Yes, the numbers will be there, I just think culture plays a huge part. I think India is a wonderful, family oriented culture, but an unlikely superpower. By contrast, the Chinese are determinedly planning their world takeover - not just the leadership, the man on the street too.

India is a nuclear power too, as well as the US, China and India will be the superpowers of the 21st century with Russia still pushing at the edge

Russia is not going to be any more powerful than the UK. They are heading backwards fast.

Russia is still the largest nation on earth by landmass, has oil and gas, even if diminishing, and a large nuclear arsenal and as we have seen its intentions impact on eastern europe.

that assumes a bunch of drunks on Zimmer frames can hang on to it.

Two more polls putting the NDP ahead in Canada. Cautionary note: phone and internet polls are showing rather different scores:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Feisty this morning. Feisty but enlightening: it is striking how quickly the thread has veered off-topic, no doubt because British and European politics is so much more interesting than American politics, at the moment. Hillary Clinton? Yawn.


Our worldview is slowly adapting to the economic facts.

US politics is interesting for the entertainment value and Trump and Sanders still add to that.

Of course China continues to loom large but the stock market collapse last week showed it is not infallible and there are limits to what the Communist Party can control, indeed one advantage India has over China is that it is a democracy with a younger population.

I don't think India really has any advantages over China. Look at the Commonwealth Games. All the resources of the world's second most populous country and they couldn't even produce a sanitary competitor's village and a swimming pool that didn't give people the squits. When the British left India they surveyed some of the villages to ask whether they were pleased the British had left - they weren't even aware they'd arrived. I see it more as a collection of peoples than a great power. It's a wonderful thing as well as a bad thing.

By 2050 India will be the most populous nation on earth, overtaking China. Population size inevitably plays a key part in economy size as long as a country is not governed by Marxists which India certainly is not. There will still be poverty and chaos in India but it will be a superpower

Yes, the numbers will be there, I just think culture plays a huge part. I think India is a wonderful, family oriented culture, but an unlikely superpower. By contrast, the Chinese are determinedly planning their world takeover - not just the leadership, the man on the street too.

India is a nuclear power too, as well as the US, China and India will be the superpowers of the 21st century with Russia still pushing at the edge

Russia is not going to be any more powerful than the UK. They are heading backwards fast.

Russia is still the largest nation on earth by landmass, has oil and gas, even if diminishing, and a large nuclear arsenal and as we have seen its intentions impact on eastern europe.

that assumes a bunch of drunks on Zimmer frames can hang on to it.

We shall see, though Putin has also been meeting the Saudis recently, concerned over US moves towards Iran, and maintains his links with Assad

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

felix said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Voting down the bombing of Syria was probably the greatest service to the nation that Ed Milliband will ever perform.

Unintentionally, as that wasn't what he was trying to do.

The Tories and their LibDem hand-maidens - oops, I mean "partners" - had a majority in the Commons. Why couldn't they carry the vote?

Decisions to engage in military action traditionally require a large measure of all-party support. Miliband's actions were despicable and self-serving as was his resignation in May, as has been his silence re Corbyn. He wants a shadow cabinet post and will no doubt get it.

Comrade Felix!

Ancien Regime propaganda aside, how was his post-election resignation "despicable and self-serving"??

Contrast with Nick Clegg's gracious resignation for a start. Also contrast with the way that Howard sucked up the post-election defeat in 2005 and stayed on for a few months giving the Conservatives time to have a mature reflection on what went wrong, ultimately resulting in the victory of the electable David Cameron rather than the initial favourites.

Miliband should have stayed in place for months while the election took place, giving Labour space to have a mature debate. If he'd stayed in place it would have been him rather than Harriet who responded to Osborne's budget and he would have done so as the outgoing leader, rather than the ludicrous situation we had of a caretaker trying to enforce abstentionism between leaders.

Hague resigned swiftly in 2001 and the Tories got IDS, also elected in September

Hague was wrong, Howard was right.

However Howard only resigned after a third defeat, this was Labour's second

Theuniondivvie said:

MarqueeMark said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MarqueeMark said:

JEO said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. T, even Blair is splitting. He said he recognised his piece would backfire, but wrote it anyway.

He's more concerned with rescuing his legacy, being seen by posterity as being on the 'right' side rather than actually doing what is best for Labour.

If Tony Blair wanted a legacy, he should have told George Bush to fuck right off...

..and IDS.

IDS was a peripheral player in Iraq. A fascinating counter-factual is whether Blair would have gone against an anti-war Ken Clarke if he had been Tory leader? Would he have appealed to Tory MPs over Clarke's head - and would they have backed him?

If you think a Clarke Tory leadership might been a factor, then de facto an IDS one did. IDS was gung ho more than a year before any of the dodgy dossier and yellow cake uranium bollocks.

We're putting too much explanatory power in the hands of Tory leaders rather than the party and missing the major point about Iraq. Voting against could've genuinely split the party because it wasn't as controversial as it now is - an awful lot of people, including the British public, backed get rid of Saddam in principle. Now, that the post-war plans were so shoddy is a disgrace which has cost both Blair and Bush their reputations and influence, but it has littlee to do with the principle. I think most of the Tory Party would've voted with Blair and it would've been the end of Ken Clarke had he been leader.

Alanbrooke said:

Yes.

On certain population forecasts the UK could have a bigger population than Russia by 2050
something I'd never have thought possible.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4537989.ece

Absolutely. Their population is already declining and the evidence points to the problem getting worse before it gets better for them.

Ours is rapidly rising and sustainably will.

JEO said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Feisty this morning. Feisty but enlightening: it is striking how quickly the thread has veered off-topic, no doubt because British and European politics is so much more interesting than American politics, at the moment. Hillary Clinton? Yawn.

This is a trend I've seen elsewhere. TV news is less interested in America than it was. The USA in general looms less large in our lives. At the same time China grows more prominent: cf the coverage of the Tianjin explosions.

Our worldview is slowly adapting to the economic facts.

US politics is interesting for the entertainment value and Trump and Sanders still add to that.

Of course China continues to loom large but the stock market collapse last week showed it is not infallible and there are limits to what the Communist Party can control, indeed one advantage India has over China is that it is a democracy with a younger population.

I don't think India really has any advantages over China. Look at the Commonwealth Games. All the resources of the world's second most populous country and they couldn't even produce a sanitary competitor's village and a swimming pool that didn't give people the squits. When the British left India they surveyed some of the villages to ask whether they were pleased the British had left - they weren't even aware they'd arrived. I see it more as a collection of peoples than a great power. It's a wonderful thing as well as a bad thing.

By 2050 India will be the most populous nation on earth, overtaking China. Population size inevitably plays a key part in economy size as long as a country is not governed by Marxists which India certainly is not. There will still be poverty and chaos in India but it will be a superpower

Yes, the numbers will be there, I just think culture plays a huge part. I think India is a wonderful, family oriented culture, but an unlikely superpower. By contrast, the Chinese are determinedly planning their world takeover - not just the leadership, the man on the street too.

The problem China has in its world takeover is that nobody likes them.

I'd be interested to see your evidence A) that positive opinion has an impact on the rise of nations and B ) it's a valid generalisation that 'nobody likes' China. My immediate response to both assertions would be to think they're utter rubbish.

Luckyguy1983 said:

JEO said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Feisty this morning. Feisty but enlightening: it is striking how quickly the thread has veered off-topic, no doubt because British and European politics is so much more interesting than American politics, at the moment. Hillary Clinton? Yawn.

This is a trend I've seen elsewhere. TV news is less interested in America than it was. The USA in general looms less large in our lives. At the same time China grows more prominent: cf the coverage of the Tianjin explosions.

Our worldview is slowly adapting to the economic facts.

US politics is interesting for the entertainment value and Trump and Sanders still add to that.

Of course China continues to loom large but the stock market collapse last week showed it is not infallible and there are limits to what the Communist Party can control, indeed one advantage India has over China is that it is a democracy with a younger population.

I don't think India really has any advantages over China. Look at the Commonwealth Games. All the resources of the world's second most populous country and they couldn't even produce a sanitary competitor's village and a swimming pool that didn't give people the squits. When the British left India they surveyed some of the villages to ask whether they were pleased the British had left - they weren't even aware they'd arrived. I see it more as a collection of peoples than a great power. It's a wonderful thing as well as a bad thing.

By 2050 India will be the most populous nation on earth, overtaking China. Population size inevitably plays a key part in economy size as long as a country is not governed by Marxists which India certainly is not. There will still be poverty and chaos in India but it will be a superpower

Yes, the numbers will be there, I just think culture plays a huge part. I think India is a wonderful, family oriented culture, but an unlikely superpower. By contrast, the Chinese are determinedly planning their world takeover - not just the leadership, the man on the street too.

The problem China has in its world takeover is that nobody likes them.

I'd be interested to see your evidence A) that positive opinion has an impact on the rise of nations and B ) it's a valid generalisation that 'nobody likes' China. My immediate response to both assertions would be to think they're utter rubbish.

If liking a nation was a key determinant of power than Ireland and Canada would be superpowers!

NickPalmer said:

Two more polls putting the NDP ahead in Canada. Cautionary note: phone and internet polls are showing rather different scores:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015

Given all polls suggest the Liberals will at least be a strong third compared to last time I would expect an NDP minority government even if the Tories recover a little

I think if the UK does view itself as a world player - scenes like this just put us to shame as a nation:

https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/637954116241723392

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Feisty this morning. Feisty but enlightening: it is striking how quickly the thread has veered off-topic, no doubt because British and European politics is so much more interesting than American politics, at the moment. Hillary Clinton? Yawn.


Our worldview is slowly adapting to the economic facts.

US politics is interesting for the entertainment value and Trump and Sanders still add to that.

Of course China continues to loom large but the stock market collapse last week showed it is not infallible and there are limits to what the Communist Party can control, indeed one advantage India has over China is that it is a democracy with a younger population.

I don't think India really has any advantages over China. Look at the Commonwealth Games. All the resources of the world's second most populous country and they couldn't even produce a sanitary competitor's village and a swimming pool that didn't give people the squits. When the British left India they surveyed some of the villages to ask whether they were pleased the British had left - they weren't even aware they'd arrived. I see it more as a collection of peoples than a great power. It's a wonderful thing as well as a bad thing.

ulture, but an unlikely superpower. By contrast, the Chinese are determinedly planning their world takeover - not just the leadership, the man on the street too.

India is a nuclear power too, as well as the US, China and India will be the superpowers of the 21st century with Russia still pushing at the edge

Russia is not going to be any more powerful than the UK. They are heading backwards fast.

Russia is still the largest nation on earth by landmass, has oil and gas, even if diminishing, and a large nuclear arsenal and as we have seen its intentions impact on eastern europe.

that assumes a bunch of drunks on Zimmer frames can hang on to it.

We shall see, though Putin has also been meeting the Saudis recently, concerned over US moves towards Iran, and maintains his links with Assad

Given I'll be well in to my nineties and more gaga than usual, I suspect I'll not be able to see how it turns out. :-)

Well, you never know, Dennis Healey is 98 today and still has his mind intact

calum said:

I think if the UK does view itself as a world player - scenes like this just put us to shame as a nation:

https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/637954116241723392

Germany are only trying to overcompensate for past mistakes.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

India is a nuclear power too, as well as the US, China and India will be the superpowers of the 21st century with Russia still pushing at the edge

Russia is not going to be any more powerful than the UK. They are heading backwards fast.

Russia is still the largest nation on earth by landmass, has oil and gas, even if diminishing, and a large nuclear arsenal and as we have seen its intentions impact on eastern europe.

Landmass is not the be all and end all. Capital is more important than land, which is why the UK could rule the globe from an island.

Russia doesn't just have short-term economic problems but it also has appalling demographics which is only going to make the economy worse over the longer term. The UK has good and improving demographics compared to almost all the developed world apart from the USA, which is why we'll overtake Germany as Europe's largest economy before too long.

Indeed, and like Russia we are also on the Security Council. However, even on the best estimates on population if we reached 80 million and Russia fell as low as 80 million we would still be tied and on the UN Security Council we tend to side with the US, Russia tends to go its own way, often more aligned with China or even France

We'd be tied on population yes but on a per capita basis we earn more per capita than Russians and that's accelerating which means we'll be miles ahead on the economy which is what matters.

Our economy in nominal terms is already well ahead of Russia's. Hell even Australia is close to overtaking Russia on current trends!

calum said:

I think if the UK does view itself as a world player - scenes like this just put us to shame as a nation:

https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/637954116241723392

Why on earth should we feel shame? If Germany really wants to welcome refugees (as opposed to the stunts of a few people at footer matches), that is terrific news for us. Pop over to Calais and hand out train tickets to Munich, Dusseldorf etc.. Job done, problem solved and everyone, including the Germans, are happy.

HurstLlama said:

Alanbrooke said:

I don't disagree with that, since productivity is a pretty dynamic process.

Where I object to some of the issues that were pushed in the noughties were they were fads and people who should have known better went along with accelerating the erosion of our economy for no reason.

Msany of these jobs could be had back if HMG put it;s mind to doing so. As I often point out our BOP problems are not so much with low cost countries with low tech products, but with high cost countries selling us medium tech products - european cars, fridges, Korean TVs etc.

You cannot just blame HMG though, Mr. Brooke. Most of the decisions to go along with the fad were taken by high paid CEOs looking for a quick fix, perhaps to ensure their bonuses. It is not often I agree with Mr. Observer, gent of this parish, but on the subject of the quality of British management at senior level, he has it spot on - most are rubbish and grossly overpaid.

However, until the UK sorts out a system of corporate governance fit for the 21st century that is unlikely to change. So perhaps the best thing HMG can do is not build roads and all that easy stuff but actually change how companies are owned and run. In the process they should re-introduce by statute, as no bugger will do it otherwise, the link between risk and reward for big company CEOs and the equivalents in the public sector.

No the government has no role in deciding how our companies are owned and run. It is upto the market and companies to determine that and competition will find the best ways to proceed as it always has. Those that sacrifice long term planning to seek a quick buck don't survive the long term.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Going to be meant in the future. As for currently - I'd say arguably so. It will be unarguably so in 50 years time though. "Drunks on zimmerframes" is a great analogy for Russia's future.

I think you've crossed the border of optimism and are making good time for delusion.

IMF figures for GDP in 2014:
Russian GDP: $1.857 trillion
British GDP: $2.945 trillion

Russian GDP per capita: $12,926
British GDP per capita: $45,653

Call me optimistic if you will but I'd rather be British than Russian.

HurstLlama said:

calum said:

I think if the UK does view itself as a world player - scenes like this just put us to shame as a nation:

https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/637954116241723392

Why on earth should we feel shame? If Germany really wants to welcome refugees (as opposed to the stunts of a few people at footer matches), that is terrific news for us. Pop over to Calais and hand out train tickets to Munich, Dusseldorf etc.. Job done, problem solved and everyone, including the Germans, are happy.

Where do I send the money ?

justin124 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

SouthamObserver said:

Oliver_PB said:

Blair seems to miss the point.

Many Corbyn supporters don't see Burnham/Cooper/Kendall as electable, nor do they see much practical difference between Burnham/Cooper/Kendall and the Conservatives.

From that perspective, is there any real reason for those people not to vote for Corbyn, even if he's totally unelectable?

And Blair, even the career politician, laser-focuses on electability and power above all else, ignoring that, for most people, a party in power is not the means to an end in of itself. The best argument that Blair can muster for getting Labour in power is that, essentially, they're the lesser of two evils. Inspiring stuff.

He also ignores his government's, and successive Labour leadership's, role in alienating those on the left of the party. There's a "vast wave of feeling" against the failures of the last Labour government, along with Labour's failure to defend their record, and their willingness to trade away their basic principles at the drop of the hat.

The fact that Corbyn supporters do not "see much practical difference between Burnham/Cooper/Kendall and the Conservatives" merely demonstrates just how delusional they are. But I suppose that as they believe choosing as leader an anti-capitalist, anti-western, economic illiterate who has spent decades happily sharing platforms with terrorists, anti-semites and other "progressives" will help Labour win an election or, at the very least, will not significantly damage the party's long-term standing, this is hardly a surprise.

Please explain the point of elections to me, then, (other than betting opportunities of course) if "you cannot buck the real world".

And has this always been true (if so, how did Labour ever get started?) and if not, when, in your judgment, did it become true?

The point of elections from a political party's perspective is to win them. But winning the Labour leadership election should be a step on the path to winning a general election, not an end in itself.

Corbyn is not starting a new party.

But equally there is not much point in Labour seeking to win an election simply to carry out Torylite polices which is what we got from Blair - Minimum Wage excepted. His government was far to the right of the Tory Governments of 1951 - 1964 and 1970 -1974 - indeed Blair was well to the right of Baldwin and Chamberlain.

And Heath and Macmillan were left of Gladstone

Philip_Thompson said:

HurstLlama said:

Alanbrooke said:

I don't disagree with that, since productivity is a pretty dynamic process.

Where I object to some of the issues that were pushed in the noughties were they were fads and people who should have known better went along with accelerating the erosion of our economy for no reason.

Msany of these jobs could be had back if HMG put it;s mind to doing so. As I often point out our BOP problems are not so much with low cost countries with low tech products, but with high cost countries selling us medium tech products - european cars, fridges, Korean TVs etc.

You cannot just blame HMG though, Mr. Brooke. Most of the decisions to go along with the fad were taken by high paid CEOs looking for a quick fix, perhaps to ensure their bonuses. It is not often I agree with Mr. Observer, gent of this parish, but on the subject of the quality of British management at senior level, he has it spot on - most are rubbish and grossly overpaid.

However, until the UK sorts out a system of corporate governance fit for the 21st century that is unlikely to change. So perhaps the best thing HMG can do is not build roads and all that easy stuff but actually change how companies are owned and run. In the process they should re-introduce by statute, as no bugger will do it otherwise, the link between risk and reward for big company CEOs and the equivalents in the public sector.

No the government has no role in deciding how our companies are owned and run. It is upto the market and companies to determine that and competition will find the best ways to proceed as it always has. Those that sacrifice long term planning to seek a quick buck don't survive the long term.

So the diverse companies acts that have been enacted over the centuries were part of the market were they? Grow up! HMG has always, rightly, had a view as to how companies are owned and run, not least because experience showed that if they didn't the population at large would be defrauded.

As for your final sentence, just explain how much the executives involved in the financial crash suffered, will you? Or what about that twat who bankrupted GEC/MArconi? The rewards for these fantastic captains of industry are enormous, the risks non-existent. If you are true to your capitalist posturings you must see that is wrong and unsustainable.

JEO said:

One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".

What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.

Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

India is a nuclear power too, as well as the US, China and India will be the superpowers of the 21st century with Russia still pushing at the edge

Russia is not going to be any more powerful than the UK. They are heading backwards fast.

Russia is still the largest nation on earth by landmass, has oil and gas, even if diminishing, and a large nuclear arsenal and as we have seen its intentions impact on eastern europe.

Landmass is not the be all and end all. Capital is more important than land, which is why the UK could rule the globe from an island.

Russia doesn't just have short-term economic problems but it also has appalling demographics which is only going to make the economy worse over the longer term. The UK has good and improving demographics compared to almost all the developed world apart from the USA, which is why we'll overtake Germany as Europe's largest economy before too long.

Indeed, and like Russia we are also on the Security Council. However, even on the best estimates on population if we reached 80 million and Russia fell as low as 80 million we would still be tied and on the UN Security Council we tend to side with the US, Russia tends to go its own way, often more aligned with China or even France

We'd be tied on population yes but on a per capita basis we earn more per capita than Russians and that's accelerating which means we'll be miles ahead on the economy which is what matters.

Our economy in nominal terms is already well ahead of Russia's. Hell even Australia is close to overtaking Russia on current trends!

On a per capita basis yes but I was not just looking at economics but geopolitical influence which Russia still has in Eastern Europe and the Middle East

Philip_Thompson said:

JEO said:

One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".

What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.

Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.

Right.

So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?

Luckyguy1983 said:

I don't think India really has any advantages over China.

Here are three off the top of my head:

1. Demographics: the 1979 one child policy means that China's working age population starts declining from 2017. In addition, there are too many boys, particularly in rural areas, which means that the problem will not be easily fixed. Sure, it's a long-term issue, but it does mean there are going to be lots of old people in 2060, with surprisingly few young people.

2. Imbalances: most developed economies in the world have Gross Capital Formation levels of around 20%, for developing, it's usually around 30%. China is at 48%. That is a country with excessive levels of investment, and because investment returns diminish beyond a certain point, it almost certainly means there is gross capital misallocation.

3. Sustainability of fiscal model: the Chinese provinces have mostly funded themselves by selling land to developers. So long as house prices kept rising, this was a fabulous system that kept local taxes low to non-existent. (The effect of this was to move local government debt into the hands of developers, for it was developers loans that were funding local services.) It will be a painful transition in many provinces to a proper fiscal system, and it is likely there will be a lot of bad property loans in the Chinese banking and WM system that need to be worked out.

HurstLlama said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HurstLlama said:

Alanbrooke said:

I don't disagree with that, since productivity is a pretty dynamic process.

Where I object to some of the issues that were pushed in the noughties were they were fads and people who should have known better went along with accelerating the erosion of our economy for no reason.

Msany of these jobs could be had back if HMG put it;s mind to doing so. As I often point out our BOP problems are not so much with low cost countries with low tech products, but with high cost countries selling us medium tech products - european cars, fridges, Korean TVs etc.

You cannot just blame HMG though, Mr. Brooke. Most of the decisions to go along with the fad were taken by high paid CEOs looking for a quick fix, perhaps to ensure their bonuses. It is not often I agree with Mr. Observer, gent of this parish, but on the subject of the quality of British management at senior level, he has it spot on - most are rubbish and grossly overpaid.

However, until the UK sorts out a system of corporate governance fit for the 21st century that is unlikely to change. So perhaps the best thing HMG can do is not build roads and all that easy stuff but actually change how companies are owned and run. In the process they should re-introduce by statute, as no bugger will do it otherwise, the link between risk and reward for big company CEOs and the equivalents in the public sector.

No the government has no role in deciding how our companies are owned and run. It is upto the market and companies to determine that and competition will find the best ways to proceed as it always has. Those that sacrifice long term planning to seek a quick buck don't survive the long term.

So the diverse companies acts that have been enacted over the centuries were part of the market were they? Grow up! HMG has always, rightly, had a view as to how companies are owned and run, not least because experience showed that if they didn't the population at large would be defrauded.

As for your final sentence, just explain how much the executives involved in the financial crash suffered, will you? Or what about that twat who bankrupted GEC/MArconi? The rewards for these fantastic captains of industry are enormous, the risks non-existent. If you are true to your capitalist posturings you must see that is wrong and unsustainable.

It has been sustainable for centuries and will continue to be so. HMG provides an outline and corporations evolve within that. The executives may not suffer as much as we like but the investors do suffer and learn a lesson for next time. If corporate structures are fixed then innovation is blocked too.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JEO said:

One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".

What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.

Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.

And if both faiths manage to kill millions more in the coming years, they may even catch up with atheism in the head count stakes.

I doubt that atheiest states never caught up. Crusades, conquistadors, thirty years war, the umayyad conquests - and the rest.