Really {1,2,2,4} ought to be a valid AV ballot. I don't suppose it is - though it might be counted in round one.
Actually a decent question. Do you at least get your first round counted?
It'd probably depend on the advice issued to the relevant returning officer. I'd agree that it ought to count in the first round as there's a clear preference expressed, and then be classed as spoilt thereafter. But I can imagine that there'd be some who would have it discounted in entirety as it's not validly completed.
Just how stupid are Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper in demanding each other drop out to oppose Corbyn?
The system is Alternative Vote. Any Cooper supporter that prefers Burnham to Corbyn, or any Burnham supporter that prefers Cooper to Corbyn will already have their votes totted up against Corbyn in the final round. So there is absolutely no advantage to either dropping out.
The only effect that calling for each other to drop achieves is for Burnham supporters to like Cooper less, and Cooper supporters to like Burnham less, which will result in some of them putting Corbyn second, whereas they would have previously put him third.
I do pity the choices of Labour supporters: it's the ideologue against the incompetents.
They are basically admitting that JC has won in the first round.
We’ve now reached the stage where the Corbyn cultists are effectively arguing that membership of the Labour party at any point over the past 30 years represents the ultimate act of treachery towards that party. ...............
"The genuine heirs of the Suffragettes and the Chartists and the Tolpuddle Martyrs shouldn’t be cowed by people who view a bar of soap as a tool of capitalist oppression"
Soap dodgers?
Corbyn Cultists Kipper Kultists SNP Cultists... The only sane party's the Conservatives. And of course the LDs are keeping quiet at the moment.
The key point here was around Holocaust Denial, where a simple fact of politics comes in - those who are Holocaust Deniers are invariably anti-semites who are deliberately lying for political and racial reasons. They may be anti-Israeli as well - in fact they are likely to be, for the simple reason that if they hate Jews, they're not going to love the idea of a Jewish state. But above all, they are racist.
I may have missed something but the reason I posted was that someone was being identified as a Holocaust Denier because they were quoted as a talking about Holocaust Mythologising. Now he may be a Holocaust Denier and rightly condemned for that but the quote used did NOT provide an example or evidence.
This becomes a wider point and being unable to criticise Israel or Jewish communities without being labelled as anti-Semetic and/or a Holocaust Denier.
There is undoubted political capital in this and I find it difficult to believe any argument that this is not used by both Israel and Jews in other countries to gain a preferential political outcome.
One example that came to be recently was when the Safety Deposit vault was robbed in Covent Garden. The traders were, apparently, entirely Jewish. What is this group of traders doing to promote diversity in their industry, what are they doing to encourage women and non-Jews to participate in the trade? It appears nothing but if this was an industry dominated by white males, they would be expected to have a Diversity Strategy in place.
A bigger example would be the entertainment industry in the United States, where any questions over the portrayal and prevalence of Jewish characters (and their universally positive portrayal) should be contrasted with that of Muslim characters (and the almost complete absense of Buddhist or Hindi characters - the latter is non-existed outside of Tech Guru roles). Anyone raising this as a criticism or a question is immediately branded as anti-Semetic.
It's been a while since this was posted - so thought some of our newer posters would enjoy it. TED Talk from Jonathon Haidt about why we're liberal or conservative. It's a great short trip around the mindset of both groups and why they are so distinctive.
Really {1,2,2,4} ought to be a valid AV ballot. I don't suppose it is - though it might be counted in round one.
Actually a decent question. Do you at least get your first round counted?
It'd probably depend on the advice issued to the relevant returning officer. I'd agree that it ought to count in the first round as there's a clear preference expressed, and then be classed as spoilt thereafter. But I can imagine that there'd be some who would have it discounted in entirety as it's not validly completed.
Indeed, it isn't valid according to the rules, but it does have a complete set of preferences including an abstention e.g.
Kendall, then {Burnham or Cooper}, definitely not Corbyn.
Logically it ought to be acceptable to vote like this though I understand why (for simplicity) it isn't. It does become a marginal issue on e.g. long STV ballots where you might need to vote for everyone in some sort of order to make sure you put the e.g. National Front candidate last.
'Kendall fears the phenomenon of the Cybernats has spread to the rest of the UK, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn increasingly intolerant and vitriolic towards others in the Labour Party, particularly online. “I’ve met a lot of party members who are really worried about speaking out, worried about what abuse might be hurled at them.”'
It is almost as if the tactics long embraced by the left, of silencing, demonising and delegitimising any views that did not chime with accceptable left-wing opinion have created norms of debate that lead to intellectual ruin. It's strange how years of simply rejecting the opinions of opponents as being "close-minded", "reactionary", "little Englander", "xenophobic", "Tory", "heartless" rather than engaging with argument result in ideological groupthink and an unwillingness to consider other points of view, isn't it?
Labour leadership candidates reaping what they sowed? Karma.
I don't think anyone is 'ignoring' them, although Dair, again, does have a point when he says that very often there is an over-concentration on the Jews - the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington has been criticised for that. (Conversely, the Poles have been criticised for spending more time remembering the Catholic Poles who died at Auschwitz than the Jews, including the Polish Jews.)
The key point here was around Holocaust Denial, where a simple fact of politics comes in - those who are Holocaust Deniers are invariably anti-semites who are deliberately lying for political and racial reasons. They may be anti-Israeli as well - in fact they are likely to be, for the simple reason that if they hate Jews, they're not going to love the idea of a Jewish state. But above all, they are racist.
It is perfectly legitimate to point out there are other aspects of the Holocaust, not merely the massacre of the Jews - the Roma are a good example. That is in no way racism. But nor is it Holocaust denial. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the state of Israel, and can be done rationally on the basis of some of its numerous dubious actions. That does not amount to anti-semitism. Holocaust denial is, plainly and simply, denying that the Holocaust happened (or, in rare cases, denying the Jews were affected or suggesting they somehow organised it, which require equal contortions). That's an altogether different matter, and does depend on massive falsification of the historical evidence which its practitioners must know they were doing.
What we have in Jeremy Corbyn is a man, who either did know, or should have known, that he was associating with a Holocaust denier, denying that he knew and changing the dates of their meetings to bolster his case. That calls not his judgement - that was already in doubt - but his personal integrity into question. That has been my key point all the way through and this business inspired by Rod Crosby's post is a bit of a side-track.
Hope that clears matters up.
Thanks.
I agree about Corbyn, but disagree about some of the rest. But as this is a topic that you have to tread carefully around and choose words carefully, especially on t'Internet, I think I'll drop out of this conversation here.
Alex dusts off some of his GE2015 articles and rejigs them a bit by finding and replacing the SNP with Corbyn - the most surprising thing was to see Corbyn actually putting a tie on - a blue one even:
It's been a while since this was posted - so thought some of our newer posters would enjoy it. TED Talk from Jonathon Haidt about why we're liberal or conservative. It's a great short trip around the mindset of both groups and why they are so distinctive.
I've been reading a few snippets about Comrade Corbyn and this quote struck me as a bit weird. His leadership will be interesting if that's an example of his passive aggressive style.
“He’s a cold fish, and he never argues back. He just says, ‘Ooh, sorry, comrade’.” That was from his former election agent.
Is that an "Ooh, sorry, comrade" whilst making a gesture of clutching a handbag to the midriff type "Ooh"? I would look at him in a different light if so!
It's been a while since this was posted - so thought some of our newer posters would enjoy it. TED Talk from Jonathon Haidt about why we're liberal or conservative. It's a great short trip around the mindset of both groups and why they are so distinctive.
I think American liberals and conservatives are very different things to British liberals (or socialists) and conservatives.
Almost purely a social argument in the US isn't it these days ?
The economic argument is 95% on the right/centre-right of where we would consider it in British politics.
Bernie Sanders is the exception that proves the rule I err think...
But with gay marriage now legal in the U.S. too the social differences are less distinct, Trump campaigns on immigration like Farage and Sanders is a U.S. Corbyn
It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?
I second this sentiment so very much. It's not the complaining about her so much - if they want to criticise a past PM's policies why not - it's the emotional nature of the complaining, as though I am supposed to get worked up in emotional fear of her (and this applies to people trying to inspire me with her as well), when I have no experience of her leadership at all. I can admire or dislike the things she did, but I don't respond to emotional appeals about the time like Labour (and to some extent the Tories) want me to. Get over it, people.
I may have missed something but the reason I posted was that someone was being identified as a Holocaust Denier because they were quoted as a talking about Holocaust Mythologising. Now he may be a Holocaust Denier and rightly condemned for that but the quote used did NOT provide an example or evidence.
The post I read (and was responding to) quoted one notorious Nazi (ironically, a Jewish-born one) who was definitely denying the Holocaust, not downplaying it or attacking mythologisation, played down the 'blood libel', and took two wikipedia articles out of context to suggest there was 'some evidence' that the Jews had collaborated with the Nazis. So yes - I think you had missed something.
I did not, and very specifically do not, accuse Rod Crosby of being a Holocaust Denier, or an anti semite. I do say that his post was wildly, hopelessly inaccurate, and I assumed it was based on incomplete knowledge of the circumstances. Those circumstances were what I was trying to explain in my other post.
There is not, and never has been, any question of not submitting the Holocaust to historically rigorous processes. That's how Fragments, on the other side, was exposed as a forgery. True, a handful of fanatical Zionists might argue against it, although off-hand I can't think of an example - but when you consider that Holocaust Deniers argue all historians are involved in the conspiracy and refuse to engage with the evidence because they have Jewish paymasters (David Irving even accused Christopher Browning of being an agent of the Israeli government!) it is very clear who is against history and in favour of mythologising in this particular case.
Really {1,2,2,4} ought to be a valid AV ballot. I don't suppose it is - though it might be counted in round one.
Actually a decent question. Do you at least get your first round counted?
It'd probably depend on the advice issued to the relevant returning officer. I'd agree that it ought to count in the first round as there's a clear preference expressed, and then be classed as spoilt thereafter. But I can imagine that there'd be some who would have it discounted in entirety as it's not validly completed.
Indeed, it isn't valid according to the rules, but it does have a complete set of preferences including an abstention e.g.
Kendall, then {Burnham or Cooper}, definitely not Corbyn.
Logically it ought to be acceptable to vote like this though I understand why (for simplicity) it isn't. It does become a marginal issue on e.g. long STV ballots where you might need to vote for everyone in some sort of order to make sure you put the e.g. National Front candidate last.
I do think there's an issue of fairness if a vote wasn't counted because a potential future transfer was ambiguous. It's actually an issue now under FPTP. If someone completes their ballot AV-style, it's classed as spoilt, even though it's obvious what the voter wanted - unless they just mark '1', in which case it's fine. That strikes me as wrong too.
It's been a while since this was posted - so thought some of our newer posters would enjoy it. TED Talk from Jonathon Haidt about why we're liberal or conservative. It's a great short trip around the mindset of both groups and why they are so distinctive.
I think American liberals and conservatives are very different things to British liberals (or socialists) and conservatives.
Almost purely a social argument in the US isn't it these days ?
The economic argument is 95% on the right/centre-right of where we would consider it in British politics.
Bernie Sanders is the exception that proves the rule I err think...
But with gay marriage now legal in the U.S. too the social differences are less distinct, Trump campaigns on immigration like Farage and Sanders is a U.S. Corbyn
Guns, God and Nascar to be a proper Conservative in the US isn't it still though ;p ?
I don't think anyone is 'ignoring' them, although Dair, again, does have a point when he says that very often there is an over-concentration on the Jews - the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington has been criticised for that. (Conversely, the Poles have been criticised for spending more time remembering the Catholic Poles who died at Auschwitz than the Jews, including the Polish Jews.)
The key point here was around Holocaust Denial, where a simple fact of politics comes in - those who are Holocaust Deniers are invariably anti-semites who are deliberately lying for political and racial reasons. They may be anti-Israeli as well - in fact they are likely to be, for the simple reason that if they hate Jews, they're not going to love the idea of a Jewish state. But above all, they are racist.
It is perfectly legitimate to point out there are other aspects of the Holocaust, not merely the massacre of the Jews - the Roma are a good example. That is in no way racism. But nor is it Holocaust denial. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the state of Israel, and can be done rationally on the basis of some of its numerous dubious actions. That does not amount to anti-semitism. Holocaust denial is, plainly and simply, denying that the Holocaust happened (or, in rare cases, denying the Jews were affected or suggesting they somehow organised it, which require equal contortions). That's an altogether different matter, and does depend on massive falsification of the historical evidence which its practitioners must know they were doing.
What we have in Jeremy Corbyn is a man, who either did know, or should have known, that he was associating with a Holocaust denier, denying that he knew and changing the dates of their meetings to bolster his case. That calls not his judgement - that was already in doubt - but his personal integrity into question. That has been my key point all the way through and this business inspired by Rod Crosby's post is a bit of a side-track.
It's been a while since this was posted - so thought some of our newer posters would enjoy it. TED Talk from Jonathon Haidt about why we're liberal or conservative. It's a great short trip around the mindset of both groups and why they are so distinctive.
I think American liberals and conservatives are very different things to British liberals (or socialists) and conservatives.
Almost purely a social argument in the US isn't it these days ?
The economic argument is 95% on the right/centre-right of where we would consider it in British politics.
Bernie Sanders is the exception that proves the rule I err think...
But with gay marriage now legal in the U.S. too the social differences are less distinct, Trump campaigns on immigration like Farage and Sanders is a U.S. Corbyn
Guns, God and Nascar to be a proper Conservative in the US isn't it still though ;p ?
Even Cameron is an Anglican Jeb Bush a Catholic his father and brother Episcopalian and Cameron used to go staghunting too
@JosiasJessop I don't think anyone is 'ignoring' them, although Dair, again, does have a point when he says that very often there is an over-concentration on the Jews - the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington has been criticised for that. (Conversely, the Poles have been criticised for spending more time remembering the Catholic Poles who died at Auschwitz than the Jews, including the Polish Jews.)
Over-concentration not a great choice of words.
Whoops, I see what you mean. I could defend myself by pointing out that technically most Jews were not put in concentration camps, but it would be splitting hairs, as the ghettos could be considered a form of concentration camp anyway.
Labour is now as toxic in the South - the South East (outside London), South West and East Anglia – as the Tories are in the North. 42 per cent of voters in the South say they will never vote Labour and 43 per cent of voters in the North say they will never vote Conservative. The full significance of this for Labour lies in the fact that it must win 27 seats in the South to gain a majority of one on a uniform national swing.
The regional dimension to Labour’s toxicity is compounded among the over 60s – the age group most likely to vote. 45 per cent say they will never vote Labour and just 30 per cent say they will never vote Conservative. Unless Labour detoxifies its brand with the grey vote it will find it all but impossible to win a majority again.
Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
It shows how strong the influence of the mainstream media is that even avowedly thoughtful individuals still regard normalising relations with nuclear superpower Russia as an odd or leftfield foreign policy aim. How long has this anti-Russia meme been going on - a couple of years? That's all the time it's taken for the hysteria to take hold. Tell me, if we would be 'snuggling up' to Russia, what would you term our current position vis a vi the US or Saudi Arabia? Halfway up the small intenstine?
It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?
I second this sentiment so very much. It's not the complaining about her so much - if they want to criticise a past PM's policies why not - it's the emotional nature of the complaining, as though I am supposed to get worked up in emotional fear of her (and this applies to people trying to inspire me with her as well), when I have no experience of her leadership at all. I can admire or dislike the things she did, but I don't respond to emotional appeals about the time like Labour (and to some extent the Tories) want me to. Get over it, people.
No no no. The Left should carry on forever moaning about "Mrs Torture" because it now loses them votes. Soon as people hear some idiot leftoid mewling about a prime minister from the latter part of the LAST CENTURY they remember how they hate the juvenile wankiness of the Labour Party and they remind themselves to vote Tory or UKIP.
Only 40% of the UK population are old enough to have voted for or against Thatcher.
Labour desperately need to choose Tessa Jowell as London mayoral candidate to counterbalance Corbyn's election as party leader. If they don't they really will have lost the plot IMO. London is the one place they ought to win easily.
For anyone thinking that Haidt's top level analysis doesn't apply to anywhere outside the USA [a peculiar logic since we're discussing moral values not specifics]...
Here's Cruddas' three categories of voters, you'll see many of the same things appearing in Haidt's piece.
The first group are the Pioneers who currently make up 34 per cent of voters. They are spread evenly through different age groups. Pioneers are socially liberal and more altruistic than most voters. They are at home in metropolitan modernity and its universalist values. As the name suggests they value openness, creativity, self fulfilment and self determination. They are more likely to vote according to their personal ideals and principles such as caring and justice. They tend to be better off and to have been to university. They now make up a large majority of the Labour Party membership.
The second group are Prospectors. These voters are acquisitive and aspirational. Their priorities are to improve their social status and material wealth. They value a good time, the trappings of success and the esteem of others. They typically have little or no interest in politics. They vote pragmatically for which ever party they think will improve their financial circumstances. They also want to back winners. Their transactional approach to voting means they form a high proportion of non voters and switch voters. They tend to be younger and currently make up 37 per cent of voters.
The third group are the Settlers who are socially conservative and are concerned with home, family and national security. They value safety, a sense of belonging, their own cultural identity and the continuity of their way of life. They want to avoid risk. Tradition, rules and social order are important to them. They tend to be amongst the older age groups and currently make up 29 per cent of voters.
It's been a while since this was posted - so thought some of our newer posters would enjoy it. TED Talk from Jonathon Haidt about why we're liberal or conservative. It's a great short trip around the mindset of both groups and why they are so distinctive.
There is not, and never has been, any question of not submitting the Holocaust to historically rigorous processes. That's how Fragments, on the other side, was exposed as a forgery. True, a handful of fanatical Zionists might argue against it, although off-hand I can't think of an example - but when you consider that Holocaust Deniers argue all historians are involved in the conspiracy and refuse to engage with the evidence because they have Jewish paymasters (David Irving even accused Christopher Browning of being an agent of the Israeli government!) it is very clear who is against history and in favour of mythologising in this particular case.
I understand your point as it is easy to categorise the ridiculousness of Holocaust Denial given it's obvious factual inaccuracy. But there is a danger that the mythologising of the "it's purely and fundamentally a genocide against the Jewish people" is also just as worrying because it risks that the fundamental lesson of the Holocaust cannot be learned.
Considering the Holocaust as SOLELY an ideological genocide removes the underlying lesson that the reality of the Holocaust is that it is the logical conclusion of the very common, very popular and very relevant Politics of Othering. To me this is the most important thing to be taken from what happened under the Nazi regime.
It is very relevant to the current situation and how the brutality of British Nationalism has used Othering throughout it's existence from the attempted "beneficial" Othering of the Empire where the paternalist British Nationalism allowed atrocities which would not have been out of place at the heigh of the Holocaust to the current negative Othering focused on Migrants and Muslims.
It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?
I second this sentiment so very much. It's not the complaining about her so much - if they want to criticise a past PM's policies why not - it's the emotional nature of the complaining, as though I am supposed to get worked up in emotional fear of her (and this applies to people trying to inspire me with her as well), when I have no experience of her leadership at all. I can admire or dislike the things she did, but I don't respond to emotional appeals about the time like Labour (and to some extent the Tories) want me to. Get over it, people.
No no no. The Left should carry on forever moaning about "Mrs Torture" because it now loses them votes. Soon as people hear some idiot leftoid mewling about a prime minister from the latter part of the LAST CENTURY they remember how they hate the juvenile wankiness of the Labour Party and they remind themselves to vote Tory or UKIP.
Only 40% of the UK population are old enough to have voted for or against Thatcher.
Considering the last chance was 28 years ago (so minimum age 46) and the average life expectancy is much less than double that, if anything it's surprising it's as many as 40%. Even allowing for baby boomers and population bulge.
It's unusual to find a figure who casts such a shadow over politics for such a long time. Pitt the Younger perhaps? But he was generally respected after a few of his diehard opponents had faded away.
Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
It shows how strong the influence of the mainstream media is that even avowedly thoughtful individuals still regard normalising relations with nuclear superpower Russia as an odd or leftfield foreign policy aim. How long has this anti-Russia meme been going on - a couple of years? That's all the time it's taken for the hysteria to take hold. Tell me, if we would be 'snuggling up' to Russia, what would you term our current position vis a vi the US or Saudi Arabia? Halfway up the small intenstine?
Greetings Comrade! How is life in Vlad's appendix this afternoon?
It's been a while since this was posted - so thought some of our newer posters would enjoy it. TED Talk from Jonathon Haidt about why we're liberal or conservative. It's a great short trip around the mindset of both groups and why they are so distinctive.
I think American liberals and conservatives are very different things to British liberals (or socialists) and conservatives.
Almost purely a social argument in the US isn't it these days ?
The economic argument is 95% on the right/centre-right of where we would consider it in British politics.
Bernie Sanders is the exception that proves the rule I err think...
I'm not sure that's the difference. The biggest recent argument has been about government spending money and regulation the healthcare sector, so that's economic.
I think the decision is more about whether arguments and thinking are based on ideological values or more pragmatic effects on politics. The left in the UK is all about ideals - if you look at their leadership election, even Kendall is arguing that she should be elected because she is "radical". Meanwhile the right argues about policy details and effect: the Eurosceptic versus Europhile argument within the Tory party is more about what is the best strategy for maximising trade benefits rather than questions of national identity. In the US, it seems to be the opposite. The Republicans are all about "taking our country back" and absolutist positions, while the mainstream Democrats like Clinton and Obama seem to take much more of a cost-benefit approach to things.
Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
It shows how strong the influence of the mainstream media is that even avowedly thoughtful individuals still regard normalising relations with nuclear superpower Russia as an odd or leftfield foreign policy aim. How long has this anti-Russia meme been going on - a couple of years? That's all the time it's taken for the hysteria to take hold. Tell me, if we would be 'snuggling up' to Russia, what would you term our current position vis a vi the US or Saudi Arabia? Halfway up the small intenstine?
If Saudi Arabia or the USA decided to annex parts of neighbouring countries, I'd be all in favour of cutting ties with them.
It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?
I second this sentiment so very much. It's not the complaining about her so much - if they want to criticise a past PM's policies why not - it's the emotional nature of the complaining, as though I am supposed to get worked up in emotional fear of her (and this applies to people trying to inspire me with her as well), when I have no experience of her leadership at all. I can admire or dislike the things she did, but I don't respond to emotional appeals about the time like Labour (and to some extent the Tories) want me to. Get over it, people.
No no no. The Left should carry on forever moaning about "Mrs Torture" because it now loses them votes. Soon as people hear some idiot leftoid mewling about a prime minister from the latter part of the LAST CENTURY they remember how they hate the juvenile wankiness of the Labour Party and they remind themselves to vote Tory or UKIP.
Only 40% of the UK population are old enough to have voted for or against Thatcher.
Considering the last chance was 28 years ago (so minimum age 46) and the average life expectancy is much less than double that, if anything it's surprising it's as many as 40%. Even allowing for baby boomers and population bulge.
It's unusual to find a figure who casts such a shadow over politics for such a long time. Pitt the Younger perhaps? But he was generally respected after a few of his diehard opponents had faded away.
I did the maths slightly wrong, based on the 2011 census the number is more like roughly a third of the population.
Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
It shows how strong the influence of the mainstream media is that even avowedly thoughtful individuals still regard normalising relations with nuclear superpower Russia as an odd or leftfield foreign policy aim. How long has this anti-Russia meme been going on - a couple of years? That's all the time it's taken for the hysteria to take hold. Tell me, if we would be 'snuggling up' to Russia, what would you term our current position vis a vi the US or Saudi Arabia? Halfway up the small intenstine?
It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?
I second this sentiment so very much. It's not the complaining about her so much - if they want to criticise a past PM's policies why not - it's the emotional nature of the complaining, as though I am supposed to get worked up in emotional fear of her (and this applies to people trying to inspire me with her as well), when I have no experience of her leadership at all. I can admire or dislike the things she did, but I don't respond to emotional appeals about the time like Labour (and to some extent the Tories) want me to. Get over it, people.
No no no. The Left should carry on forever moaning about "Mrs Torture" because it now loses them votes. Soon as people hear some idiot leftoid mewling about a prime minister from the latter part of the LAST CENTURY they remember how they hate the juvenile wankiness of the Labour Party and they remind themselves to vote Tory or UKIP.
Only 40% of the UK population are old enough to have voted for or against Thatcher.
And of that demographic, which political party do they most identify with and vote for?
In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.
As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.
Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
Yawn, saddo , Tories still fighting for list seats like baldy men over a comb. They getting a surge.
So you think that the collapse in tax receipts is a good thing? Put down the invective-gun for a minute and tell us...
Tax Receipts have not collapsed. Tax changes have timing effects, this was known, planned for and expected. Only an idiot would consider the effect within the first two years.
I know we have a few erm, *fans* of BBC World News on here like @Tim_B - not.
BBC screens foreign 'propaganda': Corporation accused of breaking broadcast rules by showing programmes that promote charities and governments
Ofcom warns of 'inherent risk to BBC's independence and integrity' Corporation bought 'sponsored' films for as little as £1 from PR firms Officials found 20 breaches of sponsorship rules by BBC World News Ofcom slams BBC for 'insufficient' labelling of sponsored programmes
Mr. Price, good news, given the windbag's record of backing losers.
I seem to recall him (perhaps in 2007) gloating about 'grinding the bastards [Conservatives] into the dust'. And, of course, he backed Ed Miliband.
Rather than simply "getting his party back", he seems to have put everything into reverse. Maybe we should be looking for a Jim Callaghan figure to succeed Corbyn.
Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
It shows how strong the influence of the mainstream media is that even avowedly thoughtful individuals still regard normalising relations with nuclear superpower Russia as an odd or leftfield foreign policy aim. How long has this anti-Russia meme been going on - a couple of years? That's all the time it's taken for the hysteria to take hold. Tell me, if we would be 'snuggling up' to Russia, what would you term our current position vis a vi the US or Saudi Arabia? Halfway up the small intenstine?
Russia has been the primary bad guy since the 1950s and portrayed this way in most media, to often ridiculous excess. By many definitions Russia has ben the main enemy since the late 19th Century and the Great Game Arguably they have to share this status now with "Islamic Extremists" but that's only existed since 2001 and has never completely overshadowed the Great Bear.
It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?
I second this sentiment so very much. It's not the complaining about her so much - if they want to criticise a past PM's policies why not - it's the emotional nature of the complaining, as though I am supposed to get worked up in emotional fear of her (and this applies to people trying to inspire me with her as well), when I have no experience of her leadership at all. I can admire or dislike the things she did, but I don't respond to emotional appeals about the time like Labour (and to some extent the Tories) want me to. Get over it, people.
No no no. The Left should carry on forever moaning about "Mrs Torture" because it now loses them votes. Soon as people hear some idiot leftoid mewling about a prime minister from the latter part of the LAST CENTURY they remember how they hate the juvenile wankiness of the Labour Party and they remind themselves to vote Tory or UKIP.
Only 40% of the UK population are old enough to have voted for or against Thatcher.
Apart from being called Keir, what are his credentials for leadership? He made a right pigs ear of the CPS on a number of occasions. And indulged in some appalling grandstanding press conferences.
"Out of interest what is the local perception as to her trial and punishment?"
I'd better be careful what I say. Mostly, it's either ignored or causes mild amusement. After Shaun the parachutist, she was bound to increase her majority, and she is local.
We're not talking about stockbroker belt Surrey here. Think Northern lass sticking up for herself.
Was not aware that it was standard practice in North to go around assualting people as a matter of course.
So did rapidly-becoming-grandee-despite-only-being-an-MP-5-minutes Kier Starmer.
Ha ha. Although good to see a new MP who isn't just a 30 year old ex-SPAD. Labour could do with a lot more Parliamentarians of experienced public service.
Mr. Price, good news, given the windbag's record of backing losers.
I seem to recall him (perhaps in 2007) gloating about 'grinding the bastards [Conservatives] into the dust'. And, of course, he backed Ed Miliband.
Rather than simply "getting his party back", he seems to have put everything into reverse. Maybe we should be looking for a Jim Callaghan figure to succeed Corbyn.
So did rapidly-becoming-grandee-despite-only-being-an-MP-5-minutes Kier Starmer.
Ha ha. Although good to see a new MP who isn't just a 30 year old ex-SPAD. Labour could do with a lot more Parliamentarians of experienced public service.
We’ve now reached the stage where the Corbyn cultists are effectively arguing that membership of the Labour party at any point over the past 30 years represents the ultimate act of treachery towards that party. ...............
"The genuine heirs of the Suffragettes and the Chartists and the Tolpuddle Martyrs shouldn’t be cowed by people who view a bar of soap as a tool of capitalist oppression"
Soap dodgers?
Corbyn Cultists Kipper Kultists SNP Cultists... The only sane party's the Conservatives. And of course the LDs are keeping quiet at the moment.
Yes only difference is for Tories you replace the L with an N
I understand your point as it is easy to categorise the ridiculousness of Holocaust Denial given it's obvious factual inaccuracy. But there is a danger that the mythologising of the "it's purely and fundamentally a genocide against the Jewish people" is also just as worrying because it risks that the fundamental lesson of the Holocaust cannot be learned.
Considering the Holocaust as SOLELY an ideological genocide removes the underlying lesson that the reality of the Holocaust is that it is the logical conclusion of the very common, very popular and very relevant Politics of Othering. To me this is the most important thing to be taken from what happened under the Nazi regime.
And many others would agree with your last sentence, notably Richard Evans himself (and me, although I fear I am not of the same calibre as Sir Richard Evans D.Phil FBA FRHistS and former master of Wolfson College Cambridge).
I will however disagree on one point. I do not think that emphasis on the Jews - leaving aside the moral questions that raises - reduces the fundamental point you make. The Jews were the ultimate definition of otherness in Nazi Germany. True, they were not the only ones ostracised, or made to wear badges, or even to be murdered in large numbers. What they were, however, was the one group that were consistently, pitilessly and unsparingly attacked at every level and in every way from the earliest days of the Nazi party to the moment Karl von Doenitz surrendered his forces to Eisenhower. Mein Kampf is a 700 page rant against the Jews. Hitler's testament is a boast about how pleased he was to have killed them. The SA's key job in the 1930s was to harass the Jews, and humiliate/denigrate/even kill them where possible.
To digress a bit, this was because they were, in Hitler's eyes, a different race, and could never be 'Germans', but at the same time looked, behaved and even spoke (Yiddish is a form of German) like ordinary Germans, so could intermarry and pollute his perfect Aryan bloodline (see above for my comment on why he changed his mind on the Romany people).
So to say the Jews had it especially badly, or that they suffered most in the Holocaust, does not (or at least, should not) diminish the sufferings of gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists, Poles, Czechs, Russians, Ukrainians etc. It is merely to point out that that is where the emphasis lies because the Jews were the key group under attack. In this case, it is complicated because no opponent of Communism (for example) has ever denied that the Communists were persecuted. Holocaust Denial therefore becomes about the Jews, and how much its proponents hate them.
That's quite a long post and I've tried to cover several points at once. I hope it's clear. I now have to go for lunch, but if you still want to go over this, I'll try and catch up on any other discussion this evening.
Apart from being called Keir, what are his credentials for leadership? He made a right pigs ear of the CPS on a number of occasions. And indulged in some appalling grandstanding press conferences.
Mr. 1983, worth pointing out Saudi Arabia hasn't invaded and annexed a European nation recently.
I agree with you, however, that the wilful blind eye to the spreading of radical Islam by Saudi Arabia is a disgrace.
It's also counter-productive. I can't imagine the Saudis actually think IS is a good thing for them.
It will be interesting to watch the changing realpolitik as especially the US becomes less dependent on the Saudis for oil. One might imagine that the Western world will become less tolerant of certain regimes and views when they are no longer bent over begging for the black stuff.
Mr. Price, good news, given the windbag's record of backing losers.
I seem to recall him (perhaps in 2007) gloating about 'grinding the bastards [Conservatives] into the dust'. And, of course, he backed Ed Miliband.
Rather than simply "getting his party back", he seems to have put everything into reverse. Maybe we should be looking for a Jim Callaghan figure to succeed Corbyn.
Militant, the SWP, Respect, TUSC and Derek Hatton cry "we are getting our party back".
Labour desperately need to choose Tessa Jowell as London mayoral candidate to counterbalance Corbyn's election as party leader. If they don't they really will have lost the plot IMO. London is the one place they ought to win easily.
But Jowell? I mean - Jowell?? Putting aside that he may have simply used it as a stepping stone to his grander ambitions, no-one can deny that Boris has been a great ambassador for London. I mean - can you imagine Jowell putting herself up for this?
How do I know JC doesn't want to be PM? Because he hasn't endorsed any of the Deputy Leadership candidates (AFAIK). Brown may say that Labour must not become a "Party of protest" but that's exactly what's got people to join (or rejoin).
I remember back in the 1970s being told that, whilst Labour might sometimes take office, the Tories were always in power. The experiece of 1997-2010 has confirmed that for many people - the only ones who disbelieve it seem to be the Tory activists on here!
By 2010 there was a 50% top tax rate and spending at almost 48% of GDP, hardly Tory
But that is still significantly lower than the 60% top rate we had for nine years under Thatcher.
Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
It shows how strong the influence of the mainstream media is that even avowedly thoughtful individuals still regard normalising relations with nuclear superpower Russia as an odd or leftfield foreign policy aim. How long has this anti-Russia meme been going on - a couple of years? That's all the time it's taken for the hysteria to take hold. Tell me, if we would be 'snuggling up' to Russia, what would you term our current position vis a vi the US or Saudi Arabia? Halfway up the small intenstine?
If Saudi Arabia or the USA decided to annex parts of neighbouring countries, I'd be all in favour of cutting ties with them.
The USA has no need to annex neighbouring countries, which are well, well within its sphere of influence. Should Russia, BRICS, China or any other rival organisation overthrow the Canadian Government and moot putting bases all over Canada, I look forward to the superb example of diplomatic restraint on the part of the US we will no doubt be treated to.
I'm sure it will also not be lost on many that NON neighbouring countries are not included in your criterion.
It's been a while since this was posted - so thought some of our newer posters would enjoy it. TED Talk from Jonathon Haidt about why we're liberal or conservative. It's a great short trip around the mindset of both groups and why they are so distinctive.
I think American liberals and conservatives are very different things to British liberals (or socialists) and conservatives.
Almost purely a social argument in the US isn't it these days ?
The economic argument is 95% on the right/centre-right of where we would consider it in British politics.
Bernie Sanders is the exception that proves the rule I err think...
I'm not sure that's the difference. The biggest recent argument has been about government spending money and regulation the healthcare sector, so that's economic.
I think the decision is more about whether arguments and thinking are based on ideological values or more pragmatic effects on politics. The left in the UK is all about ideals - if you look at their leadership election, even Kendall is arguing that she should be elected because she is "radical". Meanwhile the right argues about policy details and effect: the Eurosceptic versus Europhile argument within the Tory party is more about what is the best strategy for maximising trade benefits rather than questions of national identity. In the US, it seems to be the opposite. The Republicans are all about "taking our country back" and absolutist positions, while the mainstream Democrats like Clinton and Obama seem to take much more of a cost-benefit approach to things.
I'm not sure about that. Support for/opposition to EU membership (or for that matter to Scottish independence) has everything to do with national identity, far more than trade.
Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
It shows how strong the influence of the mainstream media is that even avowedly thoughtful individuals still regard normalising relations with nuclear superpower Russia as an odd or leftfield foreign policy aim. How long has this anti-Russia meme been going on - a couple of years? That's all the time it's taken for the hysteria to take hold. Tell me, if we would be 'snuggling up' to Russia, what would you term our current position vis a vi the US or Saudi Arabia? Halfway up the small intenstine?
If Saudi Arabia or the USA decided to annex parts of neighbouring countries, I'd be all in favour of cutting ties with them.
"From any longer-term perspective, the striking feature of Mr Putin’s Russia is not its strength but its alarming brittleness."
"It is not only Mr Putin’s political model that looks outdated. Russia’s economy appears equally threadbare. Under the strains of lower energy prices, western sanctions and massive capital flight, Russia’s economy contracted 4.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2015 compared with the same period the previous year. Real incomes are falling for the first time in Mr Putin’s rule.
The Soviet Union once vied with the US for economic supremacy; now, America’s gross domestic product using purchasing power parity is five times larger than Russia’s. If, as some suggest, we have reached “peak demand” for oil then Russia’s economy looks vulnerable given its failure to diversify. It has no new model for growth.
Underlying this economic fragility is a demographic disaster. Russia’s population has fallen to 142m, smaller than that of Bangladesh. Many of its best brains are quitting the country, or are being forced to do so. A recent Russian report into the country’s demographic trends concluded: “If the situation does not improve the country can expect problems in the economy, international competitiveness and, in a long-term perspective, geopolitics too.” "
Apart from being called Keir, what are his credentials for leadership? He made a right pigs ear of the CPS on a number of occasions. And indulged in some appalling grandstanding press conferences.
" A MILLS AROUND HER NECK… London mayoral hopeful Tessa Jowell threatens legal action against rivals if anyone dares mention the Berlusconi connections of husband David Mills."
Labour desperately need to choose Tessa Jowell as London mayoral candidate to counterbalance Corbyn's election as party leader. If they don't they really will have lost the plot IMO. London is the one place they ought to win easily.
But Jowell? I mean - Jowell?? Putting aside that he may have simply used it as a stepping stone to his grander ambitions, no-one can deny that Boris has been a great ambassador for London. I mean - can you imagine Jowell putting herself up for this?
In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.
As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.
Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
Yawn, saddo , Tories still fighting for list seats like baldy men over a comb. They getting a surge.
So you think that the collapse in tax receipts is a good thing? Put down the invective-gun for a minute and tell us...
Tax Receipts have not collapsed. Tax changes have timing effects, this was known, planned for and expected. Only an idiot would consider the effect within the first two years.
"From any longer-term perspective, the striking feature of Mr Putin’s Russia is not its strength but its alarming brittleness."
"It is not only Mr Putin’s political model that looks outdated. Russia’s economy appears equally threadbare. Under the strains of lower energy prices, western sanctions and massive capital flight, Russia’s economy contracted 4.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2015 compared with the same period the previous year. Real incomes are falling for the first time in Mr Putin’s rule.
The Soviet Union once vied with the US for economic supremacy; now, America’s gross domestic product using purchasing power parity is five times larger than Russia’s. If, as some suggest, we have reached “peak demand” for oil then Russia’s economy looks vulnerable given its failure to diversify. It has no new model for growth.
Underlying this economic fragility is a demographic disaster. Russia’s population has fallen to 142m, smaller than that of Bangladesh. Many of its best brains are quitting the country, or are being forced to do so. A recent Russian report into the country’s demographic trends concluded: “If the situation does not improve the country can expect problems in the economy, international competitiveness and, in a long-term perspective, geopolitics too.” "
The Soviet Union was never really close to the USA in terms of economic clout (Soviet economic statistics were pie in the sky). I'm sure that the Soviet economy was a good deal less than one fifth the size of the US economy.
"From any longer-term perspective, the striking feature of Mr Putin’s Russia is not its strength but its alarming brittleness."
"It is not only Mr Putin’s political model that looks outdated. Russia’s economy appears equally threadbare. Under the strains of lower energy prices, western sanctions and massive capital flight, Russia’s economy contracted 4.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2015 compared with the same period the previous year. Real incomes are falling for the first time in Mr Putin’s rule.
The Soviet Union once vied with the US for economic supremacy; now, America’s gross domestic product using purchasing power parity is five times larger than Russia’s. If, as some suggest, we have reached “peak demand” for oil then Russia’s economy looks vulnerable given its failure to diversify. It has no new model for growth.
Underlying this economic fragility is a demographic disaster. Russia’s population has fallen to 142m, smaller than that of Bangladesh. Many of its best brains are quitting the country, or are being forced to do so. A recent Russian report into the country’s demographic trends concluded: “If the situation does not improve the country can expect problems in the economy, international competitiveness and, in a long-term perspective, geopolitics too.” "
The Soviet Union was never really close to the USA in terms of economic clout (Soviet economic statistics were pie in the sky). I'm sure that the Soviet economy was a good deal less than one fifth the size of the US economy.
Well yes, that is the weakest point of the article.
Apart from being called Keir, what are his credentials for leadership? He made a right pigs ear of the CPS on a number of occasions. And indulged in some appalling grandstanding press conferences.
"From any longer-term perspective, the striking feature of Mr Putin’s Russia is not its strength but its alarming brittleness."
"It is not only Mr Putin’s political model that looks outdated. Russia’s economy appears equally threadbare. Under the strains of lower energy prices, western sanctions and massive capital flight, Russia’s economy contracted 4.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2015 compared with the same period the previous year. Real incomes are falling for the first time in Mr Putin’s rule.
The Soviet Union once vied with the US for economic supremacy; now, America’s gross domestic product using purchasing power parity is five times larger than Russia’s. If, as some suggest, we have reached “peak demand” for oil then Russia’s economy looks vulnerable given its failure to diversify. It has no new model for growth.
Underlying this economic fragility is a demographic disaster. Russia’s population has fallen to 142m, smaller than that of Bangladesh. Many of its best brains are quitting the country, or are being forced to do so. A recent Russian report into the country’s demographic trends concluded: “If the situation does not improve the country can expect problems in the economy, international competitiveness and, in a long-term perspective, geopolitics too.” "
There is a trick. Type the article title in Google and you can access it that way without signing in for some reason. Very useful to know!
In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.
As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.
Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
Yawn, saddo , Tories still fighting for list seats like baldy men over a comb. They getting a surge.
So you think that the collapse in tax receipts is a good thing? Put down the invective-gun for a minute and tell us...
Tax Receipts have not collapsed. Tax changes have timing effects, this was known, planned for and expected. Only an idiot would consider the effect within the first two years.
Quote: "The two devolved taxes will be collected by Revenue Scotland and are expected to bring in an estimated £558 million in 2015-16. "
we are at war with eastasia. we've always been at war with eastasia. So 'only an idiot' would look to the first couple of years' revenue from the new system. Except the idiot that wrote this year's budget..?
Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
It shows how strong the influence of the mainstream media is that even avowedly thoughtful individuals still regard normalising relations with nuclear superpower Russia as an odd or leftfield foreign policy aim. How long has this anti-Russia meme been going on - a couple of years? That's all the time it's taken for the hysteria to take hold. Tell me, if we would be 'snuggling up' to Russia, what would you term our current position vis a vi the US or Saudi Arabia? Halfway up the small intenstine?
If Saudi Arabia or the USA decided to annex parts of neighbouring countries, I'd be all in favour of cutting ties with them.
The USA has no need to annex neighbouring countries, which are well, well within its sphere of influence. Should Russia, BRICS, China or any other rival organisation overthrow the Canadian Government and moot putting bases all over Canada, I look forward to the superb example of diplomatic restraint on the part of the US we will no doubt be treated to.
I'm sure it will also not be lost on many that NON neighbouring countries are not included in your criterion.
The US hasn't annexed any non-neighbouring countries in living memory either.
Your argument is also an odd one. It is like saying:
"Person A is worse than Person B because Person A raped someone. Person B never raped anyone." "Well that should be ignored because Person B never needed to rape someone, as he already had a willing girlfriend."
In addition, the government of Ukraine was not overthrown. The Ukrainian president was removed by the Ukrainian parliament. If the Canadian parliament removed the Governor General from office, and then had a fresh election to put in a pro-Chinese Govenor General, the US wouldn't invade.
So did rapidly-becoming-grandee-despite-only-being-an-MP-5-minutes Kier Starmer.
Ha ha. Although good to see a new MP who isn't just a 30 year old ex-SPAD. Labour could do with a lot more Parliamentarians of experienced public service.
And so we return again to Marie Rimmer.
Not a patch on Arnold RImmer. And she doesn't have her own song.
"From any longer-term perspective, the striking feature of Mr Putin’s Russia is not its strength but its alarming brittleness."
"It is not only Mr Putin’s political model that looks outdated. Russia’s economy appears equally threadbare. Under the strains of lower energy prices, western sanctions and massive capital flight, Russia’s economy contracted 4.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2015 compared with the same period the previous year. Real incomes are falling for the first time in Mr Putin’s rule.
The Soviet Union once vied with the US for economic supremacy; now, America’s gross domestic product using purchasing power parity is five times larger than Russia’s. If, as some suggest, we have reached “peak demand” for oil then Russia’s economy looks vulnerable given its failure to diversify. It has no new model for growth.
Underlying this economic fragility is a demographic disaster. Russia’s population has fallen to 142m, smaller than that of Bangladesh. Many of its best brains are quitting the country, or are being forced to do so. A recent Russian report into the country’s demographic trends concluded: “If the situation does not improve the country can expect problems in the economy, international competitiveness and, in a long-term perspective, geopolitics too.” "
The Soviet Union was never really close to the USA in terms of economic clout (Soviet economic statistics were pie in the sky). I'm sure that the Soviet economy was a good deal less than one fifth the size of the US economy.
Well yes, that is the weakest point of the article.
Admittedly, the CIA seems to have taken Soviet economic statistics at face value. I can remember books from the 1980s showing East German GDP per head higher than our own, and Soviet GDP per head not far short of it.
So to say the Jews had it especially badly, or that they suffered most in the Holocaust, does not (or at least, should not) diminish the sufferings of gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists, Poles, Czechs, Russians, Ukrainians etc. It is merely to point out that that is where the emphasis lies because the Jews were the key group under attack. In this case, it is complicated because no opponent of Communism (for example) has ever denied that the Communists were persecuted. Holocaust Denial therefore becomes about the Jews, and how much its proponents hate them.
Which comes back to my point. The problem is not how the holocaust is viewed in retrospect, but how it is used today. It is identified as an issue of genocide against Jews and this is used today by interest groups for political advantage. This obviously serves those interest groups but it utterly undermines the core lesson about Othering.
Those who do Othering today, often ally themselves to fundamental Zionism. In many of today's far right groups, Zionism is actually a core part of their belief structure (EDL were big on being pro-Israel). It's even used an excuse by some such groups "we're not racist because we're pro-Israel".
People supporting right wing ideologies based on Othering do not have to consider the question of the Holocaust because it is not defined to them and believe by them to be about Othering, it is about Jews. They hate Muslims or Migrants or Mexicans not Jews. So their Othering does not have the consequences of thought or action that it should.
There may be a fundamental irony here. The Holocaust is becoming something that needs not be denied but actually "celebrated" in order to avoid having to consider the final solution to the Othering problem.
Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
It shows how strong the influence of the mainstream media is that even avowedly thoughtful individuals still regard normalising relations with nuclear superpower Russia as an odd or leftfield foreign policy aim. How long has this anti-Russia meme been going on - a couple of years? That's all the time it's taken for the hysteria to take hold. Tell me, if we would be 'snuggling up' to Russia, what would you term our current position vis a vi the US or Saudi Arabia? Halfway up the small intenstine?
If Saudi Arabia or the USA decided to annex parts of neighbouring countries, I'd be all in favour of cutting ties with them.
The USA has no need to annex neighbouring countries, which are well, well within its sphere of influence. Should Russia, BRICS, China or any other rival organisation overthrow the Canadian Government and moot putting bases all over Canada, I look forward to the superb example of diplomatic restraint on the part of the US we will no doubt be treated to.
I'm sure it will also not be lost on many that NON neighbouring countries are not included in your criterion.
It's true: in the US, everyone is clamouring to integrate Iraq into the United States. Basically, the goal of the US is to extend its territories.
"From any longer-term perspective, the striking feature of Mr Putin’s Russia is not its strength but its alarming brittleness."
concluded: “If the situation does not improve the country can expect problems in the economy, international competitiveness and, in a long-term perspective, geopolitics too.” "
The Soviet Union was never really close to the USA in terms of economic clout (Soviet economic statistics were pie in the sky). I'm sure that the Soviet economy was a good deal less than one fifth the size of the US economy.
Well yes, that is the weakest point of the article.
Admittedly, the CIA seems to have taken Soviet economic statistics at face value. I can remember books from the 1980s showing East German GDP per head higher than our own, and Soviet GDP per head not far short of it.
I once met the guys who made the CIA's assessment of oil reserves in the Caspian Sea.
They admitted it was back of the fag packet stuff. But it shaped US foreign policy....
"From any longer-term perspective, the striking feature of Mr Putin’s Russia is not its strength but its alarming brittleness."
"It is not only Mr Putin’s political model that looks outdated. Russia’s economy appears equally threadbare. Under the strains of lower energy prices, western sanctions and massive capital flight, Russia’s economy contracted 4.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2015 compared with the same period the previous year. Real incomes are falling for the first time in Mr Putin’s rule.
The Soviet Union once vied with the US for economic supremacy; now, America’s gross domestic product using purchasing power parity is five times larger than Russia’s. If, as some suggest, we have reached “peak demand” for oil then Russia’s economy looks vulnerable given its failure to diversify. It has no new model for growth.
Underlying this economic fragility is a demographic disaster. Russia’s population has fallen to 142m, smaller than that of Bangladesh. Many of its best brains are quitting the country, or are being forced to do so. A recent Russian report into the country’s demographic trends concluded: “If the situation does not improve the country can expect problems in the economy, international competitiveness and, in a long-term perspective, geopolitics too.” "
Good analysis as usual from the FT. Aren't they also drinking themselves to death at an alarming rate?
The way people go on about the emerging power of the BRIC countries, you'd have no idea two of them are in recession!
I think the best bit of the 80s was the Trabant being featured on UK TV. They became a bit fashionable for a short while for their awful novelty value.
Any society that yearned for one after waiting several years was in desperate shape. Not even a fuel gauge.
"From any longer-term perspective, the striking feature of Mr Putin’s Russia is not its strength but its alarming brittleness."
"It is not only Mr Putin’s political model that looks outdated. Russia’s economy appears equally threadbare. Under the strains of lower energy prices, western sanctions and massive capital flight, Russia’s economy contracted 4.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2015 compared with the same period the previous year. Real incomes are falling for the first time in Mr Putin’s rule.
The Soviet Union once vied with the US for economic supremacy; now, America’s gross domestic product using purchasing power parity is five times larger than Russia’s. If, as some suggest, we have reached “peak demand” for oil then Russia’s economy looks vulnerable given its failure to diversify. It has no new model for growth.
Underlying this economic fragility is a demographic disaster. Russia’s population has fallen to 142m, smaller than that of Bangladesh. Many of its best brains are quitting the country, or are being forced to do so. A recent Russian report into the country’s demographic trends concluded: “If the situation does not improve the country can expect problems in the economy, international competitiveness and, in a long-term perspective, geopolitics too.” "
The Soviet Union was never really close to the USA in terms of economic clout (Soviet economic statistics were pie in the sky). I'm sure that the Soviet economy was a good deal less than one fifth the size of the US economy.
Well yes, that is the weakest point of the article.
Admittedly, the CIA seems to have taken Soviet economic statistics at face value. I can remember books from the 1980s showing East German GDP per head higher than our own, and Soviet GDP per head not far short of it.
Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
It shows how strong the influence of the mainstream media is that even avowedly thoughtful individuals still regard normalising relations with nuclear superpower Russia as an odd or leftfield foreign policy aim. How long has this anti-Russia meme been going on - a couple of years? That's all the time it's taken for the hysteria to take hold. Tell me, if we would be 'snuggling up' to Russia, what would you term our current position vis a vi the US or Saudi Arabia? Halfway up the small intenstine?
If Saudi Arabia or the USA decided to annex parts of neighbouring countries, I'd be all in favour of cutting ties with them.
" A MILLS AROUND HER NECK… London mayoral hopeful Tessa Jowell threatens legal action against rivals if anyone dares mention the Berlusconi connections of husband David Mills."
Labour desperately need to choose Tessa Jowell as London mayoral candidate to counterbalance Corbyn's election as party leader. If they don't they really will have lost the plot IMO. London is the one place they ought to win easily.
But Jowell? I mean - Jowell?? Putting aside that he may have simply used it as a stepping stone to his grander ambitions, no-one can deny that Boris has been a great ambassador for London. I mean - can you imagine Jowell putting herself up for this?
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhxilSeFqMI
That could be amusing in the context of the Mayoral race. Someone will call her bluff in the run up, and even if she succeeds in getting an injunction one well placed PMQs question under Privilege could get it on the front pages at election time anyway.
In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.
As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.
Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
Yawn, saddo , Tories still fighting for list seats like baldy men over a comb. They getting a surge.
So you think that the collapse in tax receipts is a good thing? Put down the invective-gun for a minute and tell us...
Tax Receipts have not collapsed. Tax changes have timing effects, this was known, planned for and expected. Only an idiot would consider the effect within the first two years.
It's been a while since this was posted - so thought some of our newer posters would enjoy it. TED Talk from Jonathon Haidt about why we're liberal or conservative. It's a great short trip around the mindset of both groups and why they are so distinctive.
I think American liberals and conservatives are very different things to British liberals (or socialists) and conservatives.
I think that's very much a difference of local specifics, shaped by history (see also, French right and left compared to ours).
The one thing I'd get out of that is how pointless a long term strategy of insulting your opposition would be. You'd end up hated in vast swathes of the country.
Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
It shows how strong the influence of the mainstream media is that even avowedly thoughtful individuals still regard normalising relations with nuclear superpower Russia as an odd or leftfield foreign policy aim. How long has this anti-Russia meme been going on - a couple of years? That's all the time it's taken for the hysteria to take hold. Tell me, if we would be 'snuggling up' to Russia, what would you term our current position vis a vi the US or Saudi Arabia? Halfway up the small intenstine?
If Saudi Arabia or the USA decided to annex parts of neighbouring countries, I'd be all in favour of cutting ties with them.
Grenada was just the replacement of an unelected Govt that had started killing its Leaders and had a build up of Cuban bases there, such as one of the longest airport runways in the region. The Americans were begged to go in by neighbouring democratic countries. Having lived and worked there for 3 years in the 90s I have to report that the USA influence is very small and there has been a democratic govt for more than 30 years since the USA intervention. A good place for a beach and tropical holiday. But what do I know? Only people who were friends of the unelected Leader Maurice Bishop, who was lined up against the wall with his mistress and shot by his ex revolutionary chums.
In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.
As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.
Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
Yawn, saddo , Tories still fighting for list seats like baldy men over a comb. They getting a surge.
So you think that the collapse in tax receipts is a good thing? Put down the invective-gun for a minute and tell us...
Tax Receipts have not collapsed. Tax changes have timing effects, this was known, planned for and expected. Only an idiot would consider the effect within the first two years.
Comments
Soap dodgers?
Corbyn Cultists Kipper Kultists SNP Cultists... The only sane party's the Conservatives. And of course the LDs are keeping quiet at the moment.
This becomes a wider point and being unable to criticise Israel or Jewish communities without being labelled as anti-Semetic and/or a Holocaust Denier.
There is undoubted political capital in this and I find it difficult to believe any argument that this is not used by both Israel and Jews in other countries to gain a preferential political outcome.
One example that came to be recently was when the Safety Deposit vault was robbed in Covent Garden. The traders were, apparently, entirely Jewish. What is this group of traders doing to promote diversity in their industry, what are they doing to encourage women and non-Jews to participate in the trade? It appears nothing but if this was an industry dominated by white males, they would be expected to have a Diversity Strategy in place.
A bigger example would be the entertainment industry in the United States, where any questions over the portrayal and prevalence of Jewish characters (and their universally positive portrayal) should be contrasted with that of Muslim characters (and the almost complete absense of Buddhist or Hindi characters - the latter is non-existed outside of Tech Guru roles). Anyone raising this as a criticism or a question is immediately branded as anti-Semetic.
Kendall, then {Burnham or Cooper}, definitely not Corbyn.
Logically it ought to be acceptable to vote like this though I understand why (for simplicity) it isn't. It does become a marginal issue on e.g. long STV ballots where you might need to vote for everyone in some sort of order to make sure you put the e.g. National Front candidate last.
I agree about Corbyn, but disagree about some of the rest. But as this is a topic that you have to tread carefully around and choose words carefully, especially on t'Internet, I think I'll drop out of this conversation here.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/yes-jeremy-corbyn-actually-is-the-most-dangerous-man-in-british-politics/
The economic argument is 95% on the right/centre-right of where we would consider it in British politics.
Bernie Sanders is the exception that proves the rule I err think...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVpS4kJ8ZOg
I did not, and very specifically do not, accuse Rod Crosby of being a Holocaust Denier, or an anti semite. I do say that his post was wildly, hopelessly inaccurate, and I assumed it was based on incomplete knowledge of the circumstances. Those circumstances were what I was trying to explain in my other post.
There is not, and never has been, any question of not submitting the Holocaust to historically rigorous processes. That's how Fragments, on the other side, was exposed as a forgery. True, a handful of fanatical Zionists might argue against it, although off-hand I can't think of an example - but when you consider that Holocaust Deniers argue all historians are involved in the conspiracy and refuse to engage with the evidence because they have Jewish paymasters (David Irving even accused Christopher Browning of being an agent of the Israeli government!) it is very clear who is against history and in favour of mythologising in this particular case.
Has Burnham or Cooper drawn the short straw yet to see which is going to stand down?
All seems very bleak. But the Jezzbollah just don't care. Purity is power. Losing is winning.
Here's Cruddas' three categories of voters, you'll see many of the same things appearing in Haidt's piece.
-
Considering the Holocaust as SOLELY an ideological genocide removes the underlying lesson that the reality of the Holocaust is that it is the logical conclusion of the very common, very popular and very relevant Politics of Othering. To me this is the most important thing to be taken from what happened under the Nazi regime.
It is very relevant to the current situation and how the brutality of British Nationalism has used Othering throughout it's existence from the attempted "beneficial" Othering of the Empire where the paternalist British Nationalism allowed atrocities which would not have been out of place at the heigh of the Holocaust to the current negative Othering focused on Migrants and Muslims.
It's unusual to find a figure who casts such a shadow over politics for such a long time. Pitt the Younger perhaps? But he was generally respected after a few of his diehard opponents had faded away.
I think the decision is more about whether arguments and thinking are based on ideological values or more pragmatic effects on politics. The left in the UK is all about ideals - if you look at their leadership election, even Kendall is arguing that she should be elected because she is "radical". Meanwhile the right argues about policy details and effect: the Eurosceptic versus Europhile argument within the Tory party is more about what is the best strategy for maximising trade benefits rather than questions of national identity. In the US, it seems to be the opposite. The Republicans are all about "taking our country back" and absolutist positions, while the mainstream Democrats like Clinton and Obama seem to take much more of a cost-benefit approach to things.
I agree with you, however, that the wilful blind eye to the spreading of radical Islam by Saudi Arabia is a disgrace.
It's also counter-productive. I can't imagine the Saudis actually think IS is a good thing for them.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/im-backing-sadiq-khan-mayor-6272444
I seem to recall him (perhaps in 2007) gloating about 'grinding the bastards [Conservatives] into the dust'. And, of course, he backed Ed Miliband.
You got the idiot bit spot on
Competence is not top of the desirable traits for Labour.
Mr. Rex, fret not, you're probably younger than Antigonus Monopthalmus was when he contested mastery of the world at the Battle of Ipsus.
Edited extra bit: although I do wonder how the Conservatives will do when Cameron goes...
Yes only difference is for Tories you replace the L with an N
I will however disagree on one point. I do not think that emphasis on the Jews - leaving aside the moral questions that raises - reduces the fundamental point you make. The Jews were the ultimate definition of otherness in Nazi Germany. True, they were not the only ones ostracised, or made to wear badges, or even to be murdered in large numbers. What they were, however, was the one group that were consistently, pitilessly and unsparingly attacked at every level and in every way from the earliest days of the Nazi party to the moment Karl von Doenitz surrendered his forces to Eisenhower. Mein Kampf is a 700 page rant against the Jews. Hitler's testament is a boast about how pleased he was to have killed them. The SA's key job in the 1930s was to harass the Jews, and humiliate/denigrate/even kill them where possible.
To digress a bit, this was because they were, in Hitler's eyes, a different race, and could never be 'Germans', but at the same time looked, behaved and even spoke (Yiddish is a form of German) like ordinary Germans, so could intermarry and pollute his perfect Aryan bloodline (see above for my comment on why he changed his mind on the Romany people).
So to say the Jews had it especially badly, or that they suffered most in the Holocaust, does not (or at least, should not) diminish the sufferings of gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists, Poles, Czechs, Russians, Ukrainians etc. It is merely to point out that that is where the emphasis lies because the Jews were the key group under attack. In this case, it is complicated because no opponent of Communism (for example) has ever denied that the Communists were persecuted. Holocaust Denial therefore becomes about the Jews, and how much its proponents hate them.
That's quite a long post and I've tried to cover several points at once. I hope it's clear. I now have to go for lunch, but if you still want to go over this, I'll try and catch up on any other discussion this evening.
I got to about 20 backing Kendall; 8 backing Cooper, none 1 (!) backing Burnham and one backing Corbyn.
Unscientific, perhaps; but not convinced by this Jowell/Corbyn combo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhxilSeFqMI
I'm sure it will also not be lost on many that NON neighbouring countries are not included in your criterion.
and before your time admittedly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8b034ac-44ca-11e5-b3b2-1672f710807b.html#axzz3j5nOqGOl
"From any longer-term perspective, the striking feature of Mr Putin’s Russia is not its strength but its alarming brittleness."
"It is not only Mr Putin’s political model that looks outdated. Russia’s economy appears equally threadbare. Under the strains of lower energy prices, western sanctions and massive capital flight, Russia’s economy contracted 4.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2015 compared with the same period the previous year. Real incomes are falling for the first time in Mr Putin’s rule.
The Soviet Union once vied with the US for economic supremacy; now, America’s gross domestic product using purchasing power parity is five times larger than Russia’s. If, as some suggest, we have reached “peak demand” for oil then Russia’s economy looks vulnerable given its failure to diversify. It has no new model for growth.
Underlying this economic fragility is a demographic disaster. Russia’s population has fallen to 142m, smaller than that of Bangladesh. Many of its best brains are quitting the country, or are being forced to do so. A recent Russian report into the country’s demographic trends concluded: “If the situation does not improve the country can expect problems in the economy, international competitiveness and, in a long-term perspective, geopolitics too.” "
London mayoral hopeful Tessa Jowell threatens legal action against rivals if anyone dares mention the Berlusconi connections of husband David Mills."
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hp_sauce&issue=1274
Was known was it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11370758/John-Swinney-admits-new-Scottish-property-tax-shortfall.html
and this...
http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Land-and-Buildings-Transaction-Tax-1118.aspx
Quote:
"The two devolved taxes will be collected by Revenue Scotland and are expected to bring in an estimated £558 million in 2015-16. "
we are at war with eastasia. we've always been at war with eastasia.
"Pratt, Pratt and Wilkinson.. I got Wilkinson. He was the biggest prat out of the lot of them"
Was known was it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11370758/John-Swinney-admits-new-Scottish-property-tax-shortfall.html
and this...
http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Land-and-Buildings-Transaction-Tax-1118.aspx
Quote:
"The two devolved taxes will be collected by Revenue Scotland and are expected to bring in an estimated £558 million in 2015-16. "
we are at war with eastasia. we've always been at war with eastasia.
So 'only an idiot' would look to the first couple of years' revenue from the new system. Except the idiot that wrote this year's budget..?
Your argument is also an odd one. It is like saying:
"Person A is worse than Person B because Person A raped someone. Person B never raped anyone."
"Well that should be ignored because Person B never needed to rape someone, as he already had a willing girlfriend."
In addition, the government of Ukraine was not overthrown. The Ukrainian president was removed by the Ukrainian parliament. If the Canadian parliament removed the Governor General from office, and then had a fresh election to put in a pro-Chinese Govenor General, the US wouldn't invade.
http://reddwarf.wikia.com/wiki/Munchkin_Song?file=The_Arnold_J_Rimmer_Song
Those who do Othering today, often ally themselves to fundamental Zionism. In many of today's far right groups, Zionism is actually a core part of their belief structure (EDL were big on being pro-Israel). It's even used an excuse by some such groups "we're not racist because we're pro-Israel".
People supporting right wing ideologies based on Othering do not have to consider the question of the Holocaust because it is not defined to them and believe by them to be about Othering, it is about Jews. They hate Muslims or Migrants or Mexicans not Jews. So their Othering does not have the consequences of thought or action that it should.
There may be a fundamental irony here. The Holocaust is becoming something that needs not be denied but actually "celebrated" in order to avoid having to consider the final solution to the Othering problem.
How stupid of me to have missed that.
They admitted it was back of the fag packet stuff. But it shaped US foreign policy....
The way people go on about the emerging power of the BRIC countries, you'd have no idea two of them are in recession!
Any society that yearned for one after waiting several years was in desperate shape. Not even a fuel gauge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqWqF56aZtc
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/633622534991314944
Quite
I find the revisionism of the snats to be breathtaking.
The one thing I'd get out of that is how pointless a long term strategy of insulting your opposition would be. You'd end up hated in vast swathes of the country.
Oh.
Wait a second ...
Was known was it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11370758/John-Swinney-admits-new-Scottish-property-tax-shortfall.html
and this...
http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Land-and-Buildings-Transaction-Tax-1118.aspx
Quote:
"The two devolved taxes will be collected by Revenue Scotland and are expected to bring in an estimated £558 million in 2015-16. "
we are at war with eastasia. we've always been at war with eastasia.
The quotes you link don't seem to say what you think they say.