Mr. Abroad, "It is hardly surprising that Peebietories demand the right to give, but not to take offence. Most of us demand the right to do what comes naturally to us, whether or not it involves drink, drugs and animals. "
Morris Dancer: "Mr. Abroad, who has asked for the right to never be offended?"
Mr. Abroad: "I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. And you know I didn't."
In that case... you appear to be equating taking offence with just cause for something being forbidden. I don't mind if people are offended. I mind if they consider the sentence "I am offended" as an actual argument for someone else to be forbidden from saying something.
Freedom of speech matters more than placating the terminally hyper-sensitive, the religious fundamentalist or the weak-kneed government.
That was an excellent article from Roger Scruton. Mill's arguments in favour of free speech have to re-stated in every generation.
Mill did not say that anyone had the right to be offensive. He was not opposed to the principle of statutory defamation. People - such as Sean Fear - who seek to make a living out of giving offence should remember that.
The interesting (to me, at any rate) questions are these: let's say I know that some statement - such as telling my daughter that her new kitten is boring - will give offence. Do I still have the right to make it? Do I need to justify my right? What counts as justification? Quoting Mill? Membership of UKIP? Supporting Everton?
'He stood alone, close to the path of the Chinese leader’s procession. In each hand he held up a small placard (making a nonsense of excuses that he might have been hiding a weapon or a bomb). One said: ‘End autocracy.’ The other read: ‘Democracy now.’
The man’s name is Shao Jiang. He witnessed the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Peking’s Tiananmen Square in 1989 so he knows in detail what modern China is really like, as most of us don’t.
Suddenly he was barged by a police officer in a crash helmet, quickly joined by two colleagues, who pushed him backwards at the double, as he feebly protested. I have watched the film at least 50 times and can see no justification for the level of force used. But I can explain it. It looks as if the police were ordered at all costs to ensure that China’s leader did not see or hear any protests.
(Here, at just after 4 minutes 20 seconds (no whingeing, please, about the exact time), is film of what happened to Shao Jiang:
Two Tibetan women, who did no more than try to wave the flag of their stolen country, were also arrested.
All three were held overnight, on suspicion of offences which expert lawyers think are quite absurd, and which look to me as if they were devised to keep them off the streets until the Chinese leader had gone home.
They must wait until Christmas to find out if they will be prosecuted. Worse still, their homes were raided and searched, and some personal possessions removed, just as they would have been in Peking. This, for holding up a couple of placards and a flag? Where are we, exactly?
It looks to me as if David Cameron and President Xi did indeed discuss freedom, law and civil rights in their private meetings. And that China’s despot persuaded Mr Cameron that the Chinese way of dealing with opposition was better than ours.'
They are well suited, the Tories do not like democracy , it is do as they say or they send in their state police goons.
Rabid frothing at the mouth Nat says Tories BAD on pb shocker
The odds of MalcG actually living in Ayrshire must be vanishingly small. Most sensible jocks left decades ago and the outflow continues.
Sad rootvegetable overcome by envy. Bet you wish you could live in a nice detached house with a great lifestyle with countryside and sea all round rather than your rat infested bedsitter. Look up Ayrshire on the web loser, all sailing , golf courses and good lifestyle.
It can also be revealed that Mr Corbyn has employed a key aide to the disgraced former mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman. Ger Francis, Rahman’s former political adviser, worked for Mr Corbyn at the Commons, a member of Mr Corbyn’s Westminster office confirmed last week. “He worked here on the leadership campaign,” she said.
Mr Francis moved to work for Mr Corbyn after Rahman was disbarred from office in April. An election court found the mayor guilty of “corrupt and illegal practices” including vote-rigging, bribery and lying that his Labour opponent was a racist. The judge, Richard Mawrey QC, said Rahman had run a “ruthless and dishonest” campaign which “drove a coach and horses” through electoral law.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
Did anyone see Michael Portillo's great continental railway journeys on Friday? Austria to Slovenia and Trieste
The array of blazer, shirt & trouser combos was a triumph... He even managed to carry off UKIP gold and purple which I believe is a first
He does a great job of showing how lovely Eastern Europe is - and how vast his collection of brightly colloured blazers and trousers are! He was once a nearly PM and now is a cabaret act.
Recently I notice he has been much feistier in arguments with guests on this week... Maybe his political juices are flowing again and he could lead the LEAVE campaign?
I think that he enjoys his media career too much. Travelling the railways of Europe discussing history or arguing with Nigel? Its an easy chice to make.
Portillo has mellowed a great deal since his "Portillo moment" in 1997. Liz Kendall was looking and sounding good on This Week also.
The Great Vard marches on I see
The Tinkerman knows how to get the best out of players. Less obvious than Vardy and Mahrez are Danny Drinkwater and Ngolo Kante in midfield, playing the best football of their lives. Yesterday was an indifferent game but Leicester took one of their few chances, Palace didn't really create anything at all, largely due to losing in the midfield.
A MEMBER of the SNP’s welfare team at Westminster has been accused of hypocrisy after taking a £3000 donation from a Tory hedge fund boss.
Pensions spokesman Ian Blackford, who last week denounced “callous Tories” over welfare cuts, took the cash from millionaire Conservative donor David Craigen in March.
The money helped bankroll Blackford’s winning general election fight against the late LibDem MP Charles Kennedy in Ross, Skye and Lochaber.
Craigen’s was the biggest donation to Blackford’s campaign, one sixth of all his donations.
Mr. Abroad, that seems a bloody bizarre way of looking at freedom of speech. It ought to be as broad as possible with limitations only when strictly necessary, not there to safeguard people's delicate little feelings or put ideas beyond question (such as whether a chap from the 7th century was a god's chosen one, or whether a Palestinian carpenter was the Messiah or a very naughty boy).
I was particularly intrigued by this comment from Robert Harris, whom I have always had a lot of time for:
Robert Harris, the novelist and Labour donor, tweeted: "Council house born. Comprehensive-school educated. Voted Foot, Kinnock. But not for private-school apologists for IRA and Stalin. Sorry."
Seumas Milne appears to be one of Corbyn's worse mistakes, which is saying something. I have always flatly disagreed with him - he seems to struggle with any fact that does not fit his theories (I remember a particular spat I had in the comments section with his admirers over the manifestly false claim that life in the DDR was better before reunification, and that people were paid more for less work). But I didn't realise quite how much of a champagne socialist he was. The more I am told, the more he starts to make Polly Toynbee look like Denis Healey.
Corbyn's problem is that he has presented himself as the outsider hammering the Westminster elite. But his appointments are pretty much only Westminster insiders who owe their positions to contacts (McDonnell, Burnham, Abbot) or contacts and wealth (Milne, Corbyn himself, Benn). At some point, it is going to become difficult to sustain the charade of the 'outsider as insider'. And when that happens, given it is just about his only asset, what does he have left?
Of course, this story is from the tragic remains of the Telegraph and should be treated with due caution as part of their outrage series. If the Guardian start publishing attacks like that (which seems unlikely, particularly as Milne is still employed by them) then we will know there is a serious problem. But Milne's already broken Alistair Campbell's first rule of spin doctoring - he has become the story. He is extremely fortunate that after Coulson Cameron can hardly talk about ill-advised hiring!
whether a Palestinian carpenter was the Messiah or a very naughty boy).
Mr Dancer, Brian was a food salesman, not a carpenter. Leaving aside a few authors of fiction, namely Baigent, Leigh and Brown, nobody has accused Brian's alter ego the carpenter of being a naughty boy!
It can also be revealed that Mr Corbyn has employed a key aide to the disgraced former mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman. Ger Francis, Rahman’s former political adviser, worked for Mr Corbyn at the Commons, a member of Mr Corbyn’s Westminster office confirmed last week. “He worked here on the leadership campaign,” she said.
Mr Francis moved to work for Mr Corbyn after Rahman was disbarred from office in April. An election court found the mayor guilty of “corrupt and illegal practices” including vote-rigging, bribery and lying that his Labour opponent was a racist. The judge, Richard Mawrey QC, said Rahman had run a “ruthless and dishonest” campaign which “drove a coach and horses” through electoral law.
Fact: if the Tories ban their members from sitting as cross-bench peers, that's appropriate Party discipline. If Labour does the same thing, that's Stalinism. Have I got that right?
I was particularly intrigued by this comment from Robert Harris, whom I have always had a lot of time for:
Robert Harris, the novelist and Labour donor, tweeted: "Council house born. Comprehensive-school educated. Voted Foot, Kinnock. But not for private-school apologists for IRA and Stalin. Sorry."
Seumas Milne appears to be one of Corbyn's worse mistakes, which is saying something. I have always flatly disagreed with him - he seems to struggle with any fact that does not fit his theories (I remember a particular spat I had in the comments section with his admirers over the manifestly false claim that life in the DDR was better before reunification, and that people were paid more for less work). But I didn't realise quite how much of a champagne socialist he was. The more I am told, the more he starts to make Polly Toynbee look like Denis Healey.
Corbyn's problem is that he has presented himself as the outsider hammering the Westminster elite. But his appointments are pretty much only Westminster insiders who owe their positions to contacts (McDonnell, Burnham, Abbot) or contacts and wealth (Milne, Corbyn himself, Benn). At some point, it is going to become difficult to sustain the charade of the 'outsider as insider'. And when that happens, given it is just about his only asset, what does he have left?
Of course, this story is from the tragic remains of the Telegraph and should be treated with due caution as part of their outrage series. If the Guardian start publishing attacks like that (which seems unlikely, particularly as Milne is still employed by them) then we will know there is a serious problem. But Milne's already broken Alistair Campbell's first rule of spin doctoring - he has become the story. He is extremely fortunate that after Coulson Cameron can hardly talk about ill-advised hiring!
Cameron would be foolish to bring the story up himself, partly because there's no need to lower himself to that level when plenty of other people will make the same point, partly because for various reasons (including, as you rightly say, him becoming the story), I doubt he'll be any good at the job, and partly - again, as you right point out - because he has form himself. But the main one is that Milne is a net asset to the Tories.
The Conservatives are certainly likely to see the biggest splits on the referendum, with Cameron and Osborne likely to be for In and the likes of Patterson, Fox and IDS as you say for Out. However Labour will also see splits with most of the frontbench and former New Labour Ministers for In but backbenchers like Kate Hoey, Dennis Skinner and Frank Field for Out and Corbyn probably ending up on the fence. Only the LDs and SNP of the big 4 will be solidly for In (though unlike the LDs the SNP will have to face the challenge that a significant number of their own voters will be for Out).
The Greens will likely be for Out but the party with the biggest potential to benefit from EU ref are UKIP, 90%+ of UKIP voters will vote Out and the best result for UKIP would be a narrow In which would offer them the chance to pick up disillusioned Out voters, particularly from the Tories
Mr. Abroad, that seems a bloody bizarre way of looking at freedom of speech. It ought to be as broad as possible with limitations only when strictly necessary, not there to safeguard people's delicate little feelings or put ideas beyond question (such as whether a chap from the 7th century was a god's chosen one, or whether a Palestinian carpenter was the Messiah or a very naughty boy).
Who will define "strictly necessary"? You? Me? OGH?
Ydoethur. Kind of related and forgot to say, I've just finished reading Dictator by Robert Harris. It's good but not as good as the first two in the series. I don't know whether one of our more esteemed ancient world experts has a view?
Didn't take long for the wickets to start falling. Whose idea was having Ali open anyway?
Not sure why he's in the team at all, to be honest. But that was a view I held before the rest of the team started to be useless too. Now he blends in more.
Mr. Abroad, "It is hardly surprising that Peebietories demand the right to give, but not to take offence. Most of us demand the right to do what comes naturally to us, whether or not it involves drink, drugs and animals. "
Morris Dancer: "Mr. Abroad, who has asked for the right to never be offended?"
Mr. Abroad: "I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. And you know I didn't."
In that case... you appear to be equating taking offence with just cause for something being forbidden. I don't mind if people are offended. I mind if they consider the sentence "I am offended" as an actual argument for someone else to be forbidden from saying something.
Freedom of speech matters more than placating the terminally hyper-sensitive, the religious fundamentalist or the weak-kneed government.
That was an excellent article from Roger Scruton. Mill's arguments in favour of free speech have to re-stated in every generation.
Mill did not say that anyone had the right to be offensive. He was not opposed to the principle of statutory defamation. People - such as Sean Fear - who seek to make a living out of giving offence should remember that.
The interesting (to me, at any rate) questions are these: let's say I know that some statement - such as telling my daughter that her new kitten is boring - will give offence. Do I still have the right to make it? Do I need to justify my right? What counts as justification? Quoting Mill? Membership of UKIP? Supporting Everton?
I think the key point is that you can choose to make that remark. You don't have to. But if you needed to, you could. If doing so would upset your daughter, for no good reason, you may decide not to exercise that right. But if somebody was, for example, deliberately flouting the law, or using the law as a shield to prevent criticism of their behaviour (e.g. calling for the mass incarceration of women because it is against their religion to see women on the streets) then certainly we should be free to criticise them even if it makes them angry.
With regard to your earlier postings re the right to give offence, but not to take it: you have, on occasion, made offensive remarks about people on here (including me) or misrepresented what we have said. But I can't remember anyone calling for you to be banned. Normally, people just ignore you until you calm down again (that was my approach, anyway, and now I am happy to see we are able to have civilised conversations again). If I'm wrong about that, I'm happy to be corrected.
Ydoethur. Kind of related and forgot to say, I've just finished reading Dictator by Robert Harris. It's good but not as good as the first two in the series. I don't know whether one of our more esteemed ancient world experts has a view?
TBH, I know more about his earlier non-fiction work (which was excellent, particularly on the historians working on Nazi Germany) than his recent novels. So I'm not really qualified to give a view. I'm sure Mr Dancer will oblige!
A really thoughtful and intelligent thread from antifrank - a major plus for PB.com since he started writing threads, compared with one or two others I could mention.
Seems like Frank Field is going to give an interview on the Sunday Politics saying some Labour MPs should stand as independents if they are mistreated by the PLP and that plenty of others would support them
Excellent piece by Antifrank - we have been spoilt in recent times by some quality contributions. There's very little in it with which anyone can disagree. There will be those Conservatives who will rush to change the subject as discussing the party's potential and actual divisions probably isn't considered suitable Sunday morning debate.
I'm not a Conservative so it's fair game. In truth, I suspect a large proportion will be of the "I'll follow Dave" mantra. Whatever Cameron comes back with will be lauded as the greatest feat of negotiation since the Treaty of (fill in whatever suits) and everyone will be encouraged to admire the Emperor's New Suit.
Among the electorate, too, I suspect there's a considerable number who will simply go along with whatever David Cameron recommends simply because they like him and trust him.
History tells us politicians from the same party on different sides of a major national debate rarely ends well - in 1975 we had the likes of Jenkins, Grimond and Whitelaw sharing a platform while Wilson tried to stand above it all. Cameron doesn't have that luxury since it's his renegotiation and its his political capital at stake.
LEAVE has been boosted by the reports Cameron will stay on even if his preferred option loses the referendum which most people take to mean he'll stay on even if LEAVE wins. The boost comes because those scared of losing Cameron as PM if they vote against his option can now do so knowing he will still be there in No.10.
Of course, for all the bravado, Cameron would be fatally wounded if his preferred option is rejected and there's no getting round that. Such a vote would fire the starting pistol on the leadership campaign. There are calculations aplenty no doubt - if you hitch yourself to Cameron's wagon and that wagon crashes, you're in trouble. The gamble then becomes if someone like Boris goes against Cameron and argues for LEAVE, he's finished if REMAIN wins and if LEAVE wins, will the Conservative Party thank him for knifing the Prime Minister - no one thanked Howe or Heseltine very much in the end as I recall.
Frank said a week or so after Corbyn was elected that Trots had tried to get him deselected 3x before and they wouldn't succeed if he had anything to do with it.
Seems like Frank Field is going to give an interview on the Sunday Politics saying some Labour MPs should stand as independents if they are mistreated by the PLP and that plenty of others would support them
On topic, excellent article by antifrank. It will be tricky putting the pieces back together after the referendum, though curiously it will probably be easier if there's an Out, as antifrank implies (there simply aren't the Europhiles to create the trouble). It will probably also be relatively easy if it's a very comfortable In, say 65%+, where the Leavers will have little option but to play the long game; you can't write off that kind of margin as a steal.
The problem, however, is that the most likely result is an 'In' vote within the 50-65 range, and that there's a leadership election scheduled not that long afterwards to concentrate minds and energies. If that is where it ends, Cameron might be well advised to lance the boil and step down early.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
The Conservatives are certainly likely to see the biggest splits on the referendum, with Cameron and Osborne likely to be for In and the likes of Patterson, Fox and IDS as you say for Out. However Labour will also see splits with most of the frontbench and former New Labour Ministers for In but backbenchers like Kate Hoey, Dennis Skinner and Frank Field for Out and Corbyn probably ending up on the fence. Only the LDs and SNP of the big 4 will be solidly for In (though unlike the LDs the SNP will have to face the challenge that a significant number of their own voters will be for Out).
The Greens will likely be for Out but the party with the biggest potential to benefit from EU ref are UKIP, 90%+ of UKIP voters will vote Out and the best result for UKIP would be a narrow In which would offer them the chance to pick up disillusioned Out voters, particularly from the Tories
Sorry @HYUFD, but you are talking rubbish about the UKIP approach to the indyref.
UKIP will always want OUT to win. The thing that would really propel UKIP upward is, if out won the ref and Brussels immediately ordered Cammo to have another vote and if necessary another vote until IN won.
Mr. Abroad, ultimately the law is made by politicians who ought to act on behalf of the people. So, politicians, but with the interest of the public (not just a vocal minority of shrieking tweeters) at heart.
I see Tony Blair apologised for the intelligence they received being wrong. What a dishonest politician this man is. Alistair Campbell intensively pressured the intelligence agencies to come up with more stuff, and Tony Blair misrepresented their position in parliament by leaving out that the 45 minute claim only applied to the battlefield. In addition, when the legal advice they received wasn't to their liking, they sacked Sir Michael Woord, the chief legal advisor, causing the deputy to resign in protest. For his replacement, they hired a man who makes a living defending the Israelis' actions in Gaza, knowing he would provide the right legal advice.
The worrying point is that Blair was deceiving himself as well as us. He knew he was right and that Saddam had WMD. That they'd not been found was evidence Saddam was obstructing the inspectors. After the war, the justification changed: Blair was not going to apologise for removing Saddam. Now it is that non-intervention in Syria has left that country in an even worse condition than Iraq.
Oh, come on. Saddam *was* obstructing the inspectors; no-one can credibly claim otherwise. What wasn't known at the time was that he was obstructing them because he had destroyed his stocks and therefore presumably didn't want his neighbours or internal opponents to know that, rather than because he hadn't.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
After my recent road trip to Lisbon and back, I think I'd choose Salamanca - beautiful and ancient university city with better food, wine and weather than Edinburgh!
Mr. Abroad, "It is hardly surprising that Peebietories demand the right to give, but not to take offence. Most of us demand the right to do what comes naturally to us, whether or not it involves drink, drugs and animals. "
Morris Dancer: "Mr. Abroad, who has asked for the right to never be offended?"
Mr. Abroad: "I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. And you know I didn't."
In that case... you appear to be equating taking offence with just cause for something being forbidden. I don't mind if people are offended. I mind if they consider the sentence "I am offended" as an actual argument for someone else to be forbidden from saying something.
Freedom of speech matters more than placating the terminally hyper-sensitive, the religious fundamentalist or the weak-kneed government.
That was an excellent article from Roger Scruton. Mill's arguments in favour of free speech have to re-stated in every generation.
Mill did not say that anyone had the right to be offensive. He was not opposed to the principle of statutory defamation. People - such as Sean Fear - who seek to make a living out of giving offence should remember that.
The interesting (to me, at any rate) questions are these: let's say I know that some statement - such as telling my daughter that her new kitten is boring - will give offence. Do I still have the right to make it? Do I need to justify my right? What counts as justification? Quoting Mill? Membership of UKIP? Supporting Everton?
Since when was giving offence equivalent to defamation?!
You have every right to tell your daughter that her kitten's boring. And she would have every right to hate you for it - but not to sue you.
Mr. Abroad, that seems a bloody bizarre way of looking at freedom of speech. It ought to be as broad as possible with limitations only when strictly necessary, not there to safeguard people's delicate little feelings or put ideas beyond question (such as whether a chap from the 7th century was a god's chosen one, or whether a Palestinian carpenter was the Messiah or a very naughty boy).
Who will define "strictly necessary"? You? Me? OGH?
The law, which should exclude only:
1. Incitement to violence or other criminal activity, but not including support for changing those laws; 2. Actions that constitute a danger to public safety (shouting 'Fire' in a theatre etc).
The Conservatives are certainly likely to see the biggest splits on the referendum, with Cameron and Osborne likely to be for In and the likes of Patterson, Fox and IDS as you say for Out. However Labour will also see splits with most of the frontbench and former New Labour Ministers for In but backbenchers like Kate Hoey, Dennis Skinner and Frank Field for Out and Corbyn probably ending up on the fence. Only the LDs and SNP of the big 4 will be solidly for In (though unlike the LDs the SNP will have to face the challenge that a significant number of their own voters will be for Out).
The Greens will likely be for Out but the party with the biggest potential to benefit from EU ref are UKIP, 90%+ of UKIP voters will vote Out and the best result for UKIP would be a narrow In which would offer them the chance to pick up disillusioned Out voters, particularly from the Tories
Sorry @HYUFD, but you are talking rubbish about the UKIP approach to the indyref.
UKIP will always want OUT to win. The thing that would really propel UKIP upward is, if out won the ref and Brussels immediately ordered Cammo to have another vote and if necessary another vote until IN won.
Well obviously UKIP will always want OUT to win just as the SNP always wanted YES to win but on a purely party political basis the best result for the SNP was a relatively narrow which kept the issue alive without giving the SNP all the responsibilities of governing an independent Scotland and destroying their raison d'etre. A narrow IN would be equally good for UKIP while an OUT would destroy the party's main reason for existence and a big IN would destroy their cause for a generation. There is no way an Out vote would be rerun, Cameron would refuse to do so and even if he tried the Tory Party would simply replace him as PM with a more hardline EUsceptic. Of course the likes of Sweden and Denmark are still outside the Euro after voting against it in referendums so the EU does not always get its way
I see Tony Blair apologised for the intelligence they received being wrong. What a dishonest politician this man is. Alistair Campbell intensively pressured the intelligence agencies to come up with more stuff, and Tony Blair misrepresented their position in parliament by leaving out that the 45 minute claim only applied to the battlefield. In addition, when the legal advice they received wasn't to their liking, they sacked Sir Michael Woord, the chief legal advisor, causing the deputy to resign in protest. For his replacement, they hired a man who makes a living defending the Israelis' actions in Gaza, knowing he would provide the right legal advice.
The worrying point is that Blair was deceiving himself as well as us. He knew he was right and that Saddam had WMD. That they'd not been found was evidence Saddam was obstructing the inspectors. After the war, the justification changed: Blair was not going to apologise for removing Saddam. Now it is that non-intervention in Syria has left that country in an even worse condition than Iraq.
Oh, come on. Saddam *was* obstructing the inspectors; no-one can credibly claim otherwise. What wasn't known at the time was that he was obstructing them because he had destroyed his stocks and therefore presumably didn't want his neighbours or internal opponents to know that, rather than because he hadn't.
Yes but that is beside the point, which is that the absence of evidence for WMDs was taken to confirm their existence. I've left out intermediate stages after the invasion where WMDs would be found, and that they were not meant they'd been moved, hidden or exported. Then the rationale changed.
Matthew Syed's book, Black Box Thinking, gives this and other examples of cognitive dissonance from crime (where prosecutors rationalise away DNA evidence proving convicts' innocence) and cults (where failure of the world to end strengthens belief).
Excellent piece by Antifrank - we have been spoilt in recent times by some quality contributions. There's very little in it with which anyone can disagree. There will be those Conservatives who will rush to change the subject as discussing the party's potential and actual divisions probably isn't considered suitable Sunday morning debate.
I'm not a Conservative so it's fair game. In truth, I suspect a large proportion will be of the "I'll follow Dave" mantra. Whatever Cameron comes back with will be lauded as the greatest feat of negotiation since the Treaty of (fill in whatever suits) and everyone will be encouraged to admire the Emperor's New Suit.
Among the electorate, too, I suspect there's a considerable number who will simply go along with whatever David Cameron recommends simply because they like him and trust him.
History tells us politicians from the same party on different sides of a major national debate rarely ends well - in 1975 we had the likes of Jenkins, Grimond and Whitelaw sharing a platform while Wilson tried to stand above it all. Cameron doesn't have that luxury since it's his renegotiation and its his political capital at stake.
LEAVE has been boosted by the reports Cameron will stay on even if his preferred option loses the referendum which most people take to mean he'll stay on even if LEAVE wins. The boost comes because those scared of losing Cameron as PM if they vote against his option can now do so knowing he will still be there in No.10.
Of course, for all the bravado, Cameron would be fatally wounded if his preferred option is rejected and there's no getting round that. Such a vote would fire the starting pistol on the leadership campaign. There are calculations aplenty no doubt - if you hitch yourself to Cameron's wagon and that wagon crashes, you're in trouble. The gamble then becomes if someone like Boris goes against Cameron and argues for LEAVE, he's finished if REMAIN wins and if LEAVE wins, will the Conservative Party thank him for knifing the Prime Minister - no one thanked Howe or Heseltine very much in the end as I recall.
They thanked Thatcher though, fifteen years earlier.
From a broader political perspective, though, a Tory split - however brutal - will not matter. They still win in 2020 because there is no serious opposition. The real issue is what it does to the leadership race. Osborne needs Remain to win and the Tories to stay relatively disciplined. That means his rivals are going to want it to be otherwise.
Seems the Polish election is happening, and could see a shift from a leftwing integrationist party to a rightwing party which wants less EU integration and less EU bureaucracy (as well as fewer migrants): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34630092
I see Tony Blair apologised for the intelligence they received being wrong. What a dishonest politician this man is. Alistair Campbell intensively pressured the intelligence agencies to come up with more stuff, and Tony Blair misrepresented their position in parliament by leaving out that the 45 minute claim only applied to the battlefield. In addition, when the legal advice they received wasn't to their liking, they sacked Sir Michael Woord, the chief legal advisor, causing the deputy to resign in protest. For his replacement, they hired a man who makes a living defending the Israelis' actions in Gaza, knowing he would provide the right legal advice.
The worrying point is that Blair was deceiving himself as well as us. He knew he was right and that Saddam had WMD. That they'd not been found was evidence Saddam was obstructing the inspectors. After the war, the justification changed: Blair was not going to apologise for removing Saddam. Now it is that non-intervention in Syria has left that country in an even worse condition than Iraq.
In retrospect the focus should have been kept on Afghanistan which was where 9/11 was launched from, toppling Saddam and Gaddafi created the conditions for ISIS and an expansion of terrorism in the Middle East. Toppling Assad risked simply replacing him with ISIS and would have made the situation even worse
I see Tony Blair apologised for the intelligence they received being wrong. What a dishonest politician this man is. Alistair Campbell intensively pressured the intelligence agencies to come up with more stuff, and Tony Blair misrepresented their position in parliament by leaving out that the 45 minute claim only applied to the battlefield. In addition, when the legal advice they received wasn't to their liking, they sacked Sir Michael Woord, the chief legal advisor, causing the deputy to resign in protest. For his replacement, they hired a man who makes a living defending the Israelis' actions in Gaza, knowing he would provide the right legal advice.
The worrying point is that Blair was deceiving himself as well as us. He knew he was right and that Saddam had WMD. That they'd not been found was evidence Saddam was obstructing the inspectors. After the war, the justification changed: Blair was not going to apologise for removing Saddam. Now it is that non-intervention in Syria has left that country in an even worse condition than Iraq.
Oh, come on. Saddam *was* obstructing the inspectors; no-one can credibly claim otherwise. What wasn't known at the time was that he was obstructing them because he had destroyed his stocks and therefore presumably didn't want his neighbours or internal opponents to know that, rather than because he hadn't.
Yes but that is beside the point, which is that the absence of evidence for WMDs was taken to confirm their existence. I've left out intermediate stages after the invasion where WMDs would be found, and that they were not meant they'd been moved, hidden or exported. Then the rationale changed.
Matthew Syed's book, Black Box Thinking, gives this and other examples of cognitive dissonance from crime (where prosecutors rationalise away DNA evidence proving convicts' innocence) and cults (where failure of the world to end strengthens belief).
The rationale did change but I'd dispute that "the absence of evidence for WMDs was taken to confirm their existence". It was the absence of evidence of the destruction of Iraq's WMDs that was taken to confirm their existence. Which given that Iraq undoubtedly had them to begin with was not that unreasonable a position to take. I don't recall that even the opponents of the invasion claimed that Saddam had done away with them. On the contrary: they argued (again, not unreasonably), that a regime-change invasion was the most likely trigger for their use.
Not an 'official' bet, as it's not in my pre-qualifying piece, but Alonso to reach Q3 at 6 (Ladbrokes) may be worth a look. He was 5th or 6th during P3 but the team stupidly called him in and they missed the best of the weather, and slumped down the order. Rain is forecast and the new Honda engine might actually be working well (worth noting that their improved versions have a habit of not being much faster and of having shoddy reliability).
Seems the Polish election is happening, and could see a shift from a leftwing integrationist party to a rightwing party which wants less EU integration and less EU bureaucracy (as well as fewer migrants): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34630092
The largest party in the Polish Parliament, Civic Democracy is actually centre-right (Cameroon), the opposition Law and Justice Party is right-wing populist (UKIP), so really today's election would be the equivalent of a battle between the Tories and UKIP. The main centre-left party, the United Left, is third https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliamentary_election,_2015
Not an 'official' bet, as it's not in my pre-qualifying piece, but Alonso to reach Q3 at 6 (Ladbrokes) may be worth a look. He was 5th or 6th during P3 but the team stupidly called him in and they missed the best of the weather, and slumped down the order. Rain is forecast and the new Honda engine might actually be working well (worth noting that their improved versions have a habit of not being much faster and of having shoddy reliability).
Since May I've wondered if Cameron would have preferred another coalition, he and Clegg are very close in many respects and he always seemed happy to have him around as either a buffer or a comfort blanket. He is obviously uncomfortable with what he sees as the eurosceptic right in his party, he clearly doesn't want a referendum and knows that any negotiations will be fruitless.
All political careers end in ignominy, the EU will be Cameron's nemesis.
The Mail's story has this disclaimer: But on this occasion, Gilmour was not actively taking part in the protest. ‘I was at the King’s Cross protest as a freelance journalist and observer,’ he told The Mail on Sunday.
Which the Mail appears to accept because further down it continues: Despite not being involved, Gilmour has recently tweeted a series of messages in support of migrant groups.
Not an 'official' bet, as it's not in my pre-qualifying piece, but Alonso to reach Q3 at 6 (Ladbrokes) may be worth a look. He was 5th or 6th during P3 but the team stupidly called him in and they missed the best of the weather, and slumped down the order. Rain is forecast and the new Honda engine might actually be working well (worth noting that their improved versions have a habit of not being much faster and of having shoddy reliability).
Not an 'official' bet, as it's not in my pre-qualifying piece, but Alonso to reach Q3 at 6 (Ladbrokes) may be worth a look. He was 5th or 6th during P3 but the team stupidly called him in and they missed the best of the weather, and slumped down the order. Rain is forecast and the new Honda engine might actually be working well (worth noting that their improved versions have a habit of not being much faster and of having shoddy reliability).
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
Not an 'official' bet, as it's not in my pre-qualifying piece, but Alonso to reach Q3 at 6 (Ladbrokes) may be worth a look. He was 5th or 6th during P3 but the team stupidly called him in and they missed the best of the weather, and slumped down the order. Rain is forecast and the new Honda engine might actually be working well (worth noting that their improved versions have a habit of not being much faster and of having shoddy reliability).
A poor man's Vikings...
If that's the Last Kingdom, then In the sense of production values, yes. But having checked out the first few episodes now, I feel it has some real promise, in particular the guy playing Alfred I think is spot on as I had imagined from Cornwell's depiction of him. Given time to expand and be a bit more polished (though not visually - the rather grimy feel of things feels rather appropriate) and I think it could be good. I'd say the first season of Vikings, while good and well produced from the get go, was not anywhere near as good as seasons 2 and 3, and so given time to grow I think this could be very good. The first episode is not stellar, but from reports it seems to pick up from there.
Never heard of the show Kingdom before though, it doesn't look my speed.
Not an 'official' bet, as it's not in my pre-qualifying piece, but Alonso to reach Q3 at 6 (Ladbrokes) may be worth a look. He was 5th or 6th during P3 but the team stupidly called him in and they missed the best of the weather, and slumped down the order. Rain is forecast and the new Honda engine might actually be working well (worth noting that their improved versions have a habit of not being much faster and of having shoddy reliability).
It has Nick Jonas in I believe, although you may be talking about 'The Last Kingdom' which is slightly different
Mr. Abroad, "It is hardly surprising that Peebietories demand the right to give, but not to take offence. Most of us demand the right to do what comes naturally to us, whether or not it involves drink, drugs and animals. "
Morris Dancer: "Mr. Abroad, who has asked for the right to never be offended?"
Mr. Abroad: "I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. And you know I didn't."
In that case... you appear to be equating taking offence with just cause for something being forbidden. I don't mind if people are offended. I mind if they consider the sentence "I am offended" as an actual argument for someone else to be forbidden from saying something.
Freedom of speech matters more than placating the terminally hyper-sensitive, the religious fundamentalist or the weak-kneed government.
That was an excellent article from Roger Scruton. Mill's arguments in favour of free speech have to re-stated in every generation.
Mill did not say that anyone had the right to be offensive. He was not opposed to the principle of statutory defamation. People - such as Sean Fear - who seek to make a living out of giving offence should remember that.
The interesting (to me, at any rate) questions are these: let's say I know that some statement - such as telling my daughter that her new kitten is boring - will give offence. Do I still have the right to make it? Do I need to justify my right? What counts as justification? Quoting Mill? Membership of UKIP? Supporting Everton?
Miss Plato, The Last Kingdom was quite good. The lack of sex or especially explicit violence, after Game of Thrones, took a bit of getting used to (akin to [so I am told] watching soft-edited adult films with the most exciting/explicit bits cut).
I'll watch the second episode, and see how things go. It's not world-beating excellence, but it seems quite entertaining.
From a broader political perspective, though, a Tory split - however brutal - will not matter. They still win in 2020 because there is no serious opposition. The real issue is what it does to the leadership race. Osborne needs Remain to win and the Tories to stay relatively disciplined. That means his rivals are going to want it to be otherwise.
It must be very tempting for one of Osborne's rivals to champion Leave.
And thanks to antifrank for the analysis. I don't think that anyone would dispute that Labour is going to be spending some time sorting itself out, and that's giving the Tories a sense of freedom to do anything. That is, however, a dangerous state of mind, like someone whose spouse is visiting relatives deciding to sign up for Tindr. Neither spouses nor oppositions stay away forever.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
After my recent road trip to Lisbon and back, I think I'd choose Salamanca - beautiful and ancient university city with better food, wine and weather than Edinburgh!
Montpellier for me , though I have not had pleasure of visiting Salamanca.
The ex Greek finance minister is on Murnaghan saying UK should stay in the EU, that's another boost for the OUT campaign
The Remain team really need to make sure that European politicians and especially EU bureaucrats shut up until after the referendum, as all they are doing is helping the Leave side.
Will the Tory Right or the Kippers just accept it for ever ?
For ever? No absolutely not. It is obvious to many of us that the EU will not stand still and has no intention of giving up on Ever Closer Union nor on Britain's involvement in it, no matter what Cameron might claim. As such there will be a period of calm until the next move by the EU towards further integration and at that point it all starts again - the very basis of Cameron's pledges having been shown to have been false. That would apply no matter how much In won by.
Miss Plato, The Last Kingdom was quite good. The lack of sex or especially explicit violence, after Game of Thrones, took a bit of getting used to (akin to [so I am told] watching soft-edited adult films with the most exciting/explicit bits cut).
I'll watch the second episode, and see how things go. It's not world-beating excellence, but it seems quite entertaining.
Roger Scruton is absolutely right in that article.
The so-called right not to be offended is the cry of the baby. It is infantile and anyone who uses it deserves to be ignored. There is no limit to what will offend some people or what they claim will offend them. If given any quarter at all, it would lead to no one anywhere being able to say anything at all.
I see Tony Blair apologised for the intelligence they received being wrong. What a dishonest politician this man is. Alistair Campbell intensively pressured the intelligence agencies to come up with more stuff, and Tony Blair misrepresented their position in parliament by leaving out that the 45 minute claim only applied to the battlefield. In addition, when the legal advice they received wasn't to their liking, they sacked Sir Michael Woord, the chief legal advisor, causing the deputy to resign in protest. For his replacement, they hired a man who makes a living defending the Israelis' actions in Gaza, knowing he would provide the right legal advice.
The worrying point is that Blair was deceiving himself as well as us. He knew he was right and that Saddam had WMD. That they'd not been found was evidence Saddam was obstructing the inspectors. After the war, the justification changed: Blair was not going to apologise for removing Saddam. Now it is that non-intervention in Syria has left that country in an even worse condition than Iraq.
Oh, come on. Saddam *was* obstructing the inspectors; no-one can credibly claim otherwise. What wasn't known at the time was that he was obstructing them because he had destroyed his stocks and therefore presumably didn't want his neighbours or internal opponents to know that, rather than because he hadn't.
Yes but that is beside the point, which is that the absence of evidence for WMDs was taken to confirm their existence. I've left out intermediate stages after the invasion where WMDs would be found, and that they were not meant they'd been moved, hidden or exported. Then the rationale changed.
Matthew Syed's book, Black Box Thinking, gives this and other examples of cognitive dissonance from crime (where prosecutors rationalise away DNA evidence proving convicts' innocence) and cults (where failure of the world to end strengthens belief).
The rationale did change but I'd dispute that "the absence of evidence for WMDs was taken to confirm their existence". It was the absence of evidence of the destruction of Iraq's WMDs that was taken to confirm their existence. Which given that Iraq undoubtedly had them to begin with was not that unreasonable a position to take. I don't recall that even the opponents of the invasion claimed that Saddam had done away with them. On the contrary: they argued (again, not unreasonably), that a regime-change invasion was the most likely trigger for their use.
Cheating lying toerags whose only aim was to get control of the oil for American companies. Blair got his rewards and continues to fill his coffers to this day.
Roger Scruton is absolutely right in that article.
The so-called right not to be offended is the cry of the baby. It is infantile and anyone who uses it deserves to be ignored. There is no limit to what will offend some people or what they claim will offend them. If given any quarter at all, it would lead to no one anywhere being able to say anything at all.
Hear hear. We cannot 'protect' everyone from seeing and hearing things we cannot predict might offend someone. Honestly, sometimes in any case we place too much emphasis shielding people from the consequences of their own stupidity, and this sort of thing is a corollary to that.
Roger Scruton is absolutely right in that article.
The so-called right not to be offended is the cry of the baby. It is infantile and anyone who uses it deserves to be ignored. There is no limit to what will offend some people or what they claim will offend them. If given any quarter at all, it would lead to no one anywhere being able to say anything at all.
The ex Greek finance minister is on Murnaghan saying UK should stay in the EU, that's another boost for the OUT campaign
The Remain team really need to make sure that European politicians and especially EU bureaucrats shut up until after the referendum, as all they are doing is helping the Leave side.
My point entirely, Greece is the most discredited country in Europe, the fact they want us to stay says everything.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Agreed. Saving and re-energising it was one of Margaret Thatcher's (many) great achivements.
Quietly forgetting to mention that it was Harold Wilson's creation.
And there was me trying to keep the politics out of it!
For me it was Wilson's greatest achievement and one the country should be rightly proud of. When I studied Geology at Cardiff back in the 80s, we and a lot of other bricks and mortar Uni's used to use the OU field course in North East England as the basis for some of our field work.
In the field of Geology, the OU course has always been considered one of the most rigorous and demanding courses you can do.
From a broader political perspective, though, a Tory split - however brutal - will not matter. They still win in 2020 because there is no serious opposition. The real issue is what it does to the leadership race. Osborne needs Remain to win and the Tories to stay relatively disciplined. That means his rivals are going to want it to be otherwise.
It must be very tempting for one of Osborne's rivals to champion Leave.
They probably wouldn't get the gig, though.
If one of the big hitters breaks ranks and leave actually wins, the next tory leader will come from the true right of the party.
Miss Plato, The Last Kingdom was quite good. The lack of sex or especially explicit violence, after Game of Thrones, took a bit of getting used to (akin to [so I am told] watching soft-edited adult films with the most exciting/explicit bits cut).
I'll watch the second episode, and see how things go. It's not world-beating excellence, but it seems quite entertaining.
Mr. Notme, not seen Vikings.
Once you've watched a show in which the teenage *heroine* conducts human sacrifice, burns people alive, nails people to crosses, locks a girl in a vault to starve, feeds a man alive to a dragon, everything else probably seems a little tame by comparison.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
I'd like to add my congratulations to Mr. Rentool. The OU is a fine institution and actually a very good university. Such a shame that recent changes have meant that it is now priced out of the reach of so many people.
As to Mr. G's question, I would suggest Towyn on a wet Sunday afternoon in February would be a better place, or perhaps Scunthorpe.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
I'd like to add my congratulations to Mr. Rentool. The OU is a fine institution and actually a very good university. Such a shame that recent changes have meant that it is now priced out of the reach of so many people.
As to Mr. G's question, I would suggest Towyn on a wet Sunday afternoon in February would be a better place, or perhaps Scunthorpe.
Mr Hurst, what a cheeky retort to my magnificent post , did you get out of bed on the wrong side today.
Ydoethur. Kind of related and forgot to say, I've just finished reading Dictator by Robert Harris. It's good but not as good as the first two in the series. I don't know whether one of our more esteemed ancient world experts has a view?
Mr. Herdson, afraid I haven't read it.
On a related topic, I picked up a near-perfect 1990s hardback publication of Gibbon's Decline and Fall (8 volumes) for £30 from a second-hand book store. These places are as much of a national asset as many public lending libraries.
Miss Plato, The Last Kingdom was quite good. The lack of sex or especially explicit violence, after Game of Thrones, took a bit of getting used to (akin to [so I am told] watching soft-edited adult films with the most exciting/explicit bits cut).
I'll watch the second episode, and see how things go. It's not world-beating excellence, but it seems quite entertaining.
Mr. Notme, not seen Vikings.
Once you've watched a show in which the teenage *heroine* conducts human sacrifice, burns people alive, nails people to crosses, locks a girl in a vault to starve, feeds a man alive to a dragon, everything else probably seems a little tame by comparison.
Which is why I don't watch it. There's a seriously nasty and very deliberate Hollywood agenda to cross the moral rubicund with these shows, and the people who watch them are too stupefied to notice or care.
Seems the Polish election is happening, and could see a shift from a leftwing integrationist party to a rightwing party which wants less EU integration and less EU bureaucracy (as well as fewer migrants): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34630092
The largest party in the Polish Parliament, Civic Democracy is actually centre-right (Cameroon), the opposition Law and Justice Party is right-wing populist (UKIP), so really today's election would be the equivalent of a battle between the Tories and UKIP. The main centre-left party, the United Left, is third https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliamentary_election,_2015
Yes - the United Left actually won the second Parliamentary election after Poland embraced free elections - I remember Taki writing with disgust that if the Poles liked having Commie governments they should have said so before, and he wouldn't have bothered to support their dissidents. But the UL then spectacularly screwed up in government and the left has never recovered. Civic Democracy is now felt to have repeated the performance (though they seem to have done OK to me), and I wonder if in opposition they'll be able to reverse the decline either.
In general, Eastern Europe has struggled to produce clean, competent and popular governments since the end of the Cold War, and the electorates are jumping from one perceived awful alternative to another. There are some exceptions - the Czech Republic and Slovenia, for instance, not to mention Mrs Merkel - but overall there is still some settling down to be done.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
I'd like to add my congratulations to Mr. Rentool. The OU is a fine institution and actually a very good university. Such a shame that recent changes have meant that it is now priced out of the reach of so many people.
As to Mr. G's question, I would suggest Towyn on a wet Sunday afternoon in February would be a better place, or perhaps Scunthorpe.
Mr Hurst, what a cheeky retort to my magnificent post , did you get out of bed on the wrong side today.
No but I went for a walk in my new boots and my feet hurt.
Miss Plato, The Last Kingdom was quite good. The lack of sex or especially explicit violence, after Game of Thrones, took a bit of getting used to (akin to [so I am told] watching soft-edited adult films with the most exciting/explicit bits cut).
I'll watch the second episode, and see how things go. It's not world-beating excellence, but it seems quite entertaining.
Mr. Notme, not seen Vikings.
Once you've watched a show in which the teenage *heroine* conducts human sacrifice, burns people alive, nails people to crosses, locks a girl in a vault to starve, feeds a man alive to a dragon, everything else probably seems a little tame by comparison.
Which is why I don't watch it. There's a seriously nasty and very deliberate Hollywood agenda to cross the moral rubicund with these shows, and the people who watch them are too stupefied to notice or care.
I think you can lighten up a bit. If it's not your thing, fair enough, there's plenty of things I don't like to watch, and I actually dislike a lot of modern, overly dark, graphic fiction which apes series like A Song of Ice and Fire, but does so poorly, but it doesn't require making a moral judgement about the millions of people who enjoy them, for all sorts of reasons. Personally I think it's a great show, and not actually as gratuitous as legend would have people believe, but I don't judge those who disagree.
Comments
The interesting (to me, at any rate) questions are these: let's say I know that some statement - such as telling my daughter that her new kitten is boring - will give offence. Do I still have the right to make it? Do I need to justify my right? What counts as justification? Quoting Mill? Membership of UKIP? Supporting Everton?
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/macedonian-she-wolves.html
Onwards and upwards!
Yes I am sure he is a "real" Tory giving money to the SNP. You can post some bollocks but that takes the biscuit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11951866/Exclusive-Jeremy-Corbyns-millionaire-spin-doctor-Seumas-Milne-sent-his-children-to-top-grammar-schools.html
I was particularly intrigued by this comment from Robert Harris, whom I have always had a lot of time for: Seumas Milne appears to be one of Corbyn's worse mistakes, which is saying something. I have always flatly disagreed with him - he seems to struggle with any fact that does not fit his theories (I remember a particular spat I had in the comments section with his admirers over the manifestly false claim that life in the DDR was better before reunification, and that people were paid more for less work). But I didn't realise quite how much of a champagne socialist he was. The more I am told, the more he starts to make Polly Toynbee look like Denis Healey.
Corbyn's problem is that he has presented himself as the outsider hammering the Westminster elite. But his appointments are pretty much only Westminster insiders who owe their positions to contacts (McDonnell, Burnham, Abbot) or contacts and wealth (Milne, Corbyn himself, Benn). At some point, it is going to become difficult to sustain the charade of the 'outsider as insider'. And when that happens, given it is just about his only asset, what does he have left?
Of course, this story is from the tragic remains of the Telegraph and should be treated with due caution as part of their outrage series. If the Guardian start publishing attacks like that (which seems unlikely, particularly as Milne is still employed by them) then we will know there is a serious problem. But Milne's already broken Alistair Campbell's first rule of spin doctoring - he has become the story. He is extremely fortunate that after Coulson Cameron can hardly talk about ill-advised hiring!
hedging his bets , typical duplitious Tory cheating toerag.
Fact: if the Tories ban their members from sitting as cross-bench peers, that's appropriate Party discipline. If Labour does the same thing, that's Stalinism. Have I got that right?
duplitious Tory cheating toerag.SNP donor...@MichaelPDeacon: If Osborne taxed writing angry tweets about articles you haven't read, he could clear the deficit in a week
MalcolmG alone could fill the SNP blackhole...
4th innings odds always seem a bit optimistic for the batting team with no wickets down. Probably more like 1.05
Corbyn's problem is that he has presented himself as the outsider hammering the Westminster elite. But his appointments are pretty much only Westminster insiders who owe their positions to contacts (McDonnell, Burnham, Abbot) or contacts and wealth (Milne, Corbyn himself, Benn). At some point, it is going to become difficult to sustain the charade of the 'outsider as insider'. And when that happens, given it is just about his only asset, what does he have left?
Of course, this story is from the tragic remains of the Telegraph and should be treated with due caution as part of their outrage series. If the Guardian start publishing attacks like that (which seems unlikely, particularly as Milne is still employed by them) then we will know there is a serious problem. But Milne's already broken Alistair Campbell's first rule of spin doctoring - he has become the story. He is extremely fortunate that after Coulson Cameron can hardly talk about ill-advised hiring!
Cameron would be foolish to bring the story up himself, partly because there's no need to lower himself to that level when plenty of other people will make the same point, partly because for various reasons (including, as you rightly say, him becoming the story), I doubt he'll be any good at the job, and partly - again, as you right point out - because he has form himself. But the main one is that Milne is a net asset to the Tories.
The Greens will likely be for Out but the party with the biggest potential to benefit from EU ref are UKIP, 90%+ of UKIP voters will vote Out and the best result for UKIP would be a narrow In which would offer them the chance to pick up disillusioned Out voters, particularly from the Tories
I wonder if he is happy with this being the soundbite from the Shadow Chancellor's TV apearance this morning?
@MarrShow: McDonnell: We're radicalising the Parliamentary Labour Party #marr #marrshow
But that was a view I held before the rest of the team started to be useless too. Now he blends in more.
With regard to your earlier postings re the right to give offence, but not to take it: you have, on occasion, made offensive remarks about people on here (including me) or misrepresented what we have said. But I can't remember anyone calling for you to be banned. Normally, people just ignore you until you calm down again (that was my approach, anyway, and now I am happy to see we are able to have civilised conversations again). If I'm wrong about that, I'm happy to be corrected.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, afraid I haven't read it.
Excellent piece by Antifrank - we have been spoilt in recent times by some quality contributions. There's very little in it with which anyone can disagree. There will be those Conservatives who will rush to change the subject as discussing the party's potential and actual divisions probably isn't considered suitable Sunday morning debate.
I'm not a Conservative so it's fair game. In truth, I suspect a large proportion will be of the "I'll follow Dave" mantra. Whatever Cameron comes back with will be lauded as the greatest feat of negotiation since the Treaty of (fill in whatever suits) and everyone will be encouraged to admire the Emperor's New Suit.
Among the electorate, too, I suspect there's a considerable number who will simply go along with whatever David Cameron recommends simply because they like him and trust him.
History tells us politicians from the same party on different sides of a major national debate rarely ends well - in 1975 we had the likes of Jenkins, Grimond and Whitelaw sharing a platform while Wilson tried to stand above it all. Cameron doesn't have that luxury since it's his renegotiation and its his political capital at stake.
LEAVE has been boosted by the reports Cameron will stay on even if his preferred option loses the referendum which most people take to mean he'll stay on even if LEAVE wins. The boost comes because those scared of losing Cameron as PM if they vote against his option can now do so knowing he will still be there in No.10.
Of course, for all the bravado, Cameron would be fatally wounded if his preferred option is rejected and there's no getting round that. Such a vote would fire the starting pistol on the leadership campaign. There are calculations aplenty no doubt - if you hitch yourself to Cameron's wagon and that wagon crashes, you're in trouble. The gamble then becomes if someone like Boris goes against Cameron and argues for LEAVE, he's finished if REMAIN wins and if LEAVE wins, will the Conservative Party thank him for knifing the Prime Minister - no one thanked Howe or Heseltine very much in the end as I recall.
Pink Floyd star's son joins anarchists in the Battle of St Pancras
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3287917/Battle-St-Pancras-Demonstrators-demanding-relaxation-borders-storm-London-Eurostar-terminal-clash-police-highlight-migrants-struggle.html
Be surprised if he jumped after saying that.
The problem, however, is that the most likely result is an 'In' vote within the 50-65 range, and that there's a leadership election scheduled not that long afterwards to concentrate minds and energies. If that is where it ends, Cameron might be well advised to lance the boil and step down early.
Trump 24
Carson 17
Bush 10
Rubio 8
Kasich 7
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-21/ad-blitz-fails-to-lift-jeb-bush-s-poll-numbers-in-new-hampshire-bloomberg-politics-saint-anselm-poll
UKIP will always want OUT to win. The thing that would really propel UKIP upward is, if out won the ref and Brussels immediately ordered Cammo to have another vote and if necessary another vote until IN won.
Miss Plato, yes.
You have every right to tell your daughter that her kitten's boring. And she would have every right to hate you for it - but not to sue you.
1. Incitement to violence or other criminal activity, but not including support for changing those laws;
2. Actions that constitute a danger to public safety (shouting 'Fire' in a theatre etc).
And that's it.
Matthew Syed's book, Black Box Thinking, gives this and other examples of cognitive dissonance from crime (where prosecutors rationalise away DNA evidence proving convicts' innocence) and cults (where failure of the world to end strengthens belief).
He's in the primaries but...
Betfair don't seem to have him listed as a runner.
From a broader political perspective, though, a Tory split - however brutal - will not matter. They still win in 2020 because there is no serious opposition. The real issue is what it does to the leadership race. Osborne needs Remain to win and the Tories to stay relatively disciplined. That means his rivals are going to want it to be otherwise.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34630092
Not an 'official' bet, as it's not in my pre-qualifying piece, but Alonso to reach Q3 at 6 (Ladbrokes) may be worth a look. He was 5th or 6th during P3 but the team stupidly called him in and they missed the best of the weather, and slumped down the order. Rain is forecast and the new Honda engine might actually be working well (worth noting that their improved versions have a habit of not being much faster and of having shoddy reliability).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliamentary_election,_2015
Since May I've wondered if Cameron would have preferred another coalition, he and Clegg are very close in many respects and he always seemed happy to have him around as either a buffer or a comfort blanket. He is obviously uncomfortable with what he sees as the eurosceptic right in his party, he clearly doesn't want a referendum and knows that any negotiations will be fruitless.
All political careers end in ignominy, the EU will be Cameron's nemesis.
Which the Mail appears to accept because further down it continues: Despite not being involved, Gilmour has recently tweeted a series of messages in support of migrant groups.
Cake had and eaten.
Never heard of the show Kingdom before though, it doesn't look my speed.
Miss Plato, The Last Kingdom was quite good. The lack of sex or especially explicit violence, after Game of Thrones, took a bit of getting used to (akin to [so I am told] watching soft-edited adult films with the most exciting/explicit bits cut).
I'll watch the second episode, and see how things go. It's not world-beating excellence, but it seems quite entertaining.
Mr. Notme, not seen Vikings.
But that could be his downfall, as it was for Antigonus Monopthalmus, whose predominance and power forced the other Diadochi to unite against him.
And thanks to antifrank for the analysis. I don't think that anyone would dispute that Labour is going to be spending some time sorting itself out, and that's giving the Tories a sense of freedom to do anything. That is, however, a dangerous state of mind, like someone whose spouse is visiting relatives deciding to sign up for Tindr. Neither spouses nor oppositions stay away forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_general_election,_2015
The so-called right not to be offended is the cry of the baby. It is infantile and anyone who uses it deserves to be ignored. There is no limit to what will offend some people or what they claim will offend them. If given any quarter at all, it would lead to no one anywhere being able to say anything at all.
And to Antifrank on another very good article.
I wonder if he'd swap his wealth for a better legacy.
In the field of Geology, the OU course has always been considered one of the most rigorous and demanding courses you can do.
If one of the big hitters breaks ranks and leave actually wins, the next tory leader will come from the true right of the party.
He who weilds the knife etc etc
As to Mr. G's question, I would suggest Towyn on a wet Sunday afternoon in February would be a better place, or perhaps Scunthorpe.
'Let me ask the Staffordshire question again ?
The EU ref result was 51 - 49 to REMAIN.
Will the Tory Right or the Kippers just accept it for ever ?'
No chance,the EU's example of having repeat votes until they get the right answer has set the precedent.
In general, Eastern Europe has struggled to produce clean, competent and popular governments since the end of the Cold War, and the electorates are jumping from one perceived awful alternative to another. There are some exceptions - the Czech Republic and Slovenia, for instance, not to mention Mrs Merkel - but overall there is still some settling down to be done.
Good day everyone.