As to the whole redrawing of the EU? I'm not one for epochal predictions, but I feel that we are probably more at the beginning of the EU epoch than the end of it. Those Eastern European countries are only going to get richer and as they do, then they will find both a louder voice, and perhaps a more natural place within the EU, whatever it is by then. Of course they might think that they have outgrown it also, but my guess is that the EU in 20 years time will be more powerful, one way or another, than it is today or in April 2019.
The black swan to look out for from a Eurosceptic perspective is Hungary starting the process of joining the Euro. That ought to cause people who expect the EU to crumble to rethink their assumptions.
Miss Vance, of course Germany wants to harmonise migration. Their daft leader invited in millions of unknowns and now they want to spread the mystery men throughout the continent so Germany doesn't have to deal with most of them itself.
Grant Shapps seems to have botched the coup before it has really begun. I reckon May is here to stay.
Looks like it. It's Gordon Brown all over again.
It does , but he did bring Peter Mandelson back into government, which in my opinion helped .Hard to see May doing similar, or been given the opportunity.
No - an accommodation which worked for other countries as well e.g Eastern European countries and smaller countries and countries with different legal systems, an accommodation which took into account the very different experiences of and attitudes to immigration and multi-culturalism arounf Europe, for a start.
After well over 60 years we need to look at the whole thing again and should be learning from the mistakes and events along the way. And we should be using this opportunity to think again, even if there was - as you think - a perfectly good missed opportunity we could have taken last year.
My personal view FWIW is that the “deal” was so-so, nowhere near as good as some claimed it to be, vulnerable to legall challenge and chipping away but could have been lived with. But it was fundamentally flawed in that it was - and appeared to be - far too technocratic and focused on matters of little concern to ordinary voters (who did not give a toss about protecting the banking sector) and did not really address their concerns at all.
Yes I think that is the nub, which of course ties in with your earlier comment about some home truths for the voters. The thing of course which D'sD failed all hands down on was immigration. That was probably as much a symbol of a perceived lack of sovereignty as an issue in itself, and one that the deal didn't address, or rather, that fell far short of what many ordinary voters probably wanted.
As to the whole redrawing of the EU? I'm not one for epochal predictions, but I feel that we are probably more at the beginning of the EU epoch than the end of it. Those Eastern European countries are only going to get richer and as they do, then they will find both a louder voice, and perhaps a more natural place within the EU, whatever it is by then. Of course they might think that they have outgrown it also, but my guess is that the EU in 20 years time will be more powerful, one way or another, than it is today or in April 2019.
I tend to agree with your last sentence - though “events” and all that. I think it a pity that Britain will not be playing some part in it.
It’s precisely when things look at their worst or when there is some unexpected change that bold imaginative thinking is needed.
Of course Britain is not exceptional - or no more than any other state - and of course the EU will survive fine without it as a member. But we should be aiming for more than mere survival and ignoring former friends - and that applies to the EU as much as Britain.
“Be nice to people on the way up because you’ll meet them on the way down”.
Grant Shapps seems to have botched the coup before it has really begun. I reckon May is here to stay.
Yes and no. I expect I'll be writing on this this evening but to be brief: the situation with May is fundamentally different from with Brown, firstly because of the party rules and secondly because of the timeframe. Shapps has probably ensured that nothing happens now for a couple of weeks at least, so that he doesn't get any credit for it. But after that - when May makes another mis-step, perhaps - letters can still go in.
The Tory process means that a challenge can happen at any time; the Labour one gives only narrow windows. The Tory process divorces a VoNC from the leadership election; the Labour requires a challenger to come forward in advance. May has only just fought a GE and has, through the Florence Speech, bought time (literally) for the Brexit talks - there is a political window of opportunity; Brown was, after 2008 and particularly by the time of the Hoon-Hewitt 'plot', running up towards a GE leaving little time for a leadership election, never mind preparations for a GE.
The fact that Shapps was forced into the open blew this plot. But the Tory process allows a plot to occur entirely silently, at least until the trigger point is reached (indeed, it allows a VoNC without a plot at all, if enough MPs act independently). This is not the end.
As to the whole redrawing of the EU? I'm not one for epochal predictions, but I feel that we are probably more at the beginning of the EU epoch than the end of it. Those Eastern European countries are only going to get richer and as they do, then they will find both a louder voice, and perhaps a more natural place within the EU, whatever it is by then. Of course they might think that they have outgrown it also, but my guess is that the EU in 20 years time will be more powerful, one way or another, than it is today or in April 2019.
The black swan to look out for from a Eurosceptic perspective is Hungary starting the process of joining the Euro. That ought to cause people who expect the EU to crumble to rethink their assumptions.
That process looks to be going about as well and as quickly as Turkey's accession talks were last June, and is going on in parallel with threats to expel Hungary for its insanely racist (from the EU POV) immigration policy, which shows the incoherence of the whole project. I am sure that if necessary we will be knowingly assured that Hungary were never really going to join the euro, the rest were just stringing them along in the certain knowledge that Latvia, or someone, would veto the whole thing.
David Cameron and Theresa May have spoken and he fully endorses her premiership
They have a lot in common. He made the most catastrophic error of electoral judgment in the modern era when he called the EU referendum. And she made the second most catastrophic error when she called the general election.
Grant Shapps seems to have botched the coup before it has really begun. I reckon May is here to stay.
Yes and no. I expect I'll be writing on this this evening but to be brief: the situation with May is fundamentally different from with Brown, firstly because of the party rules and secondly because of the timeframe. Shapps has probably ensured that nothing happens now for a couple of weeks at least, so that he doesn't get any credit for it. But after that - when May makes another mis-step, perhaps - letters can still go in.
The Tory process means that a challenge can happen at any time; the Labour one gives only narrow windows. The Tory process divorces a VoNC from the leadership election; the Labour requires a challenger to come forward in advance. May has only just fought a GE and has, through the Florence Speech, bought time (literally) for the Brexit talks - there is a political window of opportunity; Brown was, after 2008 and particularly by the time of the Hoon-Hewitt 'plot', running up towards a GE leaving little time for a leadership election, never mind preparations for a GE.
The fact that Shapps was forced into the open blew this plot. But the Tory process allows a plot to occur entirely silently, at least until the trigger point is reached (indeed, it allows a VoNC without a plot at all, if enough MPs act independently). This is not the end.
The budget.
It will please nobody and get picked apart very quickly.
Grant Shapps seems to have botched the coup before it has really begun. I reckon May is here to stay.
Yes and no. I expect I'll be writing on this this evening but to be brief: the situation with May is fundamentally different from with Brown, firstly because of the party rules and secondly because of the timeframe. Shapps has probably ensured that nothing happens now for a couple of weeks at least, so that he doesn't get any credit for it. But after that - when May makes another mis-step, perhaps - letters can still go in.
The Tory process means that a challenge can happen at any time; the Labour one gives only narrow windows. The Tory process divorces a VoNC from the leadership election; the Labour requires a challenger to come forward in advance. May has only just fought a GE and has, through the Florence Speech, bought time (literally) for the Brexit talks - there is a political window of opportunity; Brown was, after 2008 and particularly by the time of the Hoon-Hewitt 'plot', running up towards a GE leaving little time for a leadership election, never mind preparations for a GE.
The fact that Shapps was forced into the open blew this plot. But the Tory process allows a plot to occur entirely silently, at least until the trigger point is reached (indeed, it allows a VoNC without a plot at all, if enough MPs act independently). This is not the end.
Since this morning, Boris for leader on BF has eased out slightly to 5.
I have bought some tickets for the hand-egg at twickers off one of the big reseller sites. I have used resellers before with no problem, but just got the tickets for this through and something feels a bit off with them (can't put my finger on what it is, just does).
Is there anyway to check they are valid in advance? As I don't live in the big smoke and a decent journey to get to the stupidly located stadium.
It is also indecent to suggest the Prime Minister is too unwell to carry on. That her health is giving up, that she is frail. The hounding of someone wrongly deemed as weak and vulnerable is supremely un-British. The truth is, the Prime Minister has got more political balls than most male MPs. She is tenacious, a fighter, not a quitter, someone shaped in the real word not in an avatar world of self illusion.
The Prime Minister has the support of the majority of Conservative MPs and will continue to lead the Conservative Parliamentary Party and the country.
Mark Pritchard is the Conservative MP for The Wrekin. He is a former Secretary of the 1922 Committee
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Imagine is a rubbish and hugely overrated song. "Imagine there's no money" sang the millionaire, playing his piano, in his mansion.
All the output of all the Beatles sounds to me as if it was specifically written to be sung by primary school children at multi-faith assembly every morning.
As to the whole redrawing of the EU? I'm not one for epochal predictions, but I feel that we are probably more at the beginning of the EU epoch than the end of it. Those Eastern European countries are only going to get richer and as they do, then they will find both a louder voice, and perhaps a more natural place within the EU, whatever it is by then. Of course they might think that they have outgrown it also, but my guess is that the EU in 20 years time will be more powerful, one way or another, than it is today or in April 2019.
The black swan to look out for from a Eurosceptic perspective is Hungary starting the process of joining the Euro. That ought to cause people who expect the EU to crumble to rethink their assumptions.
Nothing against Hungary - but I really doubt that the Sniths down the Rose and Crown later having a Friday pint will be aching to reassess their perspectives because Hungary might ditch the Forint.
95% of them won’t have been to Hungary, 98% won’t know its currency, and 99% won’t care either way about what it does on this or just about any other matter.
As to the whole redrawing of the EU? I'm not one for epochal predictions, but I feel that we are probably more at the beginning of the EU epoch than the end of it. Those Eastern European countries are only going to get richer and as they do, then they will find both a louder voice, and perhaps a more natural place within the EU, whatever it is by then. Of course they might think that they have outgrown it also, but my guess is that the EU in 20 years time will be more powerful, one way or another, than it is today or in April 2019.
The black swan to look out for from a Eurosceptic perspective is Hungary starting the process of joining the Euro. That ought to cause people who expect the EU to crumble to rethink their assumptions.
Nothing against Hungary - but I really doubt that the Sniths down the Rose and Crown later having a Friday pint will be aching to reassess their perspectives because Hungary might ditch the Forint.
95% of them won’t have been to Hungary, 98% won’t know its currency, and 99% won’t care either way about what it does on this or just about any other matter.
I’m talking about anti-EU ideologues, not Auntie Ida and Joe Bloggs.
I shall read with interest. I try not to worry about solecisms which don't matter, like fewer/less and split infinitives, but one instance of arrow firing makes a book, and the rest of its authors oeuvre, unreadable.
As to the whole redrawing of the EU? I'm not one for epochal predictions, but I feel that we are probably more at the beginning of the EU epoch than the end of it. Those Eastern European countries are only going to get richer and as they do, then they will find both a louder voice, and perhaps a more natural place within the EU, whatever it is by then. Of course they might think that they have outgrown it also, but my guess is that the EU in 20 years time will be more powerful, one way or another, than it is today or in April 2019.
The black swan to look out for from a Eurosceptic perspective is Hungary starting the process of joining the Euro. That ought to cause people who expect the EU to crumble to rethink their assumptions.
Nothing against Hungary - but I really doubt that the Sniths down the Rose and Crown later having a Friday pint will be aching to reassess their perspectives because Hungary might ditch the Forint.
95% of them won’t have been to Hungary, 98% won’t know its currency, and 99% won’t care either way about what it does on this or just about any other matter.
I’m talking about anti-EU ideologues, not Auntie Ida and Joe Bloggs.
It’s not a bad place to go at all. Went there about 20 years ago. Only problem was, wife left her glasses on a cafe table and when we went back they were gone. Our party was the only people in the cafe, too! Food was excellent, but too many Trabants.
As to the whole redrawing of the EU? I'm not one for epochal predictions, but I feel that we are probably more at the beginning of the EU epoch than the end of it. Those Eastern European countries are only going to get richer and as they do, then they will find both a louder voice, and perhaps a more natural place within the EU, whatever it is by then. Of course they might think that they have outgrown it also, but my guess is that the EU in 20 years time will be more powerful, one way or another, than it is today or in April 2019.
The black swan to look out for from a Eurosceptic perspective is Hungary starting the process of joining the Euro. That ought to cause people who expect the EU to crumble to rethink their assumptions.
Nothing against Hungary - but I really doubt that the Sniths down the Rose and Crown later having a Friday pint will be aching to reassess their perspectives because Hungary might ditch the Forint.
95% of them won’t have been to Hungary, 98% won’t know its currency, and 99% won’t care either way about what it does on this or just about any other matter.
I’m talking about anti-EU ideologues, not Auntie Ida and Joe Bloggs.
I know. But it’s the auntie Ida’s of this world that peer up occasionally from their toast of a morning to vaguely register that May couldn’t stick letters on a wall, or that people are making a lot of shouty noise at that Jeremy bloke, or BoJo’s had a haircut, that decide things, because there’s millions of them and not many saddos like us.
Mr. Z, must admit, I caught a late arrow-firing in one book recently (forget which one), just in time to prevent it making the final cut.
What’s the matter with firing arrows? I appreciate that one normally shoots an arrow into the air, but surely firing them is an acceptable description?
Mr. Z, must admit, I caught a late arrow-firing in one book recently (forget which one), just in time to prevent it making the final cut.
What’s the matter with firing arrows? I appreciate that one normally shoots and arrow into the air, but surely firing them is an acceptable description?
I guess you normally say “fire a gun” rather than “fire a bullet”?
Mr. Z, must admit, I caught a late arrow-firing in one book recently (forget which one), just in time to prevent it making the final cut.
What’s the matter with firing arrows? I appreciate that one normally shoots and arrow into the air, but surely firing them is an acceptable description?
I guess you normally say “fire a gun” rather than “fire a bullet”?
As to the whole redrawing of the EU? I'm not one for epochal predictions, but I feel that we are probably more at the beginning of the EU epoch than the end of it. Those Eastern European countries are only going to get richer and as they do, then they will find both a louder voice, and perhaps a more natural place within the EU, whatever it is by then. Of course they might think that they have outgrown it also, but my guess is that the EU in 20 years time will be more powerful, one way or another, than it is today or in April 2019.
The black swan to look out for from a Eurosceptic perspective is Hungary starting the process of joining the Euro. That ought to cause people who expect the EU to crumble to rethink their assumptions.
Nothing against Hungary - but I really doubt that the Sniths down the Rose and Crown later having a Friday pint will be aching to reassess their perspectives because Hungary might ditch the Forint.
95% of them won’t have been to Hungary, 98% won’t know its currency, and 99% won’t care either way about what it does on this or just about any other matter.
Mr. Z, must admit, I caught a late arrow-firing in one book recently (forget which one), just in time to prevent it making the final cut.
What’s the matter with firing arrows? I appreciate that one normally shoots an arrow into the air, but surely firing them is an acceptable description?
No fire involved, unlike guns which you initially did fire by putting your burning match into your powder.
As to the whole redrawing of the EU? I'm not one for epochal predictions, but I feel that we are probably more at the beginning of the EU epoch than the end of it. Those Eastern European countries are only going to get richer and as they do, then they will find both a louder voice, and perhaps a more natural place within the EU, whatever it is by then. Of course they might think that they have outgrown it also, but my guess is that the EU in 20 years time will be more powerful, one way or another, than it is today or in April 2019.
The black swan to look out for from a Eurosceptic perspective is Hungary starting the process of joining the Euro. That ought to cause people who expect the EU to crumble to rethink their assumptions.
Nothing against Hungary - but I really doubt that the Sniths down the Rose and Crown later having a Friday pint will be aching to reassess their perspectives because Hungary might ditch the Forint.
95% of them won’t have been to Hungary, 98% won’t know its currency, and 99% won’t care either way about what it does on this or just about any other matter.
Miss Vance, of course Germany wants to harmonise migration. Their daft leader invited in millions of unknowns and now they want to spread the mystery men throughout the continent so Germany doesn't have to deal with most of them itself.
That decision IMHO probably played a not insignificant role in Leave’s victory.
People might well be prepared to accept free movement of EU citizens (and, indeed, studies show that these are the best and most productive immigrants we can have. We should be welcoming them with open arms.) But they are generally less keen on unknown migrants from failed or violent or very different states, especially at a time when terrorism is a threat.
But this acceptance (of free movement within the EU) was crucially dependant on being confident that other EU states would comply with the rules on migration into the EU.
Merkel’s decision shattered that confidence and also reinforced a feeling that some had, that the EU - or some in the EU anyway - were awfully keen on rules until they weren’t. Capriciousness and lack of trust don’t help when you’re trying to win a referendum based on trusting neighbouring states.
Miss Cyclefree, that may well be right. Merkel's idiocy poured fuel on the migration crisis and imposed a policy on the whole EU. It remains to be seen how the Visegrad countries will react to the apparent efforts of EU courts to force them to take migrants lured by Merkel's welcome.
Miss Vance, of course Germany wants to harmonise migration. Their daft leader invited in millions of unknowns and now they want to spread the mystery men throughout the continent so Germany doesn't have to deal with most of them itself.
“Mystery men” - don’t you mean children?
I also agree with Cyclefree - Merkel’s “People Smuggler’s Charter” may have helped swing the referendum.....
It is also indecent to suggest the Prime Minister is too unwell to carry on. That her health is giving up, that she is frail. The hounding of someone wrongly deemed as weak and vulnerable is supremely un-British. The truth is, the Prime Minister has got more political balls than most male MPs. She is tenacious, a fighter, not a quitter, someone shaped in the real word not in an avatar world of self illusion.
The Prime Minister has the support of the majority of Conservative MPs and will continue to lead the Conservative Parliamentary Party and the country.
Mark Pritchard is the Conservative MP for The Wrekin. He is a former Secretary of the 1922 Committee
I agree. There is an unpleasant edge to the anti-May campaigning. I think public opinion will swing in her favour.
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Possibly. I have always wondered about Bob Dylan myself. I can just imagine his Greatest Hits album being titled "Bob Dylan recites some lyrics" because he cannot sing for toffee.
Imagine is a rubbish and hugely overrated song. "Imagine there's no money" sang the millionaire, playing his piano, in his mansion.
All the output of all the Beatles sounds to me as if it was specifically written to be sung by primary school children at multi-faith assembly every morning.
Funny you should say that - that's precisely what we did at my school, the only non hymns we sang. I presumed the reacher who played the guitar was a Beatles fan and insisted on it.
Mr. Z, must admit, I caught a late arrow-firing in one book recently (forget which one), just in time to prevent it making the final cut.
What’s the matter with firing arrows? I appreciate that one normally shoots and arrow into the air, but surely firing them is an acceptable description?
I guess you normally say “fire a gun” rather than “fire a bullet”?
If we are going to discuss multiple meanings of simple words then I refer you to "set" which has something like 120 different meanings
Mr. Z, must admit, I caught a late arrow-firing in one book recently (forget which one), just in time to prevent it making the final cut.
What’s the matter with firing arrows? I appreciate that one normally shoots an arrow into the air, but surely firing them is an acceptable description?
No fire involved, unlike guns which you initially did fire by putting your burning match into your powder.
There's no fire involved on The Apprentice either, unless Lord Sugar now burns the failed contestants at the stake rather than just sending them home in a cab.
Miss Cyclefree, that may well be right. Merkel's idiocy poured fuel on the migration crisis and imposed a policy on the whole EU. It remains to be seen how the Visegrad countries will react to the apparent efforts of EU courts to force them to take migrants lured by Merkel's welcome.
The irony is that the migrants don’t want to go to the Visegrad countries. So the EU courts could end up imposing fines on countries for not taking people who don’t want to go there. It’s bonkers.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that we could end up reducing our attractiveness to precisely the sorts of immigrants we want (hard-working Poles etc) and as a result have to import people from Third World countries with the resulting issues of social cohesion/integration etc.
Not sure why the government dont simply shorten the waiting/processing period, or whatever it is called. If processing legitimately takes that long then start with a flat rate on the first week, and then tweak it up/down in future weeks to reflect the individual circumstances. If someone is overpaid and are back in work, claw it back through HMRC, otherwise just reduce the next instalment of benefits.
But they are generally less keen on unknown migrants from failed or violent or very different states, especially at a time when terrorism is a threat.
But this acceptance (of free movement within the EU) was crucially dependant on being confident that other EU states would comply with the rules on migration into the EU.
Errr... surely these people were Asylum Seekers / Refugees and not migrants since they were fleeing violent conflict and persecution? In which case we should have been refusing them entry to the UK on the basis that asylum must be applied for in the first safe country and they had already crossed through Europe.
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Possibly. I have always wondered about Bob Dylan myself. I can just imagine his Greatest Hits album being titled "Bob Dylan recites some lyrics" because he cannot sing for toffee.
I'm no fan of Dylan but he's a much better poet than singer. To the extent that his works need music at all, they'd be better sung by someone else.
Imagine is a rubbish and hugely overrated song. "Imagine there's no money" sang the millionaire, playing his piano, in his mansion.
All the output of all the Beatles sounds to me as if it was specifically written to be sung by primary school children at multi-faith assembly every morning.
Funny you should say that - that's precisely what we did at my school, the only non hymns we sang. I presumed the reacher who played the guitar was a Beatles fan and insisted on it.
My English teacher was similar , we had to dissect the lyrics to the album Sgt Pepper.I suppose she's leaving home , could be appropriate for today in regard to May.
Miss Cyclefree, the intransigence of the EU coupled with UK politicians either dog-whistling scepticism or downright lying (cf Lisbon referendum) has caused serious damage to both.
If politicians had been rather more honest, then we wouldn't have reached that fork in the road.
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Possibly. I have always wondered about Bob Dylan myself. I can just imagine his Greatest Hits album being titled "Bob Dylan recites some lyrics" because he cannot sing for toffee.
It’s not just that he can’t sing but that listening to his voice is like listening to nails being scraped down a blackboard.
A good game to play - now that everyone’s bored of coomenting on my piece (boo, sob!) - is to list writers, singers, actors, books etc who are hugely overrated. And underrated ones, of course.
In addition to the ones already named, I’d add Bruce Springsteen, Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis (has anyone ever finished their books?) and Bill Nighy - good actor but he plays the same part over and over and his repetitive ticks mean he’s becoming a parody of himself. His agent badly needs to get him some parts that stretch him.
It is also indecent to suggest the Prime Minister is too unwell to carry on. That her health is giving up, that she is frail. The hounding of someone wrongly deemed as weak and vulnerable is supremely un-British. The truth is, the Prime Minister has got more political balls than most male MPs. She is tenacious, a fighter, not a quitter, someone shaped in the real word not in an avatar world of self illusion.
The Prime Minister has the support of the majority of Conservative MPs and will continue to lead the Conservative Parliamentary Party and the country.
Mark Pritchard is the Conservative MP for The Wrekin. He is a former Secretary of the 1922 Committee
I agree. There is an unpleasant edge to the anti-May campaigning. I think public opinion will swing in her favour.
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Possibly. I have always wondered about Bob Dylan myself. I can just imagine his Greatest Hits album being titled "Bob Dylan recites some lyrics" because he cannot sing for toffee.
I'm no fan of Dylan but he's a much better poet than singer. To the extent that his works need music at all, they'd be better sung by someone else.
Well, they are. He must be the most recorded-by-other-people songwriter ever. His voice was ok up to and including "Blood on the Tracks"; listening to him live, since about then, is a truly painful experience.
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Possibly. I have always wondered about Bob Dylan myself. I can just imagine his Greatest Hits album being titled "Bob Dylan recites some lyrics" because he cannot sing for toffee.
It’s not just that he can’t sing but that listening to his voice is like listening to nails being scraped down a blackboard.
A good game to play - now that everyone’s bored of coomenting on my piece (boo, sob!) - is to list writers, singers, actors, books etc who are hugely overrated. And underrated ones, of course.
In addition to the ones already named, I’d add Bruce Springsteen, Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis (has anyone ever finished their books?) and Bill Nighy - good actor but he plays the same part over and over and his repetitive ticks mean he’s becoming a parody of himself. His agent badly needs to get him some parts that stretch him.
I can't believe you used so many words to say so little. A bullet point precis for those worried about getting on with their work
1. Don't they understand the British?
2. Do they REALLY expect us to follow procedures designed for ordinary countries?
3. Wouldn't a sensible EU have asked US to write the rules?
3. Never trust a European. (They're sleazy cheating bastards)
4. Would we be called GREAT BRITAIN if we were just ANY country?.
Finally a vaguely appropriate song.....
PROFESSOR HIGGINS: Why can't a woman be more like a man? Men are so decent, such regular chaps; Ready to help you through any mishaps; Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum. Why can't a woman be a chum?
Why is thinking something women never do? And why is logic never even tried? Straightening up their hair is all they ever do. Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?
Why can't a woman behave like a man? If I was a woman who'd been to a ball, Been hailed as a princess by one and by all; Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing, Or carry on as if my home were in a tree? Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going? Why can't a woman be like me?
We are, apparently seeing the last days of Islamic State. We are also beginning to see some sort of normality returning to Iraq, if only out of sheer war-weariness. Syria, too, looks as if we might soon see ‘the next stage’. How many refugees from those countries will decide to go ‘home’? How many will decide they’d rather live among reasonably like-minded people, people of the same culture, than stay among less welcoming people?
It’s not like emigrating to the Americas or Australasia, moving by choice.
It is also indecent to suggest the Prime Minister is too unwell to carry on. That her health is giving up, that she is frail. The hounding of someone wrongly deemed as weak and vulnerable is supremely un-British. The truth is, the Prime Minister has got more political balls than most male MPs. She is tenacious, a fighter, not a quitter, someone shaped in the real word not in an avatar world of self illusion.
The Prime Minister has the support of the majority of Conservative MPs and will continue to lead the Conservative Parliamentary Party and the country.
Mark Pritchard is the Conservative MP for The Wrekin. He is a former Secretary of the 1922 Committee
I agree. There is an unpleasant edge to the anti-May campaigning. I think public opinion will swing in her favour.
I think you are right. I also think that she'll be unlikely to make the same mistakes at the next general election if she is allowed to stay on and fight it, and Mr Corbyn has shown that starting as the underdog doesn't necessarily do any harm.
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Possibly. I have always wondered about Bob Dylan myself. I can just imagine his Greatest Hits album being titled "Bob Dylan recites some lyrics" because he cannot sing for toffee.
It’s not just that he can’t sing but that listening to his voice is like listening to nails being scraped down a blackboard.
A good game to play - now that everyone’s bored of coomenting on my piece (boo, sob!) - is to list writers, singers, actors, books etc who are hugely overrated. And underrated ones, of course.
In addition to the ones already named, I’d add Bruce Springsteen, Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis (has anyone ever finished their books?) and Bill Nighy - good actor but he plays the same part over and over and his repetitive ticks mean he’s becoming a parody of himself. His agent badly needs to get him some parts that stretch him.
Dylan is to be judged as a songwriter, and as that it is impossible to overrate him. I have read and re-read and re-re-read Amis up to London Fields which was dire, as was everything after. Springsteen there's a lot of, much not very good, but OTOH: Blinded by the Light, Because the Night, Born to Run and above all Thunder Road.
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Possibly. I have always wondered about Bob Dylan myself. I can just imagine his Greatest Hits album being titled "Bob Dylan recites some lyrics" because he cannot sing for toffee.
It’s not just that he can’t sing but that listening to his voice is like listening to nails being scraped down a blackboard.
A good game to play - now that everyone’s bored of coomenting on my piece (boo, sob!) - is to list writers, singers, actors, books etc who are hugely overrated. And underrated ones, of course.
In addition to the ones already named, I’d add Bruce Springsteen, Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis (has anyone ever finished their books?) and Bill Nighy - good actor but he plays the same part over and over and his repetitive ticks mean he’s becoming a parody of himself. His agent badly needs to get him some parts that stretch him.
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Possibly. I have always wondered about Bob Dylan myself. I can just imagine his Greatest Hits album being titled "Bob Dylan recites some lyrics" because he cannot sing for toffee.
It’s not just that he can’t sing but that listening to his voice is like listening to nails being scraped down a blackboard.
A good game to play - now that everyone’s bored of coomenting on my piece (boo, sob!) - is to list writers, singers, actors, books etc who are hugely overrated. And underrated ones, of course.
In addition to the ones already named, I’d add Bruce Springsteen, Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis (has anyone ever finished their books?) and Bill Nighy - good actor but he plays the same part over and over and his repetitive ticks mean he’s becoming a parody of himself. His agent badly needs to get him some parts that stretch him.
Gary Glitter was massive in the 70s , now they have an unofficial ban , I guess on his music on the radio and TV.However BBC 4 did a documentary on the early seventies glam rock , never mentioned him , like written out of history., I understand the reasons .
King Cole, you may be overstating the Iraq situation. Whilst ISIS appears almost dead there, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
Will that really lead to war? Or similar? The Kurds have been de facto in control of ‘their part of N. Iraq for some time. What Turkey will make of it all is, as you suggest, a different matter.
But they are generally less keen on unknown migrants from failed or violent or very different states, especially at a time when terrorism is a threat.
But this acceptance (of free movement within the EU) was crucially dependant on being confident that other EU states would comply with the rules on migration into the EU.
Errr... surely these people were Asylum Seekers / Refugees and not migrants since they were fleeing violent conflict and persecution? In which case we should have been refusing them entry to the UK on the basis that asylum must be applied for in the first safe country and they had already crossed through Europe.
How many, really, were refugees or asylum seekers?
Take one example: the 21 year old Syrian arrested but not - I should stress - charged over the Parsons Green bomb.
According to reports, he came from a part of Syria which has not been affected by the civil war. He went to Egypt. Then came here. So he was not in any sense a "refugee". Egypt is not a country from which one needs refuge, unless one is one of the poor Coptic Christians who have been bombed, murdered and seen their churches burnt down by their Islamic confreres.
We need to abandon this ludicrously sentimental assumption that everyone who washes up here or elsewhere in Europe is a refugee or some bereft child deserving of charity. There are groups deserving of our charity: the poor Yazidis, for instance, or the Syrian or Iraqi Christians who are facing genocide and ethnic cleansing (and who have lived in those countries for far longer than Muslims). Many of them are not in refugee camps because of violence from some Muslims. So they are disadvantaged even by our government’s policy of taking people directly from camps. But young Muslim men from war torn/violent cultures/countries on whom we can do no due diligence? Those best placed to pay people smugglers? The group targeted by terrorists for potential recruits?
cough.... *risk assessment* ...... cough
Charity does not necessitate self-immolation. And it bloody well starts at home.
Sentimentality has no place in politics. Ruthless self-interest does. We should be inviting into the country those who are an asset. We should give refuge to the most vulnerable who need it not those with the sharpest elbows. We should not be inviting in unknown strangers because we’re on some guilt trip or because we want to look good.
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Possibly. I have always wondered about Bob Dylan myself. I can just imagine his Greatest Hits album being titled "Bob Dylan recites some lyrics" because he cannot sing for toffee.
It’s not just that he can’t sing but that listening to his voice is like listening to nails being scraped down a blackboard.
A good game to play - now that everyone’s bored of coomenting on my piece (boo, sob!) - is to list writers, singers, actors, books etc who are hugely overrated. And underrated ones, of course.
In addition to the ones already named, I’d add Bruce Springsteen, Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis (has anyone ever finished their books?) and Bill Nighy - good actor but he plays the same part over and over and his repetitive ticks mean he’s becoming a parody of himself. His agent badly needs to get him some parts that stretch him.
Gary Glitter was massive in the 70s , now they have an unofficial ban , I guess on his music on the radio and TV.However BBC 4 did a documentary on the early seventies glam rock , never mentioned him , like written out of history., I understand the reasons .
He had a brush with greatness when he was sampled in Doctorin' the Tardis by the Timelords/JAMs/KLF
It’s not just that he can’t sing but that listening to his voice is like listening to nails being scraped down a blackboard. A good game to play - now that everyone’s bored of coomenting on my piece (boo, sob!) - is to list writers, singers, actors, books etc who are hugely overrated. And underrated ones, of course. In addition to the ones already named, I’d add Bruce Springsteen, Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis (has anyone ever finished their books?) and Bill Nighy - good actor but he plays the same part over and over and his repetitive ticks mean he’s becoming a parody of himself. His agent badly needs to get him some parts that stretch him.
Has anyone ever finished a Cyclefree PB header?
Yes, of course. And very good they are too.
The only people who h ave difficulty in reading them are those who have difficulty in reading and understanding... the Tory headbangers.
I can't believe you used so many words to say so little. A bullet point precis for those worried about getting on with their work
1. Don't they understand the British?
2. Do they REALLY expect us to follow procedures designed for ordinary countries?
3. Wouldn't a sensible EU have asked US to write the rules?
3. Never trust a European. (They're sleazy cheating bastards)
4. Would we be called GREAT BRITAIN if we were just ANY country?.
Finally a vaguely appropriate song.....
PROFESSOR HIGGINS: Why can't a woman be more like a man? Men are so decent, such regular chaps; Ready to help you through any mishaps; Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum. Why can't a woman be a chum?
Why is thinking something women never do? And why is logic never even tried? Straightening up their hair is all they ever do. Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?
Why can't a woman behave like a man? If I was a woman who'd been to a ball, Been hailed as a princess by one and by all; Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing, Or carry on as if my home were in a tree? Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going? Why can't a woman be like me?
I do love you Roger. But you do misread an awful lot. I would like it to be possible to find a way for Britain to stay in a better EU.
Anyway, thanks for the chat. Off to do some gardening now.
Errr... surely these people were Asylum Seekers / Refugees and not migrants since they were fleeing violent conflict and persecution? In which case we should have been refusing them entry to the UK on the basis that asylum must be applied for in the first safe country and they had already crossed through Europe.
How many, really, were refugees or asylum seekers?
Take one example: the 21 year old Syrian arrested but not - I should stress - charged over the Parsons Green bomb.
According to reports, he came from a part of Syria which has not been affected by the civil war. He went to Egypt. Then came here. So he was not in any sense a "refugee". Egypt is not a country from which one needs refuge, unless one is one of the poor Coptic Christians who have been bombed, murdered and seen their churches burnt down by their Islamic confreres.
We need to abandon this ludicrously sentimental assumption that everyone who washes up here or elsewhere in Europe is a refugee or some bereft child deserving of charity. There are groups deserving of our charity: the poor Yazidis, for instance, or the Syrian or Iraqi Christians who are facing genocide and ethnic cleansing (and who have lived in those countries for far longer than Muslims). Many of them are not in refugee camps because of violence from some Muslims. So they are disadvantaged even by our government’s policy of taking people directly from camps. But young Muslim men from war torn/violent cultures/countries on whom we can do no due diligence? Those best placed to pay people smugglers? The group targeted by terrorists for potential recruits?
cough.... *risk assessment* ...... cough
Charity does not necessitate self-immolation. And it bloody well starts at home.
Sentimentality has no place in politics. Ruthless self-interest does. We should be inviting into the country those who are an asset. We should give refuge to the most vulnerable who need it not those with the sharpest elbows. We should not be inviting in unknown strangers because we’re on some guilt trip or because we want to look good.
Well said!
The British Government's Syrian refugee program (take a bow, Mr Cameron) has stood head & shoulders above most European governments (heck, we've spent more than the rest of them put together, second only to the US) and are accepting vulnerable refugees from the camps not physically fit economic migrants of unknown security risk who get here by lying about their age.
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Possibly. I have always wondered about Bob Dylan myself. I can just imagine his Greatest Hits album being titled "Bob Dylan recites some lyrics" because he cannot sing for toffee.
It’s not just that he can’t sing but that listening to his voice is like listening to nails being scraped down a blackboard.
A good game to play - now that everyone’s bored of coomenting on my piece (boo, sob!) - is to list writers, singers, actors, books etc who are hugely overrated. And underrated ones, of course.
In addition to the ones already named, I’d add Bruce Springsteen, Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis (has anyone ever finished their books?) and Bill Nighy - good actor but he plays the same part over and over and his repetitive ticks mean he’s becoming a parody of himself. His agent badly needs to get him some parts that stretch him.
But they are generally less keen on unknown migrants from failed or violent or very different states, especially at a time when terrorism is a threat.
But this acceptance (of free movement within the EU) was crucially dependant on being confident that other EU states would comply with the rules on migration into the EU.
Errr... surely these people were Asylum Seekers / Refugees and not migrants since they were fleeing violent conflict and persecution? In which case we should have been refusing them entry to the UK on the basis that asylum must be applied for in the first safe country and they had already crossed through Europe.
How many, really, were refugees or asylum seekers?
Take one example: the 21 year old Syrian arrested but not - I should stress - charged over the Parsons Green bomb.
According to reports, he came from a part of Syria which has not been affected by the civil war. He went to Egypt. Then came here. So he was not in any sense a "refugee". Egypt is not a country from which one needs refuge, unless one is one of the poor Coptic Christians who have been bombed, murdered and seen their churches burnt down by their Islamic confreres.
We need to abandon this ludicrously sentimental assumption that everyone who washes up here or elsewhere in Europe is a refugee or some bereft child deserving of charity. There are groups deserving of our charity: the poor Yazidis, for instance, or the Syrian or Iraqi Christians who are facing genocide and ethnic cleansing (and who have lived in those countries for far longer than Muslims). Many of them are not in refugee camps because of violence from some Muslims. So they are disadvantaged even by our government’s policy of taking people directly from camps. But young Muslim men from war torn/violent cultures/countries on whom we can do no due diligence? Those best placed to pay people smugglers? The group targeted by terrorists for potential recruits?
cough.... *risk assessment* ...... cough
Charity does not necessitate self-immolation. And it bloody well starts at home.
Sentimentality has no place in politics. Ruthless self-interest does. We should be inviting into the country those who are an asset. We should give refuge to the most vulnerable who need it not those with the sharpest elbows. We should not be inviting in unknown strangers because we’re on some guilt trip or because we want to look good.
Errr... surely these people were Asylum Seekers / Refugees and not migrants since they were fleeing violent conflict and persecution? In which case we should have been refusing them entry to the UK on the basis that asylum must be applied for in the first safe country and they had already crossed through Europe.
How many, really, were refugees or asylum seekers?
Take one example: the 21 year old Syrian arrested but not - I should stress - charged over the Parsons Green bomb.
According to reports, he came from a part of Syria which has not been affected by the civil war. He went to Egypt. Then came here. So he was not in any sense a "refugee". Egypt is not a country from which one needs refuge, unless one is one of the poor Coptic Christians who have been bombed, murdered and seen their churches burnt down by their Islamic confreres.
We need to abandon this ludicrously sentimental assumption that everyone who washes up here or elsewhere in Europe is a refugee or some bereft child deserving of charity. There are groups deserving of our charity: the poor Yazidis, for instance, or the Syrian or Iraqi Christians who are facing genocide and ethnic cleansing (and who have lived in those countries for far longer than Muslims). Many of them are not in refugee camps because of violence from some Muslims. So they are disadvantaged even by our government’s policy of taking people directly from camps. But young Muslim men from war torn/violent cultures/countries on whom we can do no due diligence? Those best placed to pay people smugglers? The group targeted by terrorists for potential recruits?
cough.... *risk assessment* ...... cough
Charity does not necessitate self-immolation. And it bloody well starts at home.
Sentimentality has no place in politics. Ruthless self-interest does. We should be inviting into the country those who are an asset. We should give refuge to the most vulnerable who need it not those with the sharpest elbows. We should not be inviting in unknown strangers because we’re on some guilt trip or because we want to look good.
Well said!
The British Government's Syrian refugee program (take a bow, Mr Cameron) has stood head & shoulders above most European governments (heck, we've spent more than the rest of them put together, second only to the US) and are accepting vulnerable refugees from the camps not physically fit economic migrants of unknown security risk who get here by lying about their age.
And even Cameron’s policy - good as it is - misses some of those most at risk from the worst persecution.
Errr... surely these people were Asylum Seekers / Refugees and not migrants since they were fleeing violent conflict and persecution? In which case we should have been refusing them entry to the UK on the basis that asylum must be applied for in the first safe country and they had already crossed through Europe.
How many, really, were refugees or asylum seekers?
Take one example: the 21 year old Syrian arrested but not - I should stress - charged over the Parsons Green bomb.
According to reports, he came from a part of Syria which has not been affected by the civil war. He went to Egypt. Then came here. So he was not in any sense a "refugee". Egypt is not a country from which one needs refuge, unless one is one of the poor Coptic Christians who have been bombed, murdered and seen their churches burnt down by their Islamic confreres.
We need to abandon this ludicrously sentimental assumption that everyone who washes up here or elsewhere in Europe is a refugee or some bereft child deserving of charity. There are groups deserving of our charity: the poor Yazidis, for instance, or the Syrian or Iraqi Christians who are facing genocide and ethnic cleansing (and who have lived in those countries for far longer than Muslims). Many of them are not in refugee camps because of violence from some Muslims. So they are disadvantaged even by our government’s policy of taking people directly from camps. But young Muslim men from war torn/violent cultures/countries on whom we can do no due diligence? Those best placed to pay people smugglers? The group targeted by terrorists for potential recruits?
cough.... *risk assessment* ...... cough
Charity does not necessitate self-immolation. And it bloody well starts at home.
Sentimentality has no place in politics. Ruthless self-interest does. We should be inviting into the country those who are an asset. We should give refuge to the most vulnerable who need it not those with the sharpest elbows. We should not be inviting in unknown strangers because we’re on some guilt trip or because we want to look good.
Well said!
The British Government's Syrian refugee program (take a bow, Mr Cameron) has stood head & shoulders above most European governments (heck, we've spent more than the rest of them put together, second only to the US) and are accepting vulnerable refugees from the camps not physically fit economic migrants of unknown security risk who get here by lying about their age.
And even Cameron’s policy - good as it is - misses some of those most at risk from the worst persecution.
But they are generally less keen on unknown migrants from failed or violent or very different states, especially at a time when terrorism is a threat.
But this acceptance (of free movement within the EU) was crucially dependant on being confident that other EU states would comply with the rules on migration into the EU.
Errr... surely these people were Asylum Seekers / Refugees and not migrants since they were fleeing violent conflict and persecution? In which case we should have been refusing them entry to the UK on the basis that asylum must be applied for in the first safe country and they had already crossed through Europe.
How many, really, were refugees or asylum seekers?
Take one example: the 21 year old Syrian arrested but not - I should stress - charged over the Parsons Green bomb.
According to reports, he came from a part of Syria which has not been affected by the civil war. He went to Egypt. Then came here. So he was not in any sense a "refugee". Egypt is not a country from which one needs refuge, unless one is one of the poor Coptic Christians who have been bombed, murdered and seen their churches burnt down by their Islamic confreres.
We need to abandon this ludicrously sentimental assumption that everyone who washes up here or elsewhere in Europe is a refugee or some bereft child deserving of charity. There are groups deserving of our charity: the poor Yazidis, for instance, or the Syrian or Iraqi Christians who are facing genocide and ethnic cleansing (and who have lived in those countries for far longer than Muslims). Many of them are not in refugee camps because of violence from some Muslims. So they are disadvantaged even by our government’s policy of taking people directly from camps. But young Muslim men from war torn/violent cultures/countries on whom we can do no due diligence? Those best placed to pay people smugglers? The group targeted by terrorists for potential recruits?
cough.... *risk assessment* ...... cough
Charity does not necessitate self-immolation. And it bloody well starts at home.
Sentimentality has no place in politics. Ruthless self-interest does. We should be inviting into the country those who are an asset. We should give refuge to the most vulnerable who need it not those with the sharpest elbows. We should not be inviting in unknown strangers because we’re on some guilt trip or because we want to look good.
Errr... surely these people were Asylum Seekers / Refugees and not migrants since they wblockquote>
How many, really, were refugees or asylum seekers?
Take one example: the 21 year old Syrian arrested but not - I should stress - charged over the Parsons Green bomb.
According to reports, he came from a part of Syria which has not been affected by the civil war. He went to Egypt. Then came here. So he was not in any sense a "refugee". Egypt is not a country from which one needs refuge, unless one is one of the poor Coptic Christians who have been bombed, murdered and seen their churches burnt down by their Islamic confreres.
We need to abandon this ludicrously sentimental assumption that everyone who washes up here or elsewhere in Europe is a refugee or some bereft child deserving of charity. There are groups deserving of our charity: the poor Yazidis, for instance, or the Syrian or Iraqi Christians who are facing genocide and ethnic cleansing (and who have lived in those countries for far longer than Muslims). Many of them are not in refugee camps because of violence from some Muslims. So they are disadvantaged even by our government’s policy of taking people directly from camps. But young Muslim men from war torn/violent cultures/countries on whom we can do no due diligence? Those best placed to pay people smugglers? The group targeted by terrorists for potential recruits?
cough.... *risk assessment* ...... cough
Charity does not necessitate self-immolation. And it bloody well starts at home.
Sentimentality has no place in politics. Ruthless self-interest does. We should be inviting into the country those who are an asset. We should give refuge to the most vulnerable who need it not those with the sharpest elbows. We should not be inviting in unknown strangers because we’re on some guilt trip or because we want to look good.
Well said!
The British Government's Syrian refugee program (take a bow, Mr Cameron) has stood head & shoulders above most European governments (heck, we've spent more than the rest of them put together, second only to the US) and are accepting vulnerable refugees from the camps not physically fit economic migrants of unknown security risk who get here by lying about their age.
And even Cameron’s policy - good as it is - misses some of those most at risk from the worst persecution.
On another website in 2015, when I was defending Cameron's policy against people who argued we should follow Merkel's policy, I was compared to an architect of the final solution.
I don’t really like “Imagine”. Much prefer “Here Comes the Sun”.
"Imagine" is a dreary dirge in comparison
Imagine is a dreary dirge, full stop. But then the Beatles, and Lennon, are over-rated. They had the good fortune to be the best among the first of their type (and also to split before they got tired). That novelty was critical to their reputation historically. Had someone else got there first, they wouldn't be rated half so highly.
Possibly. I have always wondered about Bob Dylan myself. I can just imagine his Greatest Hits album being titled "Bob Dylan recites some lyrics" because he cannot sing for toffee.
I'm no fan of Dylan but he's a much better poet than singer. To the extent that his works need music at all, they'd be better sung by someone else.
Obviously no fan! With the exception of All Along the Watchtoower it is difficult to think of one improved by anyone else. Make you feel My Love by Adele, possibly.
On another website in 2015, when I was defending Cameron's policy against people who argued we should follow Merkel's policy, I was compared to an architect of the final solution.
An interesting article. But we were promised by the Tory Leavers that a Brexit deal would be the easiest thing in the world to do, that German car manufacturers would demand one, that they need us more than we need them, that we would get all the benefits of being in the single market and none of the downsides, that the Irish border was not an issue, and that sunlit uplands were but a vote away. All that before £350 million extra a week for the NHS.
The EU is what it is: a large, inflexible institution that has a certain way of doing things. The Tory Brexiteers should have known all this. They should have known that leaving was never going to be anything other than complex, just as they should have known how FTAs are done and what drives them. But they didn't. All these years railing against the EUSSR and they had absolutely no idea about how it works or how intertwined the UK is with it. That's not the EU's fault; it's the fault of the lazy sods who liked making speeches, invoking Churchill and Henry V, but could never be arsed to do the hard yards. As far as I can tell, the only Leaver who has ever done that is Richard Tyndall of this parish - and he, very wisely, backed (backs?) the EEA/EFTA option.
An interesting article. But we were promised by the Tory Leavers that a Brexit deal would be the easiest thing in the world to do, that German car manufacturers would demand one, that they need us more than we need them, that we would get all the benefits of being in the single market and none of the downsides, that the Irish border was not an issue, and that sunlit uplands were but a vote away. All that before £350 million extra a week for the NHS.
The EU is what it is: a large, inflexible institution that has a certain way of doing things. The Tory Brexiteers should have known all this. They should have known that leaving was never going to be anything other than complex, just as they should have known how FTAs are done and what drives them. But they didn't. All these years railing against the EUSSR and they had absolutely no idea about how it works or how intertwined the UK is with it. That's not the EU's fault; it's the fault of the lazy sods who liked making speeches, invoking Churchill and Henry V, but could never be arsed to do the hard yards. As far as I can tell, the only Leaver who has ever done that is Richard Tyndall of this parish - and he, very wisely, backed (backs?) the EEA/EFTA option.
Perhaps if Remain had used some arguments like this, rather than relying on hyperbolic ones such as instant recession and world war, they might have won.
An interesting article. But we were promised by the Tory Leavers that a Brexit deal would be the easiest thing in the world to do, that German car manufacturers would demand one, that they need us more than we need them, that we would get all the benefits of being in the single market and none of the downsides, that the Irish border was not an issue, and that sunlit uplands were but a vote away. All that before £350 million extra a week for the NHS.
The EU is what it is: a large, inflexible institution that has a certain way of doing things. The Tory Brexiteers should have known all this. They should have known that leaving was never going to be anything other than complex, just as they should have known how FTAs are done and what drives them. But they didn't. All these years railing against the EUSSR and they had absolutely no idea about how it works or how intertwined the UK is with it. That's not the EU's fault; it's the fault of the lazy sods who liked making speeches, invoking Churchill and Henry V, but could never be arsed to do the hard yards. As far as I can tell, the only Leaver who has ever done that is Richard Tyndall of this parish - and he, very wisely, backed (backs?) the EEA/EFTA option.
For me, the path which the EU is on is one that the UK should not and cannot follow. So I remain a 'leaver' as I do not want the UK to the part of the policitical and economic union which the EU has to become.
But I think we need a deal, and a deal which works and which won't negatively impact on the economy too much. If immigration isn't a deal-breaker, then i'm now in the EEA/EFTA camp.
Comments
It’s precisely when things look at their worst or when there is some unexpected change that bold imaginative thinking is needed.
Of course Britain is not exceptional - or no more than any other state - and of course the EU will survive fine without it as a member. But we should be aiming for more than mere survival and ignoring former friends - and that applies to the EU as much as Britain.
“Be nice to people on the way up because you’ll meet them on the way down”.
The Tory process means that a challenge can happen at any time; the Labour one gives only narrow windows. The Tory process divorces a VoNC from the leadership election; the Labour requires a challenger to come forward in advance. May has only just fought a GE and has, through the Florence Speech, bought time (literally) for the Brexit talks - there is a political window of opportunity; Brown was, after 2008 and particularly by the time of the Hoon-Hewitt 'plot', running up towards a GE leaving little time for a leadership election, never mind preparations for a GE.
The fact that Shapps was forced into the open blew this plot. But the Tory process allows a plot to occur entirely silently, at least until the trigger point is reached (indeed, it allows a VoNC without a plot at all, if enough MPs act independently). This is not the end.
You Gov
It will please nobody and get picked apart very quickly.
I have bought some tickets for the hand-egg at twickers off one of the big reseller sites. I have used resellers before with no problem, but just got the tickets for this through and something feels a bit off with them (can't put my finger on what it is, just does).
Is there anyway to check they are valid in advance? As I don't live in the big smoke and a decent journey to get to the stupidly located stadium.
It is also indecent to suggest the Prime Minister is too unwell to carry on. That her health is giving up, that she is frail. The hounding of someone wrongly deemed as weak and vulnerable is supremely un-British. The truth is, the Prime Minister has got more political balls than most male MPs. She is tenacious, a fighter, not a quitter, someone shaped in the real word not in an avatar world of self illusion.
The Prime Minister has the support of the majority of Conservative MPs and will continue to lead the Conservative Parliamentary Party and the country.
Mark Pritchard is the Conservative MP for The Wrekin. He is a former Secretary of the 1922 Committee
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/common-historical-mistakes-in-tv-and.html
95% of them won’t have been to Hungary, 98% won’t know its currency, and 99% won’t care either way about what it does on this or just about any other matter.
Food was excellent, but too many Trabants.
Shoots or looses are the correct terms.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41522970
People might well be prepared to accept free movement of EU citizens (and, indeed, studies show that these are the best and most productive immigrants we can have. We should be welcoming them with open arms.) But they are generally less keen on unknown migrants from failed or violent or very different states, especially at a time when terrorism is a threat.
But this acceptance (of free movement within the EU) was crucially dependant on being confident that other EU states would comply with the rules on migration into the EU.
Merkel’s decision shattered that confidence and also reinforced a feeling that some had, that the EU - or some in the EU anyway - were awfully keen on rules until they weren’t. Capriciousness and lack of trust don’t help when you’re trying to win a referendum based on trusting neighbouring states.
I also agree with Cyclefree - Merkel’s “People Smuggler’s Charter” may have helped swing the referendum.....
Mr. D, quite.
The desirability of unlimited migration is one of today’s shibboleths. The attached article is quite interesting on the topic. http://quillette.com/2017/08/27/argument-open-borders-liberal-hubris/
One of the ironies of Brexit is that we could end up reducing our attractiveness to precisely the sorts of immigrants we want (hard-working Poles etc) and as a result have to import people from Third World countries with the resulting issues of social cohesion/integration etc.
Even more bonkers.
Gets my vote.
If politicians had been rather more honest, then we wouldn't have reached that fork in the road.
A good game to play - now that everyone’s bored of coomenting on my piece (boo, sob!) - is to list writers, singers, actors, books etc who are hugely overrated. And underrated ones, of course.
In addition to the ones already named, I’d add Bruce Springsteen, Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis (has anyone ever finished their books?) and Bill Nighy - good actor but he plays the same part over and over and his repetitive ticks mean he’s becoming a parody of himself. His agent badly needs to get him some parts that stretch him.
ed 2 ad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artists_who_have_covered_Bob_Dylan_songs
Underrated.
1. Don't they understand the British?
2. Do they REALLY expect us to follow procedures designed for ordinary countries?
3. Wouldn't a sensible EU have asked US to write the rules?
3. Never trust a European. (They're sleazy cheating bastards)
4. Would we be called GREAT BRITAIN if we were just ANY country?.
Finally a vaguely appropriate song.....
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum.
Why can't a woman be a chum?
Why is thinking something women never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?
Why can't a woman behave like a man?
If I was a woman who'd been to a ball,
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing,
Or carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going?
Why can't a woman be like me?
How many refugees from those countries will decide to go ‘home’? How many will decide they’d rather live among reasonably like-minded people, people of the same culture, than stay among less welcoming people?
It’s not like emigrating to the Americas or Australasia, moving by choice.
Take one example: the 21 year old Syrian arrested but not - I should stress - charged over the Parsons Green bomb.
According to reports, he came from a part of Syria which has not been affected by the civil war. He went to Egypt. Then came here. So he was not in any sense a "refugee". Egypt is not a country from which one needs refuge, unless one is one of the poor Coptic Christians who have been bombed, murdered and seen their churches burnt down by their Islamic confreres.
We need to abandon this ludicrously sentimental assumption that everyone who washes up here or elsewhere in Europe is a refugee or some bereft child deserving of charity. There are groups deserving of our charity: the poor Yazidis, for instance, or the Syrian or Iraqi Christians who are facing genocide and ethnic cleansing (and who have lived in those countries for far longer than Muslims). Many of them are not in refugee camps because of violence from some Muslims. So they are disadvantaged even by our government’s policy of taking people directly from camps. But young Muslim men from war torn/violent cultures/countries on whom we can do no due diligence? Those best placed to pay people smugglers? The group targeted by terrorists for potential recruits?
cough.... *risk assessment* ...... cough
Charity does not necessitate self-immolation. And it bloody well starts at home.
Sentimentality has no place in politics. Ruthless self-interest does. We should be inviting into the country those who are an asset. We should give refuge to the most vulnerable who need it not those with the sharpest elbows. We should not be inviting in unknown strangers because we’re on some guilt trip or because we want to look good.
The only people who h ave difficulty in reading them are those who have difficulty in reading and understanding... the Tory headbangers.
Anyway, thanks for the chat. Off to do some gardening now.
The British Government's Syrian refugee program (take a bow, Mr Cameron) has stood head & shoulders above most European governments (heck, we've spent more than the rest of them put together, second only to the US) and are accepting vulnerable refugees from the camps not physically fit economic migrants of unknown security risk who get here by lying about their age.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/916309501615267840
No wonder the dice is being rolled for Jezza.
Make you feel My Love by Adele, possibly.
The EU is what it is: a large, inflexible institution that has a certain way of doing things. The Tory Brexiteers should have known all this. They should have known that leaving was never going to be anything other than complex, just as they should have known how FTAs are done and what drives them. But they didn't. All these years railing against the EUSSR and they had absolutely no idea about how it works or how intertwined the UK is with it. That's not the EU's fault; it's the fault of the lazy sods who liked making speeches, invoking Churchill and Henry V, but could never be arsed to do the hard yards. As far as I can tell, the only Leaver who has ever done that is Richard Tyndall of this parish - and he, very wisely, backed (backs?) the EEA/EFTA option.
But I think we need a deal, and a deal which works and which won't negatively impact on the economy too much. If immigration isn't a deal-breaker, then i'm now in the EEA/EFTA camp.