Not surprised at the last para. Quite surprised that MoD had bought such sub-standard kit for "Our Boys".
Sub-standard kit is very much the norm in the British forces and the situation usually goes from bad to worse in times of war. I remember we had a batch of Pakistani sourced 9mm ammo that, when fired from a Walther PP 'kurz', would struggle to penetrate the cardboard target at 15m.
The way we equip our troops is a fecking disgrace.
Not surprised at the last para. Quite surprised that MoD had bought such sub-standard kit for "Our Boys".
Sub-standard kit is very much the norm in the British forces and the situation usually goes from bad to worse in times of war. I remember we had a batch of Pakistani sourced 9mm ammo that, when fired from a Walther PP 'kurz', would struggle to penetrate the cardboard target at 15m.
The way we equip our troops is a fecking disgrace.
It so happens that UK withdrawal is not the worst of the EU’s current problems. The relationship between a government and the market in capitalist systems is all-consuming and fundamental. The EU is in that relationship with the overall EU economy. But this means that the relationship tends to reach into higher and higher levels of the public policy which ultimately determines the distribution of the burdens and benefits of a society, perhaps even fiscal policy. In a liberal democratic capitalist system, this means that there must be politics.
The EU has the substance of traditional liberal democratic institutions, but it does not have the essence of liberal democracy, which rests on the relentless daily struggle of public opinion, causing and justifying law-making and government and administration. Resolving that problem is an urgent priority.
I expect thats why they fixed the Selmeyr putsch......
And of course they will not resolve it in any way that we could accept - they are incapable of resolving it without a single political entity called Europe. Something Remainers continually deny is either an aim or a need.
Hurrah, a sovereign Parliament is taking back control.
As I said yesterday, this is one of the things I think needs to change as soon as possible. The Prerogative should be removed completely and all such deals and treaties should be given a final vote of approval by Parliament. We need to dramatically reduce the power of the executive to act outside of Parliamentary approval.
In highly developed economies, you cannot have a customs union without a single market. They are inseparable. You cannot be in the EU custom union and not be part of the single market. If you are outside the EU customs union, your economic activity in a EU member state will be subject to the ever-changing legal regulations laid down by the EU institutions and integrated into the law of the member state where you do business.
Exactly the problem Turkey is facing with tariff free trade being an entirely one way street as far as EU third party FTAs are concerned.
The UK government "plan" is to have a comprehensive FTA with the EU. Most supporters of the CU want to be in the SM as well. Corbyn isn't on board with that yet, although he hinted he might not rule it out. There are few people proposing a CU on its own.
That is exactly what Labour are proposing.
No. They are not. Corbyn in his speech wanted a bespoke arrangement that would commit to a large part of EU product regulation. Most of his members and MPs want the full Single Market.
Sorry but you cannot try and differentiate in that way. Official Labour policy is currently that they want to be outside the Single Market but inside a Customs Union.
I do wonder at the irony of the Mail attacking someone for their fascist past.
This argument is rather silly. No-one at the Mail nowadays had anything to do with that history. Whereas they are attacking someone for his personal acts. There is a significant difference.
I mean, would you attack the German government for their fascist past? Or the child of an SS officer for their family's past?
It so happens that UK withdrawal is not the worst of the EU’s current problems. The relationship between a government and the market in capitalist systems is all-consuming and fundamental. The EU is in that relationship with the overall EU economy. But this means that the relationship tends to reach into higher and higher levels of the public policy which ultimately determines the distribution of the burdens and benefits of a society, perhaps even fiscal policy. In a liberal democratic capitalist system, this means that there must be politics.
The EU has the substance of traditional liberal democratic institutions, but it does not have the essence of liberal democracy, which rests on the relentless daily struggle of public opinion, causing and justifying law-making and government and administration. Resolving that problem is an urgent priority.
I expect thats why they fixed the Selmeyr putsch......
And of course they will not resolve it in any way that we could accept - they are incapable of resolving it without a single political entity called Europe. Something Remainers continually deny is either an aim or a need.
Is Texas not a political entity? It is more a political entity than England is.
F1: with limited running, not had much mood music. But Vettel has said he thinks it's going to be very close. As far as I know, he only cited Mercedes. Renault has taken a deliberately conservative approach with its engines, trying to optimise reliability, which has somewhat irked Red Bull.
Yes, very interesting and important piece with implications both for long-term political change and short-term betting. A key passage which is not evidenced is:
"There is no good reason to believe the generation that has come of age in the last 25 years is going to change its world view as it grows older. Those whose life experience has led them to feel positive towards immigration, multiculturalism and internationalism are not going to suddenly reverse these positions when they get into their 50s and 60s. Their open world view is baked in; it is not a function of life-stage. "
This may well be true, but it is not past experience - people now in their 60s like me grew up at the time of hippies, the 68 student insurgencies, Vietnam and so on. Most of them (yunlike me!) have become more conservative with age, and it's a genuinely open question whether will happen again, or not. I think that the cultural shift towards tolerance of diversity (opposing gay marriage is soon going to sound like Flat Earth proponents) and to some extent of migration is here to stay - political preference, I am less sure.
2) Republicans hold the Senate, maybe with an increased majority. 2018 is a terrible target year for the Dems, 2020 will be much better.
I have the same position but looking to cash out on 1) for the right odds. With gerrymandering and shifting coalitions of voters I think it’s tough to call the House.
I’m glad I got on with the Dems a touch more than evens but hoping they drop to 1.5ish closer to the time and I can have a relaxing October/November.
Yes, very interesting and important piece with implications both for long-term political change and short-term betting. A key passage which is not evidenced is:
"There is no good reason to believe the generation that has come of age in the last 25 years is going to change its world view as it grows older. Those whose life experience has led them to feel positive towards immigration, multiculturalism and internationalism are not going to suddenly reverse these positions when they get into their 50s and 60s. Their open world view is baked in; it is not a function of life-stage. "
This may well be true, but it is not past experience - people now in their 60s like me grew up at the time of hippies, the 68 student insurgencies, Vietnam and so on. Most of them (yunlike me!) have become more conservative with age, and it's a genuinely open question whether will happen again, or not. I think that the cultural shift towards tolerance of diversity (opposing gay marriage is soon going to sound like Flat Earth proponents) and to some extent of migration is here to stay - political preference, I am less sure.
I disagree, I think they will change their views as they get older. And I think it's a waste of time making judgements about how different age groups vote because what might be true today won't necessarily be true in the future. Young people may be the most Eurosceptic in 10 years' time because of events we have no idea about at the moment.
F1: with limited running, not had much mood music. But Vettel has said he thinks it's going to be very close. As far as I know, he only cited Mercedes. Renault has taken a deliberately conservative approach with its engines, trying to optimise reliability, which has somewhat irked Red Bull.
Vettel said that Mercedes are still favourites. Managing expectations, or trying to motivate his own team to get more performance out of the car?
I just read through the other day’s discussion on wheelbases. The new Merc has a shorter WB than last year’s Merc, and this year’s Ferrari has a longer WB than last year’s Ferrari. What we don’t know is where they are relative to each other, but I’m going to guess that the Merc is longer.
Yes, very interesting and important piece with implications both for long-term political change and short-term betting. A key passage which is not evidenced is:
"There is no good reason to believe the generation that has come of age in the last 25 years is going to change its world view as it grows older. Those whose life experience has led them to feel positive towards immigration, multiculturalism and internationalism are not going to suddenly reverse these positions when they get into their 50s and 60s. Their open world view is baked in; it is not a function of life-stage. "
This may well be true, but it is not past experience - people now in their 60s like me grew up at the time of hippies, the 68 student insurgencies, Vietnam and so on. Most of them (yunlike me!) have become more conservative with age, and it's a genuinely open question whether will happen again, or not. I think that the cultural shift towards tolerance of diversity (opposing gay marriage is soon going to sound like Flat Earth proponents) and to some extent of migration is here to stay - political preference, I am less sure.
I disagree, I think they will change their views as they get older. And I think it's a waste of time making judgements about how different age groups vote because what might be true today won't necessarily be true in the future. Young people may be the most Eurosceptic in 10 years' time because of events we have no idea about at the moment.
Peoples' views are not set in stone when they turn 18.
I gave the example yesterday of young people voting Remain in 1975 now being middle aged and elderly people who voted Leave in 2016. But, there are plenty more.
18-29 year olds narrowly preferred McGovern over Nixon in 1972, at time when Nixon won a landslide. Go forward 44 years, and the same voters, aged 62 to 73, strongly preferred Trump to Clinton. The same people whose cultural values led them to support McGovern, now had cultural values that led them to vote for Trump.
The Conservatives finished third among 18 - 34 year olds in February 1974. Now, their clearly in first place among those voters.
Labour led b 20% among 18-34 year olds in 1997. Much the same arguments were advanced that for cultural reasons, this group was lost to the Conservatives for good. Twenty years on, the two parties are level-pegging among people aged 38 - 54, and the same group narrowly voted in favour of Brexit.
Just remember folks cold weather is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics.
Or Protestants in the case of Mary Tudor
Why don't we just burn all the religious nuts? They'd probably feel good about it anyway.
Of course both Mary Tudor and Elizabeth 1st burnt atheists as heretics, at least if you were Protestant or Catholic you were safe with one. Though yes many religious martyrs were created at the stake
Just been out in North Essex - only a 4 mile round trip but the road conditions are some of the worst I have ever driven on.
Our weekly market, due this morning, again in N Essex, was redued to one stall!
I drove down Turner road and Northern approach road to Asda in Colchester - As you might know they are both hills but even on those main roads traction is very much an issue.
Highest gear I selected was 2nd and mostly was in first.
It so happens that UK withdrawal is not the worst of the EU’s current problems. The relationship between a government and the market in capitalist systems is all-consuming and fundamental. The EU is in that relationship with the overall EU economy. But this means that the relationship tends to reach into higher and higher levels of the public policy which ultimately determines the distribution of the burdens and benefits of a society, perhaps even fiscal policy. In a liberal democratic capitalist system, this means that there must be politics.
The EU has the substance of traditional liberal democratic institutions, but it does not have the essence of liberal democracy, which rests on the relentless daily struggle of public opinion, causing and justifying law-making and government and administration. Resolving that problem is an urgent priority.
I expect thats why they fixed the Selmeyr putsch......
And of course they will not resolve it in any way that we could accept - they are incapable of resolving it without a single political entity called Europe. Something Remainers continually deny is either an aim or a need.
Is Texas not a political entity? It is more a political entity than England is.
We do not want to be Texas. We do not want to be a part of a federal Europe. Indeed even most Remainers do not want that. They keep denying it is going to happen or even that it is an aim. Of course it is far more than an aim - it is a necessity for the EU. But it can happen without us.
Just remember folks cold weather is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics.
Or Protestants in the case of Mary Tudor
Why don't we just burn all the religious nuts? They'd probably feel good about it anyway.
Of course both Mary Tudor and Elizabeth 1st burnt atheists as heretics, at least if you were Protestant or Catholic you were safe with one. Though yes many religious martyrs were created at the stake
They both burned Anabaptists.
I don't think anyone would have been stupid enough to admit to being an atheist in those days. That would be an automatic death sentence .
Jacob Rees-MoggVerified account @Jacob_Rees_Mogg Follow Follow @Jacob_Rees_Mogg More Mea culpa, I was wrong to say that Mr Corbyn voted against the Good Friday Agreement. He did not.
It so happens that UK withdrawal is not the worst of the EU’s current problems. The relationship between a government and the market in capitalist systems is all-consuming and fundamental. The EU is in that relationship with the overall EU economy. But this means that the relationship tends to reach into higher and higher levels of the public policy which ultimately determines the distribution of the burdens and benefits of a society, perhaps even fiscal policy. In a liberal democratic capitalist system, this means that there must be politics.
The EU has the substance of traditional liberal democratic institutions, but it does not have the essence of liberal democracy, which rests on the relentless daily struggle of public opinion, causing and justifying law-making and government and administration. Resolving that problem is an urgent priority.
I expect thats why they fixed the Selmeyr putsch......
And of course they will not resolve it in any way that we could accept - they are incapable of resolving it without a single political entity called Europe. Something Remainers continually deny is either an aim or a need.
Is Texas not a political entity? It is more a political entity than England is.
We do not want to be Texas. We do not want to be a part of a federal Europe. Indeed even most Remainers do not want that. They keep denying it is going to happen or even that it is an aim. Of course it is far more than an aim - it is a necessity for the EU. But it can happen without us.
A federal Europe is not "a single political entity called Europe".
Daft women on DP claiming 60% of families in Nottingham live in poverty.
Please can they find a new word for 'relative poverty' rather than rendering the word meaningless and themselves ridiculous.
LOL - 1 person in my sons class at school does not have a mobile phone - some have to share a bedroom - Is that poverty ?
I think that the latter is generally classed as homeless.
It is absurd, as long as you have food and drink to survive on every day of the week and a roof over your head even if only one room and clothing to wear you may be in relative poverty but you are not in absolute poverty and neither are you homeless
In highly developed economies, you cannot have a customs union without a single market. They are inseparable. You cannot be in the EU custom union and not be part of the single market. If you are outside the EU customs union, your economic activity in a EU member state will be subject to the ever-changing legal regulations laid down by the EU institutions and integrated into the law of the member state where you do business.
Exactly the problem Turkey is facing with tariff free trade being an entirely one way street as far as EU third party FTAs are concerned.
The UK government "plan" is to have a comprehensive FTA with the EU. Most supporters of the CU want to be in the SM as well. Corbyn isn't on board with that yet, although he hinted he might not rule it out. There are few people proposing a CU on its own.
That is exactly what Labour are proposing.
No. They are not. Corbyn in his speech wanted a bespoke arrangement that would commit to a large part of EU product regulation. Most of his members and MPs want the full Single Market.
Sorry but you cannot try and differentiate in that way. Official Labour policy is currently that they want to be outside the Single Market but inside a Customs Union.
I can differentiate because as the opposition Labour don't have an official manifesto commitment. Nevertheless Corbyn wants a bespoke trading arrangement with the EU incorporating its product rules, to go along with the Customs Union. Most of his members and MPs want the full Single Market. None of them are proposing the Customs Union on its own.
Just remember folks cold weather is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics.
Or Protestants in the case of Mary Tudor
Why don't we just burn all the religious nuts? They'd probably feel good about it anyway.
Of course both Mary Tudor and Elizabeth 1st burnt atheists as heretics, at least if you were Protestant or Catholic you were safe with one. Though yes many religious martyrs were created at the stake
They both burned Anabaptists.
I don't think anyone would have been stupid enough to admit to being an atheist in those days. That would be an automatic death sentence .
Anabaptists were the predecessors of today's evangelicals.
Richard Dawkins would not have lasted long in Tudor times that is for sure
2) Republicans hold the Senate, maybe with an increased majority. 2018 is a terrible target year for the Dems, 2020 will be much better.
We need to see what basket of deplorable the the Reps put up for their senate elections. Two years ago I'd have said it was nailed on guaranteed they would make big gains in the senate this year but now I'm not sure.
More Roy Moores?
Robert Mueller might be someone who impacts those bets.
I don't think Don will be at his finest if Jared gets indicted before the mid terms.
For the Democrats (*including those Independents-in-name-only) to gain the Senate, they must take Arizona (Rep. Jeff Flake is retiring and there is a big selection battle going on) and Nevada (a blue state).
They must also hold a number of difficult seats, including deep red West Virginia, North Dakota and Missouri, plus difficult tests in Montana and Indiana. Florida is another target for the Reps if Rick Scott can be persuaded to stand.
*under BF rules, they do not count and instead the Dems must make four gains, which means unseating Ted Cruz in Texas...
Yes, under betfair rules there is zero chance of the Dems taking the senate. Even if all the negative things you could think of happen for Trump and the Republicans there is not a net four seats try can take.
Daft women on DP claiming 60% of families in Nottingham live in poverty.
Please can they find a new word for 'relative poverty' rather than rendering the word meaningless and themselves ridiculous.
LOL - 1 person in my sons class at school does not have a mobile phone - some have to share a bedroom - Is that poverty ?
I think that the latter is generally classed as homeless.
It is absurd, as long as you have food and drink to survive on every day of the week and a roof over your head even if only one room and clothing to wear you may be in relative poverty but you are not in absolute poverty and neither are you homeless
I think it is important to pay attention to inequality, not just of opportunity but of out turn. This is what a civilised society should do and we should not devise systems that facilitate people falling through the gaps. Arguably some of the ways we treat failed asylum seekers fall foul of that, as does those on benefits being subject to random penalties by jobsworths with targets to meet.
But except in the extreme cases this is not poverty. True poverty does not exist in this country. And quite right too.
F1: with limited running, not had much mood music. But Vettel has said he thinks it's going to be very close. As far as I know, he only cited Mercedes. Renault has taken a deliberately conservative approach with its engines, trying to optimise reliability, which has somewhat irked Red Bull.
Vettel said that Mercedes are still favourites. Managing expectations, or trying to motivate his own team to get more performance out of the car?
I just read through the other day’s discussion on wheelbases. The new Merc has a shorter WB than last year’s Merc, and this year’s Ferrari has a longer WB than last year’s Ferrari. What we don’t know is where they are relative to each other, but I’m going to guess that the Merc is longer.
Merc have said their wheelbase is exactly the same as last year. The design philosophies of the cars remain very different, and it’s possible Ferrari have made greater gains - they’ve certainly made more visible innovations.
Just remember folks cold weather is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics.
Or Protestants in the case of Mary Tudor
Why don't we just burn all the religious nuts? They'd probably feel good about it anyway.
Of course both Mary Tudor and Elizabeth 1st burnt atheists as heretics, at least if you were Protestant or Catholic you were safe with one. Though yes many religious martyrs were created at the stake
They both burned Anabaptists.
I don't think anyone would have been stupid enough to admit to being an atheist in those days. That would be an automatic death sentence .
Anabaptists were the predecessors of today's evangelicals.
Richard Dawkins would not have lasted long in Tudor times that is for sure
Come to think of it, Frederick II and Boniface VIII and Cesare Borgia were probably atheists. But, they could get away with it, being Holy Roman Emperor, Pope, and a Cardinal, respectively.
2) Republicans hold the Senate, maybe with an increased majority. 2018 is a terrible target year for the Dems, 2020 will be much better.
We need to see what basket of deplorable the the Reps put up for their senate elections. Two years ago I'd have said it was nailed on guaranteed they would make big gains in the senate this year but now I'm not sure.
More Roy Moores?
Robert Mueller might be someone who impacts those bets.
I don't think Don will be at his finest if Jared gets indicted before the mid terms.
For the Democrats (*including those Independents-in-name-only) to gain the Senate, they must take Arizona (Rep. Jeff Flake is retiring and there is a big selection battle going on) and Nevada (a blue state).
They must also hold a number of difficult seats, including deep red West Virginia, North Dakota and Missouri, plus difficult tests in Montana and Indiana. Florida is another target for the Reps if Rick Scott can be persuaded to stand.
*under BF rules, they do not count and instead the Dems must make four gains, which means unseating Ted Cruz in Texas...
Yes, under betfair rules there is zero chance of the Dems taking the senate. Even if all the negative things you could think of happen for Trump and the Republicans there is not a net four seats try can take.
It's not impossible (you can read CNN this week about the challenge against Cruz). It is merely highly improbable...
The decision for me is when a good value bet becomes picking up pennies in front of the bulldozer.
Laying the 4/1 and then 5/1 has given way to 6/1 at the moment...
Daft women on DP claiming 60% of families in Nottingham live in poverty.
Please can they find a new word for 'relative poverty' rather than rendering the word meaningless and themselves ridiculous.
LOL - 1 person in my sons class at school does not have a mobile phone - some have to share a bedroom - Is that poverty ?
I think that the latter is generally classed as homeless.
It is absurd, as long as you have food and drink to survive on every day of the week and a roof over your head even if only one room and clothing to wear you may be in relative poverty but you are not in absolute poverty and neither are you homeless
I think it is important to pay attention to inequality, not just of opportunity but of out turn. This is what a civilised society should do and we should not devise systems that facilitate people falling through the gaps. Arguably some of the ways we treat failed asylum seekers fall foul of that, as does those on benefits being subject to random penalties by jobsworths with targets to meet.
But except in the extreme cases this is not poverty. True poverty does not exist in this country. And quite right too.
To an extent but not bother too much about whether one person has a Mercedes and another drives a Nissan or one person lives in a detached house or another a semi, or 1 person has 2 TVs and another just a laptop. Compared to most of the world all are rich
Just remember folks cold weather is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics.
Or Protestants in the case of Mary Tudor
Why don't we just burn all the religious nuts? They'd probably feel good about it anyway.
Of course both Mary Tudor and Elizabeth 1st burnt atheists as heretics, at least if you were Protestant or Catholic you were safe with one. Though yes many religious martyrs were created at the stake
They both burned Anabaptists.
I don't think anyone would have been stupid enough to admit to being an atheist in those days. That would be an automatic death sentence .
Anabaptists were the predecessors of today's evangelicals.
Richard Dawkins would not have lasted long in Tudor times that is for sure
Come to think of it, Frederick II and Boniface VIII and Cesare Borgia were probably atheists. But, they could get away with it, being Holy Roman Emperor, Pope, and a Cardinal, respectively.
There are even some clergy and dare I say Bishops who are atheists today but for intellectuals who like dressing up, giving sermons and living in a rectory the Church is a good career move
I do wonder at the irony of the Mail attacking someone for their fascist past.
Ironic or not, it is entirely reasonable to attack someone for having given a misleading answer under cross-examination.
The Mail are being quite clever today by putting in, amongst all the stories about Mosley, a story about a black immigrant killed at the time when Oswald Mosley was whipping up stories about Caribbean immigration and linking it to the Stephen Lawrence killing.
The latter is of course the story where the Mail took the lead in pursuing the killers to the extent of accusing them of murder on its front page.
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
I have a ticket for Monday's IQ debate - "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means." The speakers are David Goodhart, David Landsman, Simon Schama and Eli Shafak with Kamal Ahmed as chair.
I have a work commitment which means I now cannot go, alas. If any PB'er in London would like the ticket (any reasonable offer considered!) vanilla mail me. It would be a shame for the ticket to go to waste.
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
I agree, but there was blame on both sides for the way the level of debate on Europe had descended since the 90s.
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
They lost because they did not make a positive enough case for remaining in the EU and did not adequately address people's concerns.
It still puzzles me why the Remain side were so poor at making a positive case for the EU, as it is now and where it is going, if they thought it was such a good institution and so good for Britain to be in it.
Yes, very interesting and important piece with implications both for long-term political change and short-term betting. A key passage which is not evidenced is:
"There is no good reason to believe the generation that has come of age in the last 25 years is going to change its world view as it grows older. Those whose life experience has led them to feel positive towards immigration, multiculturalism and internationalism are not going to suddenly reverse these positions when they get into their 50s and 60s. Their open world view is baked in; it is not a function of life-stage. "
This may well be true, but it is not past experience - people now in their 60s like me grew up at the time of hippies, the 68 student insurgencies, Vietnam and so on. Most of them (yunlike me!) have become more conservative with age, and it's a genuinely open question whether will happen again, or not. I think that the cultural shift towards tolerance of diversity (opposing gay marriage is soon going to sound like Flat Earth proponents) and to some extent of migration is here to stay - political preference, I am less sure.
I disagree, I think they will change their views as they get older. And I think it's a waste of time making judgements about how different age groups vote because what might be true today won't necessarily be true in the future. Young people may be the most Eurosceptic in 10 years' time because of events we have no idea about at the moment.
Peoples' views are not set in stone when they turn 18.
I gave the example yesterday of young people voting Remain in 1975 now being middle aged and elderly people who voted Leave in 2016. But, there are plenty more.
18-29 year olds narrowly preferred McGovern over Nixon in 1972, at time when Nixon won a landslide. Go forward 44 years, and the same voters, aged 62 to 73, strongly preferred Trump to Clinton. The same people whose cultural values led them to support McGovern, now had cultural values that led them to vote for Trump.
The Conservatives finished third among 18 - 34 year olds in February 1974. Now, their clearly in first place among those voters.
Labour led b 20% among 18-34 year olds in 1997. Much the same arguments were advanced that for cultural reasons, this group was lost to the Conservatives for good. Twenty years on, the two parties are level-pegging among people aged 38 - 54, and the same group narrowly voted in favour of Brexit.
"Just had a Guardian newsflash to say that the National Grid doesn’t, today, have enough gas to meet demand."
If only we'd started fracking earlier. Perhaps we should only supply gas to non-greenies as greenies like the hair - shirt approach.
All after a couple of days of chill. You'll remember 62 - 63 when we had three months of this, but then we didn't have central heating anyway. Just a coal fire with a back boiler. Pah! these modern snowflakes don't know they're born, do they? Days off school? Unheard of then.
If we had more wind generation capacity, we wouldn't be using so much gas to generate electricity. So perhaps we should cut off the gas to the Nimbies who have made wind generation so much more expensive by driving it into the sea. They can go out and enjoy their uninterrupted country views while we stay at home in the warm.
It still puzzles me why the Remain side were so poor at making a positive case for the EU, as it is now and where it is going, if they thought it was such a good institution and so good for Britain to be in it.
Because the pro-EU position wasn't even on the ballot. Cameron's deal was all about maintaining an arm's length relationship. That has failed, so if we revisit the decision, we have to take seriously the option of fully engaging with European integration.
It still puzzles me why the Remain side were so poor at making a positive case for the EU, as it is now and where it is going, if they thought it was such a good institution and so good for Britain to be in it.
It didn't help that the de-facto leader of the Remain side was the Prime Minister who, hoping to hold his party together, had spent the last 5 years telling everyone that the EU was really bad, but he could fix it if only they'd reelect him.
Just been out in North Essex - only a 4 mile round trip but the road conditions are some of the worst I have ever driven on.
Our weekly market, due this morning, again in N Essex, was redued to one stall!
I drove down Turner road and Northern approach road to Asda in Colchester - As you might know they are both hills but even on those main roads traction is very much an issue.
Highest gear I selected was 2nd and mostly was in first.
In August & September I was driving along Turner Road on a daily basis, while visiting Colchester Hospital. I would hate to be doing now what I was doing then!
It still puzzles me why the Remain side were so poor at making a positive case for the EU, as it is now and where it is going, if they thought it was such a good institution and so good for Britain to be in it.
Because the pro-EU position wasn't even on the ballot. Cameron's deal was all about maintaining an arm's length relationship. That has failed, so if we revisit the decision, we have to take seriously the option of fully engaging with European integration.
It so happens that UK withdrawal is not the worst of the EU’s current problems. The relationship between a government and the market in capitalist systems is all-consuming and fundamental. The EU is in that relationship with the overall EU economy. But this means that the relationship tends to reach into higher and higher levels of the public policy which ultimately determines the distribution of the burdens and benefits of a society, perhaps even fiscal policy. In a liberal democratic capitalist system, this means that there must be politics.
The EU has the substance of traditional liberal democratic institutions, but it does not have the essence of liberal democracy, which rests on the relentless daily struggle of public opinion, causing and justifying law-making and government and administration. Resolving that problem is an urgent priority.
I expect thats why they fixed the Selmeyr putsch......
And of course they will not resolve it in any way that we could accept - they are incapable of resolving it without a single political entity called Europe. Something Remainers continually deny is either an aim or a need.
Is Texas not a political entity? It is more a political entity than England is.
We do not want to be Texas. We do not want to be a part of a federal Europe. Indeed even most Remainers do not want that. They keep denying it is going to happen or even that it is an aim. Of course it is far more than an aim - it is a necessity for the EU. But it can happen without us.
A federal Europe is not "a single political entity called Europe".
Yes it is. Just as the United States of America is a single political entity. It may have smaller political entities within it but that does not change the fact that it is, of itself, a political entity.
Put simply, apart from a very few people like yourself, the British do not wish to be part of a United States of Europe. This is why the Remain side always make such an effort to prove it will never happen.
Yes, very interesting and important piece with implications both for long-term political change and short-term betting. A key passage which is not evidenced is:
"There is no good reason to believe the generation that has come of age in the last 25 years is going to change its world view as it grows older. Those whose life experience has led them to feel positive towards immigration, multiculturalism and internationalism are not going to suddenly reverse these positions when they get into their 50s and 60s. Their open world view is baked in; it is not a function of life-stage. "
This may well be true, but it is not past experience - people now in their 60s like me grew up at the time of hippies, the 68 student insurgencies, Vietnam and so on. Most of them (yunlike me!) have become more conservative with age, and it's a genuinely open question whether will happen again, or not. I think that the cultural shift towards tolerance of diversity (opposing gay marriage is soon going to sound like Flat Earth proponents) and to some extent of migration is here to stay - political preference, I am less sure.
I disagree, I think they will change their views as they get older. And I think it's a waste of time making judgements about how different age groups vote because what might be true today won't necessarily be true in the future. Young people may be the most Eurosceptic in 10 years' time because of events we have no idea about at the moment.
Peoples' views are not set in stone when they turn 18.
I gave the example yesterday of young people mp.
The Conservatives finished third among 18 - 34 year olds in February 1974. Now, their clearly in first place among those voters.
Labour led b 20% among 18-34 year olds in 1997. Much the same arguments were advanced that for cultural reasons, this group was lost to the Conservatives for good. Twenty years on, the two parties are level-pegging among people aged 38 - 54, and the same group narrowly voted in favour of Brexit.
Most voters become wiser as they become older.
Most voters are more left-wing when young, swing voters when middle aged and conservative when they get to retirement age
Just been out in North Essex - only a 4 mile round trip but the road conditions are some of the worst I have ever driven on.
Our weekly market, due this morning, again in N Essex, was redued to one stall!
I drove down Turner road and Northern approach road to Asda in Colchester - As you might know they are both hills but even on those main roads traction is very much an issue.
Highest gear I selected was 2nd and mostly was in first.
In August & September I was driving along Turner Road on a daily basis, while visiting Colchester Hospital. I would hate to be doing now what I was doing then!
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
I agree, but there was blame on both sides for the way the level of debate on Europe had descended since the 90s.
We, as Remainers, didn't put the effort in that was put in in 1975.
I'm beginning to suspect that being Remain or Leave is going, to be like Roundhead or Cavalier. Serious short term effects for quite a while, medium term for longer, and long term to, perhaps, this very day.
"Just had a Guardian newsflash to say that the National Grid doesn’t, today, have enough gas to meet demand."
If only we'd started fracking earlier. Perhaps we should only supply gas to non-greenies as greenies like the hair - shirt approach.
All after a couple of days of chill. You'll remember 62 - 63 when we had three months of this, but then we didn't have central heating anyway. Just a coal fire with a back boiler. Pah! these modern snowflakes don't know they're born, do they? Days off school? Unheard of then.
If we had more wind generation capacity, we wouldn't be using so much gas to generate electricity. So perhaps we should cut off the gas to the Nimbies who have made wind generation so much more expensive by driving it into the sea. They can go out and enjoy their uninterrupted country views while we stay at home in the warm.
Allowing Gas to be used for mass electricity generation was always a rubbish idea. It should have been kept for household use rather than plundered. It also had the effect of seeing off the remaining parts of the deep coal industry.
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
I agree, but there was blame on both sides for the way the level of debate on Europe had descended since the 90s.
Yes, but your problem is you don't recognise any legitimacy on the other side of the debate.
Just been out in North Essex - only a 4 mile round trip but the road conditions are some of the worst I have ever driven on.
Our weekly market, due this morning, again in N Essex, was redued to one stall!
I drove down Turner road and Northern approach road to Asda in Colchester - As you might know they are both hills but even on those main roads traction is very much an issue.
Highest gear I selected was 2nd and mostly was in first.
In August & September I was driving along Turner Road on a daily basis, while visiting Colchester Hospital. I would hate to be doing now what I was doing then!
You know the hill I mean then :-)
Indeed; it would be safer to get tot he hospital via the Northern end of Turner Road.
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
I agree, but there was blame on both sides for the way the level of debate on Europe had descended since the 90s.
Yes, but your problem is you don't recognise any legitimacy on the other side of the debate.
Which is part of the issue.
That's not fair. I disagree with almost all the arguments on the other side of the debate but I don't think they're illegitimate, unless based on lies.
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
They lost because they did not make a positive enough case for remaining in the EU and did not adequately address people's concerns.
It still puzzles me why the Remain side were so poor at making a positive case for the EU, as it is now and where it is going, if they thought it was such a good institution and so good for Britain to be in it.
I think it's because they feared that, if they'd done that with sincerity, they'd have lost even more votes for Remain.
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
I agree, but there was blame on both sides for the way the level of debate on Europe had descended since the 90s.
Yes, but your problem is you don't recognise any legitimacy on the other side of the debate.
Which is part of the issue.
That's not fair. I disagree with almost all the arguments on the other side of the debate but I don't think they're illegitimate, unless based on lies.
Most voters are more left-wing when young, swing voters when middle aged and conservative when they get to retirement age
I've gone from Conservative voter in my 20s, through floating voter in my 30s, to Liberal Democrat member in my 40s... Not sure what that says about where I'll be at retirement age.
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
I agree, but there was blame on both sides for the way the level of debate on Europe had descended since the 90s.
Yes, but your problem is you don't recognise any legitimacy on the other side of the debate.
Which is part of the issue.
That's not fair. I disagree with almost all the arguments on the other side of the debate but I don't think they're illegitimate, unless based on lies.
Just to add, I think the problem is that many people on my side defaulted to dismissing arguments as being in the latter category based on semantics rather than engaging with the substance. Clegg is the most egregious example of this.
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
I agree, but there was blame on both sides for the way the level of debate on Europe had descended since the 90s.
Yes, but your problem is you don't recognise any legitimacy on the other side of the debate.
Which is part of the issue.
That's not fair. I disagree with almost all the arguments on the other side of the debate but I don't think they're illegitimate, unless based on lies.
I don't see anything in any of your posts (and I really do mean anything, in any of them) which accepts any eurosceptic view of whatever degree has any legitimacy whatsoever.
You'd be much more convincing and engaging if you demonstrated a bit more understanding.
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
I agree, but there was blame on both sides for the way the level of debate on Europe had descended since the 90s.
Yes, but your problem is you don't recognise any legitimacy on the other side of the debate.
Which is part of the issue.
That's not fair. I disagree with almost all the arguments on the other side of the debate but I don't think they're illegitimate, unless based on lies.
Just to add, I think the problem is that many people on my side defaulted to dismissing arguments as being in the latter category based on semantics rather than engaging with the substance. Clegg is the most egregious example of this.
Tories/Leavers still ever so slightly frit when it comes to Blair. Sweet.
Dream on.
Blair would be Leave's biggest asset.
The more you protest ...
No. I actively encourage him to get back into the fray. Would be hilarious, and almost certainly split the Labour vote. Would be hilarious to see him see how far his star has fallen...
Does it ever occur to you that people listen to the arguments? There are very few who advocate their position as persuasively and with such erudition as Blair. Certainly not IDS!
The question was about trust, though. There is no one in or out of public life about whom I would be less certain than I am about Blair that he said only what he believed to be true or that if he said he would in the future do something, he fully intended to do it. People pay attention to where the arguments are coming from.
These are both right - on the one hand he's a war criminal and being on the same side as him should make you suspect you're wrong, but on the other, he's a genuinely great communicator.
One of the problems with the Remain campaign was that they didn't really have anyone who could reach out to the waverers; Cameron already looked mildly ridiculous after the "renegotiation", and they ended up getting represented by people like Eddy Izzard who only appealed to the people they appeal to.
They had Bob Geldof shouting abuse at fishermen.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
I agree, but there was blame on both sides for the way the level of debate on Europe had descended since the 90s.
Yes, but your problem is you don't recognise any legitimacy on the other side of the debate.
Which is part of the issue.
That's not fair. I disagree with almost all the arguments on the other side of the debate but I don't think they're illegitimate, unless based on lies.
I don't see anything in any of your posts (and I really do mean anything, in any of them) which accepts any eurosceptic view of whatever degree has any legitimacy whatsoever.
You'd be much more convincing and engaging if you demonstrated a bit more understanding.
Yes, very interesting and important piece with implications both for long-term political change and short-term betting. A key passage which is not evidenced is:
"There is no good reason to believe the generation that has come of age in the last 25 years is going to change its world view as it grows older. Those whose life experience has led them to feel positive towards immigration, multiculturalism and internationalism are not going to suddenly reverse these positions when they get into their 50s and 60s. Their open world view is baked in; it is not a function of life-stage. "
This may well be true, but it is not past experience - people now in their 60s like me grew up at the time of hippies, the 68 student insurgencies, Vietnam and so on. Most of them (yunlike me!) have become more conservative with age, and it's a genuinely open question whether will happen again, or not. I think that the cultural shift towards tolerance of diversity (opposing gay marriage is soon going to sound like Flat Earth proponents) and to some extent of migration is here to stay - political preference, I am less sure.
I disagree.
Peoples' views are not set in stone when they turn 18.
I gave the example yesterday of young people mp.
The Conservatives finished third among 18 - 34 year olds in February 1974. Now, their clearly in first place among those voters.
Labour led b 20% among 18-34 year olds in 1997. Much the same arguments were advanced that for cultural reasons, this group was lost to the Conservatives for good. Twenty years on, the two parties are level-pegging among people aged 38 - 54, and the same group narrowly voted in favour of Brexit.
Most voters become wiser as they become older.
Most voters are more left-wing when young, swing voters when middle aged and conservative when they get to retirement age
You learn things in black and white, and right and wrong, as a child, and have little personal experience to leverage to define yourself independently when you become a teenager, which you - socially - desperately want to do, so you tend to leverage what you do know: the views of your family and school. And perhaps a little bit of personal research and reading on top for a minority.
As you grow older, and experience the real world, you develop your own views. That mostly tends toward shades of grey and realism, but not always.
I do wonder at the irony of the Mail attacking someone for their fascist past.
Ironic or not, it is entirely reasonable to attack someone for having given a misleading answer under cross-examination.
The Mail are being quite clever today by putting in, amongst all the stories about Mosley, a story about a black immigrant killed at the time when Oswald Mosley was whipping up stories about Caribbean immigration and linking it to the Stephen Lawrence killing.
The latter is of course the story where the Mail took the lead in pursuing the killers to the extent of accusing them of murder on its front page.
Most voters are more left-wing when young, swing voters when middle aged and conservative when they get to retirement age
That is the common view but an alternative theory that as voters age, they remain conservative for the radical views of their youth, as real life moves to the left. A pensioner now might well have marched for abortion rights, equal pay for women and to ban race discrimination. Now those questions are settled. If people really do move to the right as they age, why is there no clamour for women to be paid less than men?
The conventional view is just comfort food for those on the right.
And for those on the left who say Ukippers are just coffin-dodgers hankering for the days of empire -- but of course no-one is really wanting to recolonise sub-Saharan Africa.
Remain lost because they insulted the voters intelligence.
They lost because they did not make a positive enough case for remaining in the EU and did not adequately address people's concerns.
It still puzzles me why the Remain side were so poor at making a positive case for the EU, as it is now and where it is going, if they thought it was such a good institution and so good for Britain to be in it.
I think it's because they feared that, if they'd done that with sincerity, they'd have lost even more votes for Remain.
The Remain side lost because it was run by and under the control of the top Tories at that time - viz Cameron and Osborne. The only arguments they could come up with were those that appealed to Tory Remainers - and as we now see, there were not all that many of them. They failed to come up with arguments to appeal to Lib Dem and Labour Remainers.
Effectively, voting for Remain implied support for Cameron and his pathetic attempts at renegotiation. I could not bring myself to do it - though I am fully in favour of a properly reformed EU.
And when you bear in mind that the whole pathetic exercise was a vain attempt to hold the Conservative Party together......
Conservatives are worse than a waste of space. They are highly damaging to the interests and wellbeing of the country as a whole.
Comments
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/969174734209503232
I mean, would you attack the German government for their fascist past? Or the child of an SS officer for their family's past?
seems a good idea in principle but only real geeks know how it should work properly..
Mr. Scrapheap, it's just using video footage. Rugby manages it fine. F1 has had it for years. Why can't football seem to handle it?
"There is no good reason to believe the generation that has come of age in the last 25 years is going to change its world view as it grows older. Those whose life experience has led them to feel positive towards immigration, multiculturalism and internationalism are not going to suddenly reverse these positions when they get into their 50s and 60s. Their open world view is baked in; it is not a function of life-stage. "
This may well be true, but it is not past experience - people now in their 60s like me grew up at the time of hippies, the 68 student insurgencies, Vietnam and so on. Most of them (yunlike me!) have become more conservative with age, and it's a genuinely open question whether will happen again, or not. I think that the cultural shift towards tolerance of diversity (opposing gay marriage is soon going to sound like Flat Earth proponents) and to some extent of migration is here to stay - political preference, I am less sure.
With gerrymandering and shifting coalitions of voters I think it’s tough to call the House.
I’m glad I got on with the Dems a touch more than evens but hoping they drop to 1.5ish closer to the time and I can have a relaxing October/November.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnxsDOxcOA
I just read through the other day’s discussion on wheelbases. The new Merc has a shorter WB than last year’s Merc, and this year’s Ferrari has a longer WB than last year’s Ferrari. What we don’t know is where they are relative to each other, but I’m going to guess that the Merc is longer.
See TSE and his unmerited dig at the cream of English football today (and less so Eric).
Profitable gamblers will tend to be made aware of the fact, by bookies shutting down their accounts.
All gamblers though ... delusion rather a necessary part of addiction, no?
Please can they find a new word for 'relative poverty' rather than rendering the word meaningless and themselves ridiculous.
Just read that guys letter to residents
I gave the example yesterday of young people voting Remain in 1975 now being middle aged and elderly people who voted Leave in 2016. But, there are plenty more.
18-29 year olds narrowly preferred McGovern over Nixon in 1972, at time when Nixon won a landslide. Go forward 44 years, and the same voters, aged 62 to 73, strongly preferred Trump to Clinton. The same people whose cultural values led them to support McGovern, now had cultural values that led them to vote for Trump.
The Conservatives finished third among 18 - 34 year olds in February 1974. Now, their clearly in first place among those voters.
Labour led b 20% among 18-34 year olds in 1997. Much the same arguments were advanced that for cultural reasons, this group was lost to the Conservatives for good. Twenty years on, the two parties are level-pegging among people aged 38 - 54, and the same group narrowly voted in favour of Brexit.
As usual, Cyclefree made all the salient points yesterday
Highest gear I selected was 2nd and mostly was in first.
I don't think anyone would have been stupid enough to admit to being an atheist in those days. That would be an automatic death sentence .
Jacob Rees-MoggVerified account
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg
Follow Follow @Jacob_Rees_Mogg
More
Mea culpa, I was wrong to say that Mr Corbyn voted against the Good Friday Agreement. He did not.
Richard Dawkins would not have lasted long in Tudor times that is for sure
But except in the extreme cases this is not poverty. True poverty does not exist in this country. And quite right too.
The design philosophies of the cars remain very different, and it’s possible Ferrari have made greater gains - they’ve certainly made more visible innovations.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/28/libor-surge-nearing-danger-level-debt-drenched-world/
The decision for me is when a good value bet becomes picking up pennies in front of the bulldozer.
Laying the 4/1 and then 5/1 has given way to 6/1 at the moment...
The latter is of course the story where the Mail took the lead in pursuing the killers to the extent of accusing them of murder on its front page.
Edited: story attached - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5447033/Lawrence-killing-echoes-murder-exploited-Maxs-movement.html
I am shocked, I tell you, shocked...
I have a ticket for Monday's IQ debate - "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means." The speakers are David Goodhart, David Landsman, Simon Schama and Eli Shafak with Kamal Ahmed as chair.
I have a work commitment which means I now cannot go, alas. If any PB'er in London would like the ticket (any reasonable offer considered!) vanilla mail me. It would be a shame for the ticket to go to waste.
It still puzzles me why the Remain side were so poor at making a positive case for the EU, as it is now and where it is going, if they thought it was such a good institution and so good for Britain to be in it.
https://twitter.com/hayward_katy/status/969171378388787202
Put simply, apart from a very few people like yourself, the British do not wish to be part of a United States of Europe. This is why the Remain side always make such an effort to prove it will never happen.
I'm beginning to suspect that being Remain or Leave is going, to be like Roundhead or Cavalier. Serious short term effects for quite a while, medium term for longer, and long term to, perhaps, this very day.
Which is part of the issue.
You'd be much more convincing and engaging if you demonstrated a bit more understanding.
As you grow older, and experience the real world, you develop your own views. That mostly tends toward shades of grey and realism, but not always.
The conventional view is just comfort food for those on the right.
And for those on the left who say Ukippers are just coffin-dodgers hankering for the days of empire -- but of course no-one is really wanting to recolonise sub-Saharan Africa.